Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20081124CITY COUNCIL AGENDA November 24, 2008 5:00 P.M. I) Call to Order II) Roll Call III) Scheduled Public Appearances Resolution of Appreciation - Pitkin County Clerk lV) 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 and Councilmembers' Comments b) Agenda Deletions and Additions c) City Manager's Comments d) Board Reports VI) Consent Calendar (These matters maybe adopted together by a single motion) a) Resolution #110, 2008 -State Historic Tax Credit b) Resolution #111, 2008 -Extending 210 West Francis Ordinance #48 Historic Designation Negotiation c) Council Appointments d) Minutes -November 10, 2008 VII) First Reading of Ordinances a) Ordinance #37, 2008 -Electric Utility Business Plan & Rate Change P.H. 12/8 b) Ordinance #38 & #39, 2008 - 201 South 7th Annexation and Zoning c) Ordinance #40, 2008 -Fees 2009 P.H. 12/8 VIII) Public Hearings a) Resolution #108, & 109, 2008 -Adoption of 2009 Budget and 2009 Mill Levy b) Ordinance #30, 2008 - 541 Race Street Establishment of TDRs c) Ordinance #34, 2008 -Lift One Master Plan IX) Action Items X) Adjournment Next Regular Meeting December 8, 2008 COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. yl a. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner RE: Colorado House Bill 90-1033, Concerning the Decision to Act as a Reviewing Entity for the State Income Tax Credit Program for Historic Rehabilitation Projects, Resolution # /0, Series of 2008 DATE: November 24, 2008 SUMMARY: Since 1990, Council has passed an annual a resolution stating that the City will act as a reviewing entity for the "State Income Tax Credit Program for Historic Rehabilitation Projects" in the coming year. The Tax Credit Program provides a 20% dollar-for-dollar reduction in State income tax debt for eligible projects. Work that qualifies for tax credits includes exterior and interior improvements, such as roofing, repair of woodwork, painting, new plumbing and wiring on a property that is designated a local landmark, or which is listed on the State or National Registers of Historic Places. This program provides a valuable benefit for historic preservation at no direct cost to the City. The State has established a fee that all applicants must pay for the .review and certification of their application, ranging from $250-$750, depending on the overall cost of the project. The City retains this money, which is to be used to reimburse staff time processing the review, and for special projects or events for the community that are specifically related to historic preservation. On average, the City usually reviews a couple of tax credit applications each year. One application was submitted in 2008. This year the State Legislature reauthorized the program through 2020, and determined that participating cities may pass a resolution stating that they will review projects locally unless and until it decides otherwise. Therefore this item will not appear again on Council's agenda until 2019 unless Council takes action to cease the City's involvement. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council adopt Resolution No. ~ ~~ Series of 2008. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. L, Series of 2008, declaring the City of Aspen a reviewing entity for the "State Income Tax Credit Program for Historic Rehabilitation Projects." CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AGREEING TO ACT AS A REVIEWING ENTITY FOR THE STATE INCOME TAX CREDIT PROGRAM FOR QUALIFYING REHABILITATION PROJECTS UNDER COLORADO HOUSE BILL 90-1033 (C.R.S. §39-22-514, AS AMENDED) RESOLUTION NO. ~ Q, Series of 2008 WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission and the Aspen City Council support the creation of incentives to assist in the preservation and protection of historically significant resources; and WHEREAS, Colorado House Bill 90-1033 (C.R.S. § 39-22-514, as amended) was signed unto law April 20,1990, establishing tax credits for historic structures throughout the state; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen, as a Certified Local Government, pursuant to the provisions of 16 U.S.C. § 470 (a) (C) (1), as amended, is eligible to review such rehabilitation tax credit projects as a reviewing entity as defined by C.R.S. § 39-22-514 (12) (1); and WHEREAS, the provisions of C.R.S. § 39-22-514 (10) (a) require that each Certified Local Government adopt a resolution stating whether such Certified Local Government will act as a reviewing entity; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, as the City of Aspen's official review board for historic resources, endorses rehabilitation project reviews at the local level, which provide an increased. ;level of preservation service to our community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: The City of Aspen, through the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, hereby agrees to act as a reviewing entity for the purposes of subsections (3) and (6) of C.R.S. § 39-22- 514 for calendar year 2009 and all subsequent years. The City will maintain the "preservation fund" as required by C.R.S. § 39-22-514 (11) (a), for use in administering the program and to provide information and education to the community within the context of historic preservation. APPROVED by the City Council at its regular meeting on November 24, 2008. APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor: Michael C. Ireland, Mayor TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Directo DATE: November 24, 2008 RE: Resolution #~. Series of 2008, Extending the 210 W. Francis Street, "Ordinance #48" Historic Preservation negotiation SUMMARY: In July 2007, Aspen City Council adopted an emergency ordinance, Ordinance #30, Series of 2007. That ordinance prohibited any exterior alterations, land use applications, or building permits affecting all non-landmarked buildings constructed at least 30 years ago, unless it was determined that no potential historic resource was negatively affected. The purpose of the Ordinance was to protect Aspen's significant architectural heritage; not only Victorians, but more modern structures as well. Ordinance #30 was in place for 5 months, during which time Council held numerous meetings to discuss the effect of the new regulations and potential amendments. In particular, Council wished to see the applicability of the Ordinance narrowed down dramatically from all properties over 30 years of age to a specific list researched by staff and found to potentially qualify for landmark designation. In December 2007, Ordinance #48, Series of 2007 was adopted to replace Ordinance #30. Ordinance #48 creates a formal list of potential historic resources in Aspen that may have historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering and cultural importance. Detrimental development or demolition actions affecting these properties will be limited while the City undertakes an evaluation of the historic preservation program via the HP Task Force. 210 W. Francis Street is identified on the List of Potential Historic Resources as part of Ordinance #48. Owners of property listed on Ordinance #48 can still move forward with proposed projects if they: A. Submit the plans and seek staff determination that the work is exempt from delay under Ordinance #48 (routine maintenance work for example); or B. Submit plans and seek staff determination that the work, while not exempt from Ordinance #48, can move forward by voluntarily complying with Staff or HPC review (depending on the scope of work) of the project, or C. Refuse the option for HPC review and submit plans with the intention of triggering a 90 day delay period, during which time City Staff and Council will negotiate for appropriate preservation of the property. If the negotiation does not result in an agreement to landmark designate the property, the building permits will be processed as requested. ' The owner of 210 W. Francis Street, Joan Tobin, has submitted an application for demolition permit. Mrs. Tobin is, however, receptive to a discussion of potential landmark incentives, if the incentives address her goals to preserve the property value for the long term. On September 24, 2008, HPC discussed this property and recommended by a vote of 6 to 0 that Council pursue a cooperative landmark designation. Historic Preservation staff and the City Attorney's office are working with the applicant to prepare a proposal for Council review, however, we do not have adequate information to make a presentation at this time. The original 90 day negotiation period expired on October 27`" and Council granted a 30 day extension as permitted in the Ordinance. The property owner requests an additional delay until after the holidays. She proposes February 15, 2009 as the new deadline. Staff appreciates the owner's effort to consider alternatives to demolition and we support taking additional time to work through the issue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council approve an extension of the time period to discuss voluntary historic designation with the owner of 210 W. Francis Street to February 15, 2009. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Resolution #ll, Series of 2008, approving approve an extension of the time period to discuss voluntary historic designation with the owner of 210 W. Francis Street under Ordinance #48, Series of 2007." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL EXTENDING THE ORDINANCE #48, SERIES OF 2007, NEGOTIATION FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION OF 210 W. FRANCIS STREET Resolution No. ~, Series of 2008 WHEREAS, 210 w. Francis Street, Lots P and Q, Block 48, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, is subject to Ordinance #48, Series of 2007. This Ordinance identifies potential historic resources and creates a review process for any proposed alterations. The Ordinance also establishes a framework ~o'r City Council to negotiate with the property owner to secure voluntary historic designation; and WHEREAS, the owner of 210 w. Francis Street, Joan Tobin, is in the process of said negotiation. The negotiation period was triggered by Ms. Tobin's application for a permit to demolish the structure at 210 W. Francis Street. Ordinance #48, Series of 2007, provides Council with a 90 day period to delay the issuance of a demolition permit while other alternatives and preservation incentives are discussed. Council is to be provided with a recommendation about the historic significance of the resource from the Historic Preservation Commission; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on September 24, 2008, the Historic Preservation Commission discussed 210 W. Francis Street and recommended that Council seek voluntary designation by a vote of 6 to 0; and WHEREAS, the 90 day negotiation period for 210 W. Francis expired on October 27, 2008; and WHEREAS, Council approved a 30 day extension of the negotiation period for 210 W. Francis through Resolution #91, Series of 2008;.a~d WHEREAS, staff and the property owner are in agreement that more time is needed, and an extension of the negotiation to February 15, 2009 is appropriate NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: The negotiation period established by Ordinance #48, Series of 2007, as it affects the property at 210 W. Francis Street, is hereby extended to February 15, 2009. APPROVED by the City Council at its regular meeting on November 24, 2008. Approved as to form: John Worcester, City Attorney Attest: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk Mayor: Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ,[J~ C MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk DATE: November 17, 2008 ~: Council Appointments Below are the current Council assignments. JE's committees need to be reassigned and Council needs to elect a Mayor Pro Tem. By adopting the consent calendar, Council is ratifying the appointments made at the November 11th work session. Mayor Pro Tem CAST RFTA RFTA alternate DRGW Covenant Enforcement NWC Council of Governments Aspen Chamber Resort Assn. Arts Council Ruedi Water & Power Authority CORE Board Sister Cities Healthy Mountain Communities Rocky Mountain Rail Assn Burlingame Housing Inc. CML Policy Advisory Board Nordic Council ASC Advisory Committee Steve Skadron Steve Skadron/Jack Johnson Dwayne Romero Steve Skadron Jack Johnson Dwayne Romero/Jackie Kasabach Mick Ireland/Jack Johnson Jackie Kasabach/Mick Ireland Jack Johnson Jack Johnson/Steve Skadron Steve Skadron/Jackie Kasabach Randy Ready Jackie Kasabach Mick Ireland Steve Skadron/Dwayne Romero Dwayne Romero JJL CZ• MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Phil Overeynder, Public Works Director Lee Ledesma, Utility Operations Manager t~..`~~~-- CC: Steve Barwick, City Manager CC: John Worcester, City Attorney DATE OF MEMO: November 17, 2008 MEETING DATE: November 24, 2008 SUBJECT: Proposed 2009 Revisions to Electric Rates REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests that Council select either Scenario 1 or Scenario 2 contained in the attached proposed ordinance to implement rate revisions for electric customers consistent with the recommendations of the Electric Rate Study conducted by Red Oak Consultants. This will implement changes to the system of "Conservation Rates" (inclining block rates). The rates are designed to encourage energy conservation and to increase revenue consistent with Council goals for the electric utility. The rates contain provisions to increase revenue from the highest level of residential and small commercial electric customers. The revenue will be used to fund conservation activities and renewable energy projects consistent with council direction obtained in a work session held on September 9, 2008. If adopted by council under the proposed schedule, the ordinance would become effective January 7, 2009. The first bills reflecting these changes would be dated Apri130, 2009. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council considered the Utility Business Plan for Water and Electric in late 2004. For the Electric Utility, the plan included a series of rate revisions for electric usage spread over a two-year period. The plan recommendations were adopted through a new rate structure and charges implemented over the two year period in the spring of 2005 and 2006 respectively. The changes were intended to encourage conservation and created a conservation fund with $150,000 in annual appropriations. Council held two work sessions in April and September 2008 to review actual results from the first two years of operation of the inverted block rate system and to fine tune the rate recommendations in view of actual performance in the area of energy conservation and revenue generation. During these sessions Council 1) discussed and selected appropriate break points for afour-tiered rate system; 2) determined that the amperage rating of the service was an appropriate basis for differentiating tier usage; 3) determined that both residential and small commercial users would be subject to the inclining block rate structure; 4) determined that large commercial accounts rates should continue to be subject to a "capacity charge"; and 5) determined the desired amount of additional revenue that the rate revisions should generate. In October 2008, funding of new initiatives for renewable energy to be utilized by the Electric Fund was discussed by Council in the context of the 2009 budget review. BACKGROUND: The 2005 and 2006 "Conservation Rates" (inverted block rates) for electric customers have not been as effective in reducing consumption as the rates established for the water customers. While there has been a noticeable decline in water consumption, and particularly a change in the largest users of water, no parallel trends can be discerned in electric consumption. The system of inclining rates applied only to residential electric users, while the inclining rates applied to all customer groups on the water side of the utility. It is noteworthy that under the existing rate systems, the rate for the top tier of water use is 2.77 times the base rate for consumption, while for the electric system the rate for the top tier of electric use is 1.87 times the base rate. Staff believes that the conservation effectiveness of the current rate system is limited because only one third of the electric consumption (residential portion of energy usage) is covered by the inverted block rates and because the differential in rates between the lowest and highest tier does not send an effective "price signal" to reduce consumption amongst the highest users of electric energy. DISCUSSION: During the September 2008 electric rate study work session, Council evaluated the performance of the existing rate systems implemented in 2005 and 2006. Council also identified a number of objectives to be incorporated in the rate-setting process. The objectives were: 1) creating a system of rates that encourages efficient use and conservation of electric energy; 2) creating a stable, long-term source of funding; 3) funding energy conservation projects and activities; and, 4) funding additional renewable energy purchases. In addition, Council expressed a desire to further increase unit cost to the highest user groups of electric customers, with that increased revenue going towards the purchase of renewable energy and into the conservation fund. CURRENT ISSUES: One ordinance with two choices/scenarios is attached. Scenario 2 details the rate revisions last reviewed and recommended by Council at the September 9th work session. However, the Mayor did not attend that work session and provided additional input to staff following the work session. Scenario 1 would implement an alternate version that would further shift the amount of rate revenue raised by the top two tiers and would reduce the rate impacts to those users in the lowest two tiers to approximate the rate of inflation since the last rate revision. A number of City-owned facilities do not currently pay electric consumption charges. Modifying the rate structure for those City-owned accounts would be desirable to create a system whereby these facilities had similar conservation incentives to their respective user class. This could be resolved by establishing a future rate for these facilities considering the same factors included in the proposed rates. Staff proposes to bring this analysis back to Council prior to implementation of these rates in Apri12009. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Both scenarios contained in the ordinance would develop approximately the same aggregate amount for rate revenue resulting from bills to residential and small commercial accounts ($5,198,665/yr for Scenario 1 and $5,196,797/yr for Scenario 2). The revisions to the monthly customer charge based on amperage of service for either option would generate a sum of $369,617 per year for residential and small commercial accounts. The expected large commercial revenue would be $961,831 for consumption and $23,805 for customer charges. The sum of all these revenue sources matches the long range plan revenue of $ 6,375,587 contained in the proposed 2009 budget, which takes into consideration the fact that these new rates will not go into affect until the April 2009 monthly utility bill. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: The expanded conservation program elements for electric fund will contribute to increased resource efficiency. The revised rates will support the development of additional renewable energy sources through additional financial resources and because financial incentives for conservation will be in place. RECOMMENDATION: Scenario 1 is recommended as the best option to satisfy the objectives for the electric rate revisions. ALTERNATIVES: Scenario 1 is a modification of the rate system reviewed by Council at the September work session. Under this scenario, the rate impact for the first two tiers is reduced to a level where the overall rate adjustment approximates the inflation rate of the past three years (approximately 9%). This is the time period since the last rate adjustment became effective in 2006. In order to generate the same amount of revenue as Scenario 2, rates for use in the top tier for Scenario 1 are adjusted to levels as high as $0.2153/kwh for residential and $0.2268/kwh for small commercial. Compared to the base rates in Tier 1 of $0.0660/kwh for residential and $0.0840 for small commercial, the ratio between the highest and lowest rates charged is approximately 3.2 for residential and 2.7 for commercial. Differentiating rates between the highest and lowest user groups to this extent is more consistent with the rate structure currently in place for water. As previously discussed, the rate system for water with a higher differentiation between the tier level levels has shown positive results for reducing water usage for high water user groups. 2 PROPOSED MOTION: I move to adopt ordinance 2 2008. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ORDINANCE NO.--~- Series of 2008' AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO INCREASE CERTAIN ELECTRIC SERVICE RATES. WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a policy of requiring all users of the electric systems operated by the City of Aspen to pay fees that fairly approximate the costs of providing such services; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that certain fees currently in effect do not raise revenues sufficient to pay for the attendant costs of providing said programs and services; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that rates charged for electric service should provide an incentive for conservation of natural resources. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: SCENARIO 1 RATE PROPOSAL (Section 1) Section 1. That Section 25.04.040 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth monthly electric service rates, is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.04.040 Electric service rates. (a) All retail customers of the Aspen Electric Department shall pay a monthly customer availability charge as follows: residential customers shall pay five and 20/100 dollars ($5.20) per 100 amp, per bill; small commercial customers shall pay five and 20/100 dollars ($5.20) per 100 amp, per bill; and, large commercial customers (those having a minimum usage of 30 kilowatts (kW) as well as a operable demand metering system) shall pay five and 20/100 dollars ($5.20) per 100 amp, per bill. In addition to the monthly customer availability charge, the customer shall pay the sum of the metered use of electric energy measured in kilowatt-hours (kWh) during the department's monthly meter reading cycle multiplied by the appropriate retail service rate as follows. (i) The retail rate for 100 AMP residential customers shall be $0.0660 per kWh for first five hundred (500) kWh of metered usage; $0.0957 per kWh for metered usage from five hundred one (501) to one thousand three hundred fifty (1,350) kWh; $0.1436 per kWh for metered usage from one thousand three hundred fifty-one (1,351) to two thousand four hundred (2,400); and, $0.2153 per kWh for metered usage in excess of two thousand four hundred (2,400) kWh. (ii) The retail rate for 200 AMP residential customers shall be $0.0660 per kWh for first six hundred fifty (650) kWh of metered usage; $0.0957 per kWh for metered usage from six hundred fifty-one (651) to one thousand seven hundred (1,700) kWh; $0.1436 per kWh for metered usage from one thousand seven hundred one (1,701) to three thousand five hundred (3,500); and, $0.2153 per kWh for metered usage in excess of three thousand five hundred (3,500) kWh. (iii) The retail rate for 300 AMP residential customers shall be $0.0660 per kWh for first two thousand one hundred (2,100) kWh of metered usage; $0.0957 per kWh for metered usage from two thousand one hundred one (2,101) to four thousand two hundred (4,200) kWh; $0.1436 per kWh for metered usage from four thousand two hundred one (4,201) to six thousand five hundred (6,500); and, $0.2153 per kWh for metered usage in excess of six thousand five hundred (6,500) kWh. (iv) The retail rate for 400 AMP residential customers shall be $0.0660 per kWh for first two thousand (2,000) kWh of metered usage; $0.0957 per kWh for metered usage from two thousand one (2,001) to four thousand five hundred (4,500) kWh; $0.1436 per kWh for metered usage from four thousand five hundred one (4,501) to seven thousand seven hundred (7,700); and, $0.2153 per kWh for metered usage in excess of seven thousand seven hundred (7,700) kWh. (v) The retail rate for 600 AMP residential customers shall be $0.0660 per kWh for first three thousand five hundred (3,500) kWh of metered usage; $0.0957 per kWh for metered usage from three thousand five hundred one (3,501) to six thousand eight hundred (6,800) kWh; $0.1436 per kWh for metered usage from six thousand eight hundred one (6,801) to eleven thousand (11,000); and, $0.2153 per kWh for metered usage in excess of eleven thousand (11,000) kWh. (vi) The retail rate for 1,200 AMP residential customers shall be $0.0660 per kWh for first three thousand five hundred (3,500) kWh of metered usage; $0.0957 per kWh for metered usage from three thousand five hundred one (3,501) to six thousand eight hundred (6,800) kWh; $0.1436 per kWh for metered usage from six thousand eight hundred one (6,801) to eleven thousand (11,000); and, $0.2153 per kWh for metered usage in excess of eleven thousand (11,000) kWh. (vii) The retail rate for 100 AMP small commercial customers shall be $0.0840 per kWh for first one thousand one hundred (1,100) kWh of metered usage; $0.1008 per kWh for metered usage from one thousand one hundred one (1,101) to two thousand nine hundred (2,900) kWh; $0.1512 per kWh for metered usage from two thousand nine hundred one (2,901) to six thousand (6,000); and, $0.2268 per kWh for metered usage in excess of six thousand (6,000) kWh. (viii) The retail rate for 200 AMP small commercial customers shall be $0.0840 per kWh for first one thousand six hundred (1,600) kWh of metered usage; $0.1008 per kWh for metered usage from one thousand six hundred one (1,601) to three thousand nine hundred (3,900) kWh; $0.1512 per kWh for metered usage from three thousand nine hundred one (3,901) to seven thousand two hundred (7,200); and, $0.2268 per kWh for metered usage in excess of seven thousand two hundred (7,200) kWh. (ix) The retail rate for 400 AMP small commercial customers shall be $0.0840 per kWh for first four thousand two hundred (4,200) kWh of metered usage; $0.1008 per kWh for metered usage from four thousand two hundred one (4,201) to eight thousand nine hundred (8,900) kWh; $0.1512 per kWh for metered usage from eight thousand nine hundred one (8,901) to fifteen thousand three hundred (15,300); and, $0.2268 per kWh for metered usage in excess of fifteen thousand three hundred (15,300) kWh. (x) The retail rate for 600 AMP small commercial customers shall be $0.0840 per kWh for first eight thousand two hundred (8,200) kWh of metered usage; $0.1008 per kWh for metered usage from eight thousand two hundred one (8,201) to sixteen thousand five hundred (16,500) kWh; $0.1512 per kWh for metered usage from sixteen thousand five hundred one (16,501) to twenty- three thousand (23,000); and, $0.2268 per kWh for metered usage in excess of twenty-three thousand (23,000) kWh. (xi) The retail rate for 800 AMP small commercial customers shall be $0.0840 per kWh for first fourteen thousand (14,000) kWh of metered usage; $0.1008 per kWh for metered usage from fourteen thousand one (14,001) to fifty-one thousand five hundred (51,500) kWh; $0.1512 per kWh for metered usage from fifty-one thousand five hundred one (51,501) to one hundred thousand (100,000); and, $0.2268 per kWh for metered usage in excess of one hundred thousand (100,000) kWh. (xii) The retail rate for 1,000 AMP small. commercial customers shall be $0.0840 per kWh for first seventeen thousand (17,000) kWh of metered usage; $0.1008 per kWh for metered usage from seventeen thousand one (17,001) to thirty- five thousand (35,000) kWh; $0.1512 per kWh for metered usage from thirty- five thousand one (35,001) to fifty-six thousand (56,000); and, $0.2268 per kWh for metered usage in excess of fifty-six thousand (56,000) kWh. (xiii) The retail rate for 1,200 AMP small commercial customers shall be $0.0840 per kWh for first seventeen thousand (17,000) kWh of metered usage; $0.1008 per kWh for metered usage from seventeen thousand one (17,001) to thirty- five thousand (35,000) kWh; $0.1512 per kWh for metered usage from thirty- five thousand one (35,001) to fifty-six thousand (56,000); and, $0.2268 per kWh for metered usage in excess of fifty-six thousand (56,000) kWh. (xiv) The retail rate for 1,600 AMP small commercial customers shall be $0.0840 per kWh for first seventeen thousand (17,000) kWh of metered usage; $0.1008 per kWh for metered usage from seventeen thousand one (17,001) to thirty- five thousand (35,000) kWh; $0.1512 per kWh for metered usage from thirty- five thousand one (35,001) to fifty-six thousand (56,000); and, $0.2268 per kWh for metered usage in excess of fifty-six thousand (56,000) kWh. (xv) The retail service rate for large commercial customers, with operable demand metering systems in place and measured usage of thirty (30) kW and greater, shall be $0.0760 per kWh for metered usage plus a demand charge of $6.00 per kW of metered peak usage for that meter reading cycle. (xvi) .Until such time as large commercial customers have operable demand metering systems in place, they shall be charged the retail service rate of small commercial customers as defined in section 25.04.040 (ii). (xvii) Payments for electric service charges shall be due twenty (20) days after the billed date. Any amount due, but not received by the city on or before the next billing date, shall be subject to a past due charge of one and one-half (1 %) percent of the total amount due; subject, however, to a minimum charge of three dollars ($3.00). Balances of less than five dollars ($5.00) shall not be subject to this charge. SCENARIO 2 RATE PROPOSAL (Section 2) Section 2. That Section 25.04.040 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth monthly electric service rates, is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.04.040 Electric service rates. (a) All retail customers of the Aspen Electric Department shall pay a monthly customer availability charge as follows: residential customers shall pay five and 20/100 dollars ($5.20) per 100 amp, per bill; small commercial customers shall pay five and 20/100 dollars ($5.20) per 100 amp, per bill; and, large commercial customers (those having a minimum usage of 30 kilowatts (kW) as well as a operable demand metering system) shall pay five and 20/100 dollars ($5.20) per 100 amp, per bill. In addition to the monthly customer availability charge, the customer shall pay the sum of the metered use of electric energy measured in kilowatt-hours (kWh) during the department's monthly meter reading cycle multiplied by the appropriate retail service rate as follows. (i) The retail rate for 100 AMP residential customers shall be $0.0832 per kWh for first five hundred (500) kWh of metered usage; $0.0916 per kWh for metered usage from five hundred one (501) to one thousand three hundred (1,300) kWh; $0.1145 per kWh for metered usage from one thousand three hundred one (1,301) to two thousand four hundred (2,400); and, $0.1718 per kWh for metered usage in excess of two thousand four hundred (2,400) kWh. (ii) The retail rate for 200 AMP residential customers shall be $0.0832 per kWh for first eight hundred seventy-five (875) kWh of metered usage; $0.0916 per kWh for metered usage from eight hundred seventy-six (876) to two thousand two hundred seventy-five (2,275) kWh; $0.1145 per kWh for metered usage from two thousand two hundred seventy-six (2,276) to four thousand two hundred (4,200); and, $0.1718 per kWh for metered usage in excess of four thousand two hundred (4,200) kWh. (iii) The retail rate for 300 AMP residential customers shall be $0.0832 per kWh for one thousand three hundred seventy-five (1,375) kWh of metered usage; $0.0916 per kWh for metered usage from one thousand three hundred seventy- six (1,376) to three thousand five hundred seventy-five (3,575) kWh; $0.1145 per kWh for metered usage from three thousand seventy-six (3,576) to six thousand six hundred (6,600); and, $0.1718 per kWh for metered usage in excess of six thousand six hundred (6,600) kWh. (iv) The retail rate for 400 AMP residential customers shall be $0.0832 per kWh for first two thousand (1,875) kWh of metered usage; $0.0916 per kWh for metered usage from one thousand eight hundred seventy-six (1,876) to four thousand eight hundred seventy-five (4,875) kWh; $0.1145 per kWh for metered usage from four thousand eight hundred seventy-six (4,876) to nine thousand (9,000); and, $0.1718 per kWh for metered usage in excess of nine thousand (9,000) kWh. (v) The retail rate for 600 AMP residential customers shall be $0.0832 per kWh for first two thousand eight hundred seventy-five (2,875) kWh of metered usage; $0.0916 per kWh for metered usage from two thousand eight hundred seventy-six (2,876) to seven thousand four hundred seventy-five (7,475) kWh; $0.1145 per kWh for metered usage from seven thousand four hundred seventy-six (7,476) to thirteen thousand eight hundred (13,800); and, $0.1718 per kWh for metered usage in excess of thirteen thousand eight hundred (13,800) kWh. (vi) The retail rate for 1,200 AMP residential customers shall be $0.0832 per kWh for first five thousand eight hundred seventy-five (5,875) kWh of metered usage; $0.0916 per kWh for metered usage from five thousand eight hundred seventy-six (5,876) to fifteen thousand two hundred seventy-five (15,275) kWh; $0.1145 per kWh for metered usage from fifteen thousand two hundred seventy-six (15,276) to twenty-eight thousand two hundred (28,200); and, $0.1718 per kWh for metered usage in excess of twenty-eight thousand two hundred (28,200) kWh. (vii) The retail rate for 100 AMP small commercial customers shall be $0.0888 per kWh for first one thousand three hundred (1,300) kWh of metered usage; $0.0976 per kWh for metered usage from .one thousand three hundred one (1,301) to three thousand two hundred (3,200) kWh; $0.1220 per kWh for metered usage from three thousand two hundred one (3,201) to six thousand (6,000); and, $0.1831 per kWh for metered usage in excess of six thousand (6,000) kWh. (viii) The retail rate for 200 AMP small commercial customers shall be $0.0888 per kWh for first two thousand two hundred seventy-five (2,275) kWh of metered usage; $0.0976 per kWh for metered usage from two thousand two hundred seventy-six (2,276) to five thousand six hundred (5,600) kWh; $0.1220 per kWh for metered usage from five thousand six hundred one (5,601) to ten thousand five hundred (10,500); and, $0.1831 per kWh for metered usage in excess often thousand five hundred (10,500) kWh. (ix) The retail rate for 400 AMP small commercial customers shall be $0.0888 per kWh for first four thousand eight hundred seventy-five (4,875) kWh of metered usage; $0.0976 per kWh for metered usage from four thousand eight hundred seventy-six (4,876) to twelve thousand (12,000) kWh; $0.1220 per kWh for metered usage from twelve thousand one (12,001) to twenty-two thousand five hundred (22,500); and, $0.1831 per kWh for metered usage in excess of twenty-two thousand five hundred (22,500) kWh. (x) The retail rate for 600 AMP small commercial customers shall be $0.0888 per kWh for first seven thousand four hundred seventy-five (7,475) kWh of metered usage; $0.0976 per kWh for metered usage from seven thousand four hundred seventy-six (7,476) to eighteen thousand four hundred (18,400) kWh; $0.1220 per kWh for metered usage from eighteen thousand four hundred one (18,401) to thirty-four thousand five hundred (34,500); and, $0.1831 per kWh for metered usage in excess of thirty-four thousand five hundred (34,500) kWh. (xi) The retail. rate for 800 AMP small commercial customers shall be $0.0888 per kWh for first ten thousand seventy-five (10,075) kWh of metered usage; $0.0976 per kWh for metered usage from ten thousand seventy-six (10,076) to twenty-four thousand eight hundred (24,800) kWh; $0.1220 per kWh for metered usage from twenty-four thousand eight hundred one (24,801) to forty- six thousand five hundred (46,500); and, $0.1831 per kWh for metered usage in excess of forty-six thousand five hundred (46,500) kWh. (xii) The retail rate for 1,000 AMP small commercial customers shall be $0.0888 per kWh for first twelve thousand six hundred seventy-five (12,675) kWh of metered usage; $0.0976 per kWh for metered usage from twelve thousand six hundred seventy-six (112,676) to thirty-one thousand two hundred (31,200) kWh; $0.1220 per kWh for metered usage from thirty-one thousand two hundred one (31,201) to fifty-eight thousand five hundred (58,500); and, $0.1831 per kWh for metered usage in excess of fifty-eight thousand five hundred (58,500) kWh. (xiii) The retail rate for 1,200 AMP small commercial customers shall be $0.0888 per kWh for first fifteen thousand two hundred seventy-five (15,275) kWh of metered usage; $0.0976 per kWh for metered usage from fifteen thousand two hundred seventy-six (15,276) to thirty-seven thousand six hundred (37,600) kWh; $0.1220 per kWh for metered usage from thirty-seven thousand six hundred one (37,601) to seventy thousand five hundred (70,500); and, $0.1831 per kWh for metered usage in excess of seventy'thousand five hundred (70,500) kWh. (xiv) The retail rate for 1,600 AMP small commercial customers shall be $0.0888 per kWh for first twenty thousand four hundred seventy-five (20,475) kWh of metered usage; $0.0976 per kWh for metered usage from twenty thousand four hundred seventy-six (20,476) to fifty thousand four hundred (50,400) kWh; $0.1220 per kWh for metered usage from fifty thousand four hundred one (50,401) to ninety-four thousand five hundred (94,500); and, $0.1831 per kWh for metered usage in excess of ninety-four thousand five hundred (94,500) kWh. (xv) The retail service rate for large commercial customers, with operable demand metering systems in place and measured usage of thirty (30) kW and greater, shall be $0.0760 per kWh for metered usage plus a demand charge of $6.00 per kW of metered peak usage for that meter reading cycle. (xvi) Until such time as large commercial customers have operable demand metering systems in place, they -shall be charged the retail service rate of small commercial customers as defined in section 25.04.040 (ii). (xvii) Payments for electric service charges shall be due twenty (20) days after the billed date. Any amount due, but not received by the city on or before the next billing date, shall be subject to a past due charge of one and one-half (1 '/2) percent of the total amount due; subject, however, to a minimum charge of three dollars ($3.00). Balances of less than five dollars ($5.00) shall not be subject to this charge. A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of , 2008, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 2008. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2008. ATTEST: Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk ~b. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen Council FROM: Errin Evans, Current Planner THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director DATE OF MEMO: November 13, 2008 MEETING DATE: November 24th, 2008 RE: 201 S. 7th Street -Annexation Petition and Zoning Designation Request APPLICANT /OWNER: Guyasuta Seventh Street LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Sheri Sanzone, Bluegreen LOCATION: Address - 201 S. 7th Street; Legal Description - Lot 3, Adams Subdivision; Parcel Identification Number - 2735- 123-15-003 CURRENT ZONING & USE Located in the Moderate Density Residential (R-15) zone district, within Pitkin County containing a single family home. PROPOSED LAND USE: This is an annexation request. As part of this request the Applicant is proposing a Map Amendment to zone the property with a Cit.. open zone district zone designation Moderate Density Residential (R-15). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approves this Annexation Petition and Zoning Designation application with conditions. SUMMARY: The applicant has petitioned for annexation and applied for a zoning designation. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the request for the zoning designation only and made a recommendation to the City Council to approve the application for Moderate Density Residential (R-15) zone designation. Photo of the subject Revised 11/13/2008 Page 1 of 20 201 S. 7th Street a,~,A~ ~ ~ Map Amendment Application w _ r , . OO11 2OO8 ASLU , ~~ . . 7 ; - _ _ - ~ + __ .. _ f J ;~ - ~- ~ ~ ~' ~~ ~ ~ / ,~ ~ j ~ _ -_. r 7~ ~ _ 11 . i ." J ~ J ~~ ~ ~ Street ~`~ r _..o.~.. ? ~L t 1 i m 201 S 7th \J ! r ~ WA.tq Ny w~ ~K t ~ 1 J ~ 1- ,1 { ti, ~ ,, /I i I = _ nY y "`jjj---I---... /L ~ ~ l ~' ~ _ ^~ T i1~ Llll~ _ Legend 5 -roads ~~~~' ," ^' iii~t J 9F' ~ \' ~ s+ ~ - -,i ~~ ~ ,, t - i i sVuct ~-~~ ~~ ~-~'' ~ it _ ` '' ~ parks '1 ; V ll ~' ~ parc s J ~.-` ~ 1 a en_lots i 1.--' r Pte, ll_city ~ _.~-+, ~ -.._ J- ~-~ 70 140 Feet 2B0 Figure 1: Vicinity Map BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a petition to annex the property at 201 S. 7th Street into the City of Aspen's city boundary. The lot currently consists of a single family dwelling. The applicant has requested to designate the lot with a zone district designation of Moderate Density Residential (R-15). At this time the applicant has not indicated what the future plans are for this lot (Exhibit G -The Application). During an annexation process, negotiations between staff and the applicant take place. Staff ensures that there is a benefit to the City as a result of the annexation. The applicant is also able to negotiate development rights. In this application the applicant has agreed to dedicate 4,151 square feet of property to the City for the purposes of an extension to the West Hopkins Avenue Trail towards the Marolt Bridge in exchange for reduced minimum setbacks and other development rights. A portion of the area to be dedicated is currently designated for future road improvements to S. 7th Street. Figure 2 represents the lot and the proposed land dedication. Revised 11/13/2008 Page 2 of 20 W w a F H 2 a w w N -.VENUE i / / / d ~w w.....aww«..w. a.,wsra •am+d w.~•w unr«ww.~pcar...nW~ .¢wYOYtliRfWW.~RfW.Il Ra.a d'9 VKUV Me Figure 2: The subject property and the proposed land dedication. Originally the home was built in 1985, though the address was 312 S. 7th Street at that time. It is adjacent to a portion of S. 7th Street that is partially within the City limit municipal boundary. The property and this particular area of Pitkin County are isolated from other properties in Pitkin County because of topographical constraints including Castle Creek and Shadow Mountain. This area is also located within the designated Urban Growth Boundary for the City of Aspen. LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the City Council to annex a lot into the City boundary: ^ Map Amendment for changing the Official City Boundary and the Official Zone District Map pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.310, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map. The City Council is the final review authority and considers a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the zone district designation. The applicant is proposing that the parcel be designated Moderate Density Residential (R-15) if it is annexed into the Revised 11/13/2008 Page 3 of 20 City boundary. In Pitkin County, the parcel is zoned R-15 (Moderate Density Residential - 15,000 square feet lot). ^ Annexation applications are governed by Colorado Revised State Statutes (CRS 31- 12-102 et seq.) The subject property must meet the requirements of the State Statute as well as the City's Annexation Plan. The City is able to negotiate the terms of an annexation particular to each subject parcel. The Council must weigh the benefits of the annexation proposal to the City and determine that they adequately meet the needs of the City. The City Council has the authority to approve, approve with conditions or deny a petition to annex. DISCUSSION: MaA Amendment When a property is annexed into the City of Aspen, both State Statute and the Land Use Code require that the subject property is required to have a City zone district designation. The Land Use Code also requires that the Planning and Zoning Commission review the proposal and makes a recommendation to Council. The applicant is requesting a zone district designation of Moderate Density Residential (R-15) for the subject property. The review criteria for considering a zone district designation includes considering any conflicts with the Land Use Code, the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan, the compatibility with the surrounding zone districts and properties, the effect on traffic and road safety, demands on public facilities, the effects on the natural environment, compatibility with the character of the neighborhood and potential conflicts with the public interest. The property is located in a transitional area where less dense, single family dwellings of the County integrate into the City limits adjacent to duplexes, multi family development and mixed uses. The Planning and Zoning Commission made a recommendation to Council to approve the zone district designation of R-15 on June 3`d, 2008. (See Exhibit C for Resolution #20 of Series 2008 and the minutes) The objective of the Planning and Zoning Commission was to evaluate whether or not Moderate Density Residential (R-15) is the appropriate zone district for this lot if it is annexed. They did not review the lot size or the requests of the right-of--way dedication from the Engineering and Parks Departments. They came to the conclusion that the zone designation was the best fit considering the surrounding land uses in this particular area of the City. North and adjacent to the subject property, the Sandunes LP annexation was approved in 2000. This property consisted of two lots. The lots were designated Moderate Density Residential R-15 when they were annexed and that was deemed appropriate for that location. Once annexed the lots were developed with a single family dwelling, a duplex and accessory dwelling units. Except for the new construction on these lots, the neighborhood has not changed substantially. The proposed zone district designation of R-15 for the subject lot will permit similar densities and uses. Revised 11/13/2008 Page 4 of 20 Surroundin Uses Currently the lot is surrounded by residential uses in the Moderate Density (R-15), Low Density Residential (R-30), Residential Multi-Family (RMF), and Affordable Housing (AH) zone districts. Some of these zones have PUD overlays. Nearby on Main Street there is a Mixed Use (MU) zone district. To the west of the property is the Marolt Open Space. The specific uses of the surrounding properties include residential uses and commercial uses. There are townhomes located to the north, including the Shadow Mountain Townhomes. To the east are affordable housing townhomes including West Hopkins Townhomes. On the west side of the property are single family dwellings. There are also single family dwellings to the south of the property in the County jurisdiction. Further north of the townhomes are condominiums, including the Bavarian Inn Condos, offices and the Christian Science Society along Main Street. The use of the property is currently compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Figure 3 shows the surrounding zone districts. Figure 3: Surrounding zone districts. Revised 11/13/2008 Page 5 of 20 Staff Comments on Zoning Based on the nature of the use of the surrounding area, an R-15 zone district designation is appropriate for the site with a permitted use of either a single family dwelling, duplex or two detached residential units. Additional detail on the recommended dimensional standards is included in the annexation section below. Annexation The Process Annexation is a process where the property becomes a part of the City to the benefit of the City and the applicant. In the case before Council, the applicant can receive additional development rights while the City will receive a land dedication as the primary benefit as well as street improvements, property taxes and potential real estate transfer taxes. An annexation application must comply with the City's Annexation Plan, the Land Use Code and Colorado Revised State Statutes. State Statutes require certain procedural steps to be followed in an annexation and criteria for whether a property can be annexed. A resolution of substantial compliance was approved by Council at a public hearing on Monday, April 28th, 2008, as required by State Statute (Exhibit B). During the annexation process, negotiations occur to ensure that there are benefits to the City. While the applicant may receive benefits as well, the Council must ensure that the annexation is an asset to the public. The negotiation process allows Council flexibility with regard to land use allowances associated with the property. For example, in this application staff is requesting a land dedication and recommending some flexibility with the dimensional standards of the site to accommodate the dedication. The applicant has been in discussions with staff and as a result, other City departments have requested the land dedication. The Engineering Department, Parks Department, and Streets Department indicated during the Development Review Committee process, that the condition and standard of S. 7th Street is inadequate. There is no designated passage for pedestrians and cyclists, surface runoff runs down the street and there isn't room for snow storage. The existing right-of--way is very narrow and does not meet City Standards. The Parks Department specified that this lot could be a key contributor to the pedestrian/cyclist path network. This area has been noted as a gap in the system. The applicant and the City Engineer have negotiated a width that is acceptable to the applicant and meets the minimum amount that would be acceptable to the City Engineer and benefit other departments (See Figure 2). The proposed right-of--way width is smaller than the City standard, but will be able to accommodate the City's needs. This includes providing an adequate amount of space for snow storage as requested by the Streets Department, as well as curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements. Parks will gain an area to provide a future connector to the Marolt Trail from the West Hopkins Avenue Trail. Revised 11/13/2008 Page 6 of 20 The applicant has agreed to designate 4,151 square feet of property along S 7th Street to assist the City in acquiring aright-of--way that can accommodate City infrastructure. The applicant will be responsible for constructing the sidewalk, with curb and gutter on the north portion of the dedicated area and a crossing satisfactory to the City Engineer from the West Hopkins Avenue Trail across S. 7th. The Parks Department will be responsible for trail construction, ditching and landscaping along the south portion of the dedication. Potential Devel~ment Rights The gross square footage of the site is 33,945 square feet; however with the land dedication, the size of the lot is reduced to 29,794 square feet. Below is a comparison of the development allowance of the property in the County, compared to the allowance if it is annexed into the City. In the County the property has a similar zone designation of Moderate Density Residential (R- 15). Permitted Use City - A single family dwelling, a duplex or two detached residential dwellings. County - A single family dwelling is allowed on this site. Maximum Height City - 25 feet County - 28 feet Setbacks City -16 feet County - 30 feet Allowable Floor Area City -The allowable floor area for a single family dwelling will be 5636.7 square feet and 6056.7 square feet for a duplex or two detached dwellings. County -The allowable floor area for a single family dwelling is 4470 square feet. Annexation Plan /Aspen Area Community Plan The Annexation Plan re-adopted in September of 2005 reflects the land use policies of the AACP with regard to adding urbanized land. This annexation plan is used to ensure well-ordered development of the City, evenly distribute the cost of City services, extend services to eligible citizens, and simplify boundaries. The subject lot is located in the Urban Growth Boundary and the Ute/Northstar, Shadow Mountain, Red Butte annexation area.. The majority of the lots in this annexation area are located on steep slopes and affected by environmental hazards. The lot is not located in an envirorunentally hazardous area when compared to other lots in this area as it is located a significant distance from the steep slopes of Shadow Mountain. It is expected that lots located in the Urban Growth Boundary will be annexed at some time in the future depending on suitability and location. Revised 11/13/2008 Page 7 of 20 The lot is currently serviced by City water and Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District sewer. It will benefit the City to be able to collect the property taxes from this lot that already receives the advantage of City services. One of the goals of the AACP is to promote pedestrian accessibility. Annexing this lot will allow the City to add to the trail network by gaining right-of--way for a trail along the frontage of the lot and adding more sidewalk improvements to the City inventory. The property is located close to the West Hopkins Bridge. The right-of--way will not be sufficient to complete the gap between the bridge and the trail where it ends on Hopkins Avenue; however, it could be a significant portion of the trail necessary for the connection. Staff Comments on the Annexation The most significant difference between the two jurisdictions is the permitted uses based on calculated lot size. Both the City and the County permit a single family dwelling. The City designation will permits two detached residential dwellings or a duplex, as well as the single family dwelling. The County considers the lot for development purposes to be 23,835 square feet due to a past lot line adjustment which would allow for a single family dwelling in the County under current regulations. The applicant will be permitted to use the gross lot area to calculate allowable floor area if the property is annexed into the City. Since the property may be annexed into the City, staff can view the property as a clean slate and count the lot area that was gained from a lot line adjustment. In 2000, the property received additional square footage along the northern edge as the result of a lot line adjustment. Normally, the. County and the City do not permit lot square footage gained from a lot line adjustment to be used towards allowable floor area calculations. During the negotiations, staff felt it would be appropriate to allow the lot line adjustment area gain of 4,380 to be used in floor area calculations. The area to be dedicated to the City is similar in size, 4,151 square feet. Keep in mind that 2, 940 square feet of the right-of--way to be dedicated is already encompassed by a Warranty Deed in favor of the County for road improvements. If the property is annexed and the applicant dedicates property for the right-of--way dedication, the location of the east property line will change. When the right-of--way is removed from the lot and designated to the City, the remaining setback will be only 16 feet if the right-of--way dedicated is as indicated on the application. Normally in this zone district the minimum front yard setback is 25 feet. Staff feels that it would be appropriate to allow a minimum setback of 16 feet on this lot. There are many constraints on this lot that will make redevelopment a challenge. The current location of the structure on the lot represents a setback of 16 feet from the proposed lot line after the right of way dedication is removed. This setback is comparable with the properties located to the north and also compatible with affordable housing development on the east side of the street. (See Exhibit A for a diagram) The potential development rights and the current use of the property are compatible in that neighborhood. The potential development and density will be suitable for the transition zone between the properties in the County and in the City, from single family dwellings to duplexes, Revised 11/13/2008 Page 8 of 20 affordable housing and mixed uses. There will be changes to the traffic patterns that will provide safer and more efficient flows with the extension of the trail, street improvements and the additional crosswalk. The property is currently hooked up to City services and the sanitation district. There will not be any increased demands on City infrastructure from the property that cannot be accommodated. This dedication is an important benefit to the City. It will allow the Parks Department to develop more of the linkage of the West Hopkins Avenue Trail towards the Marolt Bridge. It will also provide space for street improvements including sidewalks, curbs and improved drainage. Currently the drainage on S. 7th Street needs attention. The right-of--way will also provide more area for snow storage. Staff feels that the trail extension is a very important step to achieving the goal of providing safe, efficient pedestrian and bike paths. Financial Impacts There are no impact fees due at this time. If the applicant chooses to redevelop the lot after annexation, impact fees will apply. Costs to the applicant will include upgrading the portion of 7~' Street to the W. Hopkins Avenue intersection where the lot has frontage to City standard including curb, gutters, and sidewalks. Potential impacts to the City could include developing a portion of trail in the requested right-of--way requested by the Engineering and Parks Departments. The property is currently serviced with City water and Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District sewer. No additional impacts are predicted as a result of annexing the current development. The property could potentially increase burdens on the City infrastructure if the applicant altered the existing development depending on the development rights that are agreed upon during annexation negotiations. There are no other negative financial impacts forecasted. There will be increased revenue from property taxes to the City and potential Real Estate Transfer taxes. Based on numbers for 2008, the property would provide $15,708.93 in property tax revenue. RECOMMENDATION: When the Council considers a property for annexation, it is important to consider the benefits to the City when compared to the benefits to the applicant. In this case, the benefits to the City include: increased property taxes, potential real estate transfer taxes, land dedication for the West Hopkins Trail, sidewalk, curb and gutter improvements, potential application of the design standards, and simplified City boundary. The benefit to the applicant includes greater development rights including: ability to construct a duplex or two detached residential dwellings and greater above grade allowable floor area than permitted in the County. Community Development Staff recommend that the City Council approve the annexation and zoning application with conditions. a) To approve the annexation and the zoning designation request; or b) To approve the annexation and the zoning designation request with conditions; ^ All allowable floor area and density calculations will be based on a lot size of 33,945 square feet; ^ The minimum front yard setback will be 16 feet; ^ All other dimensional requirements would be based on the reduced lot size; Revised 11/13/2008 Page 9 of 20 ^ The applicant will be required to construct the curb, gutter and sidewalk along the 7th Street frontage; ^ A letter of credit will be required to insure the proposed street infrastructure; ^ The applicant will be required to dedicate 4,151 square feet of lot area for right-of--way along S. 7th Street; ^ The applicant will provide a safe crossing of S. 7th Street from the West Hopkins Avenue Trail satisfactory to the City Engineer c) To deny the annexation and the zoning designation request PROPOSED MOTIONS: The Community Development Staff recommends that if the City Council is satisfied with this annexation and zoning application that they may use these motions. "I move to approve Ordinance No. ~, Series of 2008, to approve the petition for Annexation for the parcel located at 201 S. 7th Street." "I move to approve Ordinance No. , Series of 2008, to approve the zoning designation of Moderate Density Residential (R-15) at 201 S. 7th Street with and according to the conditions established by Option B. (3)." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -Staff findings Exhibit B -Resolution of Substantial Compliance Exhibit C - Resolution No. 20 of Series 2008 and Minutes Exhibit D -Land Use Code Section 26.710.050 Moderate Density Residential (R-15) Exhibit E -Current site conditions as per City Code requirements Exhibit F -Existing Conditions Exhibit G -Petition and Application Revised 11/]3/2008 Page 10 of 20 ORDINANCE No..~a (SERIES OF 2008) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, TO BE KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS THE "LOT 3, ADAMS ANNEXATION." Parcel Identification Number 2735-123-15-003 WHEREAS, on February 12, 2008, one-hundred percent (100%) of the owners of the property proposed to be annexed did file with the City Clerk of the City of Aspen a Petition for Annexation of territory to the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the petition, including accompanying copies of an annexation map, has been reviewed by the City. Attorney's Office and the City Engineer and found by them to contain the information prescribed and set forth in Section 31-12-107, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, one hundred percent (100%) of the owners of the area proposed to be annexed, exclusive of streets and alleys, have consented in writing to the annexation; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by resolution (Number 24, Series of 2008) at its regular meeting on April 24, 2003, did find and determine said Petition for Annexation to be in substantial compliance with the provisions of §31-12-107, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by resolution (Number 24, Series of 2008) at its regular meeting on June 23, 2003, did find and determine, following a public hearing, said Petition for Annexation to be in substantial compliance with §§ 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby find and determine that approval of the annexation of said territory to be in the City's best interest; WHEREAS, the City of Aspen 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 IN REGULAR MEETING ASSEMBLED, THAT: Section 1. The property described herein above is hereby annexed into the boundaries of the City of Aspen, Colorado, subject to the following conditions: a. The applicant shall designate right-of--way to the City of Aspen along the frontage on South 7~' Street as shown in Exhibit A. This area is 4,151 square feet. b. The applicant shall construct the sidewalk, curb and gutter as pursuant to City standards within one year of recording the annexation plat. A letter of credit will be required as per the City Engineering Department Standard. c. In accordance with all other City of Aspen ROW this public space is subject to development for the purposes of public improvements or public amenities. Any vegetation located within the ROW is potentially at risk of removal for the installation of the public improvements. Re-vegetation of this corridor will be installed according to City of Aspen standards for planting within the ROW. The City of Aspen and adjacent property owner will develop a sustainable planting plan according to tree species, growth medium, planting space, long term contribution to the community forest and all new landscaping will appear consistent with existing surrounding landscaping. To the benefit of the trail experience, when and if possible large diameter trees will be retained and incorporated in the planting and trail plan. d. As a result of the dedication the total lot size will be reduced below 30,000 square feet to 29,794 square feet. - The applicant will be permitted to use 33,945 square feet for calculations regarding total lot size for allowable floor area and density. - The front setback will be reduced to a minimum of 16 feet from the property line. Section 2. That the tract of land described in the Petition for Annexation, commonly referred to as the "Lot 3, Adams Annexation", and as shown on the annexation map, is hereby annexed to the City of Aspen, Colorado. Section 3: The City Clerk of the City of Aspen is hereby directed as follows: (a) To file one copy of the annexation map with the original of this annexation ordinance in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Aspen. (b) To certify and file two copies of this annexation ordinance and of the annexation map with the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. (c) To request the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County to file one certified copy of this annexation ordinance and of the annexation map with the Division of Local Government of the Department of Local Affairs, State of Colorado. Section 4: The City Engineer of the City of Aspen is hereby directed to amend the Official Map of the City of Aspen to reflect the boundary changes adopted pursuant to this annexation ordinance. Section 5• That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 6• That this ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the _ day of , 2008, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 24t`' day of November, 2008. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _day of ,2008. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ORDINANCE No. (SERIES OF 2008) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A ZONE DISTRICT DESIGNATION OF MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-15) FOR 201 SOUTH 7"' STREET, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS LOT 3, ADAMS SUBDIVISION, PITKIN COUNTY Parcel Identification Number 2735-123-15-003 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Sheri Sanzone of Bluegreen located at 300 South Spring Street, Suite 202, Aspen, Colorado on behalf of Guyasuta Seventh Street, 201 S. 7`'' Street, Aspen, Colorado, for a request for a zoning designation in conjunction with a Petition for Annexation, dated February 12, 2008; and WHEREAS, a parcel of land located on S. 7~' Street, commonly referred to as Lot 3, Adams Subdivision, was annexed into the City of Aspen on _, 2008, pursuant to Ordinance - No, Series of 2008; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen, must designate a zone district for the property of annexation; WHEREAS, the City Council may approve amendments to the Official Zone District Map (Rezoning) after taking and considering recommendations from the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing, and taking and considering public testimony at a duly noticed public hearing in conformance with the review criteria set forth in Section 26.310; WHEREAS, the Community Development Department analyzed the subject parcel of land and recommended that the property be included in the Moderate Density Residential (R-15) zone district; WHEREAS, this Moderate Density Residential zoning designation will only apply if the subject property is approved for annexation; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered the application for zoning under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on June 3`d, 2008; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen 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 IN REGULAR MEETING ASSEMBLED, THAT: Section 1. This Ordinance is specifically conditional upon the property being annexed into the boundaries of the City of Aspen pursuant to Ordinance No.Jg Series of 2008. Section 2: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in the City of Aspen Land Use Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the zoning designation of Moderate Density Residential (R-15) zone district to the subject property containing Lot 3 in the Adams Subdivision in Pitkin County if it is annexed into the City of Aspen boundary. Section 3: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5• All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 26''' day of January, 2009, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 24t'' day of November, 2008. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _day of ,2008. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Approved as to form: John Worcester, City Attorney Exhibit A ANNEXATION COMBINED WITH A ZONING APPLICATION REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS Section 26.310.020 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for amendments to the official zoning map shall be processed in accordance with the Common Development Review Procedures set forth at Chapter 26.304. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Standards of Review. 1. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Sta,(f Finding Staff does not feel that the proposed zoning designation is in conflict with any portion of the Land Use Code. The proposed zone will be compatible with the pattern of residential development that exists around the lot in the City boundaries. A review of the applicant's analysis of the conformance with the City's dimensional requirements shows that the height of the building is not in conformance with the Code, but can be considered a legally established non-conforming structure. The height of the existing house is non-conforming according to the City Land Use Code. When measured by the using Code Section -Calculations and Measurements 26.575.020 (B), the height of the structure is 26 feet 6 inches. The maximum permitted height in the Moderate Density Residential (R-1 S) zone district is 25 feet. The chimney is 31 feet high. If the applicant redeveloped the lot, the new development would be required to meet the Code requirements. As a result, when the right-of--way is dedicated to the City, the front yard setback will be non- conforming. Currently the front yard setback is 35 feet. After a reduction to facilitate the right-of--way, the front yard setback will be only 16 feet, though 25 feet are required. The Community Development staff feels that a minimum setback of 16 feet is appropriate on this site. The distance for minimum setbacks is something that can be negotiated during the annexation process. When aligned with the property to the north, the facades of any new development will be similar to the northern lot and the existing duplexes. As shown in Figure 1, the line drawn across the front of the buildings is an approximation of the location of the minimum setback. It fits well with the properties located to the north. Across the street, the affordable housing units have an even smaller requirement for front setbacks, as shown in Figure 1. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Revised 11/13/2008 Page 11 of 20 . Y Figure Proposed Minimum Setback 2. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding Staff feels that the proposed zone is consistent with the goals of the AACP. The lot is located in the Urban Growth Boundary. It would be an asset to the City to have the opportunity to extend the trail on Hopkins closer to the Marolt Bridge. (See Annexation Plan review for more information below) Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding The subject property is surrounded by residential uses in the Moderate Density (R-1 S), Low Density Residential (R-30), Residential Multi-Family (RMF), and Affordable Housing (AH) zone districts. Some of these zones have PUD overlays. Nearby on Main Street there is a Mixed Use (MU) zone district. The property is currently compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. If the property was annexed and zoned R-1S under the City's regulations, the maximum development on the site could potentially consist of two detached residential dwellings or a duplex depending on Council 's decision. This maximum development would also be considered compatible in this area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Revised 11/13/2008 Page 12 of 20 4. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Sta~fFindin~ Staff does not believe that the proposed zoning will have a significant impact on traffic generation or road safety because the proposed rezoning would only have the potential to construct as proposed, one to two additional residential units. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Staff Finding Staff does not feel that there will be an increase in the demand for public facilities as a result of the proposed zoning request. The property is already serviced by City water and sewer. This property already has the appearance that it is a part of the City. Only a line on a map separates this lot. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding Staff does not believe that the proposed zoning application would result in significant adverse impacts on the environment. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staf Finding Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application is consistent with the community and neighborhood character of the area in that the new zoning would allow for a more consistent pattern of residential development with the remainder of the properties in the neighborhood than is currently allowed on the site. Staff further feels that the proposal will likely allow for the massing of residential units on the site to be spread out over the entire property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 8. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. St~fFindin~ Revised 11/13/2008 Page 13 of 20 There have been few changes to the surrounding neighborhood recently. In 2000, there was an annexation to the north of the property that allowed for the construction of a duplex, single family dwelling and accessory dwelling unit. The proposed annexation will create an appropriate transition from the single family dwellings located in the County to the duplexes, multifamily units and commercial uses on Main Street. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 9. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed zoning application would not be in conflict with the purpose and intent of the land use code or the public interest. Providing a partial linkage for the West Hopkins trail would be an asset. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Revised 11/13/2008 Page 14 of 20 Exhibit A (Continued) LOCAL ANNEXATION CRITERIA REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS Resolution No. 71 of Series 2005 adopts the City of Aspen Annexation Plan. Petitions to annex into the City boundaries must comply with the Local Annexation Criteria listed on page 12 of the Plan and be consistent with the requirements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. The City Council shall consider: 1. Aspen Area Community Plan Compliance Sta~fFinding The intent of the AACP is to limit the ultimate population in the area through a Growth Management System. This lot already has the look and feel of being a part of the City of Aspen. The lot is developed with a single family dwelling. With the proposed zoning designation of Moderate Density Residential (R-1 S) the maximum new development on this lot would consist of a duplex or two detached dwellings depending on the Council approval. The property is serviced with water and sewer and will add no additional burden to the City infrastructure or other services. Gaining the right-of--way to increase the trail network and extend the sidewalk will work towards the AACP goals to promote pedestrian accessibility. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Urban Growth Boundary Staff Finding According to the adopted Annexation Plan, land located within the Urban Growth Boundary should be considered appropriate for annexation. Land located in the UGB is expected to be annexed over time. This lot is located within the UGB in the Ute/Northstar, Shadow Mountain, Red Butte annexation area. Many lots located in that annexation area are located in environmentally sensitive areas. This lot is located on level ground away from the steep slopes. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Significant Annexations Staff Finding Annexations that may change the regulatory structure or jurisdiction of significant community facilities and large tracts of land have major impacts on the community. The scope of review and participation of the appropriate agencies must be appropriate for the size of the annexation. Annexing this lot is not a significant annexation. Referrals were sent to County Staff and an impact analysis was waived. The annexation only involves one parcel and the predicted impacts are minimal. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. Fiscal Impact Analysis Staff Finding Revised 11/13/2008 Page 15 of 20 The fiscal impacts of an annexation should be evaluated prior to annexing the property. This information is important to factor into the decision of whether or not to approve the application. Sometimes capital improvements may be required or additional service and operational costs. The costs need to be balanced with the revenues that will be gained when the property is annexed. The financial impacts as a result of annexing this lot are minimal. The City will receive property taxes of approximately I5, 000 based on 2008 taxes and potential real estate transfer taxes if the property is later sold. The property is already serviced by City water and sewer. The City infrastructure has capacity to accommodate this lot even if the lot was developed to the maximum permitted by the zone designation. Capital improvements will consist of new curb, gutter and sidewalk to Hopkins at the expense of the applicant and right- of-way to accommodate an addition to the West Hopkins Trail. Trail improvements will be at the City's expense from the Parks Department budget. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Development Rights/Zoning Sta„f Findin The differences between the development rights in the County and in the City should be considered. Each jurisdiction uses a different land use code and the applicant may be .able to achieve different goals, depending on the site. Usually the annexation applicant has site development plans attached to the annexation application. In this case, the annexation application involves only a boundary change at this time. The applicant has not yet indicated what the future plans for development are on this lot. It is important to consider the complete build out options upon annexation, including growth management and impact fees and the use of TDR's to ensure future compatibility with the surrounding properties. The creation of non-conforming features should be limited, but are able to receive custom legislation to make them legal. In this case, the height of the building is non-conforming. The height of the existing house is non-conforming according to the City Land Use Code. When measured by the using Code Section -Calculations and Measurements 26.575.020 (B), the height of the structure is 26 feet 6 inches. The maximum permitted height in the Moderate Density Residential (R-1 S) zone district is 25 feet. The chimney is 31 feet high. Also some of the residential standards may not be conforming. Any new development on the site will be required to meet the current land use code aside from the negotiated development rights. The net lot area is different for each jurisdiction, the City and the County. The following is a comparison of the calculations of net lot size and permitted floor area: Floor Area Calculations Coun Gross lot area 33 945 square feet Net lot area for Floor Area Calculations 26,085 square feet Reductions Road Warranty Deed 2,940 square feet Lot line adjustment (not valid for floor area) 4,920 square feet Revised 11/13/2008 Page 16 of 20 Existing Floor Area 4,470 square feet Permitted Floor Area Single Family Dwelling - 4173.6 square feet C~ Gross lot area 33 945 square feet Reductions Engineering R/W requested area approximately 4,151 square feet Existing Floor Area 4,470 square feet Net lot area for Floor Area Calculations 33,945 square feet (based on original gross lot size) Permitted Floor with reductions Single Family Dwelling - 5636.7 square feet Duplex or Two detached dwellings - 6056.7 square feet Annexing bandit units should be avoided. There are no bandit units on this site. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. Pitkin County Transferable Development Rights Staff Finding An analysis of TDR's associated with the annexation should be under taken. Properties in the County are eligible for increased development rights through the extinguishment of transferable development rights. Some properties have already received TDR's. The City has not yet developed a program to allow TDR's from the County to transfer on to lots located in the City boundary. There are no Transferable Development Rights associated with the lot at this time. Once annexed, only City TDR's could be landed. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. Usefulness and appropriateness of each jurisdiction's regulations Staf Finding As the City limits increase the restraints from environmental constraints and hazards on development increase. The County has regulations that address development on steep terrain and in wildlife corridors for example. The County regulations are designed to minimize land use intensity and the impacts from development. In the City, densification is encouraged and architectural character is regulated. It is important that the property is regulated by the most appropriate jurisdiction. The City should note any substandard public improvements and the potential costs of the upgrades. In this case the applicant is responsible for upgrading the street infrastructure and the City will be responsible for upgrades to a new portion of the trail system. The City should avoid annexing property that will require administration over backcountry and forestry lands, as they do not have enough experience with these matters. This property has similar characteristics of most City lots and it is not anticipated that the annexation will create any regulatory problems. Revised 11/13/2008 Page 17 of 20 The regulations in the City are very similar to the County in this case. The applicant has more opportunity to develop once the lot is annexed into the City boundary. The regulations for both the City and the County would result in appropriate development for this lot. Once annexed, the property will be subject to Residential Design Standards. Staff finds this criterion met. 8. Infrastructure and Ability to Serve Staff Finding During an annexation, the existing infrastructure and its capacity to serve should be considered. The Council should be cautious with dated and unacceptable small water districts. These small systems may not be adequate and the cost of updates should be considered. Annexing this lot and the potential development that may occur as a result will not have a significant impact on the capacity of the existing transportation facilities, parks, drainage, schools or emergency medical facilities. This lot is already serviced by City water and sewer so unforeseen costs should be minimal. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 9. Simplicity of City Boundary Staff Finding Agencies that operate in the City and jointly in the City and the County are sometimes unclear about the location of the City boundary. A complex boundary can cause problems for emergency workers and the enforcement of rules of the County, the City and other agencies. It is preferable that a boundary adjustment as a result of an annexation reduce potential confusions. This property already has the appearance that it is a part of the City. Annexing this lot will simplify the City boundary. Only a line on a map separates this lot from the rest of the City. It would be appropriate to eventually annex the rest of South 7rh Street. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Revised 11/13/2008 Page 18 of 20 Exhibit G EXISTING CONDITIONS: $ ,~ ~ z ~ CITY OF ASPEN BOUNDARY - O ~, ° UNIT 8 SHA~W~M~SA EN Iij •• - 1 ~ w ~ RE`BAR ~ ~ - ~ ; ~ o y flE-BAR B DRIYE ENCROACME // ~ ' 20•p 0 E 1 .49. 7g, 20 25947 25.2 C E_8 ~'B 20.03 S' w 25~23~ w ti M ~ -y ~ ,~~ U71Ll TY EASE iW Lp 2A !'!FAI ~ r ~ ~, y' T r 1 ,~ ~' ~ ! r I ~ pp ~®vS MB T i I ; ' Q $- ~ # CONC B C ' 100 DRIVE I •. S I t ,,~ ; p \ PLOWED ` . , / / I in ti ~ _' 3 I w '~ : Hopkins avenue a . - ~~ ADAMS SUBDIVISION ~ ~ ~ *, ~ ` ~a~ ai- 16 STREET E%PAN510N 7 i BOOK 513 PAGE 889 ~ AREA 2 91l SD. FT •/- C ti ~ / FU~RTIffADINFOAT FOR ~I~pT BK 702 PG 723 ~ _ ~ / OWNERSHIP STATUS UNKNOWN ~ 6 \ 10' NOE R18E0 ELECTRIC / ~ ~ j ^"~ EASEI~NT~K 792; PO 723 ~M1,YI ~., / D POSITION ® \ HE 8R~ SAP 771 \ \ OQr~ r P ~ ~ \ ~ ry P0, p0 ~ ` 184 L / h ^ \ \ ~ ~ Np~ ... - / ..... 0 _... 12701 b RECEPTION 9 D N0. 432369. ~vJ~+~ ~~`. / ?` J/ / ~ p~ JN FENCE J ~ : dJ F, ON THIS LINE •.P •a~ ,5° , ~ e°.. ~ ~ ~ 25947 ~ BOOKP33/NPAOECE21 Figure 2: Current survey of the Lot 3 Adams Subdivision Figure 2 is a survey of the current configuration of the subject property. Items that represent constraints or relevant issues have been labeled A - G. The property is located at the intersection of Hopkins Avenue and 7~' Street. The survey is oriented north. The zoning section of this memo contains information regarding the dimensional aspects of the subject property. A -There are three easements used for utilities and access to utilities. The areas in these easements can be included in lot area calculations. B -The hatched area represents an area that was added to this lot on April 20~', 2000 with the approval of a lot line adjustment. The County does not consider the area gained by the lot line adjustment when calculating the lot size for permitted floor area. The City may choose to use this additional area towards the lot area when calculating permitted floor area or when considering whether the lot is eligible for a subdivision. C -This is the approximate location of the sidewalk, curb and gutter improvements requested from the Engineering Department. The applicant will be required to construct these improvements from the east side of the property from the north corner to the Hopkins Avenue Revised 11/13/2008 Page 19 of 20 intersection. The improvements are required at the time that the annexation is approved. The applicant will not have the option to wait until the lot is redeveloped. D -This is the approximate location for the West Hopkins Trail extension. The trail would start at the intersection of Hopkins Avenue and 7t" Street and continue along the east side of the property along the frontage on 7th Street to the south corner. The applicant is required to dedicate right-of--way to the City for the trail. The Parks Department will be responsible for the construction of the trail. E -This shaded area is a portion of the property that is dedicated to the public upon declaration of intent from Pitkin County to widen and improve 7th Street. This portion of the lot is held in escrow by Holland and Hart. F -This private road easement is used to access the two lots located to the West of the subject property. The lot area in this easement is eligible for use when calculating the permitted floor area. G -There is a City ditch running through the property. The Public Works Department has requested that the applicant resurvey the ditch because the current survey does not accurately represent the location of the ditch. The applicant is not permitted to build on the ditch line or remove water, but the area maybe used in lot area calculations. Revised 11/13/2008 Page 20 of 20 vi ~ ~ 1-r g RESOLUTION NO. (Series of 2008) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO, RELATIVE TO THE PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CTTY OF ASPEN, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE LOT 3 - ADAMS SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION"; FINDING SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 31-12-107{1), C.R.S.; ESTABLISHING A DATE, TIME, AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH SECTIONS 31-12-104 AND 31-12-105, C.R.S.; AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF SAID HEARING; AND AUTHORIZING THE INSTITUTION OF ZONING PROCEDURES FOR LAND IN THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED. WHEREAS, on February 12, 2008, one hundred percent (100%) of the owners of the property proposed to be annexed did file with the City Clerk of the City of Aspen a Petition for Annexation of territory to the City of Aspen, whereby real property described in Exhibit "A" appended to the Petition for Annexation, is being petitioned for annexation to the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk of the City of Aspen has referred the aforesaid petition as a communication to the City Council for appropriate action to determine if the petition is substantially in compliance with Section 31-12-107, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, the petition, including accompanying copies of an annexation map, has been reviewed by the City Attorney's Office and the City Engineer and found by them to contain the information prescribed and set forth in paragraphs (c) and (d} of subsection {1) of Section 31-12- 107, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, one hundred percent (100%) of the owners of the affected property have consented to annexation of their property to the City of Aspen; and annexation. Said notice shall be published once a week for four consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the area proposed to be annexed. The first publication of such notice shall be at least thirty days prior to the date of the hearing.' The proof of publication of the resolution shall be returned when the publication is completed, and the certificate of the owner, editor, or manager of the newspaper in which said notice is published shall be proof thereof. A copy of the resolution and petition as filed, shall also be sent by registered mail by the clerk to the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners and to the County Attorney of Pitkin County and to the Aspen School District at least twenty days prior to the date fixed for such hearing. Section 4 That pursuant to Section 31-12-115, C.R.S., the City Manager is hereby directed to initiate appropriate zoning procedures with regard to the territory proposed to be annexed. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of1~~U~-(%1~-- , 2008. ichael C. Ireland, Ma or I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated.~7 ~ ~~ ',~ ~~ ~~~~ Kathryn S. ch, City Clerk JPW-saved: 3/13/2008.778-G:yohn\word\resos\L.ot C -Ann l.doc ~. 3 quyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation re4uest second reading of the annexatlon ordinance. Individual Petltioners signing this petltlon represent that they °~ the Portlon(s) of the area described on Attachnxnt'A.' IN WITNESS yyriEREOF, I have executed this Petition for Annexation this _1._....daY of February, 2008. n .. petltioner's/Owner Signature /~, ~ y G e. P. W `G 1 IP-eti~tioner's/Owner's Printed Name ~ 3 i FRS PORT R.0 r~ Address P,~sBvaw+ PA ~s a ~ s Gty, State, ZiP 5 of 33 bluegreen 04 february 2008 guyasuta seventh street IIC annexation request ~~ s«ffi.00 WARRANTY Q~~ TY9 QE®. trltd~ ~ 1000. pAN~. ~ b1All1'I ~ A1WIY N~. W1'R'11N~J4U oTtM~ ~taa.a .aN-trltvr~ a~r.uc.~-~o~+~oot~t~ of In. a~lr+~ ~ , ~• 0.r w+ vmf1E~.~lor.rlaa~nd~i~~ ~ ~IriiM ra~,~r a~o,~t~~ towr«•r++~ k~r i~~~~biyb ~d•~4fO0L~iile~WV~N1iI~0i~ 1~4 Ni>!s>s0i11~OM.dprp~iseriel>IA~ti.lifli~lAi!•o1RAat!!pi>11S xo~r.iart~r~w~Awr-~as,~~~~~+d~e~~'rrt~, tiM6~~ tb ~ ~„„~„~~,~„~,rr,a„,-~a~~avlec~p.,a,e.maearwtr+~ ~rrr e. ~ .e Paeri~l. 1110r~ Oet ~ tf~IN~ ~'~yq,;/yQE,'OD itiri ,. 7 of 33 bluegreen 04 february 2008 SKiIiM-ZLIilES ON P~C3E 1 t RESOLUTION No. 20 (SERIES OF 2008) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, RECOMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A REQUEST FOR A ZONE DISTRICT DESIGNATION OF R-15 FOR 201 SOUTH 7`h STREET, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS LOT 3, ADAMS SUBDIVISION, PI:TKIN COUNTY Parcel Identification Number 2735-123-15-003 WHEREAS, Sheri Sanzone of Bluegreen located at 300 South Spring Street, Suite 202, Aspen, Colorado on behalf of Guyasuta Seventh Street, 201 S. 7s' Street, Aspen, Colorado, submitted a request for a map amendment in conjunction with an annexation application, dated February 12, 2008 to the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, the request is to receive a zone district designation recommendation of R-15; and WHEREAS, this resolution is null and void if the City Council does not approve the annexation application and the annexation does not occur; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered the annexation petition and application for zoning under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on June 3'~, 2008; and, WHEREAS, one hundred percent { 100%) of the owners of the affected properly have consented to annexation of their property to the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, this matter came on for hearing before the City Council on Apri128, 2008 to approve a Resolution of Substantial Compliance; and WHEREAS, the City finds substantial compliance with said State statutes, Section 31-12-104 C.R.S, in that the property to be annexed is specifically greater than one-sixth contiguous to existing corporate limits, has a convnunity of interest with the City of Aspen, is urban or will be urbanized in the near future; and is integrated or capable of being integrated with the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the request; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CTI'Y OF ASPEN, COLORADO IN REGULAR MEETING ASSEMBLED, THAT: Section 1. Findings of Fact. The Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following findings of fact: 1. A request for the zoning application was initiated by: Sheri Sanzone, representative from Bluegreen, 300 South Spring Street, Suite 202, Aspen, Colorado on behalf of the owner Guyasta Seventh Street LLC, 201 South 7~' Street, Aspen, Colorado. 2. Notice of the proposed zoning designation of Moderate Density Residential (R-15) has been provided to surrounding property owners in accordance with Section 26-304-060(E)(3) of the Aspen Municipal Code. Evidence of such notice is on file with the City Clerk. 3. This proposal meets the objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan. This property is located in the urban growth boundary with a residential designation. Section 2: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends approval of the zoning application request for the said lot to be Moderate Density Residential (R-15). Section 3: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5• All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. APPROVED AS TO FORM Jim True, Assistant City Attorney INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on the 3rd day of June 2408. 1 Brain Speck cting irperson I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting Deputy City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the Flanning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated. ackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk ~x~~~~Y ~ 26.710.050 Moderate-Density Residential (R-15}. A. Purpose. The purpose of the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15) zone district is to provide areas for long term residential purposes with customary accessory uses. Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the Mod- erate-Density Residential (R-15) zone district typically consist of additions to the Aspen Townsite and subdivisions on the periphery of the City. Lands within the Townsite which border Aspen Mountain are also included in the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15) zone district. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15) zone district. 1. Detached residential dwelling; 2. Duplex; 3. Two detached residential dwellings 4. Home occupations; 5. Accessory buildings and uses; and 6. Accessory dwelling units and Carriage Houses meeting the provisions of section 26.520.040. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425: 1. Arts, Cultural, and Civic Uses. 2. Academic Uses. 3. Agricultural Uses. 4. Recreational Uses. 5. Group home. 6. Child care center. 7. For historic landmark properties: bed and breakfast and boardinghouse. D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15) zone district. 1. Minimum lot size (square feet): Fifteen thousand (15,000). For lots created by Section 26.480.030 A.4., Historic Landmark Lot Split: Three thousand (3,000) 2. Minimum lot area per dwellingLunit (square feet: a. Detached residential dwelling: 15,000. For Historic Landmark Properties: 3,000. b. Duplex: 7,500. For Historic Landmark Properties: 3,000. c. Bed and breakfast, boardinghouse: No requirement. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): Seventy-five (75). For lots created by Section 26.480.030 A.4., Historic Landmark Lot Split: Thirty (30). 4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): Residential dwellings: Twenty-five (25). Accessory buildings and all other buildings: Thirty (30). 5. Minimum side yard setback (feet): Ten (10). City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007 Part 700, Page 11 6. Minimum rear yard setback (feed: Principal buildings: 10 Accessory buildings: Five (5). 7. Maximum height (feet): Twenty-five (25). 8. Minimum distance between detached buildings on the lot (feet): Ten (10). 9. Percent of men space recLuired for building site: No requirement. 10. External floor area ratio (applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of record): Lot Size Allowable Floor Area for Allowable Floor Area for Two De- (S uare Feet Sin le-Famil Residence* tached Dwellin s or one Du lez* 0--3,000 80 square feet of floor area for 90 square feet of floor area for each 100 each 100 in lot area, up to a square feet in lot area, up to a maximum maximum of 2,400 square feet of 2,700 square feet of floor area. of floor area. 3,000--9,000 2,400 square feet of floor area, 2,700 square feet of floor area, plus 30 plus 28 square feet of floor square feet of floor area for each addi- area for each additional 100 tional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,500 square feet of floor maximum of 4,080 square feet area. of floor area. 9,000--15,000 4,080 square feet of floor area, 4,500 square feet of floor area, plus 7 plus 7 square feet of floor area square feet of floor area for each addi- for each additional 100 tional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,920 square feet of floor maximum of 4,500 square feet area. of floor area. 15,000-- 4,500 square feet of floor area, 4,920 square feet of floor area, plus 6 50,000 plus 6 square feet of floor area square feet of floor area for each addi- for each additional 100 tional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 7,020 square feet of floor maximum of 6,600 square feet area. of floor area. 50,000+ 6,600 square feet of floor area, 7,020 square feet of floor area, plus 3 plus 2 square feet of floor area square feet of floor area for each addi- foreach additional 100 square tional 100 square feet in lot area. feet in lot area. *Total external floor area for multiple detached residential dwellings on one lot shall not exceed the floor area allowed for one duplex. Total external floor area for multiple detached residential dwell- City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007 Part 700, Page 12 ings on a lot less than twenty-thousand (20,000) square feet listed on the Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall not exceed the floor area allowed for one detached residential dwelling. Each City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate extinguished, pursuant to Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, shall allow an additiona1250 square feet of Floor Area. Each residence on the parcel, excluding Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses, shall be eligible for one Floor Area increase in exchange for the extinguishment of one Historic TDR. No more than one Floor Area increase shall be allowed per residence. Properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area in- crease. Non-conforming uses and structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area increase. (Ord. No. 56-2000, § § 2, 7 (part); Ord. No. 25-2001 § § 2, 5 (part); Ord. No. 1-2002 § 20 (part), 2002; Ord. No. 54, 2003 §7; Ord No. 50-2005, §2) City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007 Part 700, Page 13 -~kl~igl~ r ~ ~~: Errin Evans-City of Aspen Community Development Department r~x =~ Sheri Sanzone ~«-_~-~ 03 June 2008 ~~~ 201 South Seventh Street-Map Amendment Request for Additional Information Project Files Request for floor area analysis based on built conditions rather than building permit documentation. The consultant team measured the existing residence to determine the following existing conditions. These conditions were compared to both the City of Aspen and Pitkin County's methodologies for measuring floor area. For ease of comparison, the consultant team also relied on the numbers presented in the staff memo, dated April 18 2008 and revised May 29 2008. The existing square footage is conforming per both codes. The existing building height is non-conforming per the City of Aspen's code by 1'-6". An elevation of the building, illustrating the roof and chimney height, is attached. City of Aspen: Code Zone District: Lot Area for FAR: Max Allowed Floor Area: Max Allowed Deck Area: Below Grade Area: Max Building Height: R-15 26,625 sf 6,090 sf 6,090 sf x 0.15=913.5 sf based on exposed wall 25'-0" Existing Conditions Area, Main Level: Area, Garage: Area, Upper Level: Deck, Main Level: Deck, Upper Level: Building Height: Chimney/Appurtenance Height: Actual Code 2,399 sf 2,399 sf 509 sf 134 sf 1,530 sf 1,530 sf 180 sf 0 sf 139 sf 0 sf 4,757 sf 4,063 sf (conforming) 26'-6" (non-conforming) 31'-0" Pitkin County: Code Zone District: R-15 Lot Area for FAR: 26,085 Max Allowed Floor Area: 4,173 sf Max Allowed Deck Area: 4,173 sf x 0.15=625.95 sf (not under roof) Below Grade Area: up to 4,000 sf exemption Max Building Height: 28'-0" Existing Conditions Actual Code Area, Main Level: 2,399 sf 2,399 sf Area, Garage: 509 sf 0 sf Area, Upper Level: 1,530 sf 1,530 sf Deck, Under Roof: 180 sf 180 sf Deck, Not Under Roof: 0 sf 0 sf Deck, Other 139 sf 0 sf 4,757 sf 4,109 sf (conforming) Building Height: 26'-6" (conforming) Chimney/Appurtenance Height: 31'-0" y, 2 tuww.t~luc;yrrer~a~~>e,n,c;c;r. ~I~(~' G~ r~' Guyasuta Seventh Street LLC Annexation Request Prepared for: Guyasuta Seventh Street LLC Prepared by: Bluegreen October 24 2008 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request table of contents I. introduction a. annexation request b. authorization letter c. operating agreement page 2 II. petition page 13 a. completed petition b. property legal description/proof of ownership-attachment a c. affidavit of circulator d. proposed annexation map (four (4) full-size copies attached) III. annexation statement page 21 a. description of how request meets the statutory and local criteria b. proposed land dedication map (ten (10) full-size copies attached) IV. development rights summary page 30 a. description of entitlements granted by Pitkin County to be maintained after annexation V. initial zoning • page 33 a. completed application form b. pre-application conference summary c. general statement on zoning request/vicinity map and other graphics d. proposed zoning map (twenty (20) full-size copies attached) e. improvement survey (one (1) full-size copy attached) f. compact disc containing digital files (one disc attached) bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 1 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request I. Introduction A. Annexation Request This application contains a request for two actions: • Annexation of the subject property, located at 201 South Seventh Street, into the City of Aspen-a portion of the property was previously annexed into city in 2003, and • Establishment of the newly annexed property's initial zoning as R-15-moderate density residential. The subject property, also known as Lot 3 of the Adams Subdivision, is currently zoned R- 15-moderate density residential-in Pitkin County. The lot is 33,945 square feet in size and was created before June 12, 1978, pre-dating Pitkin County's subdivision regulations. The minimum lot size for the R-15 zone district is 15,000 square feet. The lot's current land use is residential and it is improved with asingle-family residence. The applicant has met with the City Attorney and city planning, engineering and parks staff, as well as Pitkin County planning and zoning staff, to understand the benefits and constraints of this annexation request. The benefits to the applicant include: • Providing design flexibility under the city's land use code. • Legally being contained within the City of Aspen, rather than just appearing to be within the town limits by proximity and existing municipal utility services. • Clearing up a confusing title issue. The benefits to the city include: • Ensuring neighborhood compatibility and community character through the city's land use code, including residential design standards. • Simplifying the city boundary to improve emergency service response. • Enabling the remaining portions of the Shadow Mountain neighborhood to become a part of the city through future annexation. • Capturing additional real estate transfer taxes without the need to extend city services or infrastructure. • Clearing up a confusing title issue. • Creating pedestrian and bicycle improvements on Seventh Street to complete an important missing link of the Hopkins Avenue Bikeway and city sidewalk network through a land dedication and new sidewalk and curb and gutter. • Enabling future street and drainage improvements through a land dedication. bluegreen 04 February 2008 revised 24 October 2008 2 of 44 .~/ , guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request B. Authorization Letter 04 February 2008 &uce Weiner Guyasuta Seventh Street LLC 139 Freeport Road, Suite 200 Pittsburgh, PA 15215 RE: Annexation Request Authorization Dear Bruce: This letter serves to authorize Biuegreen to ad on your behalf to prepare, submit and process a raiuest for annexation of your property into the City of Aspen, Colorado. The property to be annexed is located at 201 South Seventh Street in Pitkin County, Colorado. The property is legatty described as Lot 3 of the Adams Subdivision. If there are any questions regarding this authorization, you can be reached at (412)782-0200. Sincerely, Sheri Sanzone, AICP/ASLA/LeedAP Accepted by: ~C/-08 date LLC bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 3 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request C. Operating Agreement QF THIS Ol'ERAT~ AST OF (lUYSUTA SEYfiNT'i•I STRF~'t', LLC (the "A~cemout~ u dated as ot? tha 29Eh day aF Devarttba~ 20107. by and betvrean Clu7awh 8cwe~att-15trc+et. U.C. a Colorado 13stitcd liability oorn-pa~ (tile "CaI"~. ~ ~r Devdopnxnt Cacndmnr, a Peornsylvaxda li»+ioed pusoerahtpi, as dys talc tne~ba~ of the Cum~ny (herolmti4er rcf~eriod W ~ the "ivleaiber`}. R$t:Tl'AT.S Wl~l~, the Momba and tiatContparty dasiro b set forth in thin A4reunent ccrtsin rruttars nelatittA to the manapt and coatroi of tde Co~pegy and to set Forth the basis tepon t Putare me~bairt may be achntned m the Gompea~y. rtow T'FICAF.yORF' in ~midetntian of thwr mutaal mots hercdn contshocd, and Other walluable ration, the receipt and ~Y of vritkh are }lereby ad~rxtwlcd~nd, [he partie! heretic atr+ee tS ~'ollaws: Axtfcle I I't~t esf t11e Partiss . ~, 7C"1 t~ nSkl~ed for Tax psn~a. Tt its tits spocifle intent agtba panes to this Atreecnent do Farm a 1unieed fixbility oonspa+~+ that is to be tieabod as a ditcetszt{ed enmity anti! additional tnwrtubeacs, it anY, Jim naansberairtp and then tho intent is that Qte egdty be classified as a pa~cssMg for: toderal ltiworao tax purposes. Ariiclc II ~ rrtud~nl O~Fks a!!d Mailint Adararr>s. 7'1xs iaitiai praaeipal office of the Com}~any is locaiod at X39 Treeport road. Suite 200, Pittabur•lt, PA 15215. Tye Company ~qr have such other offices, til4ser vr~lthia or outsfdG tha State of Colorado as iiu members 3' dear~gm~e or as fire bwiness of Aye Co©aipattyr may tequh+s. '1`!ye maiHoQ addc¢ss OF tore Company is 139 Fnxport Rwd, Saito 200, Pitesbnrgh, PA 15215. ~ 2 R- - _ A_~t and Readtter+ed OtAea. The initld rag~0ered a@cat of the Cora~e~r ~ tegsiimd by the Act to ba msinttined ie Ate Statc of CObdrdo is i-~sLaat Shook, 16$5 Craoelaad Drive„ Carbondalq Ca 11$2"!. The reglstered aemut mar be from tune to time by the nsdmbers. bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 4 of 44 i guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request ~,. The arose of the Coa~sy shah ba (iuyasuta t~evasth ~. I.LC. The C bta~ mad be cad t~der wT ether flame o~ mmea deemed sdvisabk by Amick W The 0- ~ Sormed for the object aad puspoae of engs~ing is aeq larvlbl act or activity tar whioh limited liability eompaaiea maybe to:mod under the Act. ~,. The Company la ampopra+sd b do aesr and aU acts and fhiags eseeemary, ~ t~ ~~ incidoatal b ar oonveoieest riot the lint cad ' of the pueposes rnd bow dwccibed hcxein cad for tho prvtectiau and benefit ofQse Conopoay. Article IV nae~xtlme ottLa cm.~ev ~1.Q. Brvoe B. Weiner firmed the Company by artialcs of argon cm laeaanba~ 2B, 2007 (tbra "F..ttaetivo Datc'~ with tlso Colonido Soa:~ty of StMe. The period of duration otthe Cry camtt~ed on the 8fixtiv~e Die wed :tom eonnioue wail terminated pursua~st b Sectiab 16 of this Agreeneant~ Artids V S.t Atlocrtinr at Prrtirs rnd Lassa. Iu arty yasx in which there shall be ally see member, tlb Cornpmsy asst that member intend that the Company shall bat haw any stsad~ to be tnmbed as a piatoerxhlp for Uahed tla~s federal income tax purpeaa bier, rather. ~ shall be dfarcrgacdod as a sere kacable easy cad the sole member dxell ~ all of the pra6ta cad loans of the Cvmpaeq br fedora! fnoonse !sx ptuposea a inooms cad loos of the member dieeetly. m such +caaa„ asd as rho case may be, rise enoeabor sl+ali include such profit and lase ~ osclt memba"s troe radon. in se-y yea bt whicfi theta b than one meusber~ aII ikarns at ln+afit and loss tali be allocated among the nsambaes b pevportbn b thci~ raepadivo me2sbuabip is !on t`e Coea~y. Far .qy p ieterost not owned fa as ceN3m fiscal yedr, ~wr aerie allocatioem shall be prarabd roc tiso limo each nsarnberddp rims owned that gacal year. 5.2. Altnt~iou at Ytaeeu for Fedawal Isbaeeee 9'ax Ps~r~. Subject b Skctian S.l above, to the paeueitted by larv, all i of Compemy taxable pi4 lose, earod~it end~deducticm rooogaiaod or albwable tar Fedorat ineoese tax peexposca eball b allocatod and ca+editied or olserged to rise anan-bars ba the wane tnsenmar as ttsE r~enues, iaca+aa, «caipq„ ea~a or expeea~ gErbg the to such Heaa d taxable became, gain k>ss, a+emt, ar dedoctioa bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 5 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request are aitocamed cad credited ar Any tnetnbes srlocrated and ~li~ a particular cost or acpease aril be entitled b ~ deductiesu or its as are attribuudbb to such coat or to oornpntia~ such rnaabda tasabie inoosne or true liabitiey b the t~hnion of eery other m¢mbtx. Upan the safe or n@r7 ttaos[es' oi' aap~ asset oi'the (:ompany, eay recapture of deprettiatiaa ~ or ether dechacdons previousiy tatcm shall be ailacated b tlye meeaber ta wbont such credit was origimslfy ailocatied, ~1. S,~ili~11 CtlA ft ever, tisere is mare than t~ member. then the members shall a~ee as b the cxpitai vontdbutiost raquirod to become a a>eanber. • t5.2 Ceaital Aeceusts. When, i[ sorer. is a>am than oue auembar, a separate cr-pitai account staatt be tndamined far each mmrtber to wldch shell be m~ in acaco~tdance with. applicable Tramtuy Re~rldiaiss„ iacls,~ but net limited b the requib o~'~uuy Re~nlmtiart Section 1.904, sand each such a~pital aocouat shalt be credited for each such member (i) its eapaitatt oontributio~d sayd (ii) its alone of et1 t..omp4ay revennea as afiocabed b it es-~der Bus Agtoemeat, and a6ail be debhod q+Ith ~~ its share of all ooab, , aml losses of the C,ampany Aa at'iocated to h under this Agrear~at cod (iv) the aaaautk of any dtstrlbutiom mode to it. Artiek Yli ,~ The Campoay will he managed by a or Managers ~ ~ by a m'id' vote of the M~anbers. The initial Ivtaoe=er slsdl ba Biuco ~. Weittar. Tree voting members at the Carapas<y, by meJority vats sin appoint addittonai ffi~~ 7.2 Tine. Itev to Busio~eaa. Mks will devote only the arnasart o€ flare b rho Campanf a arotivitiea as is re~atbsbiy neeessory to the " reaporu36iilities. diacxotioa b mm~gc sad diroct the Coma's business. ls~+- m and. pra~pectfe~, iaGWdi~, vuhtuaut )unila4ua, the atpectG'ie po'we~ra ~frxred b in Article 3.3(b}. (b} 3r~citic Powers. (1) . Thine 1-isrn~rt ors authvrimed oa the Catt-panya bohalf b matoe alt dodsions ss b (i) the devGiopmeat, rate, lw~se or athar disitositiaa of the Comparprs assets; (a~ tht purchase ar artier acgniaitian oioth+er assets of all Idads; (iii) duo t of all or any part of the t.,ompany's arseu and busiae:s; (iv} the borrowing a~f money and the bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 6 of 44 i guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request gnaating of aec~igr i in the (bmpagy'a wets {taciudiu4g loaw ~roaa kl~ecbbaa ar Affiiiatea}; {~j tLe pr~pga~eat, ~ or o~a- a£any:noet~e s tlbe Coiapan9r'e aasetsy {~ the eoaspeowbe or rdeaaa of any c[the C,ompany'a e~hna a iebtry (~ the cmplaymeot edPeeaa~s Ear the o~mation and aa~mageaaaed of the Gcopar~'a and {viii) all ehas ava b the Gompagy insder any tederd or state tax isnv or mgwistion. fie) (i) 1~e Mars may deiepde tlic rigift„ Paw'm' aM aeth~ority to maoa~o the day b~day bum. afbrirs. ap~iamt and ac~f~ies ot'the Con~r 1o any. e-tRcer. employes or ayont eithe Ce~ettpany, sahject b the Eoa~i or su~awIstcn of the ~f~- Ifti+e his appoh~ as edHcer of the (5ooipany whh a title that is ca~mmoely wed ibr o~'ioera of a basiocasa corperatioa, the aarlgnment of aaob tip si~ali noostitute the cieile~6on of the authority aoxl duties asso~siated with that office, sub3ect to axq+ spoca8a dehon of a~hority and duties made by the Managers. Any aaanber of oflioes may ba haid by the msao parscxe. Ae~y delegation ha+eunder ahdl be row~6te at the sofa di~+~ioa ofihe ~. ?.d ilLraaar sf Actina {ij A Mayor mvry ad with respect to any maltar w~io the acopo crf his or her ~dhority if fhore ~ ones Maur iif them is mare theses cea ai a nmr caf Manama ~ puwm~t to foraaal air informal rapoochu+es adopwd at a meeeing of Managra~a. Ptoco(hms lhat may be adgrted at a meetieeg of Maaagers witLout iimitatioa, the estrbde~enemt of dries sad ~ Eac~ ~ meetleep„ P l ~ whiclethe Maoa~xa ~ a m~ Nritheuta and the deh ofdatim sad raepvnaibilitieswith aspect towhichthe delegate ~ set witha~ut approval or ratit'ic~ion by the othta Mane~oca. (bj . If tlxre 1: more than oae Mantgar: (1) • Aar Maaa~er may caH a nxet(~og of Mwagas by w~the dale of the ntiasf~. Tha mwt ~nu1y the l<~ oi'tba a~ad ~ ~ any business to be tramacmd. A Manager may walre rate of t meeting atMawgers onstly~ bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 7 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request in writir~ or by attaxiaa~~c at iho mooting. (~ ~y Yotina. A Maaaypex may act at a meoth~ of Maaagcn tta~ougit atzoti,~etr Manager sobllaorized by signed p~Y~ (a) wrhben Conaer~t. The Managers may act vritiaut a mooting by writ6ms oamemt deseribit~ the acdoa and > by Msaagars whose voting powrr is at least equal ~ the minimum that wed ~ neoeassary b take the notion at a meeting at which ail. Managers wee+e pn. (d) B~imd.Asm~d~ The Managers' ~maaimous s~provd is t+ogtdred for anry- matter arisir~ within the :cope ottheir atthority, ~ m-Y ~ ~p~ at: meeting of Merm~ra pursusst to $cctiau 3.4(a). (e) The fact that a Manages is not also a Member in na way limits the Managa'a rl~ht to v~ate an any matter pmpedy within the scope of tho Nlanagar~' authority >x~lar this Agreement. 73 ~tPslerAtriiM{# Aytharlty. AMana~erapparcatlp acting for the company m the,raaai ootaye of its batsmen has the por+Mer to bind the Company and. ~ pecans has an obiigagaa Zn inquire ia#o the Manager's actual sartltotity to act on ffie Company's bahal~ Hawcnrx, if a Manager aagt outside the scope o#the Maaagcc's actual authority, the Maaag+ar will iradestusit,'y the Company far say Doers er daaoagos it iaoaas as a result oi: the unauthorix+od set. 7.6 i?iduciarv naatita. (a) Standen! of Caro. {1) Liability fioz wroaaful Acts. A Manager is liable to and will indemnify the for alt coats, oxpoosoe ~ daanagas attributable to as act ac omi~ion that constitutes a madcrial brcrrch of this Agtvornatt, gross aegiige~ao~e, wllltid miscaoduct ar a yialation of law. (z} j ~. A Mamgcr may tiny oa the ~'a revoi+da maintained io goad ~ and on i~fbrmatioaa, vpiaians~ nparta or statacrtoats raoeived fl~om any Persaa p b anattpts the ~ reasarably believes to be within the !'mann'a axpertiso or oompoterna. (b) As~tiyitiss. A Manager may partite in say business ar acdvity without acootartiag m the Company ar the Mombers. A Manager nay not, however, axept a business opportunity ~ the Mar~x'e own accoanat trot tbt Manager betieNea or has reason to bcticyc flu Contpagy would aooopt if broaightoa its aateatiaa. A mtaat dioolo~sa to rho Y arty bawiaeas oppoetuaity of which the i~gu beeoaaes swans. if the Goettpaaty deciiaes to acroePt the opportvaity~ the Manayor may pursue it for the Maaagefs owe acoauat. if the Manager fails >fl disclose tine oppostatnity, the Manager wi11 occouat to bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 8 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request the Campasly Bar ante la~ooema time Maoagor dasfves 5nun the appoctztaitr sad win ~fy the 7 for nap hose the y io~aas ar a rcxult ot'tbe ttmlitepra to dbmckmse. (e) , A Manager mgmy aatar into a 1 tnaaactien wiltlm the Ga~ngr Blame k;ms cfbme tran~xia~ta>;a sc- lass fi-vneaWa b fms Coempas-g than those ofa ainaitar lrasoa whh an i~ndapardent third pay. Agpmarval et toa b7 Members having ao 1ss6eseat is the traamaion a eoemchu~ive arideaca that bme tetnae Y tMe foregoing ea~ftien. q ,The Ca~anp} will irmdaasnify~ each klsoegnr far all expan~, lioaea, liabiliciea and the Ufa' saucily sad raaanabay hxaas h3 coousoction with bsa defame or Ktbesnenk of arty action arhiag cart of or relatieg m the candnai Of the ~s aatlvities, except an cation whls t+mapeat b vrhioh the Manager is ad}uAged to ba lid !6r brawls of a fiduciisry duly owexl ~ itma Coar~y or fire Membms under+the Ad ar bds ~ 7.8 ~ The C~any may. with the agprasyml ofbme Mmnbers, cbnapGnmate a~}+Mtra~r f or sarvlces w or as belultof fire Campacq-. '1'hc Cacrospasq+ will ntimbsusa cads Matmagcr fa reaaonable ps+operly ivanred on din Cempan4y'a bdmatf 7S ?~ (a} Tom. A Manager will serve anfb the eadiar a£ (1) tlma Manager's ~; (~) lie "s tecaovrd; (~ ~ Mm's ~3 ~ (~ as to a who is a natmd peamq bma Maaagcx's dc~th ar ad~on of lnooaspeoeachr;and (~ as i~o a Manama bait is an entity, bre Mana@a''h diasdutitors. (b) gam, A ax airy time may resign by+ vvcllten notioe cbtiveced b the Nlansbaem at iwsart thirty (3b} days prior to the v~e da6e af'the>ion. (c} $t:~{• The vodug naembecs of ffie . mq'sarmo+re a Mager at nay rims spas a ~ tore of the vbtimg mansbarslidp inter+eati of dse Canpaay, with a w~out eanse. (d) yX. If a Maama$cx foot enty r+aason ceases to act, the voting mentberzt c-t tbo ~', ~' majarlty vote will promptly Beet a saooe~ b serve zmtil a is decked and grafftied. 8. . All real aaad petsaaal ps+eperty :hall be acgnirod is the r~ae of lime ' and thk to aql+ praparq+ so aalnirecl shall vent is the Oomperry itsolf rt&bor tban la the Marrayer ar the Trlers~er. g. . The Member amr-y be rounbazaett far alt eacp~ses hzc~ed vn 6dmslf a~'tbc Compaony. bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 9 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request lQ. . l~ttibutians gall be made to flee Member {in awh err in kind) at the titaes and in the aggf+egate amou++ta determined by the Maaagar and as permitted h9 applxabie law 11. , The Madaga msy make nary tax elections far tha Campaapr allowai under the Idicrnal iRe-wiaac Cask of 1986, as anndrdod, tx the tax laws of any state or other .jarbd kavipg twcing jurLidiotiat- ova~r ~a Contpmay, 12. . The oooxwmic hrt~st of the Member in the Campaay is aesdgnabk, im whale a ht Part, rohmhrily err by opaxtian of law. i3. .Additional members of the Company aaay be admitted to the Compa~- at the direction of the ~Sa. If a new operatin8 s~gr+umet~t as su<aaoendtneat sad r+cttatetnent of this A is na executed by the nscmbrss in vontmct3on with the admfaa€on of flue f$at additiodal mamba, this A~acmcnt shall Iexaieate upon the date tho first adchtional tnramlrer is admittod. 14. ~(81A~. The Member altali not Izave any liability for the debts, obligatiaris oar Iiabilhie: of the Company or foe the serfs or amiasiaas of arty other nber~ manager, a~ amt or emPloyea of the Compatty aaccxpt to the axtartt provided in the Act. The faihtte of the Mcsnber m obsarva any formalities err tagaitementa relating to the mceariae of the po+wrrs of tt~e Mcmbar or ilia mtma of the b and s~aixs of the C~ttpany ut~d~cr this Agxaomatt err the Act shall not be tl fax ltnpasi~ tiability an the Member for liabilities of the Contpatay. 13. Iri~& `~ Company shall ~'tiia Member and those autho~rizod allioua, agcab sad eanplayvea of 4hc Cam~pany WeatiSod m writing by tho Mambar as entitled to ba iodemaiSal aader thin aootion Got all aoets, Iosses.l6abitities a+nsl damages paid or aoavsd by the Manxbdr (as the Member as as an ate, agent or aaployee) or say such a~icer, agent err employee ib aonr~ecton vrlth the buainera of the Coo~paay, azccept to the extant prohibited by the lava of tltie Clema~oaweahh of Peuaeyhraaia. Ia addition, the Company may advance aosb of daferae of say }xooeediny to the Mamba err soy such oi;6oer, agent ar empioyoe ~ reoeapt by the Corapagy of stn tmdertadcing by err as bohalf afsuch P~~ b repay suelt ka-ount if u alrwll tdtimateiy be dekrrained that the person is not errthkd so be Indemnified by the C.eimpu7yr. 16. ~, {a) The Company shall dismhne, acid its aflyirs sba11 be woand ups upon the fnat to ovatr of the folioarLrg: (i) the,wrlitaa direction of the Memba~, or (g) the eddy eda deotee of jndici:i disaohitioa mdcr Sec#Fan 8972 of tho Ant. The d~ (or dlsaoltrfiorc ~ the caso of a mamba that is sot a r pcxsor~, reliiret- iidsardty, ~ air bat~naptry of the Member err the oooanreaae of aryr ottrer evrast thst tarndnatea 8re aomiaued membersirip of the Member shall aot cause a ditaolution of the Coonpany. bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 10 of 44 r guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request (b) ~ dtssolatiaq the ~y shad vwo on any sad aS ttus~nwss other then the wiodieg up of the ' basiaear~ bed flee Company ~ not ~ and shall oodkuc ualii! the eft of the affides of the 4- is sad a cxatiiioab of dis,dwion has began filed pussutra~t to die Act. Upon ~a uP of the Company, the Coay~any's property st>.it be dtstrll~ed (i) ~ b ueditara, the Member Mdse 1 is a credttar, b the atteait parasit~d b1 taw, in boa of the Caanpar~'s ~ sad (i~ ibea b the Measban. Sua;h distdbutioas shalt ba is cash or ilY ~ il'~Y ~ as debncedned by Ate Manbex. l7. ~.,~ is ttah Agroernent shalt be cansiraeod b Hmit the right c#the to ealar into any Qameetiai fat may be camdclercd b be competitive with, or a bas~iarss opport~ity t6~ msy be bead to, tho CosagtaU''. 7Ue Meadiar does sot violets a duly oc obtiiyation b the Coatpaa)t a-codY bade Att conduct otffie Member [uithesa the ih~+asla oP the Mcrnbar. The Mambar may lend mocrsy m and tramact atba hasinesp~ with tM Coaapany. Tiee rights sad obti~iom of the Meaatber upon moaeY b or g b wit!- the Company are the same es thex of a person who is sot the Member, b other appl~le law. No talalreCtidtt with the Company shall be void or wldabJe sololy baaruse tho Member has a daect ~ iadinxt iat~ in the trarasacticn. 18. . This Agted~neni shalt be Sov~era+ed by, and iao~pseted sad enfrn+oed ~ accordance wilt, dte substantive laws of dx Commoaaacalth of Pemmylvaaia, witlwut >efbreace to the caaslliats of law mks of that or say od-er jaRisdictian. 14. ]K~tlre raa_~yt. This Amt constitutes the ~ticC amt of the Member with respect b the sub,~eet anatter hareaf and s~-araedes atl prier ~ameds, eaPreaa or implical, oral ar writDOr-, v~h ratpeat tttet+eto. 'IUe expeese oitt>is Agreemaat control sad supexsede aqy oottrse of It'd or vsa8s of trade kaoras~att with say of the terms he~+eoi 20. . This AQrocmaat nosy bo amended ar inodilied hnm time m tiaao onb- by a written ins~maaat executed by the Masher. 21. , This A~memt b cs~erod into by the Meaaba~ solely b ,8overn the operation of the Cosy. "Phis Agrameat is e:pr- sot intended for dyo beaadit of any creditor of the Compaalr or aqy other person other than the hates, person>tl n~ aucootaors sad alas of the Meatbar. Baroept acid Daly to the ex~ai providod by applicable stable„ so creditor or tbn+d peaty staff have say r;~bts ~mdcr this Agreemeait or any sgreenxat betvnea the Coaepeny and the Ivlcrabcr, with rdpoct to the subJect auNb~ heratf bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 october2008 li of 44 .. guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request N Wl"I'NiF.SS WHEREOF, the ice, b be ~Y bormd. has ~ ~ A@rmoa~ent as of the iak cf fitiq the CertiBaAe of ~ to 6e e~OCtive far alt purposes as of d~ ~ of the Ceddfiale of Orami~ution. M,EM88R: Gapnaah De'valo~raaeat Coadpaay H7r Airway IParic, LM.. its ~{wmral partner BB. WetrKr, t MANAGER: ~~ bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 ~2 of 44 w guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request II. Petition A. Completed Petition PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN PURSUANT to the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965 ("Act"), Part 1, Article 12, Title 31, Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973, as amended the undersigned (hereinafter referred to as the "Petitioner's hereby petition the Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado for the annexation of an area, to be referred to as the Guyasuta Seventh Street LLC Annexation to the City of Aspen. Said area, consisting of approximately 33,945 square feet (.78) acres and as Lot 3 of the Adams Subdivision, is more particularly described on Attachment "A," attached hereto. IN SUPPORT OF THIS PETITION, the Petitioner alleges: 1. That it is desirable and necessary that such area be annexed to the City of Aspen, Colorado. 2. That the requirements of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-108, C.R.S., exist or have been met. 3. That not less than one-sixth (1/6) of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is contiguous with the boundaries of the City of Aspen, Colorado. 4. That a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the City of Aspen, Colorado, 5. That the area to be annexed is urban or will be urbanized in the near future. 6. That the area proposed to be annexed is integrated with or capable of being integrated with the City of Aspen, Colorado. 7. In establishing the boundaries of the territory to be annexed, no land held in identical ownership, whether consisting of one tract or parcel of real estate, has been divided into separate parts or parcels. 8. No annexation proceeding has commenced for the annexation to the municipality other than the City of Aspen, Colorado, of all or part of the area described above. 9. The annexation proposed in this petition will not result in the detachment of area from any school district and the attachment of the same area to another school district. 10. That the Petitioner herein comprises more than fifty percent (50%) of the landowners in the area and own more than fifty percent (50%) of the area to be annexed, excluding public streets, alleys and lands owned by the City of Aspen, Colorado. WHEREFORE, said Petitioners request that the Council of the City of Aspen approve the annexation of the area described on Attachment "A," legal description of the land. The Petitioners reserve the right to withdraw this petition and their signatures there from at any time prior to the commencement of the roll call of the City Council for the vote upon the bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 13 of 44 w guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request second reading of the annexation ordinance. Individual Petitioners signing this Petition represent that they own the portion(s) of the area described on Attachment "A." IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this Petition for Annexation this day of February, 2008. ".- Petitioner's/Owner' Signature Svc ~ ~. Wit ~~. Petitioner's/Owner's Printed Name 13~ ~i~~Pt~Rr Ro~~ Address Pi ~TsB~Q ~-~ , PA is a . s City, State, Zip bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 14 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request B. Legal Description of the Annexation/Proof of Ownership -attachment A CERTIFICATE OF C3WPIERSNIP Pitk'ra Comrty Trtlc, Lsc. f a duly licensed Trtla Insuraoca Agent in ~e Stato of Calnrnclo hereby cetti that GUYASUTA SEVENTH STREET, LLC, A COiLf?RADO LIi~++lITEI3 I.IABII.ITY COMPANY are the owner's in fee simple of tl~ JEoila~vling describ~l property: LO7 3, ~ StJBD#V'S14?N, ding ipo g-e PIS tttsreof recorded ~ i4, 1~73vY Plat Book 4 at Rapes 3SS. ADDRESS ACC.OR,DIN4; TCy TFiE PITKIN C4?UINTY ASHESSORS 4~FFICE: 2~1 ~ouab SCYe1At~'t Sty Aspen, GQ 81611 t=~LI~IIY~V'1t7VC0: teed ~ Trust irorrt : 43LtY/tiSUTA SEVEkTti STREET. LCG, /l COt.ORALfO LIMITED LIAt3iLtTY COMPANY Ta the PubMc Trusaee of the Cocmly of PITKiiV I=0r't1~@ trsB of : S6T BANK a;Q~:~ Amaurd ~ s4,aea,~aa.oa oted : ,hnuary 3, 2001# Rmoorde~d ; .~nusry 3, 2048 Reosptlcn No_ ; 64S+t8$ AssigrsrNent d Rsrds rscoorded in oom~ec~n vv8h ~e alxNe Deed of Trust was rErar-isd Jaryr 3, 24148 as Ftec~aPtion No. 5+15470. This ec~tifeate is iiwt to 1x construed to bC a guarantee of title read its fikraislted for informational purps anal}. PITKII3 CO[l~ vT`rit TITI~, INC. SY: autluiri~ad sign~o~e CERTZFIIiD TO; January ~ 1, 2008 at E:tfO A.M. Job Nn. 21l 78bCO bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 15 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request ~' ~ ~A36.ODI win ova nos . rn.d. ,rmwy ~, !, ,wa ~-~, ~ ter. Itt~c. ~+co~.o ~ nor oorr, ~~.~ ~~~~ wn~ptrrd afrlYd1N11M~~.q»~ ~~ IMr14sr p~rafU ~~~ ~ rM ~d k •N! hM1E~f1~~~MM; d W!~ ~N!Opll~l N~IMilrtrilAil ihASA ~ ~1 !N d.'~II~ d flRA~ ifreA~r~ ar to f,A'f ~ ~ Ia~Plk~rraetll~ 1~ ./p~ 1nP11! ~aai# ~tl~~Il- 3~ r~i~rl~iapregr ~s ~Nb~ln~ d~ wy i~ D~~d ~eM~1,1w~t X16 ~f ~t In~ ~ pafion a x' a1Mw in fluff CMOn C1Md ~coef'd ,1ny ?~,19?t TDRrsEtliet wAh M ~- ~ INer~s~ueN~ ~ ~ Ih~MrlorbNarpn~ dt M ~l~* ~IppM'Idehp, sni ON f11d IwMI«ia11f~ l~IA~ib/~111, fW~, I~ul~ i11d ilk ~fM1~of. Ord X11 l~li MM!_1MIM. Mi;1nMNM11, elli'rh M~A~/_~wf Mpg MlrMor rlUwr iy Mwrar+iih. ~ 1-1w~d Ia bi~74t1/1Qi~+~r,~MR.M~it6lie'bWMIr~14~osoeNa ~'~ ~Ai.~llaklM~IMkfhMM liw~ /~~~I-~w~ 1~ aft 1e.r:~rs~ws I~rt~ee~, wn- i{~Ollblf¢M b~1414~1MM!l+O~NII~Wttflll~illlliNYNMO~~i ~M~lMtUfit ~lMif ~Wid ~1roRRaf io11A11'#~~llr ~ MIIIM~ Mqs~ 1111 I~MIMJ~Off~ ~1blr OFA~MMf ~0l1~~a10lp1IJr0i1~ IIU1Ml4 ~i ~#11M4 Ca >F.1iliR A' ~~Mid lt1M11~i~M ~fNu1~d t+iYrllh a ~ TIMI ~Irllmt~lrf MMI Mlw ViNIR11AN1' f~D116N®[ O~tMO Y~i ~bOYr liyM~M in IMq~iM MM pMI1dIMd~ piMp~M1 Of rllr ,nnrR M h~Nr and , aNMM! M w wNlf M~ a-/r~CrM N~j tle w1+a4 tK ~'ryr ~~iK~ 1~i~IV iF1r hi~1~! ilf~ /WI~'111i p~ M1/ , ifl!d 1Nt 11M 41~NIQB IN IlMill@5a ~~;r~~weYUd Rhbde~d ~A'TtIR6S ON P~ttlE ~' I~MIi~ ~ ~ ~R1iI~HI16 P. 0: li9~ iNi7 tlM~NIMM~ YILiA@~ ~ fdtd bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008. 16 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request 81t~MAATIIRE P110E "nQ 1AEARRAFITY iDf=ED fPM~EE 2 ... ~'~1~I '~ '~iA'~` RK~ tfF I~OtAAI!C~ ) rs cc~x+rn oR ii 1'M~ r,,,~y,,,~,~,,,r,admo~rYAOrdDrlrr~trr~t~ ~ot.W~1NtY, ~y ~WMEf~MEJW Md MAY NA. MIM1t111#~W. ~~4~s~t . wy o~nrtilar"a+! M+plr~ Ki)Y,11tf t411A.1C yq ~_ M is PCT2171 ~~'~''"'~° bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 17 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request WM~ ~i~ 1. 1`i!M/i AOt ~ ~'aar ZEE QOS yi4 AW !Of p~/R~Mt ~. Or ~ ~ ~ wad Q'IOAi b a aI ~W AM iR fieraiman~ ahaaAa Maa aaRM bps laaid k+ Iroe(c iii ~t Drorn~rr # b~laok !8 ~ t~NHad 81~1es P.hr~C waetl~+d ~11~A1 ~ 1 ih 2 ii. aN bf#I b t5s~4 4P M1o~+1Mn tn~ea CaPo-rlian naxnded flaarotber 2'f.11W0 p1 m0ok 1769 at Pegs 19, as R aalr a~tfhe aegaot p~apny, ~ ~s~rNr+t andrtyht ofw~y ib- an ask ~rrskpion ar di~on 1r-~ a Amy a b Floiy Cteaa Bleak Ihaodleal, Ma.. it+ M~hyMnrnt rre01da01n book 2~t +nk#~ 9t. a EaaanNna~ ~ of wa6/ and aR ma~roM1. bK~udkip buy adt Wiled t, a toot umllr awn~aat abnp prcv+~M as aheios~a ae+a~ auEject nod wy H, win M f~It 7k~ak a at Papa ~, ~ Sa.sr 1~sarna+E N sat tl4ep~ k i~alnaalalAE r•mrdsd ueqult 2411M b Boolt477 at Paps 44A. L 7enae, oooamon~ ~ and ~lhi9rtloe~t rIt tet id+N in i~rltlon ekwn~d J4y',101d b monk i1a of PYga lOID wed lalgra+rdoedad ~ 1, tYA6in maxi H3 at Pape fms and Osadnxabad Jay i,lilkf k- Rook di! ~ fops 111 #nd lawnrNOrdrtl.h~ 1.1p01 h eiaak lt111R f'a7s 1711 1: T+Mn~#. P illd ~ N Nt (belh ~ EasateurlA aroe~dee !~/ 1a,11i2 ~ 8ookd77 ~ PapsTTil, R Ea.mrne see rip~14 04 1br an aktetrle amanipion ar Ins ae aya6xq w peaMad io FbE- Crass EIK.Yfo Apodalo~„ M~a,, (n ant woaak1d,11rwary 17» tiA2 #~ IiDi~c~r st Papf 7i. 19i ~MfAMr~ and rlplt l~lery 4a aA> a~delG 1~n~MJa~an Qf d~111NNA1Ra 11~1~ 1~ d4 M 7t1~6d la 14Q~ C1~lM E~eelrk: ~saaGlalh114 baR, h ratadad krpdsmbae7k 1~GD3 h maok 7f2 atPapa T39, t1. F ~v~kligns aetd Ct~iona ~ sat 4a~ it A~eytkN~IMN- Oecslor~ n Jkpti 2i, 3~Q bl Nb 42 ~ IMat rat ae wayfior an ekaarie trserWrtlen a upon ona or aY+osm, ~.9r+~ a ~ Cnyaa Bac4Ae Nltl~ ~, -+ k~Ymwet remifad Aepwt ii, 300D ws fa Na, 4 3, Term, aandk+ana, ~ a~ ab~preom a aM /oM M Traaoh. CendWt.and Y'a~ hprssnNM+.4t~ ~ Crou Bfark; AfsaaUgbn, ine., ntoordedlua7nri i+s, x9oo a. ~. M40ft 1~. d~. waao~hm.r+e ~d pwaaf~st~rs d1d~ aaaamardaa nar k~wlnd m saki as shoKm ~ by Aal+err',~rw! ~.1err, daeed Ctesmbae y9CT, q Ja0 I+ROk 7i1m'2KtUS, bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 18 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request C. Affidavit of Circulator STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY The undersigned, being first duty sworn upon his oath states: That he was the circulator of the attached Petition for Annexation and that each signature therein is the signatur f the person whose name it purports to be. ~,,-._'^ .~--~' c Ci culator's Signa ure Subscribed and sworn to before me this _.._.___,._____ day of February, 2008, by WITNESS my hand and official seat. a .-~~~~. Comm ssion Expiration Notary Public COMMONWfiALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Nafrdat Seal Jettersut: .~, ,,,, t:ounty MY Cbrtura~or+ Wires GAar. 4.2010 I~mbir, i'~nnsylvar~ia Associatan ~ Motarie~ bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 19 of 44 a~ Q a~ L C O m x a~ c c 10 V N N L C +~.+ N 10 T rn a. c 0 x a~ c c ~o v a~ m 0 a 0 L a D Y e ~ ° E Y I~ ~ ~~~ ," ~ a ~ ~ ~~> =~~ ~_ ~ ~ 3 :. ~p:r :~ b ~` ~ ~~ ~ $~d ~d< a 3 ~ I ~ r ~ . ~2 8 ~~ I~ a AR g~ ~ 8 - ~8~ - ~Ss ~ s" U t ~p +~ ~ LL3a ~p e €& LL °8 ~ , WWI ~ de °' `~ e ; `. ~ ~ 4 ~~ `~° o : O . o` ~ ~ ~ t ' LL ~ ~ ff , ~~ ~~ ~s S ~$ ~ ~ ~ :~ tl i ~~~ k w ~ ~~ d~ - ~ d ~ a E ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ z ~~ ~a ~~ LL~x $ € ~ ~~ € ~ a ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~~s ~ - e ~~ ~ z ~ a a ^ p.~ f'~ t~~ L-' .~ p/~ C~--~ ~'--3 7 Q ~'°~ < a .r © ~~ ~~+ ~° ~k a c, ~> .n ~ '~ H < w a, F €`- ~: Q F ~~ M N __ U z W u' ;-~ ~ F" - F y ~~ Q ~ N z ~r~ ~ - v ~~'~ ~~ `~ t~ !~. W tri M $ o. q ~r J =i ,% ~~~'~n z %; _ ~` , / `'" =~ [~ s ~-a t i ~, w S i ""~ _ ~ `' _ .~ .~ REEK i x~~~~ ~ ~..~ c~S~L~-c _ , - ~ _ •a?~SF U z E° w~~ s wa - } 5 w ° u ~ rv z ° a 8~n ~ ~ Qv~f"'1, nn~ ~ >~ ~ a~ F a_~ ~ ~j _ o p ~TJ~s r~'12Ym ~$~ ,~~ o ~ Iii ~p;,e `e F- r ,r ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ; P ~ _ ~ e ~ t c~ ~~c~~. ~ ~s+-~~ ~ _ . ~~il~ ~ , ~e _ ..,.r,~ ° .... t. -y,1 ~--_ 4 ': Y ~ .-c. c i ';r~~ V Y ° ~ ,ter €~ H m ~a F ° z ~~ O ~ ~ o -, c$< z ~~~~_ a ~ err €: ~ =~~~~ys w ~' ~ga~ ., ., °_ o w 0 0 N O O N N O O N O O N f0 7 L t~ '~ 0 C N N O~ U7 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request III. Annexation Statement A. Description of how request meets the statutory and local criteria STATUTORY ANNEXATION CRITERIA 31-12-104 Eligibility 1. That not less than one-sixth of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is contiguous with the annexing municipality. Contiguity is not affected by the existence of a platted street or alley, a public or private right-of-way area, public lands (except county-owned open space), or lake, reservoir, stream, or other natural or man-made waterway between the annexing municipality and the land proposed to be annexed. Subject to the requirements of CRS 31-12-105, contiguity may be established by the annexation of one or more parcels in a series, which annexations may be completed simultaneously and considered together. RESPONSE: The property proposed for annexation meets this requirement. The perimeter of the area proposed for annexation which is contiguous with the City of Aspen municipal boundary is 41.35 percent, or 770.08 feet, of the total perimeter. 2. That a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the annexing municipality; that such area is urban or will be urbanizing in the near future; and that said area is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the annexing municipality. The fact that the area proposed to be annexed has the contiguity with the annexing municipality required by the above requirement shall be a basis for a finding of compliance with these requirements unless the governing body, upon the basis of competent evidence presented at the hearing, finds that at least two of the following are shown to exist: a. Less than fifty percent of the adult residents of the area propose to be annexed make use of part or all of the following types of facilities of the annexing municipality; recreational, civic, social, religious, industrial, or commercial; and less than twenty-five percent (25%) of said area's adult residents are employed in the annexing municipality. If there are no adult residents at the time of the hearing, this standard does not apply. b. One half or more of the land in the area proposed to be annexed (including streets) is agricultural, and the landowners of such agricultural land, under oath, express an intent to devote the land to such agricultural use for a period of not less than five years. c. It is not physically practicable to extend to the area proposed to be annexed those urban services which the annexing municipality provides in common to all of its citizens on the same terms and conditions as such services are made available to such citizens. This standard shall not apply to the extent that any portion of an area proposed to be annexed is provided or will within the reasonably near future be provided with any service by or through a quasi- municipal corporation. RESPONSE: The property proposed for annexation meets the contiguity requirement. The criteria above do not apply to the proposed annexation. 31-12-105 Limitations 1. Notwithstanding any provisions of this part 1 to the contrary, the following limitations shall apply to all annexations: bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 21 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request a. In establishing the boundaries of any territory to be annexed, no land held in identical ownership, whether consisting of one tract or parcel of real estate or two or more contiguous tracts or parcels of real estate, shall be divided into separate parts or parcels without the written consent of the landowners thereof unless such tracts or parcels are separated by a dedicated street, road, or other public way. b. In establishing the boundaries of any area proposed to be annexed, no land held in identical ownership, whether consisting of one tract or parcel of real estate or two or more contiguous tracts or parcels of real estate, comprising twenty acres or more (which, together with the buildings and improvements situated thereon has a valuation for assessment in excess of two hundred thousand dollars for ad valorem tax purposes for the year next preceding the annexation) shall be included under this part 1 without the written consent of the landowners unless such tract of land is situated entirely within the outer boundaries of the annexing municipality as they exist at the time of annexation. In the application of this paragraph (b), contiguity shall not be affected by a dedicated street, road, or other public way. c. No annexation pursuant to section 31-12-106 and no annexation petition or petition for an annexation election pursuant to section 31-12-107 shall be valid when annexation proceedings have been commenced for the annexation of part or all of such territory to another municipality, except in accordance with the provisions of section 31-12-114. For the purpose of this section, proceedings are commenced when the petition is filed with the clerk of the annexing municipality or when the resolution of intent is adopted by the governing body of the annexing municipality if action on the acceptance of such petition or on the resolution of intent by the setting of the hearing in accordance with section 31-12-108 is taken within ninety days after the said filings if an annexation procedure initiated by petition for annexation is then completed within the one hundred fifty days next following the effective date of the resolution accepting the petition and setting the hearing date and if an annexation procedure initiated by resolution of intent or by petition for an annexation election is prosecuted without unreasonable delay after the effective date of the resolution setting the hearing date. d. As to any annexation which will result in the detachment of area from any school district and the attachment of the same to another school district, no annexation pursuant to section 31-12-106 or annexation petition or petition for an annexation election pursuant to section 31- 12-107 is valid unless accompanied by a resolution of the board of directors of the school district to which such area will be attached approving such annexation. e. (I) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph (e), no annexation may take place that would have the effect of extending a municipal boundary more than three miles in any direction from any point of such municipal boundary in any one year. Within said three-mile area, the contiguity required by section 31-12-104 (1) (a) may be achieved by annexing a platted street or alley, a public or private right-of-way, a public or private transportation right- of-way or area, or a lake, reservoir, stream, or other natural or artificial waterway. Prior to completion of any annexation within the three-mile area, the municipality shall have in place a plan for that area that generally describes the proposed location, character, and extent of streets, subways, bridges, waterways, waterfronts, parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks, aviation fields, other public ways, grounds, open spaces, public utilities, and terminals for water, light, sanitation, transportation, and power to be provided by the municipality and the proposed land uses for the area. Such plan shall be updated at least once annually. Such three-mile limit may be exceeded if such limit would have the effect of dividing a parcel of property held in identical ownership if at least fifty percent of the property is within the three- mile limit. In such event, the entire property held in identical ownership may be annexed in any one year without regard to such mileage limitation. Such three-mile limit may also be exceeded for the annexation of an enterprise zone. (II) Prior to completion of an annexation in which the contiguity required by section 31-12-104 (1) (a) is achieved pursuant to subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (e), the municipality shall bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 22 of 44 r guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request annex any of the following parcels that abut a platted street or alley, a public or private right- of-way, a public or private transportation right-of-way or area, or a lake, reservoir, stream, or other natural or artificial waterway, where the parcel satisfies all of the eligibility requirements pursuant to section 31-12-104 and for which an annexation petition has been received by the municipality no later .than forty-five days prior to the date of the hearing set pursuant to section 31-12-108 (1): (a) Any parcel of property that has an individual schedule number for county tax filing purposes upon the petition of the owner of such parcel; (b) Any subdivision that consists of only one subdivision filing upon the petition of the requisite number of property owners within the subdivision as determined pursuant to section 31-12-107; and (c) Any subdivision filing within a subdivision that consists of more than one subdivision filing upon the petition of the requisite number of property owners within the subdivision filing as determined pursuant to section 31-12-107. (e.1) The parcels described in subparagraph (II) of paragraph (e) of this subsection (1) shall be annexed under .the same or substantially similar terms and conditions and considered at the same hearing and in the same impact report as the initial annexation in which the contiguity required by section 31-12-104 (1) (a) is achieved by annexing a platted street or alley, a public or private right-of-way, a public or private transportation right-of-way or area, or a lake, reservoir, stream, or other natural or artificial waterway. Impacts of the annexation upon the parcels described in subparagraph (II) of paragraph (e) of this subsection (1) that abut such platted street or alley, public or private right-of-way, public or private transportation right-of-way or area, or lake, reservoir, stream, or other natural or artificial waterway shall be considered in the impact report required by section 31-12-108.5. As part of the same hearing, the municipality shall consider and decide upon any petition for annexation of any parcel of property having an individual schedule number for county tax filing purposes, which petition. was received not later than forty-five days prior to the hearing date, where the parcel abuts any parcel described in subparagraph (II) of paragraph (e) of this subsection (1) and where the parcel otherwise satisfies all of the eligibility requirements of section 31-12-104. (e.3) In connection with any annexation in which the contiguity required by section 31-12-104 (1) (a) is achieved by annexing a platted street or alley, a public or private right-of-way, a public or private transportation right-of-way or area, or a lake, reservoir, stream, or other natural or artificial waterway, upon the latter of ninety days prior to the date of the hearing set pursuant to section 31-12-108 or upon the filing of the annexation petition, the municipality shall provide, by regular mail to the owner of any abutting parcel as reflected in the records of the county assessor, written notice of the annexation and of the landowner's right to petition for annexation pursuant to section 31-12-107. Inadvertent failure to provide such notice shall neither create a cause of action in favor of any landowner nor invalidate any annexation proceeding. (f) In establishing the boundaries of any area proposed to be annexed, if a portion of a platted street or alley is annexed, the entire width of said street or alley shall be included within the area annexed. (g) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (f) of this subsection (1), a municipality shall not deny reasonable access to landowners, owner of an easement, or the owner of a franchise adjoining a platted street or alley which has been annexed by the municipality but is not bounded on both sides by the municipality. (h) The execution by any municipality of a power of attorney for real estate located within an unincorporated area shall not be construed to comply with the election provisions of this bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 23 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request article for purposes of annexing such unincorporated area. Such annexation shall be valid only upon compliance with the procedures set forth in this article. RESPONSE: None of the limitations described above are applicable to this annexation request. LOCAL ANNEXATION CRITERIA AACP Compliance Annexation requests should be reviewed for compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). Annexation of certain lands could facilitate accomplishment of the plan's goals, objectives, or specific action items. Newly annexed properties should be assigned zoning supporting public policy directives of the AACP. RESPONSE: The Future Land Use Composite Map indicates that the property should be a residential land use. The property is also located within the Urban Growth Boundary. The city zone district that would best support the AACP's policy directives for the residential land use designation is the R-1 S district. The Transportation Improvements Map envisions the portion of Seventh Street immediately adjacent to the property (between Hopkins Avenue and Main Street) to be closed as a part of the Entrance to Aspen Improvements. The proposed annexation meets the goals and objectives of the AACP's "Managing Growth" chapter in that it contains growth-an existing residence and its potential redevelopment- within the Urban Growth Boundary. The property is served by existing infrastructure, including city water and district sanitary sewer. The "Transportation" chapter contains goals and objectives for encouraging the use of transit, pedestrian and bicycle modes. The proposed annexation area supports this goal because it is located a block from Main Street, the city's primary transit corridor, and immediately adjacent to the Hopkins Avenue bike and pedestrian route. The annexation request proposes to dedicate a portion of the property to the city to allow for pedestrian and bicycle transportation improvements. This lot area is located adjacent to Seventh Street and is illustrated on the "Proposed Dedication" map. The dedication allows the extension of a sidewalk from Hopkins Avenue and Main Street to be constructed by the applicant. The dedication also provides for future trail and street improvements to be constructed by the city sometime in the future. Action items 75, 77 and 78 are addressed with this land dedication. The AACP's "Housing" chapter promotes the development of housing to occur within the Urban Growth Boundary and to reinforce good city form. The proposed annexation supports this goal. The property looks and feels like it is already within the city's limits. It is located on the edge of the city's traditional pattern of blocks and lots. Any redevelopment of the property will comply with the Residential Design Guidelines, further supporting the intent of this goal. Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) The City of Aspen and Pitkin County jointly approved Aspen's Urban Growth Boundary via adoption of the 2000 AACP. The UGB identifies the land surrounding Aspen as either appropriate for urban development (within the UGB) or inappropriate for urban development (outside the UGB). Land within the UGB is expected to become part of the city's urbanized area and should be considered appropriate for annexation. Land outside the UGB should only be annexed as a method of preserving the non-urban character of lands surrounding Aspen. The UGB does not necessarily need to be amended unless the land is intended for an urban level of development. Annexation of land outside the UGB, in fact, may serve a significant public purpose. bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 24 of 44 ) guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request RESPONSE: The property contemplated for annexation is located within the Urban Growth Boundary, is already urbanized and should be considered appropriate for annexation. A portion of the property is already located within city limits. Significant Annexations Changing the regulatory structure and jurisdiction of significant community facilities, large developments, and large tracts of vacant land present considerable potential for community change. These annexation proposals should involve discussion between the Aspen City Council and the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners. A joint work session at which various land use issues are discussed can only benefit the city in it analysis of a significant annexation. For example: properties entitled by the County and annexed into the city can require complex administration of development rights, especially when amendments are requested. Discussing the primary elements of the land use review can simplify administration and provide benefit to the annexing landowner. Likewise, certain annexation proposals may present concerns to other governmental and quasi-governmental agencies with jurisdiction or other interest in the property. As necessary, formal referral comments or work session-format meetings can be held to identify these concerns RESPONSE: The property contemplated for annexation is not considered a significant annexation, as defined~above. Fiscal Impact Analysis The city should fully understand the financial implication of assuming additional lands upon each of its functions. The City Finance Department has modeled fiscal impacts of recent significant annexations and this information has been critical in determining the appropriateness of annexation. Certain capital improvements may be necessary as well as additional operation and service costs. These need to be balanced with additional special fund revenues that are gained. Pitkin County voters adopted a 2 percent countywide sales tax, including a provision distributing 47 percent of the tax proceeds to Pitkin County and 53 percent to the City of Aspen. At some point, the distribution of countywide sales tax may need to be reconsidered as more service responsibilities shift to the city. RESPONSE: Again, the property proposed for annexation is not considered significant and will not require a fiscal impact analysis as described above. Further, the property is already developed and is served by city water and district sanitary sewer. The property is located on Seventh Street and will not require additional infrastructure improvements that could cause a fiscal burden on the city. The city will benefit by the application of the Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) on the property for all future transactions. The city will also benefit if the property is redeveloped as the various impact fees assessed at building permit issuance will be in effect. Development Rights/Zoning Development rights associated with a property in Pitkin County versus those if the property is annexed into the City of Aspen should be considered. Annexations are typically associated with a proposal to further develop the property. Traditionally, the city weighs an increase in development rights in relation to accomplishment towards community goals available through annexation. A complete understanding of a property's development potential, prior to annexation, should include a zoning build-out analysis considering regulatory limitations, such as growth management and impact fees, and regulatory incentives, such as the use of Transferable bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 25 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request Development Rights. The public policy of such regulations and the impact of changing the regulatory structure upon the city should be considered. Zoning of newly annexed land should approximate development rights prior to annexation, unless asite-specific development plan is approved concurrent with annexation. The creation of non-conformities should be avoided, although custom legislation to address special interests can further complicate the city's regulatory environment. The city should encourage the legalization of "bandit units" through the city's Accessory Dwelling Unit provisions to ensure compliance with the health and safety standards of the Uniform Building Code. These units should be expected in older subdivisions surrounding Aspen. RESPONSE: The subject property is currently zoned R-IS in Pitkin County. The current development condition of the property is summarized below: General Information Name Lot 3 of Adams Subdivision Zone District R-15 Moderate Density Residential Use Single-family residence Special Considerations Pre-Existing Lot (created prior to June 12, 1978) and located within the Urban Growth Boundary Dimensional Information Total Lot Area 33, 945 sf Minimum Lot Size 15,000 sf Front Setback 30 ft Side Setback 10 ft (if lot size is less than 30,000 sf) Rear Setback 10 ft (if lot size is less than 30,000 sf) Principal Building Height 28 ft Accessory Building Height 20 ft Lot for Floor Area 29,565 sf Floor Area Ratio .16 Gross Exemption 5,750 sf Existing Gross Floor Area 4,470 sf (per Building Permit application, dated July 1989) Potential Floor Area 8,470 sf (existing gross floor area plus 4,000 sf with use of TDRs) Floor area exemptions allowed in the county include: • Crawl spaces if less than 5'6"height. • Subgrade space if no walkouts, no deeper than 20 feet and no more than a single story. • Garage up to 750 sf. Transferable development rights (TDRs) can be purchased to allow using these floor area exemptions. TDRs on the current market are available for $300,000 in 2,500-square foot increments. No special review is required for the use of TDRs. With the purchase and use of TDRs, the property's ultimate floor area could be 8,470sf. Pitkin County Transferable Development Rights Certain lands in the County within the city's annexation area are eligible for increased development rights through the extinguishment of transferable development rights (TDRs). Certain site specific approvals granted in Pitkin County may involve or require the use of TDRs. And, certain development may have already occurred by use of these TDRs necessitating acknowledgement of the realized increased development right. bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 26 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request Until the city adopts a program for accepting Pitkin County transferable development rights, each individual annexation request should include an analysis of TDR-contingent land use scenarios and, if necessary, an agreement should be reached describing the future use of Pitkin County TDRs within the newly annexed area. RESPONSE: The development potential described above identifies the opportunity to use one or more TDRs if the property remains in the county. The proposed annexation request does not contemplate the use of Pitkin County TDRs once annexed into the city. Usefulness and appropriateness of each jurisdiction's regulations As Aspen city limits expand beyond the original townsite, the effects of environmental constraints and hazards on .development increase. Pitkin County's 1041 regulations address development on steep slopes, in wildfire hazard areas, in rockfall and avalanche hazard areas, and within wildlife corridors. The city's Environmentally Sensitive Area review standards address flood hazard areas and development above the 8,040-foot elevation. The County's regulations primarily attempt to minimize land use intensity and minimize the infrastructure and operational effects of development. The city's land use code encourages the intense use of land and addresses urban development issues, such as architectural character. In transition areas, the city's PUD regulations should be used to establish an appropriate balance. Design standards for public improvements also reflect the rural and urban aspect of each jurisdiction. The appropriateness of each.jurisdiction's development regulations and design standards should be considered in each annexation. The acceptance of substandard public improvements and potential public costs of upgrading those facilities should also be considered. The city may require certain facilities be upgraded prior to annexation. Alternatively, the city may require a cash payment to accommodate expected city capital improvement and operational expenses. The city currently has no experience administering remote backcountry and Forest Service lands. These lands could require significant changes to the city's emergency services. The public costs of annexing remote lands should be considered in relation to the public goals of such an action. Aspen recently adopted the Ski Area Base (SKI) Zone District to administer development at the base of ski areas. The zoning provides for a mixture of skiing, recreational, commercial, and tourist-oriented uses and requires adoption of a Planned Unit Development. This zoning was applied to Aspen Highlands Base Village and may be appropriate for the Buttermilk Ski Area base, upon annexation. RESPONSE: The area proposed for annexation is not affected by Pitkin County's 104iregulations. It is located outside of steep slopes, wildfire hazard areas, rockfall and avalanche hazard areas and wildlife corridors. It is also not encumbered by the city regulated. flood hazard areas or 8040-line development review. The property is immediately adjacent to the original townsite and its distinct block and lot form. Any redevelopment of the property, once annexed, will comply with city residential design standards ensuring the compatibility of its architectural character. The property is already served by city infrastructure provided within the Seventh Street and Hopkins Avenue rights-of--way and no upgrades are anticipated. Infrastructure and Ability to Serve Annexation reviews typically focus a great deal of fiscal analysis on the potential extension of urban services to annexed territories. Cost, capacity, and engineering issues related bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 27 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request extension of the. city's municipal water system to developing land on the urban fringe is a significant annexation issue. Currently, there are several small water districts serving residences located outside the city's boundaries but within the service area of the water system. These small districts may present a problem for the city as their capital facilities may not be providing acceptable standards of service. Upgrading is expensive, and may become the responsibility of the city following annexation. The County does not currently require new periphery development to join the city's municipal water system. However, these county development proposals must be reviewed by the City Council and found in compliance with the AACP in order to obtain city water service. In these cases, the city often requires compliance with city development regulations. Property owners developing a property eligible for annexation should consult the city's Community Development Department and consider annexation. RESPONSE: The property proposed for annexation is already served by city municipal water and district sanitary sewer service. No extensions of service are being requested. Simplicity of City Boundary The city/county boundary has created confusion for citizens and staff responsible for enforcing public policy. A complex boundary can complicate emergency service provision and, in extreme cases, defeat efforts of city police officers. Annexations simplifying the boundary should be encouraged while those further complicating the division should be avoided. RESPONSE; The annexation of the proposed property will help eliminate the city/county boundary confusion that exists today along Seventh Street. As stated earlier, the subject property looks and feels like it is already a part of the city. A portion of the property is already contained within the city's limits. An added benefit to the city, if this property is annexed, is the ability to annex similarly constrained properties in the future. The remaining county properties located immediately adjacent and to the west of this property also appear to be a part of the city and are already served by municipal services. bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 28 of 44 a~ C 0 0 x a~ c c io v +~ v a~ L +J r c N N T 7 m ,~...,,....o.n, ~..t...... ~ ~.._,.r, _,~. ~....~.~.. ~aa~~s y~uanas •W ~ °o ~ ~ i~. ® N ~S J v w 0 rn N O O N L v' O +,. U O d' N O O N m 7 L .n V-. C N N L Ql _7 U L a ro L Q1 v N c co a~ 0 a 0 L m ~ ! ~ 8 F Z ~ N ^ Q .-1 v ~ N r guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools and emergency medical facilities. RESPONSE: The subject property is developed with asingle-family residence, and is already served by public facilities including municipal water and district sanitation utilities. The applicant is contemplating a remodel or reconstruction of the existing residence. No increase in demand for these services is anticipated. At the time of'building permit processing all city fees, including school and parks mitigation, will be captured. An existing ditch crosses the property and will not be adversely affected by the proposed amendment. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. RESPONSE: If approved, the proposed amendment will not create adverse impacts on the natural environment. Although located within an area of potentially steep slopes as identified by Pitkin County the lot is very flat with slopes of less than 10 percent. The lot is located outside of any city regulated environmentally sensitive areas. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the city. RESPONSE: The proposed amendment to the R-15 zone district ensures that the property is consistent and compatible with the city's community character. In its current condition, the subject property looks and feels like it is already located within the city limits. Following annexation, any remodel or reconstruction of the existing single-family residence will be required to be designed according to the city's residential design standards which will further enable consistency and compatibility. .The R-15 zone district's intent is to provide areas for long-term residential purposes and has been used to amend neighboring properties as they were annexed into the city. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. RESPONSE: The applicant is proposing two actions in this request. The first is to annex the subject property into the City of Aspen. In 2000, the neighboring Sanddunes LP property was annexed into the city limits. In a meeting regarding this application, the City Attorney expressed an interest in creating the ability for the remaining Pitkin County properties located in this area to be annexed into the city. The successful annexation of this property will create the required boundary contiguity to allow the remaining properties to be considered for annexation. . Establishing an initial zoning is required as a part of an annexation. The recent successful annexation of the neighboring Sanddunes LP property was designated R-15. The properties immediately surrounding the subject parcel are zoned County and City R-I5, both moderate density residential, and AH PUD, a higher density district intended for affordable housing. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. RESPONSE: The applicant does not believe that the proposed amendment will be in conflict with the public interest or the purpose and intent of the city's Land Use Code. The proposed amendment is required by Colorado statute to occur in concert with the proposed annexation. The proposed R-15 zone designation will ensure the compatibility of the property with its bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 39 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request RESPONSE: The proposed amendment supports all elements of the Aspen Area Community P/an (AACP), and in particular, the future land use, growth management, transportation and housing elements. The Future Land Use Composite Map indicates that the property should be a residential land use. The property is also located within the Urban Growth Boundary. The city zone district that would best support the AACP's policy directives for the residential land use designation is the R-YS district. The Transportation Improvements Map envisions the portion of Seventh Street immediately adjacent to the property (between Hopkins Avenue and Main Street) to be closed as a part of the Entrance to Aspen Improvements. The proposed annexation meets the goals and objectives of the AACP's "Managing Growth" chapter in that it contains growth-an existing residence and its potential redevelopment- within the Urban Growth Boundary. The property is served by existing infrastructure, including city water and district sanitary sewer. The "Transportation" chapter contains goals and objectives for encouraging the use of transit, pedestrian and bicycle modes. The proposed annexation area supports this goal because it is located a block from Main Street, the city's primary transit corridor, and immediately adjacent to the Hopkins Avenue bike and pedestrian route. The dedication to the city of a portion of the property will allow for the extension of a sidewalk from Hopkins Avenue and Main Street. The applicant is proposing to construct this sidewalk as a part of this request. The dedicated land area also presents opportunities to the city for improving the Hopkins Avenue bikeway and for improving the street and drainage system. Action items 75, 77 and 78 will be addressed with this land dedication. The applicant is committed to working with the city engineering and parks department staff to maximize the opportunities presented by this land dedication. The AACP's "Housing" chapter promotes the development of housing to occur within the Urban Growth Boundary and to reinforce good city form. The proposed annexation supports this goal. The property looks and feels like it is already within the city's limits. It is located on the edge of the city's traditional pattern of blocks and lots. Any redevelopment of the property will comply with the Residential Design Guidelines, further supporting the intent of this goal. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. RESPONSE: The proposed zone designation increases the subject property's compatibility. The surrounding city zone districts are R-15 or the more intensive AH-PUD designation. The surrounding city land uses include single-family residential, duplex residential and multi-family residential. The transition the proposed amendment would create to Pitkin County zone districts and land uses is identical to the transition created by the Sanddunes LP property located immediately next door on South Seventh Street. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. RESPONSE: The subject parcel has an existing driveway onto South Seventh Street. The property also includes a private access easement for a driveway servicing three developed properties located immediately to the west-Lots 1 and 2 of the Adams Subdivision and Lot 2 of Sanddunes LP. The proposed amendment will not increase traffic generated or decrease road safety. As a part of the request for annexation, the applicant is offering a land dedication and pedestrian improvements to the City of Aspen to.greatly improve road safety. bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 38 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request C. General statement on zoning request/vicinity map The applicant proposes an initial zoning of the property, once annexed into the City of Aspen, of R-15- moderate density residential. A zone designation of R-15 is the most appropriate zone district because the surrounding neighborhood is currently zoned County and City R-15 and City AH-PUD, and the property conforms to the dimensional requirements of the city's R- 15 zone district. The vicinity map below identifies the subject parcel and illustrates the neighboring zone districts. The intent of the R-15 zone district is to provide areas for long-term residential purposes with customary accessory uses. Lands in the R-15 zone district typically- consist of additions to the city town site. This zone district designation was applied to the 2000 annexation of the Sanddunes LP parcel, located immediately adjacent to the subject property. In approving this previous annexation and recommended zoning, the city found that R-15 zone designation was the most compatible classification for the neighborhood and the transition from the city town site to Pitkin County. The proposed zoning map, included at the end of this section, illustrates the applicant's request for the R-15 zone designation. The responses to the following review criteria support this request. Section 26.310.040 Review Standards A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. RESPONSE: The proposed zone designation of R-15 is not in conflict with any applicable portions of the Land Use Code. The zone designation is the most appropriate for the property in that the intent is to provide areas for long-term residential purposes and customary accessory uses. The property is located immediately adjacent to city R-15 zoned properties, and is located directly across the street from properties zoned and developed for the more intensive purposes of AH-PUD. This request does not represent new land use policy or a change in policy for the City of Aspen. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 37 of 44 city of aspen zoning/vicinity map guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request To apply, submit the following information: 1. Total Deposit for review of application. 2. Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 3. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 4. Completed Land Use Application (as applicable) and Annexation Petition. 5. Signed fee agreement (if applicable -there is no fee associated with submitting a petition for annexation and if staff initiates the zoning of the property; however, if the applicant submits the request for zoning the fee is $2,940.00). 6. Pre-application Conference Summary. 7. An 8 1/2" x it"vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. 8. Proof of ownership. 9. An annexation plat. 10. A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how a proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. 11. All other materials required pursuant to the specific submittal requirements.. 12. A site improvement survey that includes all existing natural and man-made site features. 13. 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. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 36 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request B. Pre-application conference summary CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Jennifer Phelan, 429-2754 DATE: 1/28/08 PROJECT: 201 S. 7th Street REPRESENTATIVE: Sheri Sanzone, Bluegreen OWNER: Guyasuta Seventh Street LLC APPLICATION TYPE: Annexation DESCRIPTION: The owner of the property, currently located in Pitkin County, is considering annexing into the City of Aspen. Annexation is governed by Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS 31-12-102 et.seq.). An overview of the annexation process and an example petition for annexation can be found at: http•//www as~en~itkin com/pdfs/depts/41/annex plan pdf It is important to note that a property's perimeter boundary must have a minimum amount of contiguity with the City's boundary to be able to annex and that the subject property is urban or is urbanizing and is capable of being integrated and serviced (utilities, etc.) by the City. The applicant may wish to schedule a development review committee meeting to understand if any improvements would be required of the property as part of an annexation agreement prior to submitting a petition for application. If the Applicant is not securing any development approvals in conjunction with the annexation (other than zoning of the property) it .will be important to include a summary in the annexation proposal on the existing development potential of the subject property within the County compared to the development potential within the City. Once an annexation petition is filed with the City Clerk, the City (through the City Attorney's office) initiates the annexation process as outlined in the City's Annexation Plan. As part of the annexation process, the City concurrently initiates zoning of the property to a City zone district. Land Use Code Section(sl 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures (as applicable) 26.310 Amendments to Text and Zone District Map CRS 31-12-102 et.seq. (The City follows Colorado Revised Statutes with annexation) Review By: -Staff for complete application - Referral agencies for technical considerations - City Council for the annexation process - Planning and Zoning Commission for a recommendation on the zone district designation of the property to City Council Public Hearing: Yes at City Council and P & Z Planning Fees: $2,940 Deposit for 12 hours of staff time (additional staff time required is billed at $245 per hour) associated with applicant initiated zoning of subject property Total Deposit: $2,940.00 Total Number of Application Copies: 4 copies of petition and map (state requirement) 20 copies of zoning (Map Amendment) application bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 35 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and Guyasuta Seventh Street LLC (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for annexation and zoning map amendment (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 {Series of 2000) establishes a fee structure far Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 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 makes payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be bided to APPLICANT an a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present suffiaent information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings far project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of [he CITY's waiver of its right to tolled full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shalt pay an initial deposit in the amount of $2,940 which is for 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: Jennifer Phelan Community Bevelopment Deputy Director APPLICANT ,- B +:~~, ~ ~~.. r` ce Weiner Guyasuta Seventh Stre LLC Date: ~`y" 0~ Bill To: 139 Freeport Road, Suite 200 Pittsburgh PA 15215 (412)782-0200 bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 34 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request V. Initial Zoning A. Completed application form 1PPLICANT: Name: Guyasuta Seventh Street LLC Location: 201 South Seventh Street, Lot 3 Adams Subdivision Parcel ID# : 273512315003 tEPRESENTATIVE: Name: Sheri Sanzone Location: Bluegreen, 300 South Spring St. Suite 202 Aspen, CO' 81611 Phone #: 970-429-7499 ~R07ECT: Name: Guyasuta Seventh Street LLC Annexation Request Location: 201 South Seventh Street, Lot 3 Adams Subdivision Phone #: N/A TYPE OF APPLICATION (olease cnecK all that a ^ 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 ^ Historic Designation ^ ESA-8040 Greenline, Stream, Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, Mountain View Plane ^ Lot Split ^ Temporary Use ^ Other: ^ Lot Line Adjustment ® Text/Map Amendment :XISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) Lot 3 of Adams Subdivision is located in both Pitkin County and the City of Aspen and is currently zoned County R-15 for moderate density residential areas. Lot is improved with a single-family residence and is served by municipal utilities. >ROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Request to be annexed completely within the City of Aspen and to establish city zoning under the R-15 district for moderate density residential areas. Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ 2.940.00 ® Pre-Application Conference Summary ® Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement N/A Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form ® Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements-Including Written Responses to Review Standards All plans that are larger than 8.5" x ii" must be folded and a floppy disk with an electronic copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 33 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request County v City Development Conditions Total Lot Area Lot Area for Calculating Floor Area Allowed/Grandfathered Floor Area Potential Floor Area (w/TDRs) County City Single Family City Duplex 33,945 sf 33,945 sf 33,945 sf 23,835 sf 33,945 sf 33,945 sf 4,470 sf 5,636.7 sf 6,056.7 sf 8,467 sf 5,886.7 sf 6,306.7 sf bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 32 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request The County's R-15 zone designation includes a .16 floor area ratio, which as described above, sets a cap of 3,814 square feet. The district also includes a floor area exemption of up to 5,750 square feet. In addition to the grandfathered floor area described above, the applicant has the ability to construct up to 4,000 square feet of additional space through the use of a Transferable Development Right (TDR). A TDR provides up to 2,500 square feet of floor area. This would enable the construction of up to 8,470 square feet of floor area. More than one TDR may be used. The County's floor area calculation exemptions include: • Crawl spaces if less than 5'6" in height. • Subgrade space if no walkouts, no deeper than 20 feet and no more than a single story. • Garage space up to 750 square feet. City of Aspen Development Rights The permitted uses under the County's R-15 zone district include: • Detached residential dwelling. • Duplex residences. • Two detached residential dwellings. • Customary accessory uses. The minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet would allow the creation of two lots, combined with the GMQS process, or the creation of two single-family residences or a duplex residence on a single lot. The total floor area allowed in the city's R-15 zone district for a single family residence is 5,636.7 square feet, and for a duplex is 6056.7 square feet. The city's floor area calculation exemptions are more restrictive in many ways compared to the County's exemptions and include: • Decks, balconies, stairways, gazebos (unless total area exceeds 15 percent of allowed floor area). • Porches and landscaped terraces. • Garage space up to 250 square feet, 251-500 square feet of space is discounted 50 percent. • Subgrade space if completely below grade, otherwise percent of exposed wall deducted from allowed floor area. • Linked pavilion if no more than one-story tall, 6-feet wide and 10-feet long. TDRs in increments of 250 square feet are available through the city's historic preservation program. One may be used per residence. Any potential remodel or redevelopment of the property would be required to comply with the city's residential design standards. The County does not include a design review of this level of depth and specificity. Summary A comparison of the county versus city development rights is summarized below. bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 31 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request IV. Development Rights Summary Pitkin County Current Conditions The subject property is currently zoned R-15 in Pitkin County. The intent of this designation is to provide areas for moderate density, single-family residential dwelling units with customary accessory uses. This district designation can only be used on properties located adjacent to the City of Aspen. The minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet. The lot area is 33,945 square feet. The allowable floor area is 3,814 square feet. The current residence's floor area is approximately 4,470 square feet. The amount of floor area which exceeds that allowed is grandfathered in Pitkin County. The following chart summarizes the lot's current development conditions. Current Development Conditions Total Lot Area 33,945 sf Lot Area for Calculating Floor Area 23,835 sf Existing Floor Area 4,470 sf Allowed Floor Area 3,814 sf Grandfathered Floor Area 656 sf A lot line adjustment and minor plat amendment was approved in 2000 which transferred 4,380 square feet to the subject parcel from the adjoining Lot 2 of the Sanddunes Subdivision. A condition of this approval is that the additional lot area cannot be used to increase the allowable floor area of the subject parcel. This reduces the lot area for purposes of determining floor area to 29,565 square feet. Easements exist on the property and per county guidelines further reduce the lot area by 5,780 square feet. The lot size for purposes of calculating allowed floor area is 23,835 square feet. The two driveway easements provide access to three improved lots located to the west of the subject parcel. An approximately 2,940 square foot area located along the lot's eastern boundary is the subject of a warranty deed. This deed was created to convey the land to Pitkin County in the event the county would initiate improvements to Seventh Street. The deed was recorded in 1988 but the land is still legally considered a part of the subject parcel. The applicant proposes to dedicate the warranty deed area, plus additional lot area, to the city for similar purposes as a part of the annexation request. In 2003, the city annexed a portion of this area, along with Seventh Street and Hopkins Avenue, in the Seventh Street/Hopkins Avenue Corridor annexation. Since the Seventh Street corridor is now completely contained within the city limits, it is more appropriate that the warranty deed be conveyed to the city. The applicant requests that the area of the dedicated land still be included in the lot area for purposes of calculating floor area. Pitkin County Development Rights The permitted uses under the County's R-15 zone district include: • Single-family residences. • Customary accessory uses. The minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet would allow the creation of two lots, combined with the GMQS process or the purchase of a Transferable Development Right (TDR). bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 30 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request surrounding neighborhood. The amendment will also be consistent with the action taken by the city in the recent Sanddunes LP annexation and initial zoning. Elements of the AACP will be met with the proposed amendment, and in particular, the future /and use, growth, housing and transportation elements. bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 40 of 44 6 0 m x v c c ,o U ++ N L Y L a-+ C N N ,O 7 t0 T 7 O~ ~~~~~ L U (0 ate-, (0 N .n O U N .~ w O N u C v 3 a ~a E rn c .~ 0 N U N O a O L a !(/ a' Z ~^v Q ~~~\ ,. ,.;. \, ~~ `'` .., j~ls l/y~^~S 4! Z J ~~ ti~ ~~. ~, \ ~ l ~ i ~~ ~~ ~ / ~ .. O ! , \ ~` ~' Ub oc I ~ , \\ \ , : ~~\\\\\;;~\ 1 I, ~\ \~• ~~ 1 1 \ -- ~_. ~ ~_~ , J '~ b ~~. /~ ~~~ ~~~- ~~ ~ ~ ~I~ ® T' ~ i J ~'. v v a O O N L 'O O U O d' N N 0 0 N I ~ f0 7 L N O c v v v v Q C O Y x N C C m V N v c N N a m 7 to 7 O1 v a~ U f0 f0 a O U N N .~ w u N C O N 7 N Y C~ C 0 L ca C H 4 ~ o N m ~"s s ~ F 8 .y Sa e < ~~#~~ gg~ C ~Yi ~aB ~ Y~~as~~ w = a F:~~~e#~wa w O ~ F W W F y z ~~ s R R i s" _ ~ .~.:~ 3 ~ s _s~: 8~~ s ~ ~` ~ yzj # S w ~~~~43~ i~ ~ ~~ .°.'t ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ 5 d ~ ~~~ ~ _~ a~ € ~~ps! € ~p ~ ` 1 ~ -'S ~ E. ~ Yr ~~ t~ $~ y t` ~ ~~ W ~q~¢4 ~' ~~ FS '~ S £x3's3ts~a 3 i f I ~ a s~a gy ~~ ~~» {~( `~J. s' N~N~ ~ ~'LL$ 5 gas W~~'s t ~ s~ „F rr'rr \ ~ Co ~ 5S8 \ \~~b'o r ~~'9 ~~ W E~ ~ ~ r ~. .~ ~' fro:,, ~ s ~ m: i ~ ' _~^Ij~ _ g ~ '~~ ry t s r ar ~ a /® . kC .. ~~ ~ ~~° W~~ ~ Y N 3 p ~ ~ ~~ _ ,I ~\.. '+~. \, J, ..-. cR~$X ~ xaaro ~....~..~ ~. ~. ~ ~..~. 1 v 0 N d' O O N N ~O U O d' N a~ v w 0 0 N 10 7 L w C v rn a~ W .lLC , The City of Aspen Memorandum City AmarneY~ Cffice TO: Mayor and Members of Council FROM: Tara L. Nelson, Sr. Paralegal THRU: John P. Worcester, City Attorney DATE OF MEMO: November 17, 2008 MEETING DATE: November 24, 2008 RE: Ordinance No. Series 2008 -Fee Increases, First Reading REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Attached for your consideration and review is a proposed ordinance that, if approved, would increase the fees charged for certain services provided by City Departments. Appended hereto please find individual memoranda from the Department Heads proposing fee increases for 2009. The Finance Department has provided a spreadsheet depicting the 2008 current fee, 2009 proposed fee, and percentage increase if applicable. The Fee Ordinance maintains the City's policy of requiring consumers and users of its programs and services to pay fees that are deemed fair and appropriate for the costs of providing such programs and services. DISCUSSION: Each department has provided discussion in their respective departmental memorandums, please review their attached memos. FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: The increased revenues associated with these fee increases have been factored in the current budget and will affect future year budgets by increasing the baseline revenues from which future revenues are forecasted from. There will be no budget amendment necessary. Community Development Department issued a Request for Proposals for professional services in the first quarter of 2008 to complete a comprehensive study on the fees that Community Development is currently charging. That study should be complete in December of this year and you should see Community Development recommendations for additional changes at a later date. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Ordinance # ~~ 2008 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -Financial Spreadsheet ORDINANCE NO. ~© Series of 2008 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO INCREASE CERTAIN MUNICIPAL FEES WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a policy of requiring consumers and users of the miscellaneous City of Aspen programs and services to pay fees that fairly approximate the costs of providing such programs and services; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that certain fees currently in effect do not raise revenues sufficient to pay for the attendant costs of providing said programs and services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Qertinn 1 That Section 2.12.014 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth Aspen Recreation Department FUN pass fees, is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.12.014 Recreation Department Fun Pass The Recreation Department shall issue Fun Passes that provides access to the holder of such a pass to the following facilities and activities: use of the James E. Moore Pool, public or open skating at the Lewis Ice Arena or Aspen Ice Garden, use of the climbing wall at the Red Brick Recreation Center, fitness classes held at the Red Brick Recreation Center, aquatic fitness classes at the Aspen Recreation Center, tennis court rental and usage at the Aspen Tennis Center. Usage, participation and access to the above activities may be limited to certain times and dates as indicated on the pass. Daily Admission Youth Resident 7.50 Youth Guest 15.00 2 Adult Resident 9.50 Adult Guest 17.00 Senior 7.50 Twilight 5.50 Guest 10 Visit Card 119.00 Monthly Pass Youth Resident 44.00 Reoccurring Youth Resident 38.00 Adult Resident 80.00 Reoccurring Adult Resident 70.00 Family Resident 158.00 Reoccurring Family Resident 142.00 Each Additional 15.00 20 Visit Card Youth Resident 104.00 Adult Resident 156.00 6 Month Pass Youth Resident 210.00 Adult Resident 261.00 Family Resident 569.00 Each Additional 52.00 Annual Pass Youth Resident 379.00 Adult Resident 468.00 Family Resident 1,022.00 Each Additional 103.00 Section 2. That Section 2.12.015 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth Aspen Recreation Center fees, is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.12.015 Aspen Recreation Center Meeting Room rental Nonprofit Use 56.00 For profit use 80.00 Exclusive Use of Facility 3 Aspen Ice Garden (AIG) and Lewis Ice Arena (LIA) For Profit Use Negotiated Non Profit Use Negotiated Section 3. That Section 2.12.020 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth certain user fees for the Aspen Ice Garden and Lewis Ice Arena, is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2.12.020 Aspen Ice Garden and Lewis Ice Arena ICE RENTAL & USAGE RATES General Rental & Camps AIG 230.00 LIA 240.00 Adult Non-Profit Prime AIG 193.00 LIA 214.00 Adult Non-Profit Non-Prime Ice AIG 183.00 LIA 203.00 Youth Non-Profit Prime Ice AIG 188.00 LIA 203.00 Youth Non-Profit Non-Prime Ice AIG 172.00 LIA 188.00 Skate Sharpening 6.50 Pick Up Hockey One time 13.50 10 Punch 114.00 Free Style Sessions 10.50 4 Free Style 20 Punch Pass 155.00 Skating Classes 12.50 LOCKER RENTAL Annually 250.00 Monthly 26.00 Weekly Camps 15.50 Section 4. That Section 2.12.030 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth leisure and recreation user fees, is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.12.030 James E. Moore Pool Youth Swimming Lessons Pass Holder Non Pass Holder Private Swim Lessons Pass Holder Non Pass Holder Kayak Roll Sessions Water Polo Drop Ins Masters Swim Drop In Rentals 56.00 74.00 30.00 40.00 5.50 plus admission 3.50 plus admission 3.50 plus admission Entire Aquatic Facility for Profit 223.00 Entire Aquatic Facility Non-Profit-Adult 180.00 Entire Aquatic Facility Non-Profit-Youth 157.00 Single Pool Rate For Profit 84.00 Single Pool Rate Non-Profit 74.00 Single Lane Rental in Lap Pool Non-Profit 15.50 Single Lane Rental Lap Pool -For Profit 17.50 Section 5. That Section 2.12.040 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth leisure and recreation user fees, is hereby amended to read as follows: 5 2.12.040 Miscellaneous leisure and recreation fees GYMNASTICS Beginner 64.00 Beginner 2 days/week 111.00 Intermediate 86.00 Intermediate 2 days/week 134.00 Beginner Boys 55.50 Beginner Boys 2 days/week 88.50 Intermediate Boys 86.50 Intermediate Boys 2 days/week 134.00 Advanced Boys 134.00 Super Tots (4-5 yrs) 50.50 Hot Shots 142.00 Leve14, 5 & 6 - 3 days/week 190.00 Level 4, 5 & 6 - 4 days/week 200.00 Leve14, 5 & 6 - 5 days/week 210.00 Levels 7, 8, 9, 10 230.00 Big Air (Teens & Adults) 67.00 Parent/Tot (1.5-3 yrs) 50.00 Tots (3-5 yrs) 50.00 Gymfants (10 mo - 2 yrs) 33.00 Trapeze (1 day/week) 67.00 Gym Rental/hour 57.50 SOFTBALL/BASEBALL Youth Baseball 109.00 Tee-Ball 60.00 Girls Softball 109.00 DAY CAMP Day Camp 31.00/day 1 time activity fee (local) 31.00/day 1 time activity fee (guest) 55.00/day Guest Fee 55.00/day TENNIS Monday/Wed/Friday (6 hours) 77.00 Tuesday/Thursday (4 hours) 56.00 Team (60 hours) 556.00 Tennis Clinics 15.50 Tennis Court Rental Fees 9.50 6 SAILING Sailing 556.00 CLIMBING WALL Beginner Rock Rats 72.00 Boulder Rats 50.00 Intermediate/Advanced Climbing 82.00 Beg. Ages 10+ 58.00 Jr. Rats 29.00 YOUTH INTRAMURALS (50 M Kickball ls`/2°a Grade Kickba113`a/4a' Grade Floor Hockey ls`/2na Grade Floor Hockey 3`a/ 4"' Grade Gym Olympics [NUTES For 5 WEEKS) 45.00 45.00 33.00 33.00 33.00 YOUTH SOCCER Kindergarten (2 hours/week ~a 5 weeks) 46.50 6 to 9 years (3 hours/week @ 6 weeks) 87.50 YOUTH BASKETBALL (Grades 1 though 8) Kindergarten 45.00 (2 hours/week @ 7 weeks) 64.00 TRACK Track 15 & Under 45.00 ADULT PROGRAMS Mens Softball League 915.00 Co-Ed Softball League 775.00 Adult Flag Football 405.00 Mens Basketball 725.00 Mens Soccer 1,004.00 Womens Soccer 555.00 Drop In Basketball 5.00 Drop In Volleyball 5.00 Section 6. That Section 2.12.045 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth Wheeler Opera House fees, is hereby amended to read as follows: 7 2.12.045 Wheeler Opera House. For-Profit Rentors "' REGULAR PERFORMANCE RATE ?' (Also includes rehearsal days) 40% additional per added performance, same day; 60% additional per each additional day. Three-day maximum in-season, four off- season. ' PRIVATE EVENTS/Non-Corporate $750 per day PRIVATE EVENTS/Non-Corporate/ ~' $750 per day, Christmas -New Year's Week only plus $1,000 contribution to Wheeler Endowment Fund PRIVATE EVENTS/Corporate ' $1,150 per day or per performance PRIVATE EVENTS/Corporate/ Christmas -New Year's Week only $750 per day $750 per day, plus $1,000 contribution to Wheeler Endowment Fund N/A $1,150 per day or per performance plus $1,000 contribution to Wheeler Endowment Fund N/A PRNATE MOVIE SCREENINGS ' $750 all-inclusive x $750 all-inclusive (200 (200 patrons or less); patrons or less); $750 plus expenses ( $750 plus expenses (over 200 patrons) (over 200 patrons) ° BOX OFFICE ROYALTY : 5 /° ~of all sales 5% of all sales CREDIT CARD BILLBACK BOX OFFICE TICKET SELLERS (Time beyond 6pm M-Sat; beyond Spm Sun) TICKET PRINTING _~ _ .._........ , ........ ..v.._._ ..... __.......... 3% Visa/Mastercard; j 3% Visa/Mastercard; 4% American 4% American Express Express i $15.50/hour; $15.50/hour; half-hour increments half-hour increments $.085 per ticket $.050 per ticket THEATRE TECHNICIAN RATES $25.00/hour; $23.50/hour; 8 Not For Profit Rentors $250 per day PRODUCTION CO-MANAGER RATES half-hour increments ~ half-hour increments _...._. $32 00/hour; ~ $30.00/hour; half-hour increments ~ half-hour increments TECH MATERIALS AND BACKLINE SUPPLIES AND PIANO TUNINGS At Cost 1999 STEINWAY D (CNA) PIANO RENTAL $300/performance KURZWEIL PC2X 88-KEY KEYBOARD RENTAL '' $150/performance 2008 DW 8-PIECE DRUM KIT RENTAL = $250/performance 1965 REISSUE FENDER AMP RENTAL ` $75/performance 1965 REISSUE FENDER TWIN AMP RENTAL '' $75/performance FENDER TWIN (NEW MODEL) AMP ~'; RENTAL $75/performance AMPEG SVT3-PRO BASS AMP RENTAL ', $75/performance CUSTODIAL CHARGE MARKETING _~ RENTAL DEPOSITS $70/day; maybe more if need demands At Cost $200/performance $100/performance $200/performance $50/performance $50/performance $50/performance $50/performance $50/day; may be more if need demands No charge for ~ No charge for inclusion inclusion in Wheeler ~ in Wheeler website and website and passive r passive print materials print materials Required for first-time or fair-risk rentors only .QPI`.tlnn 7 That Section 2.12.050 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth certain user fees for the Aspen Police Department, is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.12.050 Aspen Police Department Fees LAW ENFORCEMENT RECORDS Accident Reports, per Report 7.00 Case reports per search 7.00 Plus per copied page 0.25 Arrest history and background checks, per search 7.00 9 Microfilm search per page 10.00 Plus per copied page 0.25 Communications logging, search per hour 25.00 Per Audio CD 15.00 Case Report/Accident Photos, per photo CD 15.00 ASPEN POLICE DEPARTMENT Alarm user permit fee 107.00 First false alarm per year 111.00 Second false alarm per year 222.00 Third and fourth false alarm per year 335.00 All bank alarms 355.00 Late fees 12.00 Central alarm license fee 302.00 Vehicle inspection 19.00 Certified VIN inspection 20.00 Off-duty security, per officer, per hour 88.00 Notary fees, per acknowledgement 2.00 DOG VACCINATION AND LICENSE FEES: Annual dog tag fees 16.00 Transfer fee 16.00 Replacement tag 3.50 Section 8. That Section 2.12.051 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth certain user fees for the Engineering, is hereby amended to read as follows Sec. 2.12.051 Engineering Department Fees Encroachment License application and processing fee Vacation application and processing fee Right-of--way permit application and processing fee (waived for sidewalk replacement work) Temporary occupation of ROW under encroachments by commercial operations not associated with construction, including contractors and vendors 353.00 353.00 353.00 $2.50 per sq. ft/month 10 Permanent Encroachment Fee $1,000.00 per permit Temporary occupation of ROW under encroachments within the core by commercial operations associated with construction, including contractors and vendors $5.44/ sq. ft /month Temporary occupation of ROW under encroachments outside of the core by commercial operations associated with construction , including contractors and vendors $2.72/ sq. ft /month Permanent encroachment for earth retention $2.64/cu. ft. per month Map and plan printing $4.00 per copy Qartinn Q That Section 2.12.052 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth certain user fees for the Environmental Health Department, is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2.12.052 Environmental Health Department Fees Special or Temporary Event Plan Review fee 47.00 Special or Temporary Event Inspection fee (if needed) 47.00 Swimming pool plan review fee 79.00 Restaurant Site Inspection Fee 82.00 Food safety training 82.00 -~ Restaurant Plan Review Fee 355.00 Food Service License $154 - $343 Section 10. That Section 2.12.053 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth certain user fees for the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Department, is hereby amended to read as follows: 11 2.12.053 Geographic Information System (GIS) Department Fees. Preprinted Standard Maps Large format (11" x 17") Small format (11" x 17") or less) Custom Mapping Services Mailing Lists Plus $1.07 /per sheet of labels Digital Data Services $27.85 each $10.40 each $139.00 hour $111.00 per search $139.00 minimum charge Section 11. That Section 2.12 of the Aspen Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new section 2.12.130, which section shall read as follows: 2.12.130. Car To Go Carshare Program Fees. The City of Aspen Transportation Department's Carshare program known as the "Car To Go" Program shall charge the following fees: ITEM FEE Application $25.00 Monthly membership $10.00 Hourly usage $4.00-$6.00 Per mile usage $0.25-$0.60/mile Fixed daily rate $70.00-$90.00 Citation fee $25.00 + payment of citation Emergency cleaning $25.00 + cleaning costs Missing/incorrect trip ticket/reservation $25.00 NSF check $30.00 Lost key fee $50.00 Inconvenience (late return) $25.00-$50.00 + applicable taxi fees Low fuel $25.00 ITEM CREDIT Inconvenience $25.00 + applicable taxi fees Referral $25.00 Refuel/Wash $3.00 12 A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of , 2008, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 2008. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this _ day of December, 2008. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 13 (q d N N ~~ Q da c X O LL W ~ a U .B ~'. i i, I ''. '~'.. I I I I. I I I I j I I I 'I ', ' I I I I I I ' '. I I! I, I I I '~ ~ III I I ~ I I ', ~,. i ~I I I I I I I I ~, ~' i III II III II IIII, I III III II I '', I I ', i I ',. I ~ 'I ', 'I I I I I ~ I I, I I, I I", I I I! III I, I I I I IIII I I ~ I ~' I I I I I ~ I I, III I. I i I ~I I I II I I ~ ~. I I I i '' I I I I I I I I ', I I' I III' I IIII '~ I ', I '. ' I II, I I ~ I I. ', ',. I ~. I I ~ I I l C I I Is IO le ~~ • •-IO M Flo OO to I 1p ' I Ie I, to to I IO', ~ to 0 e o o O ' a o to I le to o to ' I d ~ ~O 1~ O i0 O O , M . r N I M iO N ~ O I. O ~ OO C1 ~ ! N Q N IQ O ~ ~ ~ IQ O IM M 1n IM M'V' P'11M MM ~ ` I 'Z' 2 2 I I la CS „ ~ ~ I i I I i I I - I I oo~o I10 O H lo I O o i ~L1 o 10 lo' I O ~ I io O io o I O 0 lo o 0 0 lo 0 lo 0 oo~. lo O O O ololo O O I O io~o olo O O O 10 I1~ N O) NW N h f~ N ~ N Of ~ I V W Y a0 O WK O OD A ~ N a ~ '~ tO O IO I~ I L pf N ~t011010 Of W N IM ~ II~t0N 1O ~'~ ~. N N ~. N N N ~ .N ~. I N NIN I,N IN Itn N NIN IM'.~IO I< ~N IN; ~! W a I I I I ~ I I, I I o u~ lo o lo~n o lio loll l~n. o ~ o 0 lo' to 0 0 io lo; to to l0 0 to 0 I Io l0 lo 0 loio 0l0 lolololo loo o o ) OC I C I G11 ` r N l<IT -,N N O I ~ N r I I ~ N I O r ~ pa h IN.. N IM N ~ 'O O N N IN < 10 N I O 10 pi M 10 N ~ IO N 1n ISO ~ N i i ~, I EO ~ O < N . I{011d 101 O w'w lw l~ N N 3 V I _ I ~ _ 1 I I I -I-_ ~, ~ ' 1 I ..' I I _ I ~ _ III ! 'I. '~ I ~ I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ I '' I ~. '~ ~~I . . I i I I I I • ' C c ~ ~ I I ~ ~ I,9. d I~ I _ I I ` ' O '. H H N jd I ~. I I ' ~ d d L ~ D:' T '~ C d i y C N 7 79 ,.SCI}C Q d d C A"ice d LLId C I C d C d C d C C WI. d C I I C CIC A d ~ d d 7 SS I y i ~ 'O O1 'O C I C I • ~ CIO ' 9 _• N N I'• ~ ! 'O I N I d 'O 'O O " C d~ d 'p 19 ? i O j m Ci C7 H d d 7 .+ =I O ~ L N d IQ.' 7 ~' - Q:, 7 ~~ d'' 'O C' N d R' d ~ d' N d C' m Q.9 ' ' N y y d filar l'O ~ 7~ ~ ~ d V r V~ T, VIQ L I« , O A'Q' I ~ . Ia ~j_',,TQ L 7 • O .71 }" , '. 7 C d.. h '= F 7 ~ '~,~ 7 O, O v d, Q ~ r a ~ O L 3 d0 ', d K I ~ > 'O > I I > 'O L EO OO L I~ EIO I I . O } O, I a ~ s ,, } ~ I . I I} ' IL WI Q }. I Q I LL l0 W ~Q LL;10 W I I ~ ~ I I I I r ~3IDo ",tn T T ~ m .III 0 ~ yl ~ <I o <j of '.. DI a D o-I ~ ' ~1 m II T D m zm ~ DI ~ zA' I p'o ° xl m d W W o ° ~. °' r D c r D ~'.. rD E r D E r D~ N p o a I o n ' ~ '. S_ y I Im ~ ,~ ' 7 119 V] ~ ' Z I Z 1 G C p ~ ~ I . p ~ I " ' NN '.I`[IK N f7 ~p'N IS 3 2I /° ° ,y I p ' I i7 ~ 3 ~, W w'~ W O . ~ ~, . .. ', ~ d NI. rl ~ 'I n ~ i ! ' ~ I ~ I ~ o c c~ H c Im ' _,. i N C N I ,G 7 l , ~!I 'O ' ~ W ~ N O. O I W iIN N .'i1l N I I 7~ I I fG ~ Ol Z ~ 'i 7 7 l I p ' o N S I I I I z III o 3 I I °-' l ~ i T I I mI Qo I 3i I , I i ~ I ' L II p ' I I ~' m o v ' ~' m IC)I I m ~ I. - I IC ' ' .. I I ~ ~I ', I I I 3 ~ ~ . ~ I ' N I. ' '~ ~ '~ '.. ' i '. ~ N II I N I ' N I ' I ' t . i ~ N I . ~ I ' I ' I O ''. ! I ', I ' 'I I I . '~ I W I~ I ', I D i ' ~ I ~. . . '. I I t I ~ ~~, I ' ~ , ! I , ' ' I ., ~ ', Ili ' ' I ~ ' '' ' '. ~ ~. , I ~ I I ~ I, I. I I '' l I I ', 7 ' 'I ' I ' I I I I ~. I ', ' I 'I '. 1 i '. ' ' '' I, ~ ' ~ I ~, ''. i, ~ i I l 1 i i I ~ . , I ' ', ', ~, I I I . I 'I I ' i ', I I I, I ~ I I ' I I 1. I I i i 'i Z Z ~.m ml I . ~ ~ I ' . _ ~ _ C N "' i ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ r I N ±' I N 'I N~ '' o Im I w p MI' M ~~. ~ C ' D ~ ' N .~ ~ O'' « r r M ~ . OD T . i0 OD i0 V ~ I I O'~ 00 W N , • 01 01 I W i71 ~ ~ tl1'fJl Nei OlO ~O W OI N V ' V N. j V, V ' V'. V ' W W 1 m' ml ' I I AAA ' o~o o'o, Ilolo o oloo _oo ~ solo o 0 c o I 0'0, o o oo olo . !o'lol o'o ~ o'o olo olo I I I, ' '~ . ' ~o.io. solo '.olo , I I ' I . III I I ' ~ I I I I I I i I I i I ll I I 1 I l I I I I I Z'.. Z 1 i I ' '' ~ ' I ~ ~ O ~ • N N ~ I I I Ite ite' G la ~ jIM N '~ N V t N ''.M ~ V t~ ~ a _ ji ' ' N tea O~ V a~ N O I m i ~ N A N O m I IM ~ I~~ ', i0 '.an ur '~NIN ' A W ~ II IO ~,~ ' N I w df N G I B 'I V7'. Of O O '',N iT '.O ( O'' ' 'A W C ( ' i T t Oe IiN C I W Oi O O H W Wi O O' I .. AW O O iiO O i I O O ~ W I W ' O O V7 I O 010 0' n N . o olo J1 olo 71 0 I O oio 0 0l , to 0 0 o solo ~ ala I o'o i I i II i I ~ I I I i I I I' ~ I z l l . I I ' I I I l z'z I ' Imo, I wI'.AI~'D I ~o' A'w w':~w ', m; w''.w 'w '..w ~ I Iw w '.w~w'~ ' ~ w 'Iw, ~ - ~ ''. I mo'w ' eoII . w'ol 'N wlo'. oe~6o Iw w.o olw ~ 1. ''.o ~I AIJ o'I =+ I, I I oal ' I .~- o Io s e o Io >° Io o'e ' I~'o a° o' a° ~ a la° I e la I it I I I I I ~! I I i I I II I I I! I II I 'I I I I I I I ' 1 I I I I I III I i I I ! I I I I II i I I I I ~ o °o 1 I ' I vv W ~ I v'v ~': I .91,v I I~IIW I ~ v zl , ~ v `•;II ~I I ! II '1 II '' l I I I I ~ °.'o o l , x:x x x Ix'x' ' __ , Ills I 1 1 I I ' I I I ~ ~ ~ op, ~ o ic'.p' ol0 ~~' 0 oI I, ~. ~ olo ~ ~I~. Io~o ~c,~ ~ 1 plo al,~ v v a~ 1 ~~, mlmi I l ~' In c 3'I o,~ol I I = 1' ! ° ° I° ° I ° ° 10 i'O °~ °~ o o I o'' o m Np~' N I m' I 3 I Iv , ., , -- n ~ , -- o ~ , ~ -- o n , , -- In n ~ --~ III o' I ' ' c c'', . I Ic Ic ' N'IN A' d ~'W I W T' W W ~~ m O O 1 .W I,W ~ -i i i 1 ' I I o'`D I'" 1 3 31 33 I3 3 313 I I ml~ 1 I! l I I 11 Il I I I II I I I o N II I I I I I I I I l I I 1 p W ~ i ~ I I I I im m I w'.~ , i I allm II l II I l 1 i I 11 i I l 11 ', I ~ II I I III I I~ 'I I I I i I I I i I I I I I I I I li ~~ n ~ ~ X T T S m D D m ~ d N N m m a c ~ a c m Q m m o LL T f6 U _a Ill 1 1,11 I I I I I '' I I II I I III I I I III 1 I II I~ I I II 1 1 I I l III II II III I I I IIII I I I II I I II 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I , '' I ' I ' ' C C I p I ' ' '. , ~ , ~. I I I I I 'I II ' I , ' I , I ~, ~ li N N' N I N N N ~ ! '' I I ' : : I I I E.~.~ I I I I I ' ' ' " ' ~ ' 1 1 I ' O O O 7 7' 7 I I T . 7 ', 7, 7 17 T T T I !Q Q'IQI olo o'oloo'o I I ! ! a ala a I I I 1 1 I l ' 11 I 1 '' C,C C ' N N'~NN N.N N''~ I ~ NN. NII d' 1 I o a o 'o olo a ' , I I . . as a a,ala'a I I I 11 I _ I I 1 1 1 - - - I 1 Ivi v',~o I 11 I I I I I I I lls a s ! I I 1 I I , l c ~. i _ c c, 1 I I 11 I II I I I I I I II ! I I I ! 1 it I I I I I III 1 I I I I l I I C io to to n Nl 'O ie 10 e O o to OIO a to o a Ie i I o Io ~Io ie '~ o M IC o 0 I to to ~Ie to l O I ' m i h ~ N O O O N 1~ M M n N MOf 'lp 110 !M '. ~eoln DIM It+10 IO i 1 I , t . I O ! I iM 1" 1"1 < MIN IN M .N M ~M I ' N i~IN IM IM IO I, 11+1 a'aQ a . . B ~ I d , I ~ I Z IZ'Z I IZ I ' I la i ~ I ~ I i ~ I I II I 1 I I o o ~ 0 0 lo lo ' lo o o n ~oo n,1n ~olo olo ololo oio' ~ I to olo olo o n e ,0 0 0 I I lolo:o~oio ~ to to 0 0 0010, to 0 0 0 0 0 bolo 0 0 0 01 0' to I ~ ' 1c v o 0 11i ai i ai ri I o t: ~ a V ~ti I n 11~i I 10 I N , 10 ' d' iri vi vi I m 1 o I m I ~ r 10 I ~ ! 1c I I O n w W M W ~ W W qIW IN IED !N o I 10 CD n nl0 WIK WiW l I NIO 10 N K 10 itD 101M IM 4711q IN iW Iq w lq 110 'N ~ I~ I w w w I I I piK N w p K ~ W I 1 w I 01 O N OI ~ ' 1 I 1 ~ ~ ~ I i i I O N Qj~'~ 0 I, ~ '.. ', ~ '. I ~ : li ~, a I I ' I I I . ~ I I : . : I I 1 ~ 1. . I I ' 70 ~ d O Io '~ i1n IC lo 1 !n o o oo i0 '- l IN IM j 0 0 0 I1e> 1n 1n N M M Wlw! W I to to l0 0 0 0l0 to olo oo olo O~ lV 10 . A n 10 CDIh' I w w ~ ololo of cc N O If1 0/ 10 Of lo o N O ~ °o, V n ' ' oioio°o, °o,!OO, t0 I Of f0 O O O !O H O M M 10 l O . ~} o f ~'' Iw lln l Iw q l wlw ww w ~w1K Mor in N lrn W Q~Q ~Q i~ w wlw w w V! 'Q 1n 'N ' IN I -I-1 7 V 1 , I _- I I 1- - -~ ' - - -- - 1 1~- ~ ~ 212IZ I I i_ - ~ i 12 1 I 1 ' i` I 1 ~ I ' ' I I. ... L '' l o i, - .. . I I ' 9 O O Q-y I a I I , Z ~ ~1' 1 ' I I kl `OO 1''. ~i O; 1 O "a o o ar a a a' cl ci.. - w l d, 1 7 I I N - a m v' 7 1 ' I ~ I ! 1 w o o a'a o O OI a' a w 2j2 I ~ W ' a c o C7 J I I I i ~, ' ad J~J T ~' I ~+ .. C C C, I . y y J J i._ C - '., f1' t t ~ m m 1 ~N C C _ O V G.~ LL Z A . ,W '~C y''- O,p 0 N.N ww C ''yl I I C C'f1~ O O' I a a a.d. .d.. O C LL LLILL a s mal 1~IU d a ~ N-- a - _ >> N I 'O y LO ! .W G Q. , O V V Q. a. KIRK - O i a 10Da d N'. a Il: - J ~. O L J ° t N;Q N t] ~ a /0 a ~. d101 7 7 7 0 O. C C ' 1N d d LL E I~ ~tA ' Y V I GIYm tn E d' a QQ ,p I a'N' O N : E . ~' N E 9 N ; I fq O O a a Q Q O' ' d d J J m m . . a ~ O O l a w N, a: m O O w N N a 0 m i , . ' a C I E O I N l o lE:E om , y a l 3 o L m ° a rn t ' o oy' ~ !m'd,d m,m o ~l~ I N N d > r - a v~ F S lm y c ~y N a la m'N a ~' a - .. -- rn rn a rn i a ~l~ 3 c c EI-' 71~ IR a 7 T m N . I l N = .L„' N C ifO l'N C ~:N .d. .R. C C C C~'~CC 1 W W W . .. 'O '9 'O I d ~ d O„O"O ~ ~ Om a~C C. 1 -~ 7 'ly I a i 2 'a Z R iO:q C .fnfn ln fn ~,Q Q Q~ ~; Q Q C7 t]10 O y~lt C7 to O t> a Y ~i~'. ~~' 1 i I ~ I 1 Il 'Q i ~ i I ICI I ~ i , i I '' I ~ ~' p ~' I I ~ L7 G7 G7 G7G7 L7 G)'G11.L7 G)IG)IL7IIG7IIGIII~I'1 ~ ~" N S~'~ ~~ I ~TITI~ ~'..~. I '1 ~ 1.1 1 -~.-~ Im 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3'3 3'H''m 3 c a'te' c °I 3 0'o x x ~'' ~ a ~'> ;> ;I 1 D 7 7 7 7 7 ', 7 7 7 7 7 7 X 7 7 7 7 d d d d dldld d'.ddd d:~d d d.d 7 S ' C N S i Ita ~ ~ ' S 7" IUlfn S S ~ x x'N N.d F n '~.~ N I N N N N ' 1 N i~ N N I~ N N.N I~IN N Nf N N w 1' .'. o inI ' _ d'd 7' N F olol CI I C! ' ~',~ toi wl~ 31 I 3 ' I `n' ~ I I (~I (~ --11 r1r. IoI m mlm ' i ~ O I C! C! W O C1 C! C! I Cf Cf Cl Cf Cl f1 n ~ ff ~ININ N tl11.NIN N'NNN fA giNINN ~ . i, N•. , iIW' 7C 7C N C . C ~ly 9 T I, I ', C I C '. 7 I d I N N ~ 310 O '' Nlr r r r' D 7 M ~~w7WI~ ~ I W N W N 2' fd ' ,7 N ~ ? ~ N ~ 7 N W A . 7 ' 0 ' O N 7.7 ~ , ~ 0. W N I~,< < < < w C < W N 10110 I W ~' ~ Ito O N D~ fp N N N " ~ d = I ~ 7 I ~ S ~ N O.I O.I C~ ' - W N N N' 7 ' I ' O y I O.' N N N N fn fD 7 0 0 7 7 0' O. 1 7 7 ~ C NN ' ~ ~ I' , V I . O. i, I , , T A N ~ i 6 J i I N C ?~ ~ , . N W VA ~ A,~ '' IN ',N I' ''1 WI l tJ1 N ml i0 Q' N I N I~ II ' O'.,~ I I W ~ ' ~ I ~. 21 N I S T a , O N , E N~ I ~ yC I 71' ~ 'N m I y ~~ I ~ .~ C d I' N' I I , I I. mlm Qo 0,.~ OIO O''. VI % O I A y ' N N N I N S W d ' ' . I '. ' i , ~ I ~ F `~ ~ x ~ ~ I I I I' I I . , I ~, I ' I f I I ~ I I II I x I 'I I I I I II I~ III III I I I I I I I I I I i II I I I I I I I !I I II I I I' I I I I II III I III I II -I i I I I I '. { '. ' N'N I Ii N,~N~NN N N MI I I ' ~ i I I I I Z 'I Z I~ ' I II i ~ I I I I j I li I I I I II I I ~I' I ~'' NI , ~IIC N C I O IO ~ N ~ N M NIN NI N'I.N ~ ~ M ~'NINN+ Wmlm Gn wm O Of A AIw IO1 wl0 t0''m w A w l Dj D I I I NM . Alm'. N M N~. NII N w w W A A I " 'Ni, ~A ' j~N N N N ~A N V ' C W 3 l I NIA i W N ~. N OD i0 O O A W A O A OD N 10 ID '. N OC~C C CC O 0100 O C O C C O 0100 N I N OO N N N ~ A A OCO~OO, I A , I '~C~ tD '. tT . O A N ~C~'C~'O'O O 'O'. O'O O O'. 010 O10'OO10 O O OIO'OIOO I i ~. OIO~ 101010 OO' 'O ~O'O 01010, 'II I ', I I ' I I ' I ' II I ~ ~, I Ili I I III, I I., 'I I III I I I i I ~ ~ ~, ~ ' ~ 'I~ 'I. I ', 'I. ~~ I,, I I I I ~ '. ~ ~ I I, !, I I ~ '' I ',. ~ ~ ~ O ~ I'O ! ~ i N O fO N,N N j r ~ r r N M N ~N'N'N N '~ M '~ N' ~' ~ iNN M IN M~'N ~ NN I MIM N'NIN N. ' IN I j N N NI' Q ' . , Qf I W '~. ~ O tD A' N W W I m m 01 W V, OI,O O ONIO A'I Ailm m OI, A m~ m- ' QI i N O ~A10 O W w 1 I p1 A .Ail (T A' m p1',V l W I W I W A ~. A li Iwlw'I cavil t7~~ A .OBI N N OI V Itp t7~ m OI ~i I IOO'O OOO. O~O~'~. OII OO.O o O Oi OBI 010 1'0 'O O ~ II OI'O IO O~OI OI Of IO.. O O ~OO"~O ~ ~ I ~ I I I ', ~. ~ A '. , 2 Z ~ I ~ i I W :.~'. W A. AN'. W' WII WI W N ~a'.O ~ ~~I eli NA'I tO ~~~ ~~ O N W OD ~ N A N WII NIi N OD N,O O I WI + _ ID D~I I. WI N~'~ fwflm I WII W I W~I N N ~~',W W II N I 'I 'W''I I V11 W, W W N~ ~T'. W.OVI', V' Q iW. 7' M I~Io ',o ~~~o ~o o Io io 'e le die e o ~o o Ilo '~p ' ~a ~ ! Iae ~ ~o io I . ~o 'lo ''.o 'o .a 'e '. I I I I I I I ~ 'III l I II I '. ~ I ~~ O I I i I~ '',i '.. II I I I I ' I I ' I I 13 ' I I I II I I I I I I I I I I ~ '~c N.~ ICe~ I O I I i II ',. ' W ~ lil ~ II !.I I ~ i 7 ~~ W ~a IS '. i ~ II N I ~ ~A m I ~ ~ 'I OIO N W I N i ~ O. F~ `I I S 7". S 1 I I I ~IW N~ N' ~~F, Imo ~ ~I I ~I O'C'C '' I~IO ~' " I I I I I I I I II I ~, ~ I I I I, ~ I 'I II I, I 'I I I II I ~ i it I '' I ~~I. ' '' I d ul I, I ~ ~ I I I I II II I I ~ImI N'F'' d '= II. ~i I ~I Id II ~ ~ I' I I'~ I ',. I i I ' ~~~' I I I I I '. it I 'I IIiI I I II i. '~ I I I I i I 7 ~' (7 m .~ T ~ N ~ n N m ~ d N N f6 C ~ ¢ n c N S] ¢ ~ t O V- W ~m (U a U it I I I I 'I '' I III II ~~I I ~I, ~I:I '' I,. II' I II m', I ~~ ~ I ail :. II I I O I O ~, ~ I !i I I '. ', ' I, '., I ~ ! O. I I ~ m Mp IC . OI. O I I I ~ ~ II m ~ pl CR ~ OI, O I I ~ 'I 'ml ; I Ll,, my U ~ I €, N m ~ O. O it m; m ' I ' I ' ~ . R 'O ~ ' I !Q W m N A l . I ' i. . I Id:, a. I , C: I . O IcE'',a I I ,. m w y,~'',~ Ir I 'w IM M m m : I ' I Id a `i`i o ~I a l M I . I Iw~Im II m ~ o Ia a I ~ ~ v ;MIL I IL I ~ : ' ' I ~ ' y W I ' U ' ~I , m m I ~ ', ' I I I I,. I II ~I. i I I I I~ I I I ~ M ~ o 0 u7 i0 0 t0 0 o P I o P o I o IO 0 A 0 O ~~~ o t O O 'o O ' I e p1 e D a O a le e Of O e ~~ D o O a \ M O I o 0 1~ 0 O C Id N ~Q 1 M N 'I,M r i H1 N ~,, <O ~ <D In {D O n. h O10 O iN C N N M • , N OI ~ M O I ~e- i0 NIO ~ N IM f0 0 2 i ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I i s ~ ~ I I I I 1 O I i O O M ' N IS 0 M N O a0 NI 01 N r O r 1n r A w w O OO w w wI N IM N'~ Ifj : IA 10 r N N lffi Ml N lm N N O Of O N OD OD N w i0 t0 t +7 ~ ~ w w w w w w w I w ww w i. iw w Nw I w l Mw wl Mw w w w w w N ~~', ~ la I ~ I ~' I ~ II ill ~ III I I ~ I LIII I ~ ~ I ! I I ICI I III' II I I. ~ li '', I I II I I i II II _ '. I i i 0' ol O o O O 0 0 O 0 01 oi 0 o I : 01 oi 0 o i0' lol 0101 o'ol 0 o O o~ 01 ol 0 o O' o~ O I ol O 1 o 0 o~ O o O 0 O 0 O 0 O I 0 O I 0 O 1 0 0 in' I 10 1 o 0 ~n I C p p. ~I~ p ~ I I I O A w 0 w O i0 00 ~ ww I OD N w N I 101 w ' iC 10 w ; ~ IC w tG i wI N I I ~ iC S O w' I 'w : N w I ~ N w N w ~ w I a 1 01 w' W I 01 ' w' tD N w In N M w !n ~ M w N w M Of N w h w O N I w IC CD w N w ~ w O w M N 7 ! . ~ ' ~~ * I .. _ __ _ _ - '', I'~ I ~. ~ d I m I ", III I j I 'I I i C I ~ I a I Y ~. ', ~I, V I 'I ~ ~ II I ' I 7 .+ I ' I '., :. ~. ~' I m '. ', m ',. ~: I II ' I ! ~ ~ O C I li ~ I, m i I , '. a ': ~I 7, I, I ' Ism I i m 6 Na ~ I O `~ L I ~ ~ O m 01 O I y A : I C Al m i ~ I I m?~. O~ i I l0 I N m' m' O): d '. m!~C A O": O)'. 01 C ~ ' m :. a t T' C~ ' I ~ LL m C m ~ Q Y t Ic m, i I I I C m ~ m O. N.I a: Ll77 a:O m o. - a I, ~, _ IN M ' m a• , m C ml LL V c m m m a Q I a Q: 'a l ~'EI o+ ~ E d. I I~ p,~ o - y c L!m.ciC v `° ~'. olU m ' ~ I i€ m m y: ~c c I, , nl ~ c w mI ~ ~ Irn la l I a F' I _ d ~ ~iU m i I ? yy d o. o o. IO o'Q Z`lim 1p ~ a I -IiI a€ Q 10 ~I ~ ml 6Z ~ r y- m. I .. C ~ I ', m w N I~ L d , O M I m d ,:O O A €€ ' A m ~- . m m M,. I M m l LL m I O) E ~ Q!' ~~ m I'O ~ ~~Q m ~ Q'R mI~ m ~ m o. -~ C ~ f~ I Q C im:~ : ~ ~l ~ m a ~ ~ ~'miC R IN L ~ o. ° IQ: ~ ° ~ Ella m I g ~C° C N aI dY '° ¢,Q c ~ m LL a m m Q ~ C,'a. m m' t~i LL Q ~ ~-' G A' ', d c E m m l F I l a i m 1a a u i S a o m ml II . ~, ~ - a~ m m c ~ o c' R~ a m U IQ IU Q~:~ U IU I Q I m m LL ILL ILL I,Q m J U m > U , O2 QI H Q' N 0 I I T IO I O.W' a T O ° .Z71~ 19 V71. y ~ •O ' ~ V) 9 ~ I I l ~'. I 'I W. ;I II ' y o. w 3 I of of • i ~ d ~~ ~ ~Im ~ f m ~ ~ me (ql l c B I ~ ~ ~,~,~ n m;~ '~ 2 7i ~ l w m ~ ~ I I '~ I I O.7 0911 n~7 n O. O '. ' I I m vl ~ l aii o /° I W I I I ~m ~ sl'~ s d ' X33 30l • ' r~ d Al o.a'i a I 1O ~ ~ m~'ml• d oo i I' ~ m m HI ~ n ml I I I m v'' ~ I l 'I ~'I m i W ~Z I i ' ~ ~I ~ I~ o o o• £I ,~~„~', S I c f.. d ~ of ~ p ~I '. i . ' II I IF I T, m'm' _. m l I m' m I SI~'',m ~ s n ~ o a 3 m ' '., o a+ o ', f .. o 'i .., I I II 3, of ~ ~'~ ~ w 3 d'a'I 'I I ~ ~1 3 ~ I I ~ Ia W W C1 ~I O ~. I ~ I II S N l ' I~ I I.O. I O ~ p I I W QI O 7 '. Q `~ V A I N l i i i, . CI' F' I ' ~~I~Ilo l 90i Lm 1 I II ' I~ I ~I, m '01!3'3 I I I rnI ! 'I31mI II ' ' 'I I I i m 'I ~ I o I, I II II In•~'m CI ~ ~~ - I I I I I I,. N I I I i ~ { '. I~,I II I I I ~' O W N li N N N N ~~II ~ II II ~ O ~I~ D o w~ w CI ', ~ I, w °o ~ , N N m V I V A , A '' O 7 OD ~ N~ N N O N A A , W I CO A I 3 ' ~ U O V V Of Of ~ A N ut O N W W I N ~ W ' ~~ ' A, O O. O I O O o ' O A p D O I o o' o I O _ I p. A I I I I i I 'I I I ' I I ~ O '~ ~I O ' I I ~I ' '~, ~ ' C ~! ~I ~ O N O ~ I . I I ~' O I I~ N O <O A N i~ a I ~ ', 'la O W I W N Vt N C9 N N C9 N N V i0 N A V N A V I i N~ N A~ N N N N I N I O O O I M N W WiW N1 t71 V1 W W I W I, A'~. W'~ O O C O C O O O 0 O 0 I O ~ O' T O A V N A li A O O I O II o' o I II _ _ _ - ~~ ~ ~ Z I ~ ', I'~ Z O O N 0/ N N, N ~' ' (p I I Z D O W W O O I. W N N ~i N I ~, __ O. O 0 0 G1 0 tl1 o 01 e N e l N e ;I 7; '" ' D O', a°' O e O e O e l O al , fO I tO'. t01 ; ', 3 e la° e I •• I ' T O ~I I i I I i I W N , ' N I I '. I I ', ''. I ~ I II I I I 'I, I ; i ~ I,i N ~ I I W ~ I Ii N' . O I ~ W ~ I I ' ~ '' m N d 0 0 C 0 C ' i I I I C a a k a ' ' ~ ~ W ' ' ~ I '! ~ ~ C ~ i ,G 1 ~ 1 ~ I II ~ ~ ~ ; x W . f . .Y W~WIIWIW II I m ~ ~ ~ v 'I ~ I I I I I c o, m ~ W II I ! I I ~ I 3 o ' • ,3 3 3 > > ~ I I " t s glgl sII I I II I o o w' a I it I ~ III I~ I I I I I~ I I I I II II I I I I, ~' C7 ~ ~. T O m D N A N N ~ 91 N UI m N l0 c ~ Q a c w n Q ~ X O LL W ~ m U °' U d~ IIl I 11 I I iII III I III I I ~ t ~ '. ~ I , ', I, I II I : ~ I II I '. II II : '~ ~ e N I ~ I '~ I I I I II I ! °a a .°. I I i° I I I II '' I c ~ ° mIIO ! II I m ~ I ~ ~ ~m''d ', ' ~ Of mo 7 a . C 7 IOa I ~ ', l ' '8 101 ~ II '. m m: i ~ l ~ ~ m'm :. 11 I n m rn~ O O m TI E .c. ~O N I y d .WIC '. lc ~I a n '.m C '. mW'. '. dl'I dI 'I - O 3 ~ I lu ~ C C lc i I C~.C I O1. l0 I T OS I O II , V ! ' N ~ '.Y.Y, V ~ LL `I , I ~ C w m'p , O ~ I a0 C V X r Oi ~ V r 'I I • ' Z ~ ' ~ I ' C~ N m 0 Q ~ W W m I0 41 'O 1 ~ C Of : l 7 ' W ~ ~ N Of m 41 Q > ~ O.' d N '''. A ' ' m m I 4'I O. : O T Iw 1 1 i a ~ L > S . L m 0 7 I '~ '. 7 e~ 7 7 1 7 'I '. O. C I to m c la dla la' "'~ L I I ~ L'LI I ~ ' ~ _ c ` dyi I X m m W m W m I I II ~' O. O. d I I ~~ O ~ i i I ~ I I i ' I I ~ . I . I I ': I I I v n. ' I o IO I I I i , m~ l a li a I 1 I I it ~ ~~ I I ~ I I II I 1 I j 'I I .. c l a° .0 !c o 0 lc e 0 I e o e o I o ~ o o o io o o I ' i I l I L I I I I o o l O llo a g I a'a I la a l I a ' ga " a'g ' ' g a ' s ' l a I I z z II z Iz Iz z I z z z :z :z z z ~ oo o f to 0 0 0 0 o ' o I 'i o ~ o o o o io, Ivy' ~ lino aoin I : o to ol~n to to to to ~''o 0 0 0 0 , O ~ O ~ O O O N O ~ O ~ ~ C C blip I 47 l O O IO O i : l(j i M N IN N IM C IM (~ O O O O ~ - N w et w 1~ P Iw w h l1r wlw ~ I ' W'. ' Iw lw ' wiw iw lw _ la M w N w C ' N p Q. ap G1 GW71 i i : Imo , ~I '', ' ~I ~ ',, : '. I! I 'I ',. '~. I i ~ '!.. ~ CO ~ N I ~ I i O 1: O O O i O ~ O O I ~I O O I ', ' i . I o~ ~ I o: o 0 o I O ~ O ~ t o O a a a a I' a g i I a, a I a s ~ l a i : a ' s '~ ~ ~N ~ I ~ I n : N w .n ~~j w ~n r w .n r w ' ~ - ~ ~ - w I w ~ w .n 1. li w z z' z:z ~ z' z I 'z': z: I I z'ii ! z i z~ z I I - i-___.. I __ -___Y I J _._ __ _. __... I ~~_ t ~~I i ~I I I I I I I ' I ~ I I : I m 3 I II I } ~: ~ I' ~ ' 07 ' N C I I m Z ~ . m }' m C I I fn I '~ i a' i I I I WI I m E I m z ~. I ~ I I , ~ F y I ' I K'I I I ~ ~ u II I a O I I I , a' 1- a' :, I m ` I E >( I m > I m ~I ' N m ~ I"R' ..Wlp ¢ ~ O o OI ' ! ~ ! C - i ~~ o , « a I I w Im m ~ ! m I m I Iu~ c ~ m m I II O w I ~' c~ Z~ c z L1 U a U > ~ `I m c I «~.. Y ~ I to E ~Id va A ~' m I m m ~~ c ml p ~a ~ m I '. LLIx Q' w '~~ ~ ~ ~ a I~ ' a 0: y IAI a : d a °:I~ Y ~''0: ' tY i j ~' :;l I a i o: otll ' c R ID m ~ : W W K Q ..0. « ~ c w c «° c' a I T o m I tD O1 C u c mll: o C C m w O U C ml ' a. lc :~ H ~ a ~: >+ C mm 1 '1 ~ a ~ ~ a wl d > m a i a i co IN o N Itr m I F c Iz'. m ~clal ~ K o a o a ~ i O a j` I° w 3 a ~ o a p J LL l I ~ o d W > W > W > W S m u U. c i i. ' Iml ~'a 0 ~~ Fl:. IO C c O C : i6 m ~ w O ~ O II O O I R 16 '. 101 R m C > ~~ O ~ . I ~"' I'O ~ . O'.a' mIQ ILL ` d I ~ LLS I V 7 d LL ~ .a , ~ QI ~ O LL C7 J W I Z LL I > ~ > ; > ~` > ~` Id ~ IL O X O ~ X ~I Y'pO O V LL Z I I N '-01 t ILL I 0 Z p ~ O LL O Z v I m ~ O'O O LL' O Z a, a i a .._ .. rn ~ , ' ' N~ '',d ~Z~I TIC I ' '~21T',~ Z T m~ 'Z T t0 Z TltO Z T O IZ'T.C '. 7 d ~~I ~, 0. ~.O NI ^IO ~T ,010 7a. w ~tOii' w 0~~.N I.O. ~ 0001 .O. ~ a l DI ~ ~ IT'.T O to 0 0.l T TIim Io,o'G) T V ~ Io1o TT..Z1 o,O,WI T'V .i1 o c W ~1 'O'OI o 0 ~ T T,f£D o p_ v m 1 IvI~ I' -"' I L ~~' F' ~ ~I~ Ii ~ -~"' 'H'' ~'~ o oll ~ -~ 'v I 1 ~ 0 ~ j 1 In oo'z 7• ,, I . ol,~ 1 'o z ~ o' Aic , ~ , 'o z cl Iola ~ ~ , ~ l 'o z'n N ^.3Id ^13'T ^ 7 Z~ ~I7 SIT •~'.7 '~,T .Ti 1j7 Ii~' ^` 7 K 'I I I(O m m ~ ~''m 'o 01 jm ~°IFI ~,N. m W'7'I i W ~ m 7 ~Im '° ~ m W '° ao ' ' 7 ~~ 17 f~l 1 , ~~7 f1/ 1 7 f7i ai I ~7'0~'.d '~ O 7 ' 7 ~ ~ I m' ~ 1 mi d vl m Im o I ~ o. I Iml ~ ! ~'' I 1~1 ~ ~ a ~ 1c ~ I13 1 m ~ ~ I I ! I, I a1 I I I I I I I a I In zI I I 1 I ~I , o 1 I I ~ '' 1 9 ' D I ~ 1' ~ 1 d 1 m I II~ A! y 1 y c ~, I I d 1 ' 7 I 01 1 ~ '~, W I,. I I I 1~ I I I _ I! 11 ''' ~ ~ 'I I i I II 11 I I 7 I I' d II 11 II II z z z z I11 I IIZ z z z III 1 z z I Iz11z I 1 1 z,z I III II 'i z z~l' I~ III a a 'a a 'a'a , 'n''a Iia''n ID',a s'D a,sll ~IOI. 1 I I II 1 1 I 1l 1 1 I I I 11 ~. I I I. I 1 I I N I - 1 ~ ~' W N~' N~ MI V M N M V N N N V ~ !N ~N N V ~N'~N OVA ' V N '~N 'O N N t!1 I . N N ++ O N d I ' ~ ! ~ ~'~ , O~ O O. O! O O~i N O O O N O O O VA O , ~ O 1 N ~i O~'. 0, O ~O O O . O O'1, O~0~ ~ O' O' OI O O O. I O O i Oi O 1 0 O 1 I O' O. T 1 II ~ I ' I ~ I~ ' ~I, '~ ~ 1 ~ Z a Z I'a'; Z~Z a a1 Z~ sl Z 'a Z~ s Z~ 'a Z 's I Z 's 'Z ~Z ' 'a1'al ~Z~ I'sI Z 'a ~ 1 2 Z ' 'a'I'aI m I I I I '''I 1 1 1 ~ I ~ I I 1 j 1 i ~ 1 1 1 i I I i 1 'I 1 ~ 1 W ',~ ~ ~1 1 I 1 I I II 1, I °- c m m ~ ~ 1313 ' I I II 1 ~+ ~ v I d m ~l~ o- I o• ~ .O ~1 h ~ ~ I m1 LO ~ I I ,~ .O ~ ~ ;~ is Wig a a' ~ ~ ro a ~ ~ W I 3 ~ mm w mi w m v W ~ m ,9 v W m ~~~~ n,~m a vl ImIm1 ~ov Olm I ml o Ii 3 3 3 ol o i 1 ol a, o a, 0 a, 0 a, i 0l0 : a,; a, ~o o I a, a, 0101 p ~' 3 olo ~ I I d ti e ~. ~.I b ~ ~I~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ m ~I~ mId ~ l~i~ mid I '~~~~ d d ~ ~ ~~ dlm Ii ~ ~ a 7,7 7, 7 7' l 7 '.717 '71'7 :7,7 n 717 O 1 . ~ o1a, ~ o1 a O m o A o ~o ~ol~ ~eo1~m ~olO , m m i n ism m Io1 m 1 m li !. 7 a o. m m ~ ~ 1 i 11 1 i, 'I 1 I I 7 ~ w 11 I I I I I ~ II I i I I 1 11 °~ _~ ~ ~ X T ~ ~ m D D m ~ d N y N l0 C N Q a c y a < y L O W W ~m CJ .a I ~ 11 11 y ' I II I ~ I~ ~I i ~ '. I ~L ', ~~ ~ ~ i ~ I I I I II I ', I .O I I I I I I. 11 d ' I. '. C Iy I O y 1 w l 01 II . INIm Of ' I I I ~ y l - iwll ~.. 1 11 • l ~ , x o y 'W IdIL T ~ ~ ', ti t , '. ~ 1 i 0 I% 1 1 ' w' ~ ' O ' '' , U I ~liolE I , . I I ,. I d , 01 I cI•~ a1 IaI I 1 t o ,o 1 2 '~ w '. E ea A m I I a ~ v v ._ I ._ m E._ _I I 1 - ' ' I I y I.C ',. 17 ~ ~ d ~ ~ V d'. , y 'I. d, d I I a If I d o I I a e6 ' 1 1 ~' L y ~ y y . ,. I. 7 d ,. i 7 7 I 1 ' ~ e) ~ I a , d ' I ~ 1 d. d I 1 1 ' c i IIN I I I ~ 'I 11 '. I I dI I I II I l II I I I I e 'I ~ I l C N m ~ I v C I I d ala'a'ala ala'a al a a'a as Ia l v I~ I'zlzlzl'zlz'z''1'ziz'Iz''zlz'z m ` 1 I ' -- zlzlz I I I I°'i i I l I I I I~~aioo loolo0 ooolmolollo~oiolloo o 0 o rllolo 0 0 0 0 0 lo 0' o:oll oioo N I~ ItO+7 'v+W/ r eO+1 '~ ~ 1ri o l m E i o i 1ti I lei lei o l o o N~ '~ W i Of I N i N N t+f ~ N! 1f1 I W M I vi N N F vi 11ei I1•i N I N Ni d ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ o N t i IO ~ WNIW w M N IN 0 ~ O 1 O ~ I I IIA D KIN' ~ I ,G?7~j N ~ '~ t N ~ ~ W ' O ' l to I II o I~'I. p a' ~ I ' "+ - W I ~ ~ a ~ I ~ I le I Ip ' I 1 W 0 I t I I I I ~ I a i O ° 1u~1'un I C I~ loci 11ri icei IN Nq ~ I '"' ~i ~,, ~ o io ai icei w!w ._ - 0 ; C °ll~' ~ i 1 I 1 I alalala ala a''alaa,a'i ' al '~, ~ a as _ o N . . ~0 ~ W! N. _ _ l ~Z ;2 ;212 ~ 2 ~'2 :Z i21 Z:Z :212 21 212 V '~, U 11,, I ~ I I,, ', 1 I ~ I 1 I I 1 ` _ L L i a ~ i I I '_! o .. I is m ~ L ' 1 II 2 ~ ~ y ~ d __ ld ~, O,1~ L ' ~ ~ I C ' ~ 1 m ~ iO~+L+' •2 i I.V.. O y I ' ,~~ v'c°.r' c : • t ~d t ~1~ ~ •E; lio ' m I _ c . .: a m lin ERi'd°' '~ ~' y w 1'g •- F- L L.. 1 y m Ito 'I !E'°'O1~' ut Iemi ~'y1 C 01 e0 ' U ~ C L ` ~dLLLL ' ~ E A D 071 '. C' d I m I O~ y'O~~ V'C'V wNI _ - ~ ~ C •- m TIC A Y7 1 1 - I'm R •C E 011 A .O. - y. • ~ C~.~.. .. T 6 , •p C 01 ~L, dl ~ d 'Y d RI~ ' o.' ea I ' E A I `~J~yU to ._ ~~ I 1 l I E i d1 C O d' d 1•lQ "y ; dlo old Kw6 E ~~uLLi o~ o w'w c m;m d a ~lxld it. U w;f lz J~,_J _I~I~ MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL FROM: TIM ANDERSON, RECREATION DIRECTOR THRU: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 2008 RE: 2009 FEES ORDINANCE Summary: The 2009 Recreation Fees recommended by staff for programs and facilities include a 3% increase over 2008 fees. This increase represents about $70,000 in additional revenues for the general fund in2009. This increase in fees will be necessary to sustain the approved subsidy level for Recreation plus a 3% CPI. Any decrease of this 3% recommended increase in 2009 fees would result in a higher subsidy level for Recreation programs and facilities and/or a reduction in service levels. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: John Worcester THRU: Richard Pryor FROM : Patty Raab, Records Custodian, Combined Records Department DATE: October 31, 2008 RE: Proposed Law Enforcement Records Fees for 2009 SUMMARY: This memo explains the proposed changes in the law enforcement records fees for calendar year 2009. BACKGROUND: Fees for Law Enforcement Records were last changed in 2004. Some of the fees are no longer applicable and should be eliminated or changed. DISCUSSION: Accident reports, the case report search fee and criminal arrest searches have been $6.00 each since 2005. The fee was raised from $5.00 to $6.00 in 2005. Since it has been several years since the fee was increased, I think an increase to $7.00 is appropriate. The per page fee for photocopies has been $1.00 for several years. However, the 2008 Colorado General Assembly made changes to C.R.S. §24-72-306(1) as follows: ... In addition, criminal justice agencies may charge a fee not to exceed twenty-five cents per standard page for a copy of criminal justice record or a fee not to exceed the actual cost of providing a copy, printout, or photograph of a criminal justice record in a format other than a standard page. ... Where the criminal justice agency is an agency or department of any county or municipality, the amount of such fees shall be established by the governing body of the county or municipality in accordance with this subsection (1). Therefore, the per page fee must be reduced from $1.00 per page to $.25 per page. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The additional fees collected by raising the accident, case, and criminal arrest report fees will offset the revenue loss of reducing the per page fee. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend approval of these fee changes in order to comply with legislative changes. ALTERNATIVES: Council could approve larger or smaller fee increases. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: r MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: John Worcester THRU: Richard Pryor FROM : Bill Linn DATE: October 31, 2008 RE: Proposed Law Enforcement Administration Fees for 2009 SUMMARY: This memo explains the proposed changes in the law enforcement administration fees for calendar year 2009, 3 percent increases per the recommendation of the City Attorney. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of fee increases. ALTERNATIVES: Council could approve larger or smaller fee increases. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: If approved, the 2009 Law Enforcement Administration Fees will be as follows: Alarm user permit fee 107.00 First false alarm per year 111.00 Second false alarm per year 222.00 Third and fourth false alarm per year 335.00 All bank alarms 355.00 Late fees 12.00 Central alarm license fee 302.00 Vehicle inspection 19.00 Certified VIN inspection 20.00 Off-duty security, per officer, per hour 88.00 Notary fees, per acknowledgement 2.00 DOG VACCINATION AND LICENSE FEES: Annual dog tag fees 16.00 Transfer fee 16.00 Replacement tag 3.50 Page 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM : Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer DATE OF MEMO: October 31, 2008 MEETING DATE: RE: Proposed Encroachment Fees for 2009 SUMMARY: This memo lists the proposed changes in the Engineering Department fees for the year 2009. DISCUSSION: Encroachment space lease payments for public amenities such as outdoor seating for restaurants will not be increased. Encroachment space lease payments associated with construction will increase by 3% The purpose of the encroachment lease payments associated with construction is to deter contractors from using the right of way for storage and for construction activities associated with development. The Right of way permit fees and encroachment permit fees will be increased by 3%. Below is a summary of the fees: Sec. 2.12.051 Engineering Department Fees Encroachment License application and processing fee 353.00 Vacation application and processing fee 353.00 Right-of--way permit application and processing fee (waived for sidewalk replacement work) 353.00 Temporary occupation of ROW under encroachments by commercial operations not associated with construction, including contractors and vendors $2.50 per sq. ft/month Permanent Encroachment Fee $1,000.00 per permit Temporary occupation of ROW under encroachments within the core by commercial operations associated with construction, including contractors and vendors $5.44/ sq. ft /month Temporary occupation of ROW under encroachments outside of the core by commercial operations associated with construction , including contractors and vendors $2.72/ sq. ft /month Permanent encroachment for earth retention $2.64/cu. ft. per month Map and plan printing $4.00 per copy FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Year to date approximately $500,000 was collected for ROW permit fees and encroachment lease payments. This was mainly due to three large development projects. These projects are expected to finish next year. As a result the encroachment fee revenue should decrease to $400,000 in 2009. RECOMMENDATION: Additionally Staff recommends approval of a 3% increase in permit fees and encroachment.licenses. ALTERNATIVES: Council could approve larger or smaller encroachment fees. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: '7 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: John Worcester, City Attorney FROM: Ada Christensen, Environmental Health Administrative Assistant DATE: October 28, 2008 RE: Proposed Environmental Health Fees for 2009 SUMMARY: This memo lists the proposed changes in Environmental Health Department fees for the year 2009, to partially cover our increased costs of providing these services. The City Manager has directed staff to propose an average of a three (3) percent increase on fees for 2009. The fee schedule below reflects changes to existing fees. Environmental Health Fees 2008 current) 2009 (ro osed) Special or Temporary Event Plan Review Fee $46 $47 Special or Temporary Event Inspection Fee (if needed) $46 $47 Swimming Pool Plan Review Fee (Similar to the state-set fee structure for restaurant lan reviews.) $77/hour $79/hour Restaurant Site Inspection Fee $80/hour $82/hour Food Safety Training $80/hour $82/hour Restaurant Plan Review Fee (set by state) $355 $355 (no change) Food Service License (set by state) $154-$343 $154-$343 (no change) BACKGROUND: Fees for food service licenses and fees for restaurant plan reviews are set by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and cannot be changed by the city. The State has not increased their fees for several years. DISCUSSION: Last year fees increased 4% and the year before they increased 2.6%. As stated in the summary section, this year staff was directed to calculate a 3% increase for City Council to consider. The result is an increase of either one or two dollars depending on fee. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Since our two largest fees cannot be raised, the increase in our revenues will be small. We estimate the revenue implications of these fee increases to be Page 1 .. ~~ approximately $200, given the relatively small size of the fees to begin with and the small proposed increases. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of these fee increases so the costs of providing these services can be more closely recovered from those requiring the services. ALTERNATIVES: Council could approve larger or smaller fee increases. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Page 2 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council THRU: John Worcester, City Attorney Jim Considine, IS Director FROM: Mary Lackner, GIS Manager RE: GIS Services & Products 2009 Fees DATE: Oct 29, 2008 The GIS Department GIS provides customer mapping services for the City of Aspen and Pitkin County. The fees are established through the City of Aspen Municipal Code and collected by the City. In 2007, the GIS Department generated $71,360 in revenue. GIS is requesting a standard increase of 4% to our fee schedule. The proposed fees listed below reflect a 4% increase. 2.12.053 Geographic Information System (GIS) Department fees. Preprinted Standard Maps Large format (11" x 17") Small format (11" x 17" or less) Custom Mapping Services Mailing Lists Plus $1.07/per sheet of labels. Digital Data Services $ 27.85 each $ 10.40 each $ 139.00 hour $ 111.00 per search $ 139.00 minimum charge MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager THRU: John Worcester, City Attorney THRU: Jeff Woods, Parks and Recreation Manager FROM: Steve Aitken, Director of Golf DATE: October 30, 2008 RE: Aspen Golf Club Fees SUMMARY: The Aspen Golf Club strives to provide a quality affordable golf facility for locals and guests. Its continued goal will be to operate annually with fiscal sustainability. Staff and Golf Advisory Board recommend no changes to fees for the 2009 golf season. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council approved the Golf Fund fees/rates for the 2008 season in December 2007. DISCUSSION: Staff and Golf Board agree that the fees approved for the 2008 golf season, will again be appropriate for 2009. Economical uncertainties coupled with a very competitive golf market will require our operation to remain a quality operation that is very affordable. The current fee structure will allow the Aspen Golf Club to be priced competitively in today's golf market. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: With no increases to fees, Staff and Golf Board agree that revenues for Green Fees and Golf Passes should increase over the 2008 actual amount. Modifications to marketing strategies and golf course availability should improve the amount of rounds played compared to 2008. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Council FROM: Gram Slaton, Wheeler Opera House DATE: October 27, 2008 RE: 2009 YEAR FEES FOR WHEELER OPERA HOUSE SUMMARY: The slate of rental charges for clients of the Wheeler Opera House is proposed to remain the same for the 2009 year, as it has since changes were implements in 2007, with only changes in stagehand expenses and backline rental. DISCUSSION: The Wheeler's slate of fees was radically changed in 2007 from its prior structure, in order to more accurately reflect the cost of doing business at the venue. Since January 1, 2007, no changes have been requested and overall the new structure has been met favorably by users without any negative impact to rental or rental services revenues. Because the Wheeler's personnel costs have increased over the past 24 months, the following changes are requested: • A change in the hourly charge for Theatre Technicians, from $23.50 ($21.50 for not for profit users) to $25.00 ($23.50 far not for profit users) • A change in the hourly charge for Production Co-Managers, from $31.50 ($28.50 for not for profit users) to $32.00 ($30.00 for not for profit users) Also, the Wheeler over the past year-plus has significantly increased its amount of resident backline (musical gear such as instruments, amplifiers, etc.) and as an additional service to users can offer these instruments for rent as below market cost: • 1999 Steinway D (CNA) Piano - $300 for-profit/$200 not-for-profit • Kurzweil PC2X 88-Key Keyboard - $150 for-profit/$100 not-for-profit • 2008 DW 8-Piece Drum Kit - $250 for-profit/$200 not-for-profit • 1965 Reissue Fender Amp - $75 for-profit/$50 not-for-profit • 1.965 Reissue Fender Twin Amp - $75 for-profit/$50 not-for-profit • Fender Twin (New Model) Amp - $75 for-profit/$50 not-for-profit • Ampeg SVT3-Pro Bass Amp - $75 for-profit/$50 not-for-profit RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the fee increases for the 2009 calendar year. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: THE CITY OF ASFEN Memorandum To: City of Aspen Mayor and City Council ~a From: Don Taylor, Director of Finance and Administrative Services Date: November 17, 2008 Meeting Date: November 24, 2008 Re: 2009 Recommended Operating and Capital Budget The recommended 2009 operating and capital budget resolution is attached for Council consideration. This budget represents appropriations based upon City Council review of the City Manager's proposed budget at seven separate budget development work sessions. All proposed budgets are balanced, and all funds have sufficient resources to meet operating and capital needs through the coming year. The assumptions on which this budget is based are very tenuous. The national and world economy seems more troubled each week. Evaluation of the 2009 budget will not stop with the adoption of this budget. As we have discussed all along through this review process, the City will have to keep a close eye on the assumptions on which this budget was based and be prepared to make changes as necessary. City staff is in the process of developing several scenarios based on possible revenue shortfalls and how that may affect services and programs provided by the City. The first iteration of that should be ready by mid December and it would be updated and fine tuned as the year progressed and better information became available The budget assumes a 1 % increase in sales tax for 2009, which is perhaps optimistic. Total appropriations are proposed to decrease by 2.35%, from $104,744,910 in 2008 to $102,280,120 in 2009. Most of the decrease is due to a reduction in proposed capital spending in 2009. The resolution approving this budget is attached and a listing of all of the appropriations by fund is attachment A to that resolution. The budget assumes that a property tax mill levy will be assessed for the General Fund/Amp in the amount of 4.799 mills and a mill levy for the Stormwater fund in the amount of .65 mills. November 17, 2008 City of Aspen - 2009 Recommended Budget v. 2008 Initial Adopted Budget Description Operating Budget Capital Budget Debt Service Budget Total Appropriations 2008 Initial Budget $47,389,360 $31,316,480 $5,680,310 $84,386,150 2009 Recommended Budget $50,721,550 $22,475,030 $5,607,860 $78,804,440 Variance Change $3,332,190 7.03% ($8,841,450) 28.23% 72 450 -1.28% ($5,581,710) -6.61% Inter-fund Transfers $20,358,760 $23,475,680 $3,116,920 15.31% Grand Total Appropriations: $104,744,910 $102,280,120 $2,464,790 -2.35% Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the 2009 budget as presented. City Managers Comments: 2 RESOLUTION NO. 108 (SERIES OF 2008) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ADOPTING THE 2009 MUNICIPAL BUDGET AND AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS PURSUANT THERE TO WHEREAS, the City Manager, designated by Charter to prepare the budget, has prepared and submitted to the Mayor and City Council the Annual Budget for the City of Aspen, Colorado for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2009 and ending December 31, 2009; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 9.8 of the Home Rule Charter, the Council shall adopt the budget by Resolution on or before the final day established by law as December 15th for certification of the ensuing year's tax levy to the county; and WHEREAS, Article 9 of the Aspen Home Rule Charter requires the adoption of an annual budget with the opportunity for the public to participate at a public hearing at least 15 days prior to the statutory deadline for certification of the ensuing year's tax levy to the county, it is the intent of the Council by adoption of this budget to follow the requirements of City Charter; and WHEREAS, the budget as submitted in Exhibit A sets forth the estimated fiscal data of appropriated expenditures and estimated revenues for the calendar year of 2009. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: SECTION 1 That the budget for the City of Aspen, Colorado for the fiscal year 2009 as submitted in attachment hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference, be and is hereby adopted, which option all constituted appropriations of the amounts specified therein as expenditures amounting to $102,280,120, and the estimated budget revenue requirements of $99,376,890, both in Exhibit A, is hereby declared to be the amount of revenue necessary to be raised by the tax levy and income from all other sources not inclusive of fund balance at the beginning of the year of $36,672,402, for total revenues of $136,049,292, to pay the expenses and certain indebtedness, and provide a reasonable fund balance at the close of the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2009 and ending December 31, 2009. SECTION 2 That the City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager to enter into such contracts and execute such documents on behalf of the City as maybe necessary and customary to expend the funds appropriated for all capital acquisitions within its budget, and that Council further directs the City Manager to inform it of such contracts and documents promptly at its regularly scheduled Council meetings. Adopted this 24th, day of November 2008 Michael C. Ireland, Mayor I, KATHRYN KOCH, duly appointed and acting City Clerk of the City of Aspen, Colorado, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of the Resolution adopted by the City Council at its meeting held on the 24th day of November, 2008. Kathryn Koch, City Clerk Exhibit A Total City of Aspen 2009 Appropriations by Fund Total Beginning Fund Total Current Expenditures 8~ 2009 Ending Fund Name Balance Revenue Budget Transfers Out Balance GPnPrai rn~ernment Funds Asset Management Plan $115,523 $3,606,270 $3,492,440 $229,353 General Fund 57 413.216 $25.074 420 $24.970.840 57.516.796 Subtotal General Gov't Funds: $7,528,739 $28,680,690 $28,463,280 $7,746,149 Snarial Ravanue Funds Parks and Open Space $2_,037,927 $9,382,840 $9,929,530 $1,491,237 Wheeler Opera House $1,268,830 $7,425,860 $3,806,490 $4,888,200 - __ Lodging Tax Fund $0 $1,251,00.0 _ $1,251,000 $0 -- Transportation Fund $1,175,000 $2,129,810 $3,225,270 $79,540 Housing Development $317,616 $9,848,180 $7,645,460 $2,520,336 Early Childhood Educ. Initiative - AVCF $162,966 $459,470 $439,360 $183,076 Kids First /Yellow Brick $4,412,863 $1,867,620 $2,179,090 . $4,101,393 Storm Water Fund 51 152 809 51.446.150 51.203.470 51.395.488 Subtotal Special Rev. Funds: $10,528,011 $33,810,930 $29,679,670 $14,659,271 Debt Service Funds ____ Debt Service Fund _ ___ 1$ 9Q,QQO -- $3.344.850 53.342.630 1 2 Subtotal Debt Service Funds: $190,000 $3,344,850 $3,342,630 $192,220 Parks Capital Improvement Fund _ - Parks Capital Improvement Fund _ --- 14 11 53.156.910 54.071.020 -- _ $Q Subtotal Parks Cap. Imp. Fund: $914,110 $3,156,910 $4,071,020 $0 Enterprise Funds Water Utility $6,399,005 $6,249,330 $7,703,550 $4,944,785 Electric Utility _ $1,383,311 $7,265,530 $7,541,050 $1,107,791 Renewable Energy Fund $3,816,305 $2,405,100 $5,865,200 $356,205 Parking Fund $2,025,000 $4,444,290 $6,185,150 $284,140 Municipal Golf Course $61,514 $1,347,460 $1,282,470 _ $126,504 - -- Truscott Housing $519,313 $1,809,590 - _- $1,577,370 -- $751,533 - Marolt Housing 51.246.056 51.240.840 51.477.680 51.009.216 Subtotal Enterprise Funds: $15,450,504 $24,762,140 $31,632,470 $8.580 174 -- - - $0 - Internal Service Funds - Health Ins. Internal Service Fund $800,000 $3,648,880 $3,624,390 $824,490 City Employee Housing Fund $1.946.666 $$$3.900 $210.800 52.619.766 Subtotal Internal Service Funds: $2,746,666 $4,532,780 $3,835,190 53.444.256 Trust 8~ Agency Funds Housing Authority $940,331 $1,023,190 _ $1,194,770 $768,751 - - - -- Smuggler Mountain Fund 2 7 565.400 561.090 $~~~ Subtotal Trust & Agency. Funds: $1,261,038 $1,088,590 $1,255,860 51.09,768 ALL FUNDS: $36,672,402 $99,376,890 -- $102,280,120 $33,769,17 -- - Less Inter-fund Transfers _ __ - $23,475,680 $23,475,680 _ _ EQUALS NET ALL FUNDS _ - - -- _ APPROPRIATIONS: $36,672,402 $75,901,210 $78,804,440 $33,769,172 RESOLUTON NO. 109 (SERIES OF 2008) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO SETTING THE 2009 MUNICIPAL MIL LEVY RATES AND CERTIFYING SAME TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR PITKIN COUNTY. WHEREAS, the City Manager, designated by Charter to prepare the budget, has prepared and submitted to the Mayor and City Council the Annual Budget for the City of Aspen, Colorado for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2009 and ending December 31, 2009; and WHEREAS, the assessed valuation of the taxable property for the year 2008 in the City of Aspen returned by the County Assessor of Pitkin County on August 25tH, 2008, is the sum of $1,252,114,470; and WHEREAS, THE CITIZENS OF ASPEN in November, 2005, authorized the City of Aspen to collect, retain, and expend any property tax that is in excess of the limits of Article X, Section 20, of the Colorado Constitution, for the purpose of purchasing alternative fuel (e.g. hybrid) bus or busses for use within the City's RFTA routes; Improving the quality of storm water runoff entering the Roaring Fork River through construction of the Jenny Adair Wetlands Project, and associated improvements to the City's storm water runoff retention and sediment removal systems; Design and construction of a new outdoor swimming pool at the Aspen Recreation Center; and, Construction of improvements to key elements of the City's sidewalk and trail system including Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements; and the amount of such excess revenue available for these purposes for 2008 is calculated as $1,796,784, and WHEREAS, said voter approval on November 1St' 2005 established the City's general government mil levy rate at 5.410 mils upon each dollar of the assessed valuation on all taxable property within the city for the five year assessment period beginning in 2005 and ending in 2009, and permitting collection of property tax revenues in excess of the mil levy limitation provided in Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution for property tax collection years 2006 through 2010; and WHEREAS, said mil levy is calculated to produce gross ad valorem tax proceeds in the amount of $6,773,939 for collection year 2009; based upon the assessed valuation as determined by the County Assessor, and WHEREAS, voter approval on November 6th, 2007 established the City's Storm water program mil levy rate at an amount not to exceed 0.65 mils upon each dollar of assessed valuation on all taxable property within the city annually with no date of expiration, permitting collection of property tax revenues in excess of the mil levy limitation provided in Article X, Section 20 or the Colorado Constitution for property tax collection in all future years beginning in 2008; and WHEREAS, said mil levy rate is calculated to produce gross ad valorem tax proceeds in the amount of $813,874 for collection year 2009; based upon the assessed valuation of the City of Aspen as determined by the County Assessor, and WHEREAS, the assessed valuation of taxable property in Aspen increased approximately 52% between 2005 and 2008 assessment years, and WHEREAS, a temporary reduction in property tax collections is desired by the City Council in order to reduce the tax burden on owners of taxable property within the City of Aspen while preserving the City's ability to increase property taxes to levels previously authorized by City of Aspen voters as described above, and WHEREAS, C.R.S. section 39-1-111.5 authorizes a local government to certify a refund in the form of a temporary property tax credit or a temporary mil levy rate reduction, provided that the certification includes the gross mil levy, the temporary property tax credit or temporary mil levy rate reduction expressed in mil levy equivalents, and the net mil levy and under C.R.S. section 39-1-111.5(4), the Assessor shall, concurrent with delivery of tax warrants to the Treasurer, itemize duly certified temporary property tax credits or temporary mil levy rate reductions in the manner set forth in C.R.S. section 39-1-111.5(2), and under C.R.S. section 39-1-111.5(5) the tax statements shall indicate by footnote which local government mil levies reflect a temporary property tax credit or temporary mil levy rate reduction for the purpose of effecting a refund. SECTION 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, Colorado for the purpose of balancing the 2009 budget, and providing a reasonable closing fund balance for said fiscal year, levies the following taxes upon each dollar of the total valuation for assessment of all taxable property within the City of Aspen, or the year 2008; that a temporary mil levy rate reduction is authorized; and that the individual mil levies are expressed in terms of the gross mil levy, the temporary mil levy rate reduction shown in mil levy equivalents, and the net mil levy as shown below: 2008 2008 Assessed Net 2009 ~y of As en Pro.~erty Tax Rates V i n it L Propel Tax General Property Tax Mil Levy: General Fund: $1,252,114,470 2.186 $2,737,122 Asset Management Fund: $1,252,114,470 1.789 $2,240,033 TABOR Exemption Projects:: $1,252,114,470 0.824 1 031 742 TOTAL: General Mil Levy: 4.799 $6,008,897 Stormwater Fund Mil Levy: $1,252,114,470 0.650 813 874 TOTAL 2008 Property Tax: $6,822,772 SECTION 2 The City Clerk is hereby directed to certify and deliver this Resolution to the Board of County Commissioners for Pitkin County on or before December 15, 2008. ADOPTED THIS 24th, day of November 2008 Michael C. Ireland, Mayor I; KATHRYN KOCH, duly appointed and acting City Clerk of the City of Aspen, Colorado, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Resolution adopted by the City Council at its meeting held on November 24th, 2008, which Resolution was adopted subsequent to public hearings on the City of Aspen's 2009 Proposed Municipal Budget and prior to the final day established by law for the certification of the tax levy to Pitkin County, all was required by the Sections 9.8 and 9.9 of the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Kathryn Koch, City Clerk V_[11 6. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Sara Adams, Preservation Planne~l~r' THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director DATE OF MEMO: November 14, 2008 MEETING DATE: November 24, 2008 RE: 541 Race Alley, Establishment of Three (3) Transferable Development Rights, Second Reading of Ordinance #30, Series of 2007 (Parcel 2737-073-92-006) REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The applicant requests City Council approve the establishment of three 250 square feet Transferable Development Right certificates (TDRs). BACKGROUND: ^ Lot History: Lot 6 of the Fox Crossing Subdivision is a designated historic landmark, pursuant to Ordinance 50 Series of 2004, which also granted subdivision approval to the Fox Crossing development. According to the subdivision approvals, Lot 6 is a 6, 068 square feet lot approved to contain two historic 1960s log cabins (aka House K1 and House K2). ^ Previous actions: o In 2004, City Council approved the establishment of four (4) TDRs for the subject lot as part of the Fox Crossing Subdivision approval. All four (4) TDRs have been severed from historic Lot 6 and landed on Lots 1 and 2 within Fox Crossing.2 o Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) Review: ^ In 2005, HPC granted approval3 to combine the two log cabins on Lot 6 and construct a new addition. The applicant redesigned the entire Lot 6 project in 2008, which reduces the amount of floor area used on the site and leaves the two cabins detached. ~ Ordinance 50, Series of 2004 is included in the application, Exhibit J. z Section ] of Ordinance 50, Series of 2004 specifies the sending and landing sites for TDRs within Fox Crossing Subdivision. 3 HPC Resolution 29, Series of 2004 and HPC Resolution 15, Series of 2005 granted approval for this project, Exhibit F. ". Revised 11/17/2008 541 racestreetsecondreading.doc Page 1 of 3 ^ The property is currently under review by the HPC for an addition to one of the cabins. The second cabin is proposed to remain largely unaltered and deed restricted as a for-sale employee housing unit. Conceptual approval was granted by HPC on June 25, 2008,4 which included the 500 square feet FAR bonus for the proposed new addition and preservation of the cabins. Final development approval is pending at HPC. DISCUSSION: ^ The purpose of a TDR is to encourage the preservation of Historic Landmarks within the City of Aspen by permitting those property: owners to sever and convey, as a separate development right, undeveloped floor area to be developed on a different and non-historic property within the City of Aspen. Each TDR comprises 250 square feet of Floor Area. The TDR program enables standard market forces, and the demand for floor area and increased unit sizes in specific zone districts, to accomplish a community goal of preserving Aspen's heritage as reflected in its built environment. ^ The applicant requests approval from City Council to establish three (3) 250 square foot TDR certificates, which equals a total of 750 square feet of unbuilt floor area to be severed from the property. The final remaining unbuilt floor area on the property after the severance of 750 square feet of floor area will be 16 square feet, not including the 500 square feet floor area bonus granted by HPC. ^ The review criteria found in Exhibit A analyze the existing built development on the property against the maximum allowable floor area to determine the amount of unbuilt development that can be turned into TDRs. Development that already received approval is also analyzed as part of the review process for establishing TDRs.S The property must be a local landmark, i.e. listed on Aspen's Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, to establish TDRs. ^ During First Reading of Ordinance number 30, Council requested information pertaining to the Fox Crossing Subdivision approval and the TDRs established as part of those approvals. James True, City of Aspen Special Counsel, composed a memo explaining why Lot 6 is eligible to establish TDRs 'inaddition to that approved in the subdivision ordinance.6 Minutes from the City Council hearings, Planning and Zoning hearings and the Historic Preservation Commission hearings regarding the Fox Crossing subdivision and TDRs are included as Exhibits E though I to illustrate what was represented during the subdivision hearings. a HPC Resolution 15, Series of 2008. Exhibit C, See Exhibit D for HPC June 25, 2008 meeting minutes. s See Exhibit A, criterion d. 6 Exhibit B. Revised 11/17/2008 541 racestreetsecondreading.doc Page 2 of 3 Floor Area Analysis for Lot 6, 541 Race Alley: Total allowable floor area for 6,068 square (3,250 - 1,000) _ foot lot in R-6 zone district (3,250 square 2,250 square feet of allowable floor area feet) - 4 TDRs already severed from the on the subject property roe in 2004 Existing floor area of two cabins is 1,484 (2,250 - 1,484) _ square feet (2 * 742 square feet = 766 square feet of unbuilt floor area 1,484 s ware feet Remainder of development potential after (766 - 750) _ severing three TDRs 16 square feet of unbuilt floor area RECOMMENDED ACTION: "In reviewing the proposal, Staff finds that the project meets the applicable review criteria to Establish three (3) Transferable Development Rights and finds that TDRs are a good tool for preserving a historic resource by reducing development pressure. Staff recommends approval of the three TDR certificates." PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance # 30 Series of 2008 upon Second Reading." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: A -Review Criteria. B -Memo from City Attorney's Office. C- HPC Resolution No. 1 S, Series of 2008 granting Conceptual approval and the SDO square feet floor area bonus. D -HPC Minutes for June 25, 2008 meeting approving Resolution No. I S Series of 2008. E -HPC Minutes for August 11, 2004, September 22, 2004, and Apri127, 2005. F -HPC Resolution No. 29, Series of 2004 (granting conceptual approval) and HPC Resolution 1 S, Series of 2005 (granting final approval.) G - P & Z Minutes for October 12, 2004; November 16, 2004; November 30, 2004; and December 7, 2004. H- P & Z Resolution No. 33, Series of 2004, recommending subdivision approval. I -City Council Minutes for December 13, 2004; January 24, 2005; February 28, 2005; and March 14, 2005. .I -Application. Revised 11/17/2008 541 racestreetsecondreading.doc Page 3 of 3 ORDINANCE N0.30 (SERIES OF 2008) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING THREE (3) 250 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA HISTORIC TRANSERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT CERTIFICATES FOR THE SENDING SITE OF 541 RACE ALLEY, LOT 6 OF THE FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL N0.2737-073-92-006. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Fox Crossing Partners, LLC, 601 East Hopkins Avenue, Suite 202, Aspen, CO represented by Stan Clauson Assoicates, Inc., 412 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO, requesting the establishment of three (3) Historic Transferable Development Right Certificates for the property located at 541 Race Alley, Lot 6 of the Fox Crossing Subdivision, City of Aspen, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned R-6 (Medium Density Residential); and, WHEREAS, 541 Race Alley, Lot 6 of the Fox Crossing Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures; and, WHEREAS, in order to establish a Historic Transferable Development Right Certificate, the applicant shall meet the following requirements of Aspen Municipal Code: Section 26.535.070 which is as follows: 26.535.070, Review Criteria for the Establishment of Historic Transferable Development Right. A Historic TDR Certificate for 250 square feet of Floor Area may be established by the Mayor of the City of Aspen if the City Council, pursuant to adoption of an ordinance, finding all the following standards met: a) The Sending Site is a Historic Landmark on which the development of a single family or duplex residence is a permitted use, pursuant to Chapter 26.710. Properties on which such development is a conditional use shall not be eligible. b) It is demonstrated that the Sending Site has permitted unbuilt development rights, for either a single family or duplex home, equaling or exceeding two- hundred and fifty (250) square feet of Floor Area multiplied by the number of Historic TDR Certificates requested. Ordinance No. 30, Series 2008 Revised 11/14/2008 541 racestreet_ordinance.doc Page 1 of 4 c) It is demonstrated that the establishment of TDR Certificates will not create a nonconformity. In cases where nonconformity already exists, the action shall not increase the specific nonconformity d) The analysis of unbuilt development right shall not only include the actual built development, any approved development order the allowable development right prescribed by zoning, and shall not include the potential of the Sending Site to gain Floor Area bonuses, exemptions, or similar potential development incentives e) Any development order to develop Floor Area, beyond that remaining legally connected to the property after establishment of TDR Certificates, shall be considered null and void. ~ The proposed deed restriction permanently restricts the development of the property (the Sending Site) to an allowable Floor Area not exceeding the allowance for a single family or duplex residence minus two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of Floor Area multiplied by the number of Historic TDR Certificates established. The deed restriction shall not stipulate an absolute Floor Area, but shall stipulate a square footage reduction from the allowable Floor Area, as may be amended from time to time. The Sending Site shall remain eligible for certain Floor Area incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City of Aspen Land Use Code, as may be amended from time to time. The form of the deed restriction shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. g) Areal estate closing has been scheduled at which, upon satisfaction of all relevant requirements, the City shall execute and deliver the applicable number of Historic TDR Certificates to the Sending Site property owner and that property owner shall execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development right of the subject property together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. h) It shall be the responsibility of the Sending Site property owner to provide building plans and a zoning analysis of the Sending Site to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Certain review fees may be required for the confirmation of built Floor Area. WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval, with conditions, of the proposed establishment of three (3) Historic Transferable Development Rights; and, WHEREAS, on September 22"d, 2008 the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 30, Series 2008, on First Reading by a four to zero vote, approving with conditions the establishment of three (3) Historic Transferable Development Right Certificates for the property located at 541 Race Alley, Lot 6 of the Fox Crossing Subdivision, City of Aspen, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 24~', 2008, the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 30, Series 2008, by a _ to _ vote, approving with conditions the establishment of three (3) Historic Transferable Development Right Certificates for the property located at 541 Race Alley, Lot 6 of the Fox Crossing Subdivision, City of Aspen, Colorado; and, Ordinance No. 30, Series 2008 Revised 11/14/2008 541 racestreet_ordinance.doc Page 2 of 4 WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the request to establish three (3) Historic Transferable Development Rights meets the intent of the Aspen Historic Preservation Program and is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 The City Council finds that the application meets all required standards and eligibility as stated in Section 26.535.030 and Section 26.535.070, and applicant's submission is complete and sufficient to afford review and evaluation for approval; and Section 2 The City Council does hereby establish three (3) Historic Transferable Development Rights of 250 square feet of Floor Area each to the sending site located at 541 Race Alley, Lot 6 of the Fox Crossing Subdivision, City of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 1. Upon satisfaction of all requirements, the city and the applicant shall establish a date on which the respective Historic TDR Certificates shall be validated and issued by the City and a deed restriction on the property shall be accepted by the City and filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. 2. On the mutually agreed upon date, the Mayor of the City of Aspen shall execute and deliver the applicable number of Historic TDR Certificates to the property owner and the property owner shall execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development right of the Sending Site (541 Race Alley, Lot 6 of the Fox Crossing Subdivision, City of Aspen) by 750 square feet together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. Section 3: 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 construed 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 unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion Ordinance No. 30, Series 2008 Revised 11/14/2008 541 racestreet_ordinance.doc Page 3 of 4 shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision. and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5• A public hearing on the ordinance will be held on the 24th day of November, 2008, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. Section 7• This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final passage. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 22"d day of September, 2008. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of , 2008. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: John P. Worcester, City Attorney Ordinance No. 30, Series 2008 Revised 11/14/2008 541 racestreet_ordinance.doc Page 4 of 4 Exhibit A Section 26.535.070 REVIEW CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF HISTORIC TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT. A Historic TDR Certificate may be established by the Mayor of the City of Aspen if the City Council, pursuant to adoption of an ordinance, finds all the following standards met: a) The Sending Site is a Historic Landmark on which the development of a single- family or duplex residence is a permitted use, pursuant to Chapter 26.710. Properties on which such development is a conditional use shall not be eligible. Staff Finding: The proposed 6,068 square feet sending site is located within the R-6 zone district, which allows residential single-family and duplex uses. The sending site is a designated Historic Landmark, listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. b) It is demonstrated that the Sending Site has permitted unbuilt development rights, for either a single family or duplex home, equaling or exceeding two-hundred and fifty (250) square feet of Floor Area multiplied by the number of Historic TDR Certificates requested. Staff Finding: Lot 6 has 2,250 square feet of allowable floor area. This calculation is based on the R-6 zone district requirements for a single family/dupex residence and the severance of four (4) TDRs pursuant to the subdivision approvals in 2004. Two historic cabins (742 square feet each) are approved for relocation to Lot 6 for a total of approximately 1,484 square feet of floor area. After relocation, a total of 766 square feet of unbuilt floor area will remain on Lot 6, which qualifies the property to request establishment of three (3) TDRs or 750 square feet. Staff finds that criterion b is met. c) It is demonstrated that the establishment of TDR Certificates will not create a nonconformity. In cases where nonconformity already exists, the action shall not increase the specific nonconformity. Staff Finding: The establishment of three TDRs will not increase or create anon-conformity. d) The analysis of unbuilt development right shall not only include the actual built development, any approved development order the allowable development right prescribed by zoning, and shall not include the potential of the Sending Site to gain Floor Area bonuses, exemptions, or similar potential development incentives. Staff Finding: This is a two part analysis: 1) actual built development, i.e. the existing condition of the property and 2) analysis of approved development. Exhibit A Revised 11/17/2008 541 racestreetExhibitA. doc Page 1 of 3 Analysis of actual built development: Lot 6 currently has one historic cabin entirely located on the site and a portion of the second historic cabin straddling the north lot line. Currently, there is a total of approximately 1,500 square feet of floor area unbuilt on the property. Analysis of approved development: Both cabins are approved to be relocated to Lot 6 pursuant to Ordinance 50, Series of 2004 granting approval for the Fox Crossing subdivision. The total square footage of the two (2) historic cabins °equals approximately 1,484 square feet. Approximately 766 square feet of built floor area will remain after the two cabins are located onto Lot 6. Note: The applicant has received HPC conceptual approval which includes the 500 square feet floor area bonus for rehabilitation of the cabins. The project incorporates a deed restricted, detached, for sale accessory dwelling unit that awards 374 square feet of bonus floor area to the proposal. Final approval is pending at HPC. The TDR application does not take either bonus into account in the calculation of unbuilt floor area on the site. e) Any development order to develop Floor Area, beyond that remaining, legally connected to the property after establishment of TDR Certificates, shall be considered null and void Staff Finding: The property will not include any development order to develop floor area beyond that remaining legally connected to the property after the establishment of three TDR certificates. ,~ The proposed deed restriction permanently restricts the development of the property (the Sending Site) t~ an allowable Floor Area not exceeding the allowance for a single family or duplex residence minus two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of Floor Area multiplied by the number of Historic TDR Certificates established. The deed restriction shall not stipulate an absolute Floor Area, but shall stipulate a square. footage reduction from the allowable Floor Area, as may be amended from time to time. The Sending Site shall remain eligible for certain Floor Area incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City of Aspen Land Use Code, as may be amended from time to time. The form of the deed restriction shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. Staff Finding: The applicant clearly states an understanding of this standard (f) in the application. g) Areal estate closing has been scheduled at which, upon satisfaction of all relevant requirements, the City shall execute and deliver the applicable number of Historic TDR Certificates to the Sending Site property owner and that property owner shall execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development right of the subject property together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk£and Recorder's Office. Exhibit A Revised 11/17/2008 541 racestreetExhibitA.doc Page 2 of 3 Staff Finding: The application states that the requirements of section (g) are understood by the applicant. h) It shall be the responsibility of the Sending Site property owner to provide building plans and a zoning analysis of the Sending Site to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Certain review fees may be required for the confirmation of built Floor Area. Staff Finding: The application demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements of section (h). Exhibit A Revised 11/17/2008 541 racestreetExhibitA.doc Page 3 of 3 tde e~~en ~~~ Memorandum TO: SARA ADAMS FROM: JAMES R. TRUE ~``~ RE: FOX CROSSI G LOT 6/REQUEST FOR TDR' S DATE: November 14, 2008 At your request, I have reviewed the approvals related to Fox Crossing Subdivision and whether Lot 6 of the subdivision can establish three additional TDR's and where such TDR's could be landed. It is my understanding that Lot 6 was designated as an historic property within the Fox Crossing Subdivision. It contains two small, historic cabins of approximately 750 square feet each. The subdivision received approval pursuant to Ordinance 50 (Series of 2004). Final approval was granted on March 14, 2005. The ordinance designated both Lot 6 and Lot 5 as historic. Pursuant to such designation, it recognized that those lots would be subject to development review regulations of the Historic Preservation Section of the Land Use Code, Section 26.415. Originally, it was contemplated that Lot 6, based on its lot size and development potential, would be able to create four TDR's. This is set forth in the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. In fact, those TDR's were created, sold and used. However, as the effort to preserve the two cabins on Lot 6 and develop the property as allowed under Section 26.415 has proceeded, it was determined that Lot 6 would be eligible for three additional TDR's. Under the code, City Council approval is required in order to create these new TDR's. After a review of Ordinance 50, which granted approval of the Fox Crossing Subdivision, and the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, I could find nothing that would prevent Lot 6 from applying for additional TDR's. In fact, it is my opinion that because Lots 5 and 6 were specifically subject to development review through Section 26.415, it was intended that these lots could utilize benefits provided by that section of the code. Further, neither the issuance of the ~, b~~ ~ K~ development order nor the subdivision approval agreement would limit these lots from pursuing development and further benefits through Section 26.415. Finally, as to where these TDR's could be landed, the only restriction that would be related to this issue involves the maximum number that can be used by Fox Crossing. Ordinance 50 sets forth a maximum number of TDR's that could be used in the subdivision. If Fox Crossing properties have already received that maximum number of TDR's, then no more could be landed in Fox Crossing, without amending the original subdivision approval. Thus, any new TDR created by Lot 6, would have to land outside of the subdivision in a zone district and on a property that allows the extinguishment of a TDR. If Fox Crossing has not used the maximum number of TDR's that can be landed in the subdivision, then these TDR's could be landed there. Please advise if you have any questions. ~~~~ ~~ ~ RECEPTION#: 551559, 08/01/2008 at 10:23:19 AM, 1 of a, R $21.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Cauditt, Pitkin County, CO RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION {HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS, ADU STANDARDS AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 541 RACE STREET, LOT' 6, OF THE FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 15, SERIES OF 2008 PARCEL ID: 2737-073-92-OOb. WHEREAS, the applicant, Fox Crossing Partners, LLC, 601 East Hopkins Avenue, Ste. 202, Aspen, CO, 81611, represented by Janver Darrington of Charles Cunniffe Architects and Stan Clauson of Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., request Major Development (Conceptual}, Residential Design Standard Review, Accessary Dwelling Unit Design Standazd Review and Variances for the property located at 541 Race Street, Lot 6 of the Fox Crossing Subdivision, City of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for approval of setback variances, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.110.0 of the Municipal Code, that the setback variance: a. Is similaz to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district; and WHEREAS, for approval of an FAR bonus, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.110.0 of the Municipal Code, that: a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; and b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building and/or EXHIBIT C HPC CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL RESO #15 OF 2008 c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; and/or e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained; and WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report dated June 25th, 2008, performed an analysis of the application based on the review standards regarding Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards, Residential Design Standards, Variances and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, found them to have been met for Conceptual Review, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on June 25, 2008, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards for the Setback Variances, Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards, Residential Design Standazds, and Conceptual Design and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote of 5 to 0. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby recommends approval for Major Development Review (Conceptual), ADU Design Standazd Review, Residential Design Standard Review and Variances for the property located at 541 Race Street, Lot 6, Fox Crossing Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado as proposed with the following conditions; 1. The front porch of the free market residence will not be altered. 2. The applicant will restudy the grading to maintain the existing relationship to grade as appropriate to be reviewed during Final Review. 3. The 500 square feet FAR Bonus is granted. 4. The following setbacks are granted: a variance of five feet for the front yard (west) setback for the free market residence where ten feet are required and five feet are provided; a variance of ten feet for the front yard (west} setback of the ADU where five feet are provided and fifteen feet are required; a variance of seven feet for the north side yard setback where three feet are provided where ten feet are required; a variance of five feet for the south side yard setback where five feet are provided and ten feet are required; and a variance of five feet of distance between the cabins where ten feet is required and five feet are provided. 5. The unit shall be a "for sale" unit. 6. It is preferred that the unit be offered for sale through the lottery system with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. However, the Code stipulates that the initial developer may select the first qualified purchaser of the unit. Subsequent conveyances shall be according to the lottery sales procedures specified in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines as amended. 7. The unit shall be no higher than Category 4 with a preference to Category 3. 8. The governing documents shall be reviewed and approved by AP~~ EXHIBIT c ONCEPTUALAPPROVAL RESO #15 OF 2008 4. If the unit is part of a Homeowners' Association (HOA), language shall be provided in the Protective Covenants, or any other appropriate governing documents, covering the unit's homeowners' assessments. The assessments shall be based on the value of the deed- restricted sales compared to the sales price of the free-market homes within the same HOA. This language shall be required in the approval and in the Covenants associated with the project and shall also allow for the same voting representation as any other unit located within the HOA. No changes to this restriction would be allowed without APCHA's approval. 10. The Certificate of Occupancy for the deed-restricted unit shall be in conjunction with the free-mazket unit (or sooner). 11. Since this unit is an existing unit, Part VII, Section 14, Deed Restricting Existing Dwelling Units, comes into play. Specific conditions are required prior to Certificate of Occupancy of the free-market residence. If accepted by the City or County, existing units must be upgraded in accordance with the following criteria (unless a variance from these requirements is approved by the applicable governing body upon the recommendation of the APCHA): a. The interior walls of all units must be freshly painted. b. The interior Appliances must be purchased within the last five years and be in good and working condition. c. Carpet must be less than five years old and be in good condition and repair, or be replaced. d. The exterior walls shall be freshly painted within one year of dedication. e. A general level of upgrade to yards and landscaping shall be provided. f. Windows, heating, plumbing, electrical systems, fixtures and equipment shall be in good and working order. g. The roof must have a remaining useful life of at least ten (10}years. h. All units shall meet the International Building Code minimum standards, any applicable housing code or, in the absence of an adequate code, the housing code acceptable to the APCHA. i. All units shall be approved by the APCHA and verified by a qualified Building Inspector accepted and approved by the APCHA. j. Applicant shall bear the costs and expenses of any required upgrades to meet the standards stated in Part VII, Section 14, a through i, as well as any structurallengineering reports required by the APCHA to assess the suitability for occupancy and compliance with the APCHA standards of the proposed units. 12. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one {1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant aone-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. (signatures on the following page] EXHIBIT C HPC CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL RESO #15 OF 2008 APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 25th day of June 2008. Approved as to Form: Jim Trne, City Attorney Approved s to content: HISTO PRESERV TION COMMISSION Sarah roughton, Vice- Chair ATTEST: _~ ~~_ Kathy Stric and, Chief Deputy Clerk EXHIBIT C HPC CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL RESO #15 OF 2008 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 2008 204 N. Monarch -Conceptual Development (cont'd from 5/2812008) .............................. 2 406 E. Hopkins -Isis .......................................................................................................... 3 612 W. Francis St. -Historic Designation ......................................................................... 4 54i and 541 'h Race Street -Conceptual Development and Variances ............................. 6 Holden Marolt Shed and Ski Club building ..................................................................... 12 EXHIBIT D HPC MINUTES JUNE 25, 2008 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 2008 Alison said she finds that the proposal is eligible under our criteria and it is a good example of Post War Aspen. As long as the current owners have it, it will be kept in the existing context. MOTION.• Ann moved to approve Resolution #14 for designation of 612 W. Francis; second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried b-0. 541 and 541 % Race Street -Conceptual Development and Variances Michael recused himself. Sarah chaired. Affidavit of posting -Exhibit I Colored photographs -Exhibit II Sara said the discussion is about Lot 6. There will be two 1960's cabins located onto the parcel and this was all approved through the subdivision. The request is to discuss adding an addition to one of the cabins that will be a free market residence. They want to convert the other cabin to an ADU and they are not proposing any changes to the cabin, possibly asub-grade space but no external addition which is favorable. HPC will be looking at the residential design standards for accessory dwelling units. They are also requesting the 500 square foot FAR bonus and some setback requirements. Overall staff feels the guidelines are met especially guideline 10.3 and 10.4. The scale and size of the addition do not overwhelm the cabin. They are one story in height and appropriate. Staff is concerned about the connection of the connector piece to the historic cabin for the addition. We are recommending dropping the height if that is possible or shortening the length. It is difficult to distinguish the gable roof form of the cabin with the connector piece intersecting right into that gable. Another concern is the relationship of the free market porch to grade. There seems to be some changes in the floor of the free market porch, it seems to be a lot lower than the accessory dwelling unit. Staff feels the relationship to grade of the front porches remain as existing. They are identical right now and should remain that way. In terms of the porch guideline 5.1 and 5.2 take about preserving the original porch and avoid removing or covering details of the historic porch. They are proposing to take off some of the horizontal logs that are part of the front porch and putting in stone columns and staff feels they are not appropriate for the landmark. In terms of the FAR bonus we think that they meet the criteria and the design guidelines with the condition that the front porches remain the same in terms of the relationship and also design. EXHIBIT D HPC MINUTES JUNE 25, 2008 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 2008 We also think the FAR bonus should be granted if the connector piece is brought into a little more compliance with our guidelines by having a differentiation between the original roof form and where that connection is for the addition. Sara also pointed out that the front yard of the house is actually facing the park not Race Street which was part of the subdivision approval. They are requesting two front yard setback variances for each of the cabins and two side yard setback variances and a distance between buildings variance. This site is a 6,000 square foot lot and they are trying to put the two cabins on the site as part of the subdivision approval. The cabins are detached which staff supports. Staff is in favor of the setback variances in terms of the site planning. Keeping the cabins detached is preferable than having them attached. Stan Clauson presented Stan said the original approval had the two pan-a-bodes brought together in one single family residences. That ended to being an unfeasible design. There where three historic resources on the overall project, the Victorian house on Lot 5 and one pan-a-bode on Lot 5 and one on Lot 6. In laying out the subdivision Walnut Street extended which became the park and that is the front and Race Street or alley is the rear of the property. Charles Cunniffe, architect did a power point on the project. The park slopes from the pan-abodes down to the other houses. The power. point showed the relationship of the porches to the park. One of the pan-a- bodes porches steps down because the floor level in the building is lower. In the back of the pan-a-bode the head room is six feet. The top of the plywood on the roof height is nine feet on the connector. We don't want to expand the already below space as it will be uncomfortable. On the connector we could have the connector look like a cricket rather than a sloping roof. The addition looks bigger on the pan-a-bode because it is so small. In allowing the free market unit to be lowered and discussing the lower porch it lets the pan-a-bodes step up to the Victorian. At grade you wouldn't see the sloping roof because each house blocks the other. Sarah asked about the slope on the south of the cabin. Charles said there is a grading change to the house next to the cabin. To avoid having a foundation wall there is a grade change from the house to the right up to the cabin. EXHIBIT D HPC MINUTES JUNE 25, 2008 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 2008 Sarah said so there is a hill there. Charles said we are trying to mold it so that it looks natural rather than having walls. The hill and drop off is true to the way it existed. Sarah asked about the grading between the two cabins. Charles said it is basically a slight swell for drainage. Charles said it slopes from back to front so we are draining from the alley side of the house into the park. The park was designed to be a drainage area. The cabins will be moved slightly together. Sara said as part of the subdivision approval both cabins are designated and they are being relocated to Lot b and it is up to the applicant to figure out how the design should work. Charles said in the earlier approval the cabins where combined to have one large free market. Sarah asked about the porches. Charles said they are one step to grade now. The grade has been moved around during the construction of the site. Vice-chair Sarah Broughton opened the public hearing. L.J. Elsperman, neighbor said he supports the project. L.J. asked if they where taking away space from the park and is the FAR being increased. Stan Clawson commented that the park will remain as is. The previous approval created a single family free market residence. This proposal is a single family free market plus an ADU. The ADU is not considered in the density. In terms of the land use code there is no increase in density but there will be two residences instead of one and it is the same FAR. Sara said the ADU is going to be deed restricted for sale. Charles said on the site the FAR is lower than previously approved. L.J. said the cabins are 840 square feet. Sarah closed the public hearing. Sarah said basically we are being asked to look at the porch, connector, FAR bonus, setback variances and grading. EXHIBIT D HPC MINUTES JUNE 25, 2008 g ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 2008 Alison pointed out that the setback variances improve the situation. Sarah said the porch and the connector go hand in hand because it is a grading issue. Alison said you wouldn't bring the porch up and step up to it. Brian said he is more concerned about seeing the connector from the alley side. If it can't be seen the sloped connector would be preferable because that design would be better for drainage. Alison also agreed with Brian. Applying the cricket would make the roof lines more complex. Guideline 10.4 supports a product of its own time. Ann and Sarah agreed. Jay said he feels we should try to find innovative ways to make the design parameters work and maintain the integrity of the historic resource. Sarah said she has a lot of concerns about the grading that is going on and the siting of the house. We are creating real issues with drainage. Depending on the height of the cabins then goes into the height of the connector piece and the roof. We need to be siting the cabins as per our guidelines which talks about keeping them in their historic relationship with the site. The existing conditions has a much gentler slope. Alison said part of the problem is the house to the south was sited lower. Charles pointed out that originally the cabins where to be pushed together as a single family home and it had a different approach to the site. Charles suggested bringing the grade across and not creating the swell and that might work. We could do an area drain to the center of the two cabins and drain it out to the park. The park is the drainage pond for the entire site. Ann agreed with Charles recommendation. Brian said do create the abrupt change in the landscape to make the park more usable or do you taper it out. Sarah said the grading should not be falling on the historic resources. Charles said we need to find balance between all the sides. Brian suggested designing retaining walls and use shrubs on the sloped area. This grading is essential to the 504 square foot bonus. EXHIBIT D HPC MINUTES JUNE 25, 2008 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 2008 Sarah said the two cabins need to be seen on the same level piece of land. Jay said the grading is directly connected to lowering the porch. How do we feel about lowering the porch. By allowing that to happen the bonus would be less warranted. Guideline 5.1 and 5.2 deal with preserving the original porch. . Brian said if there is something we could do to maintain the same level of facades on the two buildings he could grant the bonus. Alison said the ADU is well done and it complies with all the guidelines. The problem is they are trying to force it into something that it is not by lowering the floor grade. Jay said this is a designated property and it is clear that the porch should not be changed. I've been in both units. Part of the person who is going to buy this unit will have the quaintness of owning an historic piece of property and that will be incorporated as to how they live in it. This is a major issue. I would have a problem offering the bonus as designed because of lowering the porch. Ann said she doesn't have the same problem. The site plan has been approved. The importance here is that the cabins are separated and they are being preserved. Sarah pointed out that we are not here to compare the two applications. Sara said in reference to the FAR bonus in the future the applicant was thinking about establishing TDR's. Amy said the bonus that is provided for the ADU and the S00 requested, not all is needed to build the project that is proposed so they can sell some as TDR's. Sara said they are not required to do any affordable housing mitigation on this lot because it is designated. They are doing it voluntarily. EXHIBIT D HPC MINUTES JUNE 25, 2008 1~ ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 2008 Charles said the cabin is being brought up to code. I don't think you can meet every guideline 100%. Guidelines are guidelines and they are to guide the HPC to come up with the right solution or something that compromises. Sarah it is great that the cabins are being preserved and they are now five feet apart. The cabins do need to function for today but I still have a lot of concerns with the grading. We all concur that the site is working well and the stumbling block is this elevation puzzle. Stan said possibly the approval could call for a restudy the grading at final. Ann said they are close enough to getting the bonus. The bonus is granted at conceptual and the grading is reviewed at final. Ann said she would made a motion to approve the project contingent on working out the grading. Jay said something needs to go in the motion about the porch. Sarah said the porch in its relationship to the grade i~ the concern. Ann said isn't the issue that the porch got lower. Sarah said yes. Sarah said she is fine with adding the condition. Jay said grading detracts how the cabins where set there to begin with. Again, the people who live in these cabins have to live with park activity right out there front door. The grading from the cabin to the park should not distinguish a property line. It should encourage people to come up to the cabin. MOTION.• Ann made the motion to approve Resolution #1 S as written for 541 and 541 % Race Street. Ann pointed out that the condition on the front porch and the free market are in the resolution. Motion second by Alison. Sara asked if condition #2 should be changed. Brian said the applicant will restudy the grading. Sarah said the motion needs to be clear as to what we are asking. Alison said the relationship to grade of the free market cabin is the issue. EXHIBIT D HPC MINUTES JUNE 25, 2008 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 2008 Sarah said we are trying to say that the existing relationship to grade that these cabins have is what we would like to see in the proposal because we don't see it right now in the free market. Brian said the grading needs restudied to help maintain the existing relationship between the two buildings. Sarah re-phrased the condition: Applicant will restudy grading to maintain existing relationship to grade as appropriate and to be reviewed at final. Amy asked the board if they are asking that the porch not be dropped on the free market. Sazah said yes, that is what. we are asking. Condition #1 states that the front porch on the free market residence will not be altered. Right now the porch is being altered in this proposal. Amy said she just wanted to make sure that it was built in the resolution. Amended motion: Ann accepted the change to condition #2 that the applicant will restudy grading to maintain existing relationship to grade as appropriate to be reviewed at f nal. Alison amended the second. All in favor, motion carried. Holden Marolt Shed and Ski Club building Brian Flynn pointed out that the Parks Department prefers to tear down the Marolt Shed. That area should be used as open space not storage. We let the Historical Society use the one bay. It is a public safety hazard right now. HPC needed more information on the Ski Club building. MOTION.• Sarah moved to adjourn; second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. ~,; Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk EXHIBIT D HPC MINUTES JUNE 25, 2008 12 V. __ _.__. __._.. _....._...~._e__ ...... Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance:_ Derek, Skalko, Michael Hoffman, Sarah Broughton, Jason Lasser and Valerie Alexander., Staff present: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic .Preservation Planner Kathleen Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION.• Jason moved to approve the minutes of August 11th, August 25th and Sept. 1, 2004; second by Jeffrey. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. Yes vote.• Jeffrey, Derek, Michael, Jason Disclosure of conflicts: Michael - 470 N. Spring and 557 Walnut Ave. Meeting changes for Nov. and Dec. Nova 10~' and 17~' Dec. 8~' and 15th MOTION.• Michael. moved toy continue the public hearing and Historic Lot Split on 701 W. Main Street to Oct. 13; second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried. 470 N. SPRING STREET. -REQUEST FORA 6 MONTH. EXTENSION OF CONCEPTUAL _ Amy informed the board that the project involves the bay window on the front of the house and the last direction the board gave them was to remove the non-historic bay and they are in the process to study what it would look like to restore the original window. They think they may not make the final deadline to file for final approval. MOTION.• Valerie moved to approve the request for asix-month extension for 470 N. Spring Street; second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried. 557 WALNUT AVE. -CONCEPTUAL, RELOCATION, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT, VARIANCES, PUBLIC HEARING Michael recused himself. Sworn in Camilla Auger, Gilbert Sanchez, Stan Clauson Affidavit of posting -Exhibit I_ EXHIBIT E HPC MINUTES FOR ~ 2004/2005.APPROVALS A' Affidavit of public notice -Exhibit IL Amy summarized that we are dealing with two lots that are going to be within a larger subdivision. that is not, in HPC's purview. The lots in question contain a Victorian miner's cottage that is currently half designated and in the memo it discusses about an error. that.. occurred m1995 regarding the description of the property. The applicant plans to correct that and amend the designated envelope so that it covers the .entire miner's cottage. They are also volunteering to designate the two cabins that are next to it. The_applicant plans to split off a portion of the landmark lot to create a park and to transfer_development rights of 2,000 square feet off of this parcel to surrounding lots. They will also do restoration work and additions to the historic house. The Victorian, which is in very poor condition, will be restored and there will be a generous connector between it and a new garage and bedroom addition. The log cabins will be moved slightly on the site and linked together in a manner that is .fairly inconspicuous to make them a single-family house. At the last meeting the concern was about the TDR code, .amendment .and whether that was the right thing to do. There were also concerns. about the setback variances.. The. applicant has re-worked some of their proposed wording that says up to two TDR's could land on anon-historic residential. site as long as it is in the same subdivision as the designated sending property.. The applicant has also identified which paxcels they intend to land TDR's and none are next ~to the historic building so the FAR is really going away from the designated properties. : Setbacks: The applicant has elirriinated all of their setback requests along the rear lot line.... They did that by shortening the connector well beyond two feet. The cabins setbacks have been eliminated.. The garage is till within five feet of the rear lot line but that, is an allowed right. Staff supports the application. The only issue is the location of the kitchen addition on the miner's cottage. The concern. is the way it overlaps the historic gable ends of the building. Applicant: Stan said the purpose of the TDR code amendment is to be able within a single project shift a little more TDR's to appropriate lots. In this project TDR's are created by the historic house, relocated cabins, and the park itself. In the present program there would be TDR's adjacent to the historic properties but what they would like to do is have the ability to move the EXHIBIT E NPC MINUTES FOR 2 2004/2005 APPROVALS A' TDR's in multiples of two to properties that are further away and much larger in size. In this particular case the properties are Lot 1, 2, 10, which would receive two. TDR's each. The Griffith lot would receive 1 TDR and each of the condominiums of Lot 2 would receive 2 each. The largest lots are well over 6,000 square feet and they are also more distant from the historic resource. Camilla commented on the overall objectives. The TDR, program is not retroactive. The idea is to create a major open space on the Hunter Creek trail, which we have been trying to get for years. Anew park would be on Spruce Street and then a destination historic core for this neighborhood. The project is meant to be very pedestrian oriented: The neighborhood is surrounded by large projects. Gilbert relayed that they are no longer requesting setbacks along Race Street but they are still requesting setbacks on the side yards on the cabins. The UBC requires a 3-foot setback on both. sides.. That resultedin the. cabins.,... getting closer together. Letters from Jon Busch, Larry Griffin and Curlie Bennis -Exhibit III. Gilbert said he met with Jon Busch. and they came to a compromise as to how to address the concerns .Ion had. The letters basically addressed not having any setbacks on Race Street and the cabin's garage roof would be slightly lowered. Map of existing side yard setbacks entered as Exhibit N. Gilbert addressed the kitchen and the way the architecture relates to the existing gable end. Gilbert said they are willing to restudy that issue for final. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Sworn in: Jon Busch, Robert Zupancis Jon Busch said he is mostly impacted as he has two garages outside his kitchen door. The TDR transfer of 500 square feet to the lot adjacent to him blocks him in. The- letter states that there will be no setback variances, along Race Street and they will slightly lower the roof of the cabins' garage. He stated that he keeps getting new revelations constantly revolving around this EXHIBIT E HPC MINUTES FOR 2004/2005 APPROVALS ... . .. ......... ,._.,.. ..,ro.;.. .,~....~,~._,m_~.~. _ __ .... _. project. Jon did say that he supports the historic part of the application. Jon said he objects to the TDR's on the_lot next to him. Robert Zupancis said he likes .the park but opposes advertising it as a park or trail head due to the lack of parking in that uicinity. Any city mapping or guidebooks that are done. should not have the trailhead identified.. Robert also said he has issues with the construction access which is not identified and those are safety issues within the neighborhood. This will probably be under construction for ten to 20 years. Off-street parking is also an issue. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public- hearing. Board comments.. _ Valerie said her concerns were the variances requested on Race Street-but they have been responded to. Parking at the park is certainly a concern. She also is concerned that the. park won't feel like a park. P&Z-.will address the parking issue. Derek said he was very favorable of the. project at the last meeting and he is comfortable in granting all the variances.. The project has only gotten better. As far as the variance go the applicant has gone beyond what they needed to do in this prof ect. There are a few homes on Race Street that :are not in compliance with their setbacks. The TDR's are :very fair and reasonable. Jason said the garages are minimal. exposure on Race Street. His only concern is the proximity of the footprint of Lot 1 & 2 to Race Street. Sarah said her concems_were the setbacks,but the architects restudiedthe context of Race. Street and have been sympathetic in the design. The. reduction of the mass. of the garage along the cabins is sympathetic to the neighborhood and that is a good change in the overall mass. Sarah also supports the TDR code amendment.. By keeping the two cabins as a pair, given our criteria.on how we establish an FAR bonus, many of criteria are being met. Jeffrey said he is in support of the application. He appreciated the applicant. reaching out to the neighborhood. The design improvements on Race Street and eliminating the variances is very effective. He also echoes some of the neighbors concerns. about parking in reference to the park but hopefully this will be a hike to and walking destination. Regarding the TDR's there is concern on some of the recipient sites. There are some impacts on some-of the neighbors. The majority of the criteria for the FAR bonus have. been EXHIBIT E HPC MINUTES FOR 4 2004/2005 APPROVALS --- ---~__~~~~. ~~. ~..r.. r.~~ • mTnwT !`~l11~TAifTC~C'~T/11~T r met. Jeffrey is in support of the TDR's to keep the massing off the historic. structures. Jeffrey recommended that staff and monitor look at the allocation of the recipient sites. Valerie said she is in favor of the TDR program being used in this project but is disappointed to see more than, one. go to each lot. The TDR program is generous in that you could gain one. Amy clarified that presently in the TDR program you can land one 250 square foot TDR per site. Amy pointed out that HPC gives 500 square foot FAR bonuses on landmark properties and that is the same thing that is happening here. Camilla said parking is a serious problem in that neighborhood with junk vehicles. They never move and get snowed in all winter. The board of Hunter Creek is cooperating in requesting neighborhood parking and an internal neighborhood enforcement program, which includes towing. We will provide parking spaces as required by law on -all the houses.. MOTION.• Sarah moved to_approve resolution #29 for 557 Walnut Avenue with the addition of one whereas related to TD~2's; second by Derek All in favor, motion carried 4-~. Yes vote: .Jeffrey, Derek, Sarah, Valerie ASPEN MEADOWS - P&Z REFERRAL Jody Schoeberlein, Jeff Berkus and Jim. Curtis presented the project. Their design challenge is how to integrate "mind, body and spirit" into the architecture. In Herbert Bayer later years he connected daylight issues, i.e. sun and nature into his designs. The architects want the building to be a direct-link to the future. This project will be scheduled with HPC at a later date. MOTION.• Jeffrey moved to adjourn, second by Derek. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk EXHIBIT E HPC MINUTES FOR 5 2004/2005 APPROVALS ATI 414 N. FIRST STREET- LANDSCAPE PLAN......., ...................................................... 1 403 W. HALLAM ST. -FINAL REVIEW. - PIJBLIC HEARING .................................. 2 2 WILLIAMS WAY -MAJOR DEVELOPMENT -FINAL REVIEW -PUBLIC HEARING ................,................ ,....., ........... ..................... .........,... ........ ............... 4 557 WALNUT STREET -.LOT SPLIT -VARIANCES -CONCEPTUAL . ............... 7 11 314 E. HYMAN - MOTHERLODE ............................... ...............:.. ..........,... ... worksession - no minutes .....................:..... ................... ................ ........ .............. 11 VISIT FROM DAN CORSON -COLO. HISTORICAL .SOCIETY.... . ........ ..:.......... 11 EXHIBIT E HPC MINUTES FOR 12 2004/2005 APPROVALS MOTION.• Valerie moved to approve Resolution #26, 2004 for 2 Williams. Way with amendments to the conditions: Eliminate condition #2 and #4. Amend #S the existing east end windows will be removed and the existing west end will be determined by staff and monitor. #21 All trees are to be protected per the Parks Dept. treeprotection specifications; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. Yes vote: Derek, Sarah,. Valerie, Jeffrey. 557 WALNUT STREET -LOT SPLIT -.VARIANCES - CONCEPTUAL Sworn in: Camilla Auger, Stan Clauson, Gilbert Sanchez Amy said this project covers two properties that are ultimately going to be part of a larger subdivision. 557 Walnut has been on the historic inventory since 1995 and contains a Victorian cabin that is dilapidated and has been the long discussion of demolition by neglect, which will be resolved. with this application. 541 & 555 Walnut are. two log cabins that were built in 1964 that are next to the Victorian and they are not designated. We need the owner consent to designate because they are just turning 40 years old and that will be part of this project. Staff used the criteria that deals with post war properties and the integrity assessment and finds that the log cabins meet the criteria for designation. The next aspect of theprofect is the historic lot split which relates only to the Victorian house.. The proposal is to do a lot split but not develop anything on the newly created lot and have it designated a park. All the square footage will be transferred to development rights. The Victorian will sit on a-6,000 square foot lot and the park will be on a 9,000 square foot lot. Floor area split: 2,770 will go to the parcel with the Victorian house. 2,173 to TDR's. .The applicant is also requesting support for a code amendment. Presently only one single TDR can go on each residential site. The applicant would like to land more than one TDR per site within their own subdivision. Staff has some concerns about this because there will be some effect on adjacent neighbors with the increase in the size of the building.. Development standards: Overall this is an excellent project because the TDR's are taking a lot of pressure off the buildings. A lot of the features on the Victorian house will be brought back. The log buildings are proposed to EXHIBIT E HPC MINUTES FOR 7 2004!2005 APPROVALS ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COA/INIISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 11, 2004 be moved and linked together and window_and door openings are being changed. Staff has some concern because. that is a sensitive issue and we do not want to loose the integrity of the buildings. The Victorian house will be picked up and a basement dug and the house put back. In terms of the design of the Victorian there is a kitchen addition proposed that overlaps an original gable end and staff is requesting that it be pushed back so that it does not intrude on the historic feature of the building. Thee log cabins. are being.moved together and linked as asingle-family house. There is a proposal to lower the interior floor space that will affect the existing doors and they will probably have to be replaced. This is a concern to staff and needs to be addressed before final. Staff supports the on-site relocation of the cabins. Presently they are not designated and a demolition permit could be pulled at any time. There is an FAR bonus request for each of the parcels. For the Victorians staff finds it is met because of all the sensitive considerations that have been brought into the new addition, which includes all of the restoration efforts. Staff recommends that someone who is experienced in wood conservation be brought on to oversee the restoration process to salvage everything possible. There is a side yard variance request for the cabins and they come within 2 1/z feet from the lot line. Staff finds this acceptable. There is a five foot rear yard setback variance and this is driven by the fact that we want a little buffer between the old construction and the addition and not move the cabins too far forward because they have always been alley type buildings and do not need to compete with the other Victorian. Camilla said their objective is to make an historic core and make it a destination that people will want to visit the way they visit the West End. The idea is open space, park amenities for the neighborhood and all pedestrian oriented gravitating toward the historic resource. Gilbert said the re-subdivision is under a separate land use application that is moving along concurrently. Presently each of the cabins is partially on and partially off the property line. -For protection we propose to adjust the lot line so that. it encompasses the house within the site. We are asking for the designation of the two cabins and their relocation and a newly designated lot. Currently what is designated is about 15,787 sq. ft. and with the new area we are going up to 21,127 sq. ft. of historically designated property. We really are creating three properties, the open space, the Victorian cottage and the two log cabins. The plan is to picl~ up the old building and provide a EXHIBIT E HPC MINUTES FOR $ 2004/2005 APPROVALS . trllt~ V 1 L' l7 lJl• n V V V v 1 111 basement underneath, and do an addition to,the back. ,;The current building is .: 882 square feet and we are proposing to add a kitchen and have a total of ..2,770 sq. ft. The allowable is 4,400 square feet. -,The addition also includes _ _ , a garage. They are also requesting the' 500: square foot FAR bonus. Gilbert said there. would be 12_TDR's generated. There are 13_ lots left_and___ _ the TDR's will not be used on the cabins or the Victorian _ Under, the current ordinance you can only use one TDR per lot. The intent is to use more .than one per lot and move the TDR's away from the historic resource, Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Jon Busch, neighbor. His concerns are that the project is oriented within itself. The cabins face an open space that is surrounded on all sides by various kinds'ofbomes. It ignores the existing neighborhood. Race .Street.. will become a wall of garages with variances that bring it within five feet from the property line. The design is a devastation. to the rest of the neighborhood. The cabins are set back to keep the Victorian home visible which is seen only from the internal. park space. At least it should be the legal setback often feet to allow a little lawn. ,-Something needs done to mitigate the wall. Gretchen Greenwood, neighbor directly to the south. She has issues about the FAR and TDR's. We have. neighborhood issues. and. Race ,Street is basically an alley. We had low density for some time. Each of the buildings with additions has four. bedrooms and they are all going to require a certain amount of parking and access for maintenance. Vie. don't have that knd.of _ space to deal with that density. There has been no site plan. submitted with this application: There is no parking allowed on Race Street or Walnut Street. The. entire site planning aspect of this effects what happens with the restoration of the cabins. They have' made a commendable effort to restore. -the house. An excellent project would be that the Victorian would stay as a Victorian and the cabins stay as cabins. No-.site plan has been submitted so one cannot tell how are these houses going to function in this neighborhood. Robert Zupancis, two doors down from the lots. ,Robert. commended. Camilla for keeping the neighborhood a'single-family neighborhood instead of ahigh-density high rise. The trail is a very generous. Some issues that should be looked at is the historical.. use of Race Street. How can we EXHIBIT E HPC MINUTES FOR 9 2004/2005 APPROVALS V preserve the existing feeling of Race Street.. Make the garages less intimidating and keep the alley as a walkway. Additional interior parking would help the project. Mimi Halenstein, neighbor. The major issue is that there is going to be five feet from the garage to Race Street which is really a walkway. How this works with the neighborhood is an ssue_ for us, __It is going to be difficult getting in and out of the driveway. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed. the public hearing. Comments: Derek reminded the audience that this project needs to go to P&Z and City Council. Onr role is very specific, addressing historic preservation.. The massing and scale follow our guidelines. Derek also requested a restudy on the setbacks on Race Street. Sarah requested a site plan for the next meeting.: She also stated the lot split is appropriate. In terms of reviewing this large -plot of land it made sense to group the historic buildings together and to create critical mass so that those resources do not become diminished... Some of the. existing houses on Race Street are very close to the street. . Valerie said the project is worthy of designation and meets criteria A & C. She also supports the landmark lot split and we are making history the day that the lot split becomes a park. The applicant is proposing to create new lot lines, which in tern lends me to think, that setback variances are. not necessary when you are creating your own lot lines. Perhaps there is a way to finesse this without variances. Valerie supports continuation to address the issue of the context of the neighborhood and the effects of this project on the community. Jeffrey said criteria A & C for designation have been met. -The lot split does create a public amenity. Jeffrey has some concerns with the cabins and its impact on Race Street. Valerie said she would be interested in what the Engineering Dept. will be recommending or requiring on Race Street with the increased density. EXHIBIT E HPC MINUTES FOR l 0 2004/2005 APPROVALS N COMIIZISSIUN Applicants comments: Stan said the density is units per acre. This zone is R-6 and it is .therefore, designated for 6,000 square foot lots. Adjacent to it is R1VIF zoning, which are denser, and across the street is an areaof R-15. No lot proposed is less than 6,000 square feet. There is no issue here of density that is greater than what the zoning district provides. With .the park area .of 9,444 square feet dedicated open space, that could be developed. From a density standpoint that project meets all the requirements of the code. Gilbert said they analyzed Race Street. and there. are buildings that go beyond the setbacks, .The request for variances was based on the character of the street... The .current., .code. allows for, a garage to be within five feet of the setback line... We are providing all of the off-street parking required by code. We are not asking for any variances for that... The transfer of TDB's...... would not have. a negative impact on the historic resources., Camilla said they are using the TDR's to keep them away from Race Street and onto Lone Pine. MOTION.• Derek moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development for 557 Walnut Ave. to Sept. 1, 2004; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. Derek, Sarah, Valerie; Jeffrey Stan said -the issues that are most problematic are the setback. from the alley and the TDR recommendation. 314 E. IIYMAN - MOTHERLODE worksession - no minutes VISIT FROM DAN CORSON -COLO. HISTORICAL SOCIETY. _ MOTION.• Jeffrey moved to adjourn the meeting; second by Sarah. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. EXHIBIT E HPC MINUTES FOR 11 2004/2005 APPROVALS ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NIlNUTES OF APRiL 27, 2005 555 & 557 WALNUT STREET -MAJOR DEVELOPMENT -FINAL PUBLIC HEARING ......................................................................................................................... 1 530, 532, and 534 E. HOPKINS -CONKER CABINS ................................................. 3 FAR BONUSES ON PROPERTIES CONTAINING MORE THAN ONE LANDMARK BUIDLING worksession .......................................................................... 5 EXHIBIT E HPC MINUTES FOR 2004/2005 APPROVALS 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2005 Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Derek Skalko, Jason Lasser, Michael Hoffinan and Sarah Broughton. Valerie Alexander was excused. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Kathleen Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Disclosures: Derek and Michael will be stepping down on 555 & 557 Walnut St. MOTION.• Derek moved to continue 435 W. Main to June 8`h; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried. 555 & 557 WALNUT STREET -MAJOR DEVELOPMENT -FINAL PUBLIC REARING Affidavit of posting- Exhibit I Amy relayed that the application is for the rehabilitation of the Victorian miner's cottage and the two 1960's era log buildings. In previous meetings the board was satisfied with the kind of additions that were being made here. The addition on the Victorian is very sympathetic in scale and there is a lot of restoration that is needed. The two log cabins will be designated along with this application. The one issue that is being debated is to add a stone veneer around the base and add stone chimneys. Staff wanted to point out by adding these changes the rating score will be lowered. The stone is bringing in a level of detail that is not present on the buildings right now. Gilbert Sanchez & Camilla Auger Gilbert said the height of the addition on the log cabins has been reduced by 9 inches which came about by conversations with the neighbors. All the new elements will be clad with wood siding in various directions. The materials will be very sympathetic with the existing Victorian. Restoration: The applicant is aware of the requirement of working with a wood conservator as part of the design team. Gilbert mentioned that he feels there will be a very limited amount that~will be salvaged and that report will come back to the board. He will put together a demolition plan. In terms of the cabins the wood logs are painted and they would like to return to the natural state. Regarding the roof ng materials on the Victorian cottage they would like to go back to the blue wood shingles. During the construction EXHIBIT E HPC MINUTES FOR 2004/2005 APPROVALS ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2005 document process we will be working to find that specific roofing material. Cabins: The roof was originally wood shingles and they have a metal roof on them right now. They would like to go back to wood shingles on the gable portion and because of the shallow slope do a standing seam metal roof on the shed roofs. Stone foundation and stone chimneys. Under Rustic architecture it mentions logs with stone foundations and chimneys. On these cabins the grade changes just less than 3 feet. We would like to have a masonry foundation which falls under Rustic architecture. The stone will be minimally exposed. There is concrete block on the foundation of the cabins right now. Photo of existing cabins -Exhibit II Photo of existing stone foundations around town -Exhibit III Photo of existing house and roof -Exhibit IV We are introducing fireplaces on the inside and would like to express them on the outside and we would do that in a scale that is appropriate. Camilla said the cabins are one of the most challenging elements of the project. We need them to be a living preservation that someone will buy and live in. The stone will look nicer than cinder block and it will enhance the preservation aspects. We will be very careful as to what the stone will look like. Jason asked if the stone would come out from the foundation and Gilbert said it would have the same line and be flush. There are no chimneys, just flue pipes. Gilbert also relayed that they intend to paint the Victorian cottage. Amy said paint was original and the board would not want to see a stain used. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. Jon Busch said he lives on Race Street directly across from the cabins. He supports the project but the orientation of all these things is toward the open space. No problem with the chimneys but suggests they be made of native stone because the logs are native. His only problem is the two car garage that is attached to the cabins. It is a shed roof and at the highest point five feet from the edge of the alley. It is the most prominent element of the three EXHIBIT E HPC MINUTES FOR 2004/2005 APPROVALS 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2005 buildings. Possibly create a roof line that more mirrors the cabins instead of having the peak right next to the road. The chair closed the public hearing. Board Comments: Jason commented that the guidelines talk about keeping the materials the same. He is not sure how he will approach the chimneys and stone because none presently exist. Sarah commented on the great project. The roofing materials are appropriate. She could approve the stone but the layout needs to be looked at to see how it relates to the logs. Camilla said they have no problem using the native stone. Jeffrey said the project is in compliance with the guideline and scale. Chapter 7.11 talks about using conjectural features on the roof. The structure has been deteriorating and this is an excellent example of rustic architecture. The open space that is being preserved is an encouragement for this neighborhood. Gilbert said the idea behind the guidelines was to create a template that could be used to achieve the best possible preservations that we could. The stone base and chimney will be modest. The stone base is an appropriate way to finish off the exposure. MOTION.• Sarah moved to approve Resolution #IS as stated in staff's memo taking out condition #2. The stone foundation and chimney may remain with final details to be approved by staff and monitor; second by Jason. Amended motion: #13 with staff and monitor the final roof material will be reviewed on the Victorian. Jason amended his second. Motion carried 3-0. Yes vote: Jason, Sarah, Jeffrey 530, 532, and 534 E. HOPKINS - CONNER CABINS Affidavit of posting -Exhibit I Landscape and lighting plan Exhibit II Greg Hills, Michael Noda, Mitch Haas Derek and Michael were seated. EXHIBIT E HPC MINUTES FOR 2004/2005 APPROVALS A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CODE AMENDMENT, HISTORIC DESIGNATION, AND A HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT TO CITY COUNCIL AND APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), RELOCATION, AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 555 AND 557 WALNUT STREET, WHICH ARE DESCRIBED AS LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 3, WILLIAM'S ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN AND 541 WALNUT STREET, WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS LOTS 4 AND 5, BLOCK 3, WILLIAM'S ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION N0.29, SERIES OF 2004 PARCEL ID: 2737-073-00-422/23 WHEREAS, the applicant, Walnut Property LLC, represented by Gilbert Sanchez AIA and Stan Clauson and Associates, has requested support for a Code Amendment, Historic Designation, Historic Landmazk Lot Split, and approval for a Major Development (Conceptual), Relocation, and Variances for the property located at 555 and 557 Walnut Street, which are described as Lots 2 and 3, Block 3, Williams Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, and 541 Walnut Street, which is described as Lots 4 and 5, Block 3, Williams Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, HFC reviewed the proposed Code Amendment, which allows one additional TDR to land on anon-historic residential unit under certain circumstances, and agreed to forward a recommendation of support for the amendment to P&Z and Council; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.050 of the Aspen Municipal Code establishes the process for Designation and states that an application for listing an the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmazk Sites and Structures shall be approved if HPC and City Council determine sufficient evidence exists that the property meets the criteria; and WHEREAS, in order to complete a Historic Landmazk Lot Split, the applicant shall meet the following requirements of Aspen Land Use Code: Section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section 26.470.070(C}, and Section 26.415.010(D;) and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated .historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC EXHIBIT F HPC RESO #29 OF 2004 AND #15 OF 2005 may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or.deny; and WHEREAS, for approval of Relocation of a Designated Property, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.090.0 of the Municipal Code, that: 1. It is considered anon-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security; and WHEREAS, for approval of an FAR bonus, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.110.0 of the Municipal Code, that: a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; and b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building and/or c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; and/or e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained; and WHEREAS, for approval of setback site coverage variances, the. HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.110.0 of the Municipal Code, that the variance: EXHIBIT F HPC RESO #29 OF 2004 AND #15 OF 2005 a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated September 22, 2004, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on September 22, 2004, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote of 5 to 0. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby recommends approval of a TDR Code Amendment, Historic Designation for the log cabins {54l and 555 Walnut) and Historic Landmark Lot Split for the Victorian (557 Walnut) to City Council, and that HPC grants approval for Major Development (Conceptual}, On-Site Relocation, and Variances with the following conditions: 1. HPC supports the clarification to the boundaries of the designated Victorian parcel as represented in the application. 2. HPC supports the requested TDR code amendment. 3. The HPC hereby approves a 500 square foot FAR bonus for the parcel containing the Victorian and the parcel containing the log cabins. 4. The HPC hereby approves the following setback vaziances: for the Victorian, a north sideyazd variance to allow a setback of 5 feet instead of the required 10' and a combined sideyazd variance to allow 15' instead of the required 20,' and on the property that contains the two log cabins, HPC approves setbacks of 3' instead of the required 10'on the north and south sideyazds, a combined sideyard of 6' instead of the required 20', and a 5% site coverage variance. 5. The architect must restudy the location of the kitchen addition on the Victorian so that it does not encroach on the historic gable end. 6. The applicant is required to retain a contractor or consultant with demonstrated knowledge in conservation of historic wood to oversee the restoration of the Victorian. 7. A structural report demonstrating that the buildings can be moved and/or information about how the houses will be stabilized from the housemover must be submitted with the building permit application. 8. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 for each pazcel to insure the safe relocation of the structures must be submitted with the building permit application. 9. A relocation plan detailing how and where the buildings will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. 10. An application for final review shall be submitted for review and approval by the HPC `~ within one year of September 22, 2004 or the conceptual approval shall be considered null and void per Section 26.415.070.D.3.c.3 of the Municipal Code. ~"isiT F HPC RESO #29 OF 2004 AND #15 OF 2005 11. For the property that contains the Victorian, a subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall: a. Meet the requirements of Section 26.480 of the Aspen Municipal Code; b. Contain a plat note stating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to the provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; c. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district, except the variances approved by the HPC; and d. Be labeled to indicate that #his proposal will create a Lot A of 6,015.62 square feet in size with 2,770 square feet of floor area, and a Lot B of 9,044 square feet in size with 2,173 square feet of floor area available to be used for TDR's. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its .regular meeting on the 22nd day of September, 2004. Approved as to Form: Da id Hoefer, Assists t City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Kathy Chief Deputy Clerk EXHIBIT F HPC RESO #29 OF 2004 AND #15 OF 2005 iu~iiiWi~iamiiiiimM~i~iiuNUU~ s~05:~°: A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 555 AND 557 WALNUT STREET, WHICH ARE DESCRIBED AS LOTS 2-5, BLOCK 3, WILLIAM'S ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 15, SERIES OF 2005 PARCEL ID: 2737-073-00-022/23 WHEREAS, the applicant, Walnut Property LLC, represented by Gilbert Sanchez AIA, has requested Major Development (Final) for the property located at 555 and 557 Walnut Street, which are described as Lots 2-5, Block 3, Williams Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired,. relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Final Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.4 i 5.070.D.3.b:2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated Apri4 27, 2005, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on April 27, 2005, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote of3to0. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby recommends approval for Major Development (Final) with the following conditions: The applicant is required to retain a contractor or consultant with demonstrated knowledge in conservation of historic wood to oversee the restoration of the Victorian. EXHIBIT F HPC RESO #29 OF 2004 AND #15 OF 2005 51584 Page: 2 of 2 05/26/2005 09:31F SILVIfi DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 11.00 D 0.00 2. HPC has granted approval for On-Site Relocation and Variances subject to conditions established in Resolution #29, Series of 2004. 3. The applicant must submit a preservation plan with the building permit indicating what original materials appear to still exist on the structure, and what treatments wilt be used to retain them. 4. HPC staff and monitor must approve any changes with regard to the type and location of exterior lighting fixtures by reviewing a plan prior to wiring, purchasing, or installing the fixtures. 5. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the information is available. 6. Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the existing house are to be removed as part of the renovation. 7. No elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist. No existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor. 8. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board. 9. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 10. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. i 1. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. 12. Final roof material for the Victorian to be approved by staff and monitor. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 27th day of April, 2005. Appro Form• Davi Hoefer, Assistant ity Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Halferty, Chair A .... T ,2{, '" ~..~1. L.t~I Chief Deputy Clerk HPC RESO #2 OF1B 04 AND #15 OF 2005 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSYOl~T=1V~`inutes - actober 1v2`W2~~ COMMENTS ..........................:....:.:.................................~:..,..~,.:.r.:....~..~..:.:...r.:~:....nw:r:.:;:~2 DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS ~ OF`~TNTERES~T .............................................. 2 707 EAST HYIVIAN = CONDIT"IONA~ IJSE =~~~1VIIVIERCIAI, PARKING LOT2 FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION ........................,.........................., .......:..........:...-6_ .~ EXHIBITG P & Z MINUTES 2004 APPROVALS) ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION-Minutes -October 12, 2004 PUBLIC HEARING: FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Fox Crossing Subdivision. Chris Bendon explained the land use was a little confusing and page 2 of the memo supplied a map showing the 2 Griffith properties (permits a single family and a duplex) plus the other properties including the Bennis property (currently a duplex), the Walnut properties (4 lots), the Railroad parcel (permits asingle-family or duplex), the garage parcel (permits a duplex), the old house (a historic resource permits a duplex or 2single-family residences), 2 cabins and a newer house are currently on Race alley. Staff had to interpret county code to get the number of rights on the parcels (page 4 of the memo describes the staff interpretation and development rights. allowed). Bendon said this was a subdivision without variances but with Growth Management Exemptions to re-house the existing development rights on newly established parcels and 2 code amendments. 1 code amendment was for the . Historic TDR Program and 1 for the Growth Management Program. Bendon noted some issues were the emergency access and road safety; the width of Race Alley and a proposal for a new access road.on the west side of the property. The Fire Department, City Engineer and Chris Bendon all agreed a little alteration on the west side road was needed and Race Street (Alley) was okay.being one-way. Bendon said the City Historic TDR Program allows receiver sites to land 1 Historic TDR per residence (250 square feet); on a duplex 2 Historic. TDRs could be used. This proposal would allow. for 2 Historic TDRs to be used for,each residence for properties that were in the subdivision. Clauson said. there.were_2,750 square feet to be allocated from the Historic resource for TDRs in this subdivision. Bendon explained that the subdivision. had to contain the Historic Resource and the TDRs must come from that Historic Resource. Brandon- Marion .asked .for the. way the TDRs would be used in the. subdivision for the next meeting. Bendon said the second code amendment proposed was for Growth Management to recognize County TRDs. The County TDR Program allows TDRs from rural and remote (back county) or mining claims to be transferred to a property within the urban growth boundary (map on page 6 of staff memo). The Aspen Area Community Plan, which is jointly adopted with Pitkin County, recognizes the policy desire to accept those official development rights within the city; the city has not pursued that so this is kind of tricky. The proposal would recognize and accept a County TDR as a development right; in order to subdivide land in the city you have to have the development rights in hand before you go through Guth c P & z MINUTES 6 2004 APPROVALS , ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION-Minutes =October 12, 2004 Management or are obtaining Growth Management Exemptions but you can't create a lot without development rights. Bendon said the County TDR-actually provides the~whole entire right. Bendon provided the example- of a county TDR being transferred from one site, which becomes sterilized if it only has the one TDR; in the city it was a portion of the FAR. Bendon mentioned a letter in .the packet from a neighbor regarding construction staging and impacts. Camilla Auger, applicant, explained that Fox Crossing was located in a highly dense neighborhood of affordable housing, duplexes and more development was in the process with no parks or open space within walking distance. Auger said this was the chance to fix that problem of no open space; she was committed to this neighborhood. Auger proposed low-density single-family housing around a park with a historic core; the view from the meadow is gorgeous and they hope to retain it as open space. Auger noted there were small children that play in the street and they hope to turn the unused city property into a children's playground and park. Auger said that this had one of the most popular trailheads in the city, which leads into Hunter Creek; she pointed out a park that has been threatened by development in the county and hoped;to give Hunter Valley Way open space to the county with easements from the city and conservation easements from the. Valley Land Trust. Auger said if they have their way to this open space the community will get 20 acres of open space to these areas by trailheads, which will all"converge at one spot. Marion asked who was involved with Ms. Auger. Camilla Auger replied that it has taken her years to gather all the investors, city, county and various other agencies including the Aspen Valley Land Trust. Stan Clauson stated, this was a complex prof ect; they have been working with the Parks Department to formalize trail connections from Oklahoma Flats to Spruce Park. Clauson provided various scenarios and different zone districts surrounding this .property. Clauson said the assessor's office had 7 parcels for this property and he has been working with Chris Bendon to establish the problems of these parcels and how it would interface with the TDR portion. Clauson said the core parcel would be divided into 9 lots; per Chris Bendon's analysis there were 41ots. Clauson continued these lots would allow the historic house, a photograph was provided its own lot and the 2 cabins would be relocated and joined together on another lot with an existing single-family house. Clauson noted there would be a 9,000 square foot park with the access roadway. Clauson explained that the streets, Race Alley platted at the turn of the century, have a 20-foot right-of--way and 14%2 foot pavement width to the connection at Spruce Street. The Fire Department and City Engineer have agreed on i~ N~uT s 2004 APPROVALS 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING C0IVIlVIISSION-Minutes -October 12, 2004 hammerhead and infrastructure development. Clauson said that Chris Bendon explained the Historic TDR Amendment very well. ,Auger said that they were still discussing the development rights; she said this project is where the tail is wagging the dog. . Clauson said there was no need for the IGA. Clauson said the Walnut Street intersection improvements will be accomplished and the utility lines from their involvement will be underground. Clauson said the construction management plan would be in effect. Auger noted letters of support from neighbors. MOTION.• Ruth Kruger moved to continue the Fox Crossing public hearing to November 2, 2004; seconded by Brandon 1Vlarion. All in favor, motion carried. Discussion of motion: The Commissioners requested more information on the County TDR Program; the number of lots and development rights for this entire project; information on the trail and the TDR principal with criteria. Meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk EXHIBIT G P & Z MINUTES 2004 APPROVALS g ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION .. _ _ Minutes - November 02, 2004 Dylan Johns. opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in Council Chambers. Members John Rowland, Ruth Kruger and Dylan Johns were present. Jasmine Tygre, Jack Johnson, Brandon. Marion and - Steve Skadron were excused. Staff in attendance were: Davd,Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Chris Bendon, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Dylan Johns opened the public hearings for Fox Crossing Subdivision, which was continued from 1.0/27/04 and the historic landmark lot split code amendments, anal continued the hearings to November 16, 2004 due to lack of quorum. ckie Lothian, eputy City Clerk - EXHIBIT G P 8 Z MINUTES 2004 APPROVALS ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes -November 16, 2004 COMMENTS .............................................................................................................................. 2 DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ..................................................... 2 120I RIVERSIDE DRIVE REZONING ............................................................................. 2 FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION ........................................................................................ 2 ASPEN INSTITUTE SPA AMENDMENT ........................................................................ 7 HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT CODE AMENDMENTS ............................. 10 EXHIBIT G P & Z MINUTES 2004 APPROVAL ~ ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes -November 16, 2004 Ruth Kruger, acting chair, opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in Sister Cities Meeting Room. Members John Rowland, Jack Johnson, Brandon Marion, Dylan Johns and Ruth Kruger were present. Jasmine Tygre and Steve Skadron were excused. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; James Lindt, Chris Lee, Chris Bendon, Community Development; Brian Flynn, Parks; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Jack Johnson asked about the LeChef's building. David Hoefer replied that it was being broken up into two spaces. Ruth Kruger asked who was responsible for the sidewalk at the Bavarian; there was a big drop-off at one end. Chris Bendon replied that sidewalks were a public amenity but installed by the developer of the property. Kruger noted the sidewalk stopped in the middle of the property. David Hoefer congratulated Chris Bendon on his appointment as Community Development Department Head. .Jackie Lothian reminded the commissioners about the Boards and Commissions party at the Wheeler on December 2"d. The commission chose to postpone the minutes until the next meeting. Jack Johnson requested more about the Chart House on the October 19`h Minutes. DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None stated. PUBLIC HEARING: 1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE REZONING Ruth Kruger opened the public hearing on the Rezoning for 1201 Riverside Drive. James Lindt stated this was continued from 10/ 19 and will be continued to 12/7 with new signs posted. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (10/12/04, 11/02/04): FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION Ruth Kruger opened the continued public hearing for Fox Crossing. Chris Bendon noted this was continued from 11/2/04. Bendon stated that Ellen Sassano from the IBIT G county had a conflict tonight; now the Fox Crossing does not have to rely ~~ ~@TEs 2004 APPROVALS 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes -November 1.6, 2004 county TDR program and in fact it doesn't have to have a TDR. Bendon stated that there was language in the resolution that provided that under Section 3. Bendon said the second question raised at the last meeting regarded the open space parcel and the value; Brian Flynn was present to address that issue. Bendon noted that P&Z requested a development chart noting the current development on this property and the square footage proposed was contained on page 3 of the resolution. Bendon said the October 12~' memo had the parcels on the map with the old house, north cabin, south cabin, newer house, railroad and garage parcels. The interim step was the 2 lots with the old house, north cabin lot and the south cabin new house lot were eligible for a lot split. Bendon noted the far right column of that Exhibit C had Griffith Lots 1, 2 and 3 and Fox Crossing Lots 1 through 10 plus the Fox Crossing parks parcel. Bendon noted to split Griffith Lot 2 into 2 parcels required growth management development allotment and by doing that each is available for asingle-family or duplex. Bendon said the duplexes could be split into 2single-family residences. Brian Flynn asked if the city and county would jointly own the parcel. Camilla Auger replied that they would give it to the city and county with an open space easement with the Aspen Valley Land Trust. Flynn said that parks and open space have worked to acquire land when they can; this was dedicated for the past 2 years that allowed the formation of the Open Space Board, which has criteria and goals. Flynn said that part of the criteria is met with the acquisition of the Hunter Valley Open Space. Flynn explained the Lani White Trail was next to the Hunter Creek Trail running up that corridor, which protects the scenic corridor with Aspen Valley Land Trust as the third party easement holder who guarantees protection of that parcel. Flynn spoke about the proposal of the trail to Spruce Park, which accesses the Lani White Trail. Spruce Park has a stonewall, bench and dog drinking fountain. Flynn said the parks department was trying to bring in more trails and formalize all the connections to bring people into the Spruce Park area and back out into the wilderness in a very easily identified manner with a little bit of signage. Camilla Auger provided the history of Randall Park noting potentials of critical space along the trails. There was a letter from the Aspen Valley Land Trust in support of the plan. Kruger asked the monetary values of this parcel. Auger said there was an appraisal for $3.7 million. Auger said if a house were to be built on this parcel it would be built on the flat area and that was the worse place for a house under trail conditions. Jack Johnson asked if Aley Park and the trail through Fox Crossing were part of the proposal. Auger replied that was part of the ~HIBIT c proposal and the reason that she was doing was doing this project. 20 a AP R~ovALs 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes -November 16, 2004 Auger said that they hoped that more trails would be developed and the weed patch would be transformed into a park for the community. Auger stated the meadow at the center of Fox Crossing would be preserved, which was 9200 square feet and next to it was the old blue Victorian with cabins to be developed as asingle-family house. Auger noted these residences would be relatively low density in a high- density area making it a diverse community. Stan Clauson provided a letter from Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer discussing the infrastructure and to the Fire Marshall, Ed VanWalraven, discussing the fire truck turning radius, fire hydrants and sprinkling of houses; this was a subdivision not a PUD and it was fully conforming to all the parameters of the R-6 Zone District. Clauson submitted letters from Lisa Thurston from Hunter Creek Properties; Jon Busch on Race Street; Aspen Valley Land Trust from Martha Cochran indicating the Land Trust obligation regarding the Hunter Valley Way parcel; from Dale Wili Pitkin County Open Space and Trails; Clurie Bennis and Mary Griffith. Clauson said the private part of Walnut Street would provide access to 5 lots as well as the Clurie Bennis house on the corner and Walnut would continue out onto Lone Pine Road. Clauson noted the extension of Walnut Street would also include the looping of water mains and infrastructure would be in place. Auger stated that they had approval of the fire department but have been talking with all the neighbors and taking in the suggestions, which have slightly different interests. Auger said this would be an on-going discussion and not a final anything. Public Comments: 1. Robert Zupancis, public, stated that he lived at Race and Walnut. Zupancis liked the through street but wanted to see some temporary ballards at Race Street where it intersects with Spruce. Zupancis voiced concerns for the limited parking in the neighborhood currently and this proposal would add to parking on Walnut, Race, South and Lone Pine. Zupancis requested the construction access be off of Lone Pine. 2. Gretchen Greenwood, public, stated the preservation of the Hunter Valley was great; she noted the neighborhood was becoming crowded. Greenwood voiced concern for the dangerous intersection at South, Gibson and Walnut Streets with no visibility. Greenwood noted Luriski's property was being developed along with this proposal. Greenwood requested the development of permanent on-site parking for this proposal. 3. Ward Hauenstein, public, stated that he lived on Spruce Street; he said it was important to keep traffic away from South Street because there was a bus stogy for HIBIT G P & Z MINUTES 2004 APPROVAL ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes -November 16, 2004 small children. Hauenstein requested off-street parking for this project and he said it was best to keep Race Alley two-way. 4. Collen Burrows, public, said Race Alley should remain two-way and she spoke of the density in the neighborhood. 5. LJ Erspamer, public, thanked the developers for coming to their home and wanted to support the neighbors. Auger said a number of things are feasible and agrees with. Clauson noted the code required a construction management plan. Brandon Marion asked if the parking for the trailhead was explored. Clauson replied that the Parks Department did not think that there would be a significant amount of parking from that trailhead but Aley Park would require some parking. Clauson utilized drawings to show the historic nature of the building, the trail and project. Marion asked where the guest parking would be. Clauson responded that it would be on the properties. John Rowland asked what was the mix of housing. Clauson answered there were duplexes sharing floor area. Rowland asked if there was any multi-family. Clauson replied there was no multi-family. Rowland asked if the access for lot 1 was down Race Street within the easement that was the public walkway and asked how wide the easement was. Clauson replied that was correct and the easement was 16 feet. Jack Johnson asked if the historic house would be occupied and if it would be fenced. Auger replied that it was the plan for someone to occupy the house and the cabins. Clauson stated that Gilbert Sanchez was the architect that took the historic house and cabins through conceptual approval with HPC. Auger said that they had not thought of covenants regarding fences prior but they will now. Johnson asked if that was true on the traffic generation count at 9 cars per day per unit. Bendon replied that was a common number used by traffic engineers; he said that was a national average, which counted the mailman as 2 trips. Johnson asked the history on the RR parcel. Bendon replied that it was the Midland Railroad; at the time easements were done with a fee simple process. Johnson asked if the city had long term plans for the trailer park, Gibson and South Street area. Bendon replied there were no capital plans, just minimal improvements of sidewalks, curb and gutter; the city rights-of--way in this area EXHIBIT G were minimal. Johnson asked if he was correct that the county TDRs we~m~IrvuTEs 2004 APPROVALS ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes -November 16, 2004 longer an option. Bendon replied that they were city driven TDRs. Johnson asked if there was a restriction in the proposed language that would limit the distance of TDRs. Bendon replied there were broad criteria but the significance of that preservation parcel could be determined (page 5 of the November 2"d resolution}. The identification of the preservation parcel as "private Iand with preservation value"; the proximity and visibility of the preservation parcel to the City of Aspen; the development rights of that preservation parcel and the uses and intensities and impacts associated with those uses; the location of the development as it comes into the city including the compatibility of the uses; and the preservation of the parcel is encumbered with a legal description so that we know it will not be developed. Dylan Johns asked if the map was the possible TDRs for this site and the scope of what we could see with this project. Bendon replied that map wouldn't limit them; the good part of the TDR program is that parcels are being preserved. Johns asked if the development right was based upon the underlying zoning and what would the square footage be calculated at. Bendon responded the development right did not have to have a prescribed proportion. Kruger asked why Race Street could not be atwo-way street. Clauson replied that it was atwo-way street now and Race Street has a 14.5-foot pavement base, which continues through the 20-foot right-of--way. Clauson said the question from the f re department was since 14.5-foot was slightly bigger than a traffic lane then Race should be one-way. Kruger asked what the off-street parking requirements were for Race Alley. Bendon replied it was the standard city requirement, which is 2 parking spaces per residences; if there is an accessory dwelling unit then there is another parking space required. Kruger asked if there were any traffic studies for any of the comers. Bendon said that there wasn't enough traffic generated by just this project to justify studies. Clauson said if there was a traffic study then Jim Challier did it. Kruger asked if there was a plan for phasing. Auger responded there was a phasing plan and the neighbors wanted the construction done as soon as possible. Kruger asked if this was the exemption process. Bendon answered this was the exemption process; the re-development of the house on the existing lot requires an administrative growth management approval, which you either deed-restrict the main house or build an accessory dwelling unit or pay cash-in-lieu with credit given to other existing residences on site. Bendon stated the resolution did not resolve whether or not those growth management rights that are being created by the city for that preservation parcel also have that ADU requirement. ExFil61T G P & Z MINUTES 2004 APPROVAL6S ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes -November 16, 2004 Bendon summed up the P&Z issues as the ADUs; Race Alley; more specific what the subdivision will look like; Walnut Street; how the walkway works through the open space; and the code amendment. MOTION.• Brandon Marion moved to continue the public hearing for Fox Crossing to November 30`h; seconded by Jack Johnson. APPROVED. PUBLIC HEARING: ASPEN INSTITUTE SPA AMENDMENT Ruth Kruger opened the public hearing far the Aspen Institute SPA Amendment. David Hoefer stated the notice requirements were met. Amy Guthrie stated that this request was for one building that was not built due to the lack of need for it in the past but they want to improve their ability to host conferences so they want to convert this building allocation into a conference and meeting hall. Guthrie noted this plan was slightly smaller by 1500 square feet, which may be used for the health club for future expansion. The Aspen Institute Campus is not entirely historic but portions of the campus were historic; HPC had a great process with the architect and applicants. Guthrie said that Council will have to approve a GMQS exemption for essential public facilities; the impacts of this will be minimal because many of the conferencees do not bring cars. Jim Curtis, representative for the applicant, introduced Jeff Berkus the architect for the project. Curtis stated that Amy Margerum was here but because of another committement she had to Leave. Paul Taddune, attorney, and Bill Lukes were in attendance on behalf of the Pitkin Green Homeowners; Mr. Lukes had to also leave because of another commitment. Jim Curtis said that they will meet with the Pitkin Reserve Homeowners (on the other side of the river) to discuss lighting (interior and exterior). Curtis said they are basically taking a building that was approved in 1991 and changing the use of the building to compliment the existing meeting and dining facilities on the Meadows campus so the whole campus can operate more efficiently. There was a commitment to work with HPC on materials, color and lighting with an HPC meeting scheduled for January 12~' and should be up and running in 2006. Brandon Marion checked the list of properties to make sure that he was not conflicted. EXHIBIT G P ~ Z MINUTES 2004 APPROVAL ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes -November 30 2004 COMMENTS .............:................................................................................................................... 2 MINUTES ...................................................................................................................................... 2 DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST ............:................................................... 2 FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION ............................................................................................... 2 SOLDNER/BURLINGAME RANCH PROPERTY INITIAL CITY ZONING .................... 8 EXHIBIT G P & Z MINUTES 2004 APPROVAL ~ ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes -November 30, 2004 Jasmine Tygre opened the special meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in Sister Cities Meeting Room. Members Dylan Johns, Jack Johnson, Brandon Marion and Jasmine Tygre were, present. Ruth Kruger arrived at 4:40pm and Steve Skadron at 5:30pm. John Rowland was excused. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Chris Bendon, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Chris Bendon reminded the commissioners about the boards and commissions party at the Wheeler on Thursday, December 2°d. Bendon mentioned the December 14th work session. Jasmine Tygre requested the commission to email the wish list to Chris. MINUTES Motion: Jack Johnson moved to approve the minutes from October 5, 2004 and November 02, 2004; seconded by Dylan Johns..411 in favor. APPROVED 4-0. DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Steve Skadron was conflicted on the Fox Crossing. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (11/16/04): FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on Fox Crossing. Tygre stated that it was not appropriate for her to vote at this time. Chris Bendon said the last meeting remaining issues were code amendments; the Hunter Valley Way parcel; to one-way of Race Alley and no reliance on county TDRs. Bendon said the way this was structured there was a growth management exemption, which allows the city to grant a developer growth management exemptions in exchange for a developer preserving an important open space parcel; it does not rely on the county TDRs whatsoever. There were 6 criteria for the parcel being preserved; it requires the P&Z and Open Space Advisory Board recommendations, (1) the strategic need for the parcel being preserved; {2} private land with preservation value, (3) proximity and visibility of the parcel to the City, (4) development rights associated with that parcel, (5) the proposed location of the receiving sites granted the exemption from growth management and (6) the legal encumbrance on the parcel by the City Attorney. Bendon explained Section 3 of the Resolution was the code amendment and Section 4 was the action that P&Z was taking on the Preservation. There were a recommended 3 development rights for the Hunter Valley Way parcel with 3 EXHIBIT G COridltlonS. P ~ Z MINUTES 2004 APPROVALS, ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes -November 30, 2004 Bendon said that Section 5, the .form of mitigation for accessory dwelling units, should not be required because the applicant was providing open space. Bendon said Section 13 speaks to the issue of Race Alley being one-way or two- way; the staff recommendation was for Race to become one-way. P&Z was charged with deciding if the subdivision met the standards. The fire marshall and city engineer did not think this subdivision met the standards because the infrastructure did not serve the site with the proper safety. Bendon said to widen the street would be difficult but the street could be made one-way. Bendon stated that P&Z wanted clarity on project benefits and illustrative plan showing setbacks and a roof plan of the neighborhood; no specific architecture was locked in at this time. Bendon noted the parcels were intended to be developed according to the zoning, which could change so the setbacks might change. Jack Johnson asked when the ADUs came to be a concern. Bendon said he mentioned it when the development rights were talked about. Johnson asked how was it written in the proposal. Bendon replied that it was silent. Brandon Marion asked for clarification on the mitigation. Bendon explained that the mitigation was for the exemption from growth management and as a benefit of being landmarked historic they do not have to provide an accessory dwelling unit. Bendon said if you look at the preservation parcel as the benefit to the community then you don't have to do anything more or they could be asked to provide housing mitigation through ADUs. Kruger asked if this had to go to housing. Bendon replied that it did not have to go in front of housing; if there were ADUs then they would be referred to the housing office for development. Bendon said that if P&Z wanted to require ADUs Sections 3 and 5 would have to be amended to include between 8 and 1 l mitigations. There were 3 development rights from the Hunter Way parcel. Bendon explained the code amendment in Section 2 was to allow 2 historic TDRs per residence provided it were within the same subdivision as opposed to what is allowed presently as 1 Historic TDR. Camilla Auger stated that a TDR was needed for other than a standard house. Auger said there was a checklist for the benefits, an illustration of what the setbacks and rooftops would look like and illustration of what the historic would look like, which has been through architectural review. Auger said the Hunter Valley Way was a key item because it preserved 10 acres of open space. Auger said the Aspen Valley Land Trust would be an irrevocable conservation easement over Hunter Valley Way therefore insuring the open space. Auger said the tBIT c hookup would make it possible for the Rio Grande Trail to hookup to Zoo AP o~vALS 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes -November 30, 2004 Valley. Auger said the road goes onto where the old railroad was aligned. They were providing a looped water main from Walnut and sprinklers for every house even though the houses were significantly smaller houses than what was required for sprinklered houses. The sightline would be improved at the Walnut and Gibson intersection; widening Race Street and providing neighborhood parking. Auger said if they couldn't leave Race Alley, as it is then it will become one-way and the development was without any requested variances. Gilbert Sanchez, architect, stated the impetus for all of this was the preservation of the Angie Griffith Victorian and the adjacent cabins, which forms the central core of the property. HPC approved a 2-story addition and a garage to the Victorian; the combined cabins would be moved onto one lot with cone-story addition. Sanchez said that any development will comply with the underlying R-6 zoning including the setbacks, which were illustrated on the drawing delineated in two- tones of green with the darker green outside the setbacks. The setbacks were 10- foot minimum front and rear yard with a total of 30 and the side yards also have 10-foot minimums because the lots were annexed after 1989, which the proposal will comply with all of those setbacks. The buildings will comply with the residential design standards; the garages will be setback 10 feet from the front facade. Marion asked about the fire department request for the hammerhead turn around. Bendon answered the radii around the comers was of concern but now the Walnut connection goes through to Lone Pine. Bendon said the preservation of the meadow was a public park. Auger said the homeowners maintained the park. Marion said the trail stopped at the park in the picture. Auger replied that it would continue. Bendon said Section 9 in the resolution regarding this trail easement. Marion asked about the times the park was open and if it should be addressed in the easement language. David Hoefer responded that the language would include the ownership, use and maintenance responsibilities. Auger said the park itself was under the historic preservation so it had a specific boundary. Johnson asked about the question of fencing and could language be added to say that there would be no fences. in the meadow to obstruct the view. Auger replied that was certainly the intention. Johnson requested board support to add language that fences could not obstruct the view from the historic properties. Sanchez stated that any fences built would have to satisfy HPC requirements; front yard fences could only be 36 inches high. Marion noted that historic structures could have 6-foot high fences in the back. A section would be added to the resolution regarding the fence size limitation for the meadow area. EXHIBIT G P & Z MINUTES 2004 APPROVALS ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes -November 30, 2004 Public Comments: 1. Colleen Burrows, public, read her letter into the record, which voiced concern about the traffic management, especially the impacts of South Street. Burrows said the developer needed to have the streets contained internally in the subdivision and go out onto Lone Pine. Burrows said there was a traffic study done before Williams Ranch and Williams Way that acknowledged South Street as a bad spot. Burrows requested that South, Walnut and Spruce Streets be looked at again. Burrows said there were some really nice things done by the developer but the lots on the north end could be reduced in size for the interior roads; there were ways that this developer could avoid pushing traffic onto the outlying streets, which were already impacted. Burrows said that the traffic committee hasn't been heard from. 2. Gretchen Greenwood, public, supported Colleen's comments; she said that she lived and worked on Walnut Street in a historic cabin. Greenwood obtained a parking variance and her property abutted this property. Greenwood stated that this project was not bringing a lot of amenities to this neighborhood; there was a significant grade change in this neighborhood. Greenwood asked if the project could be accessed from Lone Pine; she said that making Race Alley one-way was absurd. Greenwood said it was the Planning and Zoning's job to alleviate the traffic. 3. Marcia Poutous, public, stated that she lived on Spruce Street and Camilla has contacted people in the neighborhood. Poutous hoped that Race Alley would . remain 2-way because the residences that now exist have the option of exiting off of Race or Spruce; if Race Alley is made one-way then all the traffic would exit onto Spruce, which would be bad. Auger said the lowest development was on Spruce Street; she said there would be minimal amount of cars generated onto Spruce Street from this project. Auger said they have met with the traffic committee and the fire department; they have re- designed to fit the fire department requirements. Sanchez said there was on site parking with the lots having deep driveways allowing for additional off-street parking in addition to inside the garage. There was additional parking on Spruce Street in the Jon Busch parking area. Sanchez said the character of the park was passive with one of elements of trails and parks was preservation; this was a place to discover but not a destination park. Marion asked if the city engineer and police chief had comments on this pro'e HtsiT ~ Bendon said they were asked if it met the city standards; their response v~ztla~c+aEs 2004 APPROVAL ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes -November 30, 2004 was a deficit with Race Alley (either widen or make one-way). Marion asked if Lone Pine incorporated parking or was it a no parking street. Bendon replied no parking because the cart way was 16 feet. Marion asked about Aley Park and who pays for that maintenance. Bendon replied that could be included. Hoefer noted it could be added to Section 9. Marion asked who Aspen Valley Land Trust was. Bendon replied they were a land preservation non-profit; they hold either title or easements to land in open space preservation. Johnson asked what was it about the Aspen Valley Land Trust in the way that it was set up that would make all of this irrevocable. Bendon answered that the AVLT holds an easement so they become a part landowner; in order to remove that easement you have to get the AVLT approval and their sole mission is to preserve land in perpetuity. Bendon said that having multiple parties having a say in the preserved property made it more difficult to remove the easement. Marion asked if this code amendment for TDRs had to have the sending and receiving sites in the same subdivision. Bendon replied that was correct; the west end could not take advantage of this code amendment. Marion asked if this Hunter Valley Way parcel was a potential development site. Bendon replied that it was a potential development site with access issues but it could have a development right of one house with 5,750 square feet. Bendon said the access wasn't a planning issue but a legal one. Auger said the access has been granted legally so that the investors could be given a tax incentive. Marion asked where the access was given and questioned the parcel's access. Auger replied she gave the access to the Hunter Valley Way parcel because that was the only way that the parcel could be obtained; no compensation was given for the access. Marion asked how Community Development came up with the number of development rights from the Hunter Valley Way parcel. Bendon replied that it came from recommendations from the Open Space Committee and the benefits from preserving that parcel outweighed the development rights given. Hoefer stated Sections 3, 5, 9 and 13 were for discussion as well as the general merits of the project. Tygre stated that the resolution would have to be re-done and David's suggestion to review the Sections and merits. Johnson complimented the project and the illustrative plans really were helpful. Johnson stated that he was troubled by code amendments for particular projects in general because of the unintended consequences therefore he wanted a better understanding of the consequences of the code language, which was procedural. Kruger stated it was an admirable job putting together an extremely complic~IT c project but the ultimate goal was to preserve that parcel. Kruger said thatr~idrEs 2004 APPROVALGS ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes -November 30, 2004 not like the code amendment method but P&Z had the right and responsibility when other projects with these code amendments come forward to review those projects. Kruger said that the developer has moved forward in way over and above what the fire department and police department have required for traffic circulation. Kruger said that with the changes to the resolution she intended to approve the project. Dylan Johns agreed that amending the code for specific projects can be tough; he said that the Hunter Valley Way parcel by itself would achieve a lot of community benefit and would not even need the rest of the project. Johns said if the subdivision was large enough to handle the Historic TDR then it would eliminate a lot of properties. Johns said the subdivision was no less or more dense than the surrounding area and this was probably a more attractive plan that if left for these parcels to be developed individually. Johns said the access points were consolidated by the subdivision and it was a lot safer to go out onto Spruce; he said there were a limited number of houses. Johns did think that P&Z should be re- configuring streets to create arterial roadways as long as the street met the governing bodies guidelines. Johns said he was in favor of the subdivision. Kruger said the. waiver of the 3 ADUs should be kept because of the neighborhood traffic. Johns said that they should keep the 3 ADUs because. he did not want another loophole in the code. Marion said he was very uncomfortable with the development of that property (Hunter Way} has been made possible by the developer; he felt this was a poor way to bring in a prof ect saying that it could be built on but we hope that we can save it. Marion said bringing in the 3 development rights and getting rid of the ADU concept to maximize the value of the property for the developer was asking for a little bit too much. Tygre summarized that 3 of the commissioners were in favor of the project; there was a split on the code amendments; the employee mitigation was the ADUs or cash-in-lieu along with the number; clarification of the language on Section 9; and Section 13 the street configuration. Tygre asked if P&Z would see this project in any form again if approved. Hoefer replied that it would not come back to P&Z. MOTION. Ruth Kruger moved to extend the meeting for 1 S minutes; seconded by Jack Johnson. All in favor; Approved 6-0. Bendon noted there were substantive changes to the resolution. Hoefer said that HIBIT G Jasmine and John could vote if they reviewed the minutes. Tygre said tha~suTEs 2004 APPROVALS 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes -November 30, 2004 wanted to see the complete document. Bendon and Hoefer agreed that the substantive language should be clearly stated in the resolution. Bendon explained that the FAR should not be in the resolution because the zoning could change. Tygre said the code amendment would be discussed again as well as the mitigation; she said by exploring all the issues, it would allow for the project to be passed on with a positive approval. Auger said that this was the simplest way was by combining all code amendments. Auger said that they were willing to give up the exemptions. on the ADUs if that would make it more comfortable; if P&Z wanted to dispose of that code amendment and do whatever ADU requirements P&Z chose. Auger explained the Hunter Valley Way parcel would have been developed if they had not purchased it; they did what was necessary to satisfy the investors. Sanchez asked if there were problems with the Historic TDR code amendment or was it just the mitigation code amendment. Kruger replied the commission did not like a code amendment coming in with a specific application just to make the application work. Kruger said the commission knew how this particular code amendment worked but asked how does it affect other properties. MOTION.• Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing on Fox Crossing to December 07`h. Seconded by .Tack Johnson. All in favor. APPRO vED 6-0. PUBLIC HEARING: SOLDNER/BURLINGAME RANCH PROPERTY INITIAL CITY ZONING Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on the Soldner/Burlingame Ranch Property Initial City Zoning. MOTION.• Jack Johnson moved to continue the public hearing on the Soldner/Burlingame Ranch Property Initial City Zoning to December 07Th; seconded by Ruth Kruger seconded. All in favor. APPROVED 6-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. .~2~ ~v --.- Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk EXHIBIT G P & Z MINUTES 2004 APPROVALS 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes -December 07, 2004 COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 2 DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST .............................................................. 2 SOLDNERIBURLINGAME RANCH PROPERTY INITIAL CITY ZONING .................. 2 .... SIGN CODE AMENDMENTS ........ ...................................................................................... 2 FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION ............................................................................................. 2 1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE REZONING ................................................................................... 6 LITTLE AJAX CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUAL/FINAL SPA AND ASSOCIATED LAND USE REQUESTS ............................................................................................................ 7 EXHIBIT G P & Z MINUTES 2004 APPROVALS 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes -December 07, 2004 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in Sister Cities Meeting Room. Members Brandon Marion, Jack Johnson, Dylan Johns, John Rowland, Ruth Kruger and Jasmine Tygre were present. Steve Skadron arrived at 6:OOpm. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Chris Bendon, James Lindt, Chris Lee, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Chris Bendon said December 14th would be a work session with P&Z in the City Manager's Office. DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Steve Skadron was conflicted on the Fox Crossing. PUBLIC HEARING: SOLDNER/BURLINGAME RANCH PROPERTY INITIAL CITY ZONING This hearing was closed. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (10/19}: SIGN CODE AMENDMENTS Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing for the Sign Code Amendments. MOTION.• Jack Johnson moved to continue the Sign Code Amendments to January 18, 2005; seconded by Brandon Marion. All in favor; Approved 6-D. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (11/16/04, 11/30/04): FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on Fox Crossing. Chris Bendon stated at the last meeting the commission requested the language in the resolution be amended and added additional direction on the code amendments. Bendon said there was an economic advantage to be able to move TDRs around in a subdivision and as an advantage to preserving historic structures. The second code amendment was the development right for preserving an open space parcel; Bendon said this was an important goal and should go forward to city council regardless of what happens with Camilla's application. Preserving open space was a goal and another tool for the city. Bendon said language was changed in the resolution to require affordable housing mitigation in Section 3; Sections 4 and 5 were specifically for Camilla's project. Bendon noted that the rema IT G question was if other developers might find the code amendment inters ~` z "'~ TEs ~~~ 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes -December 07, 2004 then Bendon received a call from a private planner regarding a property owner contemplating doing an open space preservation but they need development rights to be able to do this. Bendon stated the traffic safety advisory committee did meet (a memo was included in the commissions' mail boxes}. The memo from the TSAC did not like the bollards; the Walnut Street extension connecting to Lone Pine and the adequacy of Race Alley and Race Street. Bendon said TSAC said to either widen Race Alley and Street to a 30-foot right-of--way or make the streets one-way with a sidewalk on one side and for Race to continue to Lone Pine. Bendon said the obligation was to review if the proposal met the standards. Bendon said that widening Race Alley would not be a very popular idea; he included the designation of Race Alley as one-way with a sidewalk on one side of the alley. Bendon stated the applicant was aware of the deed-restrictions on Aley Park. Bendon noted that Nick Adeh was present; Adeh was on the traffic safety advisory committee. Camilla Auger stated that Phil Overyender requested a second water line, which was done. Auger said that they will do a passive park at Aley Park with gardens. Auger said the issue of connecting Spruce Street with Lone Pine would not lessen any traffic on Spruce Street but would make a short cut through the project, which would make the historic preservation and preservation of the park not possible. Auger said there were several letters and Hunter Creek Condominiums objecting to the street going through; this would require taking out 50 trees and increase traffic. Auger said there are currently 7 full-time working resident tenants on this property (Walnut and Race Alley) and once the project goes forward most of the people will be second homeowners so there would be a reduction in traffic. Letters placed into the record were from Bill Stirling and Dawnette Smith, The Renters of Walnut Street LLC, John Erspamer and Marcia Poutous, Ward and Mimi Hauenstein, Mark Hesselschwerdt, Colleen Burrows, Lisa Thurston, Jon Busch, Martha Cochran, Parks Department, Dale Will, Clurie Bennis, Larry Griffith and the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC). Nick Adeh, city engineer, stated there were tremendous concerns regarding the subdivision and the re-configuration of the subdivision prompted the need to take this proposal to the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee. Adeh said that as proposed it meets the bare bone minimum for traffic movement with the exception of the need to widen Walnut Street to f t the public water loop in ~a~iT c P & Z NUTES easement; there was a suggestion to make Spruce Street connecting to ~e,~~,~s ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes -December 07, 2004 through this subdivision, which would provide street entrances for all of the Iots. Adeh said the minimum was 20 feet for Walnut Street with two-way traffic and Race Street would be one-way because of the width. Adeh said the National Fire Marshall requires a minimum width for one-way travel (restricted by walls of buildings} be 20 feet. Public Comments: 1. Jon Busch, public, supported the application as submitted. Busch said that sidewalks should be deferred to a later time and he would add a paved trail through the open space to connect to Walnut Street for a better pedestrian walkway. 2. Bill Stirling, public, said that he helped the developer assemble these lots over the course of 3 years and he manages the existing rental properties on this parcel. Stirling supported keeping Race two-way because it lends character, charm and country feeling to the neighborhood. Stirling said about 60% of the property in Aspen is owned by absentee or second homeowners, which would probably be true for this project once it is purchased. Stirling said keeping Race two-way would keep it from becoming ashort-cut. Stirling said this subdivision with the open space no longer gives that lot line to lot line feeling and creates a connector for the upper and lower trails. Stirling said the neighbors have been extremely helpful for the project. Stirling said the density in this subdivision was much less than the density that was in most neighborhoods; he said this was a great opportunity for the town with long-range benefits. 3. Patti Clapper, public, voiced concern over the one-way of Race Alley and the traffic flow. Clapper supported the trail. 4. Dave Harris, public, stated he lived across the alley from this project and he counted 19 houses in the neighborhood currently and this doubled the neighborhood. Harris stated as a subdivision it should have access within itself with streets contained. Dylan Johns asked about Exhibit C regarding the Historic TDR Landing sites and the total number of floor area per unit in the subdivision and how it worked. Bendon replied the total number of TDRs that can be used within the subdivision could not be more than what could have been used before the code amendment, which was Exhibit C. Bendon said there were 19 residences, which 2 were historic, so there would be an eligibility of landing 17 TDRs in that subdivision without a code amendment. Hoefer stated that only 8 lots could have 2 TDPa~+IBIT ~ P & Z MINUTES 2004 APPROVALS 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes -December 07, 2004 Brandon Marion commented that Camilla did not previously reveal that access had been granted to the Hunter Way parcel and contradicted what the applicant said in a previous meeting and at the November 30, 2004 meeting it was brought up. Marion said this caused him great concern for the integrity of the planning and zoning process and the Fox Crossing proposal but he will continue to look at the project fairly and cast his vote on the merits of the project. Marion asked who owned the land currently. Camilla Auger replied 4 unrelated investors that lived in Texas. Marion asked how they can approve the project if Race Street is not adequate. Hoefer replied that was part of the subdivision; it would have to be brought into compliance by either making the street one-way or widening the street. Hoefer noted on page 9 of the Resolution the applicant could do either one; P&Z could recommend one over the other. Marion asked how the 3 TDRs were proposed in exchange for the Hunter Way parcel. Bendon responded that was largely from the comments from Open Space and fits within current zoning; roughly it was the same amount of square footage and an opportunity for the city. Bendon said there was no scientific method. Jack Johnson requested that the allocations be brought up at the work session for discussion. Tygre agreed because the amendment troubled her as well. Tygre said the criteria could be very specific in terms of evaluation for guidelines. Johnson stated the project was complicated but a great project. Johnson said the beauty of it was the meadow and the trail running through it connecting with Oklahoma Flats and Hunter Creek. Johnson said the connection between Spruce and Lone Pine gets in the way of the beauty of the project and would negatively impact the park idea. Johnson said Race Alley should remain two-way but he would vote for the resolution as written. Johns said that it has been shown that there were multiple options for Race Alley. Johns agreed with Johnson on the connection between Spruce and Lone Pine negatively affecting this subdivision. Kruger. agreed with Johns on supporting the resolution with the 2 options for Race. John Rowland asked about the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee's recommendations. Adeh replied that it was not just about traffic but also the utility easement corridor, which would mean the corridor had to meet the requirements of 20 feet. Rowland said he was comfortable with the subdiv~~~,T e and it met the character of the East End. P & Z MINUTES 2004 APPROVALS 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes -December 07, 2004 Tygre stated that she would abstain from voting on this resolution and suggested the code amendment be taken out of the resolution; she said it would be a lot cleaner and future applications development rights would be addressed separately. Hoefer stated that through the public notice process this code amendment was part of the project but in the future the code amendments should be separate and prior to the project application. MOTION.• Brandon Marion moved to approve Resolution #33 and recommend City Council approve Fox Crossing and the associated Land Use Amendments with the addition of the solidification of the trail through the park; seconded by Jack.Johnson. Roll call vote: Kruger, yes; Rowland, yes; Johns, yes; Johnson, yes; Marion, yes; Tygre, abstain. Motion carried S-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (11/16): 1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE REZONING Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the rezoning of 1201 Riverside Drive. David Hoefer stated this was a continued public hearing and notice had been provided on November 16`}'. James Lindt explained that Dale Hower submitted this application to rezone the property at 1201 Riverside Drive from R-IS to R-6; P&Z is the recommending body to City Council on this action. Lindt provided the history of the property; the applicant designed 2 residences for this property based on the R-6 Zone District {because the zoning map had shown this property was in the R-6 zone district in 1990}. Lindt said the zoning map was in error because the property was ,actually zoned R-15; the applicant then sued the city. There was an agreement to rezone the property; two smaller houses would probably be built on this site rather than one large single-family house. The rezoning would remove the non-conforming status and all the property to the north was zoned R-6. Staff recommended approval. Dylan Johns asked if the net effect allows for a duplex but reduces FAR. Lindt replied that is correct. Jack Johnson asked if this was the only non-conforming R-151ot in that subdivision. Lindt replied that it was not. No public comments. Brandon Marion asked if there would be an access problem if it were a duplex rather than asingle-family. Lindt replied that it was off the culd-de-sac and~heslT c P & Z MINUTES 2004 APPROVALS 6 RESOLUTION N0.33 (SERIES OF 2004) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A FOURTEEN LOT SUBDIVISION, GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM EXEMPTIONS, AND AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE FOR THE FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION LOCATED BETWEEN LONE PINE ROAD AND RACE ALLEY BETWEEN WALNUT STREET AND RACE STREET, S25 RACE ALLEY, CITY OF ASPEN, PITHIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: Griffith Lot #1- 2737.073.91.001 Griffith Lot #2 - 2737.073.91.OOZ Railroad Parcel - 2737.073.00.020 North Cabin plus Historic House - 2737.073.00.021 & 2737.073.00.022 South Cabin plus New House - 2737.073.00.023 & 2737.073.00.024 Vacated Walnut Street - 2737.073.00.02b Bennis Property - 273707300045 Garage Parcel - 2737.073.03.030 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Walnut Properties, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson and Associates, requesting approval of a Subdivision, including Lot Split approvals and Lot Line Adjustment approvals, Growth Management Quota System {GMQS) Exemptions, and amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code for a fourteen lot subdivision, one lot proposed as a park and thirteen lots for development, situated between Lone Pine Road and Race Alley and between Walnut Street and Race Street as depicted in Exhibit A to this resolution; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, City Parks, Building Department, Fire District, and the Water Department as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the application and recommended approval with a series of conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Land Use Code {Amendment to the Laad Use Code, Section 26.470 (Growth Management Quota System Exemptions), and Section 26.480 (Subdivision) approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development review standards for Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemptions, EXHIBIT H P&Z Resolution No. 33, Series of 2004. ~ Page 1 Subdivision approval, and a Amendments to the Land Use Code have been met, as long as certain conditions, as listed hereinafter, are implemented; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on October 12, 2004, and continued to November 2, 2004, and continued to November 16, 2004, and continued to November 30, 2004, and continued to December 7, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and recommended City Council approve the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemptions, Subdivision, and Amendment to the Land Use Code by a five to zero (5-0) vote, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council approve the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemptions, grant Subdivision approval, and Amend the City of Aspen Land Use Code as described herein, subject to the conditions listed below. Section 1: Subdivision Approval The Fox Crossing Subdivision and the Griffith Subdivision shall consist of the following lots: Fox Crossing Lot #1 Lot size = 10,331 sf Fox Crossing Lot #2 Lot size = 7,510 sf Fox Crossing Lot #3 Lot size = 6,OlOsf Fox Crossing Lot #4 Lot size = 6,010 sf Fox Crossing Lot #5 Lot size = 6,016 sf Fox Crossing Lot #6 Lot size = 6,068 sf Fox Crossing Lot #7 Lot size = 6,007 sf Fox Crossing Lot #8 Lot size = 6,749 sf Fox Crossing Lot #9 Lot size = 6,945 sf Fox Crossing Lot # 10 Lot size = 1 ] ,631 sf Fox Crossing Park Parcel Lot size = 9,044 sf Griffith Lot #1 Lot size = 9,849 sf Griffith Lot #2 Lot size = 10,000 sf Griffith Lot #3 Lot size = 15,065 sf The lot sizes may vary slightly and the final subdivision plat shall prevail upon discrepancy. The allowable Floor Area for each parcel shall be pursuant to the R6 Zone District regulations, the Lot Area of each parcel, bonus floor azea granted by the Historic EXHIBIT H P&Z Resolution No. 33, Series of 2004. Page 2 Preservation Commission, and the proposed use. The Park Parcel shall have no development right other than for open space/park use. Fox Crossing Lots #5, #6, and the Park Parcel shall be designated Historic Landmark properties and subject to development review regulations of Section 26.415 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. Fox Crossing Lots #1, #2, #10, and Griffith Lots #l, #2, and #3 may receive up to two City of Aspen Historic TDR floor area bonuses per residence. All other parcels shall be limited to one Historic TDR floor area bonus per residence. Section 2: Land Use Code Amendment -Historic TDRs Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.710.040, subsection 11 - R6 Zone District - as follows (bold underlined text to be added): l 1. Floor Area Ratio (applies to conforming and lots of Eiv[:'~~F.:- m~~na~u~.i.[u~ec-afria..avr. - ,~v~r+m~+»w~i•,w+•=~rss,w~.:+~v~.::+nv~arw~v+«x -=+=:...- (Square Single-Fniq~llyR~idence* "' D'tvel~g~orbrlel~ugtea*'_ .Feet 0--3,000! 8b square feet ~f flour area for 9~ square feet of floor axea far each 1{1Q ... each 00 in ,lot area, ,,up to a .square feet in lot area, up `to a maxirnum. of tttaximum of 2,400 sggare:feet of 2.7x(1 stluare feet of floor area. `floor area. 3,000--6;000 2,400 square feet of floor area, ~2,7tf0 square feet of floor area,, plus 30' p4us 28'_square~ feet df 0aor.ar~~ sqt feet:~f flood area for each additional; for each additional 100 Sguare 100:square feet in lot area,'up to a iinaximum'. :feet in lot area, up to ~ titaxitzttt of 36D1~ square feet°of floor.area. of 3,240 square feet !bf flour area_ _ 6,000-9,000 -3,240 squ feet bf floot~ 2rea; 3,bD4. square feet 'of fiaor area,. plus l6; plus 14 square feetof floor area square feet df #loor area far each addiricitiai= for each additional .1~0 square Ifl(3, square feet in 1©t area,, up to a ma~cimif -feet in. lot area, upaoAmaximurrr of408t? square feetof fleorarea. of 3,(60 square feet_ of floor , , area. _ , 9,000-- 3,660 square feet of floor area,. .4,080 squarr* feet of floor area, plu§' 6 square: ::1:5,000 plus 6 'square feet of ftoor area feet; of flour area for each additional 1(}Q; '.for each addltivnal 100 square square feeY`in lot area, up,to a maximum of feet in lot area, lip to a maximum 9,MI0 square feet of floor area. 'of 4,00 equate feet ;'nf Hoof - area. 15,000-- 4,D20 ,square i'eet of floor area, 4,440 square feet of $oor area, pCtis 5 sgsat+e ,50,000 plus 5 square feet .of`:floor area .feet= of floor area for each addifiic~nal >13C1° for each additional 140 square square fee#. in lot arEa, up to a maximum'of feet is lot area, up #o a rnaximum 6,190 square feet of floor area. _. - of 3.274 square. Beet `'of .floor P8Z Resolution No. 33, EXHIBIT H Series of 2004. Page 3 -area. _.: . Sfl,fl00~.- 3,?7U square .feet of #]QOr area, b;190 square feat ~af floor aria, plus 3 squaw .;plus ~ -square, feet of Boor area feet. vt' flvar . an;a . fflr each additional 194 :. for e~c}t ~t~i;-n~t 1 ~ squa~~ square feet in Iot at~a. ur ~i€t-ate,.:.- ......_, ': .:......._. ~Totai external floor azea for multiple detached residential dwellings on one lot shall not exceed the floor area allowed for one duplex. Total external floor area for multiple detached residential dwellings on a lot less than nine-thousand (9,000) square feet listed on the Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall not exceed the floor area allowed for one detached residential dwelling. Each City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate extinguished, pursuant to Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, shall allow an additiona1250 square feet of Floor Area. Each residence on the parcel, excluding Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses, shall be eligible for one Floor Area increase in exchange for the extinguishment of one Historic TDR. No more than one Floor Area increase shall be allowed per residence, With the following exception: Properties within the same Subdivision or Planned Unit Development as a sending site may be specified as eligible for up to two l2) Floor Area increases~er residence pursuant to the Subdivision or Planned Unit Development approval. The properties to. be specified as eligible for up to two (2) Floor Area increases per residence shall be located within the same Subdivision or Planned Unit Development so as to enhance preservation of the historic resource considering a recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission, shall not be located adjacent to the sending site, and shall be described and depicted in the Subdivision or Planned Unit Development approvals granted by City Council. The total number of Floor Area increases permitted within the Subdivision or Planned Unit Development shall not exceed an aggregate total of one (1) per nori-historic residence within the entire Subdivision or Planned Unit Development: Properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area increase. Non-conforming uses and structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area increase. Section 3: Land Use Code Amendment - GMOS Exemption for Preserving Significant Open Space Parcels Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.470.070 (G) as follows (bold underlined text to be added): G. 4Rese~ed} Preservation of Significant Open Space Parcels. On a project specific basis, the Citv Council may exempt the development of one or more residences from P&Z Resolution No. 33, EXHIBIT H Series of 2004. Page 4 the provisions of this Chapter in exchange for the permanent preservation of one or more parcels considered significant for the preservation of open space. The allotment established pursuant to Section 26.470.040 or from the Metro Area development ceiling established pursuant to Section 26.470.030. The exempted residential units shall provide affordable housing mitigation, pursuant to the requirements of Section 2b.470A70.B. Review is by City Council. The criteria for determining the' significance of a preservation parcel and the associated development rights to'be granted may include: 1. The strategic nature of the preservation parcel to facilitate park, trailsL or open space objectives of the City of Aspen. This shall include a recommendation from the City of Aspen Open Space Acquisition Board. 2. Identification of the preservation parcel as "private land with preservation value" in the Aspen Area Community Plan or as a parcel desirable for preservation in any other adopted master plans of the City of Aspen. 3. Proximity and/or visibility of the preservation parcel to the City of Aspen. 4. The development rights of the preservation parcel, including the allowed uses and intensities and impacts associated with those uses if developed to the maximum. 5. The proposed location of the parcel(s) being granted an exemption from growth management and the compatibility of the resulting uses and intensities of development with the surrounding neighborhood, including the impacts from the specified method of providing affordable housing mitigation. 6. The preservation parcel shall be encumbered with a legal instrument, acceptable to the City Attorney, which sterilizes the parcel from further development in perpetuity. Section 4: Preservation of Hunter Valley Way Parcel Pursuant to the procedures for exempting development from the scoring and competition procedures of the Growth Management Quota System, Section 26.470.070 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, and pursuant to the recommended code amendment as described in Section 3 of this Resolution, above, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council grant three (3) development rights to the Fox Crossing/Griffith Subdivision application in exchange for the preservation of the Hunter Valley Way parcel, as described in the Fox Crossing Subdivision application, with the following conditions: 1. Clear title to the Hunter Valley Way property shall be provided by the applicant and reviewed by the City Attorney. 2. A legal encumbrance, acceptable to the City Attorney, shall sterilize the Hunter Valley Way parcel and preclude development,. other than that associated with the maintenance of open space and trails and .the development of new trails, from P&Z Resolution No. 33, EXHIBIT H Series of 2004. Page 5 occurring on the property in perpetuity. The encumbrance shall define maintenance and liability obligations. 3. The City of Aspen shall be a party (but not the sale party} to the deed restriction on the property. 4. The three (3) residential units shall be required to provide affordable housing mitigation, pursuant to the requirements of Section 26.470.070.B. Section 5: Growth Management Exemptions Required Replacement of existing residential units requires an exemption from Growth Management, pursuant to Section 26.470.070.B, unless the lot on which the residence is proposed is a Historic Landmark. The parcels granted an exemption from growth management by virtue of preserving the Hunter Valley Way open space parcel shall also be required to obtain this additional exemption. The following proposed lots shall require affordable housing mitigation, pursuant to section 26.470.070.B: Griffth Lots 2, and 3; Fox Crossing Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10. Griffith Lot #1 shall not be required to provide affordable housing mitigation, pursuant to former approvals which created the lot. Proposed Lot 7 contains an existing residence and the current floor area shall be applied as a credit towards the mitigation requirement. The mitigation credit for the existing residence on Lot 7 may be reallocated to other lots within the Griffith/Fox Crossing subdivisions pursuant to a letter of understanding with the City of Aspen Zoning Officer to be completed prior to the demolition of the residence on Lot 7. Section 6: Impact Fees Park Impact Fees shall be assessed based upon the following schedule: Studio residential units $1,520 per unit one-bedroom units $2,120 per unit two-bedroom units $2,725 per unit three-bedroom or larger unit $3,634 per unit In recognition of capital improvements to the City's park and recreation system constructed by the applicant, the City Parks and Recreation Department may reduce this fee commensurate with the costs of those improvements. School Impact Fees shall be assessed based on one-third the value of the unimproved land divided by the proposed number of residential units on a per acre basis. The City of Aspen shall verify the unimproved land value of the lands underlying the Project from recent transactions and information from the Pitkin County Assessor. The subject subdivision is not conducive to locating a school facility and acash-in-lieu payment shall be accepted. School Impact Fees shall be specified prior to final approval. The project shall be subject to amendments to impact fees required by the City of Aspen, including new impacts fees or amendments to existing impact fees. Amendments to the P&Z Resolution No. 33, EXHIBIT H Series of 2004. Page 6 project shall require a new calculation of impact fees. Impacts fees commensurate with each phase shall be payable upon issuance of a building permit for such phase. Section 7: Water Department Standards The applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with applicable standards of Municipal Code Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Section 8: Sanitation Distr7ct Standards The applicant shall comply with the following.Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District rules and regulations. 1. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office at the time of construction. 2. All clear water connections are prohibited, i.e. ground water, {roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains), including entrances to underground parking garages. 3. On-site drainage plans require approval by the district, must accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regulations and specifications. 4. On-site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD. 5. Glycol snowmelt and heating systems must have containment provisions and must preclude discharge to the public sanitary sewer system. 6. Plans for interceptors, separators and containment facilities require submittal by the applicant and approval prior to building permit. 7. When new service lines are required for existing development the old service line must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. 8. Generally one tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. 9. Permanent improvements are prohibited in areas covered by sewer easements or right of ways to the lot line of each development. 10. All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. 1 1. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional P&Z Resolution No. 33, EXHIBIT H Series of 2004. Page 7 proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Section 9: Public Park and Trail The developer of the Fox Crossing/Griffith Subdivision shall improve Aley Park (located at the southwest corner of Spruce Street and Williams Way) in coordination with the City of Aspen Parks Department with a topset monetary contribution from the developer of $100,000. A public access easement shall be provided across the entirety of the Fox Crossing Park Parcel and the Pedestrian Trail connecting-the park to Race Street. The form and content of the easement shall be acceptable to the City Parks Department and the City Attorney and shall be referenced in both the Subdivision Agreement and the Subdivision Plat. There shall also be an agreement specifying ownership, use, boundaries, and maintenance responsibilities for the Park Parcel. This trail shall be developed through the Fox Crossing Park parcel. Section 10: Construction Management Plan Prior to issuance of a building permit and prior to commencement of any site/utility work, the applicant shall submit a construction management plan for approval by the Community Development Engineer. The plan shall include the following: l . The primary construction access point shall be along Lone Pine Road. Race Street and Race Alley shall not be used for contractor parking. The City prefers a contractor parking area be designated along Lone Pine Road and on-site. 2. A lot, or several lots, shall be used as a construction staging area. The CMP should specify the particular lot(s) and shall specify at which point a staging area is no longer required. 3. Contractor contact information shall be provided to surrounding property owners. In the case of Hunter Creek Condominiums, contact information may be provided to the condominium association president rather than each individual owner. The intent of this requirement is for the contractor to address neighborhood concerns about construction without involving the City. Section 11: Access Infrastructure Permit: Prior to the construction any improvements, a licensed Contractor must obtain a City Access-Infrastructure (A-I) permit. One Contractor will be responsible for completing all infrastructure associated with the project. As part of the A-I Permit, the Contractor will be required to submit a Construction Management Plan. Section 12: Hazardous Soils: This area is within the Smuggler superfund site, which means additional permits and institutional controls are required for any work done on the site. {See requirements outlined in the City Code.) City Environmental Health Department _ 920.5039. P&Z Resolution No. 33, EXHIBIT H Series of 2004. Page 8 Section 13• Streets Race Alley/Race Street shall be designated as one-way with the direction of travel being northbound. Race Alley shall continue to be signed for no parking on either side of the street. Parking along the southern portion of Race Street shall be permitted. Spruce Street shall be improved with a pedestrian sidewalk on at least one side of the street and preferably both sides. The design, costs, and responsibility of this improvement shall be determined prior to final approvals by City Council. In the alternative, Race Alley and Race Street may remain two-way if a minimum 30 feet- wide right-of--way is provided along the entire extent of these two streets with a minimum 22-foot wide paved roadway and a minimum of a 2-foot wide stabilized shoulders on either side. Walnut Street (the public right-of--way portion) shall maintain atwenty-one foot wide clearance with no parking. In the alternative, parking may be permitted if the 21-foot wide clearance is maintained and the approval of the Fire Marshall is gained. The extension of Walnut Street to its connection with Lone Pine Road shall be developed within a 20-foot wide access easement with 16 feet of paved surface and a 2-foot stabilized shoulder on both sides. Bollards, or other physical hindrances within the rights-of--way, shall not be implemented. Section 14: Subdivision Plat Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for a Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision Plat which shall comply with current requirements of the City Community Development Engineer and shall include: 1. The final property boundaries, disposition of lands, and utility and surface easements. Utility easements not administered by the City of Aspen shall require approval by the particular utility provider. 2. Reference to the public easement across the Park Parcel and Pedestrian Trail. 3. A phasing plan describing the sequence of development phases and the improvements for each phase. The City encourages the applicant to perform any overlot grading and utility main work in the first phase. 4. Design specifications and profiles for improvements to the public rights-of--way including geometries and turning radii. 5. A landscape plan showing location, amount, and species of landscape improvements. An irrigation plan for the park parcel shall be included with a signature line for the City Parks Department. 6. A utility plan meeting the standards of the City Engineer and City utility agencies. Utility mains not administered by the City of Aspen shall require approval by the particular utility provider. Fire hydrant(s) locations shall be identified. P&Z Resolution No. 33, EXHIBIT H Series of 2004. Page 9 7. A grading/drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge systems are required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. Off-site improvements shall be done in coordination with the City Engineer. 8. The applicant shall provide the final approved Subdivision line data or survey description data describing the revised street and parcel boundaries to the Geographic Information Systems Department prior to applying for a building permit. The final building location data, including any amendments, shall be provided to the GIS Department prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Section I5: Subdivision Agreement Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision Agreement binding this property to this development approval. The Agreement shall include the necessary items detailed in Section 26.445.070, in addition to the following: The agreement shall state the ownership and maintenance responsibilities of the common areas of the project, including commons driveways and drainage improvements. 2. A public access easement and ownership ,use, boundary, and maintenance agreement for the Park Parcel and Pedestrian Trail, as specified in Section 9. 3. A Construction Management Plan, as specified in Section 10. 4. In order to secure the construction, installation, and performance of the of public improvements and facilities, including drainage improvements and landscape improvements for each phase, the required performance guarantees shall include and secure the estimated costs of all phases of the development. Section 16: Fire Department Sprinkler and fire alarms are required throughout all of the buildings. The person that designs the sprinkler and alarm systems should meet with the Fire Marshall before starting design. It needs to be confirmed that adequate water volume and pressure exists for the sprinklers. Section 17: Buildins Permit Requirements The building permit application shall include/depict: 1. A signed copy of the final Ordinance granting land use approval. 2. A letter from the primary contractor stating that the approving Ordinance has been read and understood. 3. The conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover page of the building permit set. EXHIBIT H P&Z Resolution No. 33; Series of 2004. Page 10 4. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. 5. A tree removal/mitigation plan for any trees to be affected by the specif c phase. 6. A fugitive dust control plan approved by the Environmental Health Department which addresses watering of disturbed areas including haul roads, perimeter silt fencing, as-needed cleaning of adjacent rights-of--way, speed limits within and accessing the site, and the ability to request additional measures to prevent a nuisance during construction. The applicant shall wash tracked mud and debris from the street as necessary, and as requested by the City, during construction. Submission of a fugitive dust control plan to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Quality Control Division will also be necessary due to the property being in excess of 1 acre. 7. A study performed by a Colorado licensed asbestos inspector detailing the presence of asbestos. The State of Colorado must be notified and the report must be complete prior to issuance of a building permit. Contact the City of Aspen Environmental Health Department for state contact information. 8. If the disturbance area of a particular phase of development is over one acre, the Contractor will need to obtain a State Storm Water Management Permit {for erosion control) and a State Emission Permit (for dust control). 9. A construction site management and parking plan meeting the specifications of the City Building Department Prior to issuance of a building permit: 1. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid for the particular phase. 2. The location and design of standpipes, fire sprinklers, and alarm systems shall be approved by the Fire Marshall. The Fire Department requests that sprinklers be installed in each proposed house regardless of floor area. Section 18: Fences Property boundary fences of Fox Crossing Lot 5 and Lot 6 which border the Fox Crossing Park parcel shall be developed no higher than 42 inches and shall be subject to the procedures and requirements of Chapter 26.415 -Development Involving Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Section 19• This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall riot 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. EXHIBIT H P&Z Resolution No. 33, Series of 2004. Page 11 Section 24: 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 regular meeting on December 7, 2404. APPROVED AS TO FORM:. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: 1~ ~.. ~%~Y~Gu--e~L David Hoefer, Asst. City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: ackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Exhibit A -Existing and Proposed property boundaries. P&Z Resolution No. 33, EXHIBIT H Series of 2004. Page 12 -dL~~YYS' i e t-! ~ 9! 3~a .. :~ Sidi yYi~ ~~ l~2i s[' f a.' t6 e'~g6~ia 6i. - t'. 4l1i=. Y.a~~r~. q~a~~. d 3.64 ~Y fd~~~~', ~s ! A~!!4 1 3gr 3 le.A t~~;l a. ~~! ~6Y rP 8~`..~ ~Y~ Y° ^ d s a - ~ ~ e'. ~~~. idcea3_~ t'.~:a! t. S.$ - S q'i.a7i ~~~a ~..: g D r ~~ 6 +~~ r ~ ; ~ sp_Y e E ~ a 6ic ~ ~p@ 3- ~ E~7y~'-ce gzr ~lSpYp ei ~ `deE~~ $y~~~~Eiei ~ il~ae: d~ ESg~fi,~B~~S~~~p~3Yq a ~~q~~° ~~ ~~3y~y2~J-pll9~~Si ~ Sfee St k s:~t.i5°os-: 5 !i¢e~ 9~l~j~Ssg61~x~! ~~~~~1:9'~ ~~Y9l~.~a'7:~3~~~ ~a~•. , . ~ ~;g ~gg ~ ## - ~.. ~ ~ ~t QQIS 1;.~4~@~y ~.S !fig ~~!$fi (~g$-~! `Sy ~ ~1~ ! Ec_ ~aigair~ ~ i $ ajBr,~~e epp.elp i- g'7 ~ ' I y ~~ ! 36~e ' ~ ~~~. S~;1e xCedegx $~ g II~ .~~~ ~~.I ag8~erV ~;~ ~ ~g~ 9g~€e ~ ~ ~~_~. ~5~~'u ,~~(pEE°~ ~~7~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~r+! ~ _~~}.~ t~~~ t~ ~i !~ ~~ ~a:' iE ag~L C~:~a ~$~_$'~°-gl~Sliai ~tD~ 3. ~j a S la~i yySln S°e p.4 : l6is~r'I ' , a sr! _~ R.# ` ~e` >~~ e~!` ~3~ S~ ~s.$ ~~laspp d ~e:~[~ i !~ y"V y. r! g r ^ X I!!D a ~r 7 ~~~ ~ ~~~ .. S r rkr ~:~~( g 7 1 ~r rY~r~ 5.35 ~' 1 ~ -'r.J. ~... ~ g~~i'6rBa~ ~r i •~1~' ~S xr~~~r~~l.~i• r,~a.rh 3`a !~ }} !- r c !a! ~r ~~~ ~'~ s3E~e a~~~ r•S 1 i li.s A ~~ ~'~€r~~~~~~~~~[~a a ~~ ~lS~wle °1g~*~~ ~i~~~~:~~~~~~1'~ 7rit~€_ :~ ~ 1 9g~flf~i~~agx i9e~ ~~~`drapg"9~'~!leg~=3r{ai~~~~~l~~;tl:ae~ ~. ~~ w . ~ l~ia:xlalit~~~~=Eai~l~i~iS~~:a~$c~3r?l3ai!~S ~ J s. .~ *. n •;. nra ~ ~ 'Z s;~. b i ~ j. Y a3s +...,~ O W ~ ~.~....~ ~ Q - - `- t ~ CY- _ . a.:: ~ (/7 ~ ~ ° 3 ~i :~ ~ ~ ~'~ ~=6 ~. ? .. €~~~ 'Z-,~ J D J ..J ~ ~ +~~. '~''~~~ ~ - 1337i151fY11~'M Q ~ ' ~ j R,'d''. ` S s ~ ~ ~ i a ,~. s ...,~: ~~ ... ~~~! a Zk a y«... y `1 ! ~ . a; i i ~i~~I ~ ~~~E~ ~ ~'' ~ 9 ~ - ~ ,~ r ; ~ ~ ,~ , !~ ! V) _ ~ ~ z ~ ~ z ~ 1 utaa loi `~ ~ ~ j on 'ux ~u-isro m. ! i I i 4 I I . - ~~ ~' ~ _ Y /~ ii 9R3 ~ ~ ".ix e~li! ~ ~_,- ~=:g=.,+ i~f ~;.4~A~ a~~9~Af' ~~b~ ~ ~~ ~l~ ~,.~ 331 ~.~r;~ d 1m-- 1~2 IBIT H T ro aro t x ~ ~ ~-+~ „ u..n., ., ~Id }aaardolaeaQ OQAOTOD 'I~iT IIOISAipgng ~aiS$O.I~ ]CO ~ -~-~ --r ,:;~~„ :mss acva , n,,.,.~„~w~.~. _ _ _ _ . ,... 133N1S 3~f121dS ... ~ ~oa ~" £ I c o E ^ t o f ( a til ~J E R R '~ xa + 9 N 1 d ~~ 1 ~ W e a0 ~ - $ • a'`~ I U ~ aGn ~ 4 s C ~ l ~ S ~~> ~ e L ~ w E E r~ i x n a ` ~ ~, •- • V ~ $ e fion ~ E t D1Ym JOIA~ `} ~ 1 A3T1Y 3~Yt! - ~ ~'r° -- ~ -=__ j a !. m ' vi I ~--~*-- s° r d ~_-_~ F E~ c~ s n o r ~ ~4{,\ E ~ rn e ~_ ~~ _J I I E ~T' ~ \ c I I sag . ~ °~ $ ~ e.. w~ JVIm ~~n z t-~ I .! I a °'° E ~ s~s ~----{II JN~ "pC JN~ L U E JN0 \ I ~ 'U[ ..... ... ~ N Q' dl~ ~ ~i ~ ~'~~~~ a ~ i ~ 133a1s 1nN7vxt d o=~ J N b E ~ I a I v f u` C ~ M ~ E ~ ~ _ ~ I n sg _~ -~'..'r 1 ~E- _a ~ E ~ ° ' ~ ~~~ ;. v . ~ ~N s ~ ~r~ + N ~ ~ -o-a' ~ ~ ~v, a gi w~ i `'tio ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ."e \ 1~ ` ~, ; o o . ~ S ;5 y ~ ` 0 ~M - o~~ v Jog>. Y / - ' m o / - OI J / - t N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ..~- LANE PME ~~ EXHIBIT H 1 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 13, 2004 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ...................................................................................... 2 COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS ....................................................................... . 2 CONSENT CALENDAR ..........................•--------...................................:.................... . 3 • Resolution #123, 2004 -Law Enforcement Assistance Contract .........................: . 4 • Resolution #124, 2004 -Upgrade Automated Ticket Management System......... . 4 • Resolution # 125, 2004 -EPA Study of Power Plant Emissions ........................... . 4 Annie Mitchell Homestead Homeowners' Budget ................................................ . 4 ~ Minutes -November 22, 2004 ............................................................................... . 4 RESOLUTION #127, 2004 -Burlingame Water Line Design Contract ........ 4 FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES .................................................................. . 5 • Ordinance #47, 2004 -Bar/X Ranch Final PUD and Initial City Zoning .............. 5 • Ordinance #48, 2004 -Fox Crossing Subdivision and Code Amendments........... 5 • Ordinance #49, 2004 -Highlands Villas Annexation ............................................ 5 ORDINANCE #48, SERIES OF 2004 -Fox Crossing Subdivision and Code Amendment .............................................:.....................•----.....................................---..... 7 RESOLUTION #126, SERIES OF 2004 -Temporary Use Sleigh Rides at the Golf Course ..............................................................................:................................ 8 ORDINANCE #38, SERIES OF 2004 - 2005 Fees .............................................. 8 ORDINANCE #41, SERIES OF 2004 -Utility Rates ....................................... to ORDINANCE #42, SERIES OF 2004 -Supplemental Appropriations........ i 2 ORDINANCE #43, SERIES OF 2004 -Code Amendment, Historic Benefits ........................................................................................................................... 13 ORDINANCE #44, SERIES OF 2004 - De-listing from Historic Inventory 308 and 719 East Hopkins ......................................................................................... 14 ORDINANCE #45, SERIES OF 2004 -- Aspen Meadows ............................... 15 EXHIBIT I CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2004- 2005 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 13, 2004 FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES • Ordinance #47, 2004 - Bar/X Ranch Final PUD and Initial City Zoning • Ordinance #48, 2004 -Fox Crossing Subdivision and Code Amendments • Ordinance #49, 2004 -Highlands Villas Annexation Councilwoman Richards noted she cannot vote on Ordinance #48 as her property immediately adjoins the subdivision. Councilman Paulson recused himself because he lives within 300 feet of Fox Crossing subdivision. Councilwoman Richards moved to read Ordinances #47 and 49, Series of 2004; seconded by Councilman Semrau. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE N0.47 (SERIES OF 2004) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A COMBINED CONCEPTUAL/FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, SUBDIVISION, GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM {GMQS) EXEMPTION, AND AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE STAGE ROAD SUBDIVISION/PUD, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. ORDINANCE N0.49 (Series of 2004} AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, TO BE KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS THE "LOT 10, ASPEN HIGHLANDS SUBDIVISION, FILING N0.2 PARCEL" ANNEXATION. Councilman Semrau moved to adopt Ordinance #47, Series of 2004, on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. EXHIBIT I CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2004- 2005 5 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 13, 2004 agreement with the PUD and note any differences. Mayor Klanderud stated she will support this ordinance in order to take it to public hearing; however, that is not an indication of support at final reading. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Torre, yes; Richards, yes; Paulson, no; Councilman Semrau, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. Councilman Semrau moved to adopt Ordinance #49, Series of 2004, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Torre. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Richards, yes; Semrau, yes; Paulson, yes; Torre, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carved. ORDINANCE #48, SERIES OF 2004 -Fox Crossing Subdivision and Code Amendment Councilmembers Richards and Paulson left the room due to conflict of interest. Councilman Semrau moved to read Ordinance #48, Series of 2004; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #48 (Series of 2004) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE, GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM EXEMPTIONS, AND A FOURTEEN LOT SUBDIVISION TO BE KNOWN AS THE FOX CROSSING AND GRIFFITH SUBDIVISONS ON LAND LOCATED BETWEEN LONE PINE ROAD AND RACE ALLEY BETWEEN WALNUT STREET AND RACE STREET, 557 RACE ALLEY CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Mayor Klanderud stated she is uncomfortable with this ordinance as written and would like to see the code amendment separated from the subdivision application approval ordinance. Mayor Klanderud said the code amendments are substantive enough to have their own ordinance. Mayor Klanderud said the code amendment seems to be another special exception for ADUs. Mayor Klanderud said she likes the idea of gaining valuable open space by applying development rights to another parcel. Mayor EXHIBIT I CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2004- 2005 7 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 13, 2004 Klanderud asked if either open space board has reviewed these code amendn'~ents. John Worcester, city attorney, suggested splitting this into two ordinances for public hearing in January. Councilman Semrau moved to adopt Ordinance #48, Series of 2004, on first reading, the code amendments only; seconded by Councilman Torre. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Semrau, yes; Torre, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. Councilman Semrau moved to adopt Ordinance #50, Series of 2004, Fox Crossing subdivision; seconded by Councilman Torre. Roll call-vote; Councilmembers Semrau, yes; Torre, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. Councilmembers Paulson and Richards came back into Council Chambers. RESOLUTION #126, SERIES OF 2004 -Temporary Use Sleigh Rides at the. Golf Course Sarah Oates, community development department, told Council this application is to allow sleigh rides on the golf course between December 15 and March 31, snow conditions permitting. This should enhance the dinner operation at the golf course. Ms. Oates reminded Council there has been sleigh rides on the golf course before and there were no complaints from the neighbors. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Richards moved to approve Resolution #126, Series of 2004; seconded by Councilman Paulson. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #38. SERIES OF 2004 - 2005 Fees John Worcester, city attorney, reminded Council staff reviews city fees every year to make sure the fees keep pace with inflation and cover the cost of services. The packet contains an analysis of the fees and increases. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. EXHIBIT I CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2004- 2005 g Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 24, 2005 OUTSTANDING EMPLOYEE BONUS AWARD ........................................................... 2 CI'T'IZEN PARTICIPATION .............................................................................................. 2 COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS .................................................................................. 2 MINUTES -January 10, 2005 ....................................................................... 3 FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES .............................................................................. 3 • Ordinance #6, 2005 -Stage Road Subdivision Final PUD and Initial City Zoning 3 • Ordinance #7, 2005 -Code Amendment -Mixed Use Zone District .................... 3 • Ordinance #8, 2005 - Soldner/Burlingame Ranch Initial Zoning .......................... 3 ORDINANCE N0.7 ........................................................................................................... 3 ....................... ASPEN SATURDAY MARKET ........--~ ..................................................... ORDINANCE #37, SERIES OF 2004 -Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Master Plan SPA ............................................................................................................................. 5 ORDINANCE #49, SERIES OF 2004 -Highlands Villas Annexation ............................. 8 ORDINANCE #48, SERIES OF 2004 -Code Amendment Open Space TDRs ......................................................................................................................... ... 8 ORDINANCE #50, SERIES OF 2004 -Fox Crossing Subdivision ................................ 10 ORDINANCE #l, SERIES OF 2005 -Little Ajax PUD ............................... 16 ORDINANCE #2, SERIES OF 2005 -Code Amendment Seasonal Outdoor Food Vending ............................................................................................................................ 20 EXHIBIT I CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2004- 2005 1 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 24, 2005 Councilman Semrau moved to adopt Ordinance #48, Series of 2004, on second reading, with the understanding that language will be added to clarify this is a building right as well as an exemption from GMQS and no more floor area than the underlying zoning; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. Roll call vote; Councihnembers Richards, yes; Torre, yes; Paulson, yes; Semrau, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #50, SERIES OF 2004 -Fox Crossing Subdivision Councilmembers Richards and Paulson live within 300 feet of this property and need to recuse themselves. Councilman Paulson protested having to leave the room for this discussion. John Worcester, city attorney, said Council adopted an ordinance which included anode of ethics for Council, together with conflict of interest. If one lives within 300 feet of a proposed project, it is presumed one has a conflict. The rules of ethics outline what a Councilmember is to do if it is deemed they have a conflict of interest. These rules require a Councilperson disclose their conflict, refrain from voting and physically absent themselves from the room. Worcester said the theory is that if a Councilperson has a conflict, they should not be in a position to influence other members of Council, which requires absenting oneself from the room. Chris Bendon, community development department, told Council this land currently comprises 71ots and the proposal is to divide them into 141ots, one of which would be a park parcel. The 7 existing lots allow for a total of 13 homes and the proposed 141ots would allow for a total of 19 homes. The existing 71ots are between Lone Pine road, Race alley and Race street. The Griffith lot split, which is included in the property, was approved by Council several years ago. The Bennis property and the Walnut properties are also included. The Walnut parcel includes the railroad parcel, the garage parcel, 4 houses on the west side of Race alley which has merged under the county code and split into 2 conforming lots with 2 houses on each lot, one known as the north lot and one as the south lot. Bendon said the Walnut parcels all allow for a duplex as they are zoned R-6, a total of 8 residences. The Bennis property would allow for a duplex. The Griffith lot split approval provides for 3 residences total, a single residence and a duplex. This totals 13 residences allowed by right. Bendon said 3 of the parcels in the Walnut property are eligible for lot splits for the 8 development rights could be increased to 11 residences, which will require Council approval. The proposal is a resubdivision of all the land. The Griffith lot will be divided into 3 fee simple lots. Because they went through lot split approval, it cannot be lot split again and requires a formal subdivision. This will create 3 fee simple lots, each of which can contain a duplex to a total of b residences allowed, requiring one development right. There are lot line adjustments on the Griffith and Bennis parcels. There is a proposal for the railroad parcel to be lot split. It currently allows a duplex; if a lot split is approved it would allow 3 residences and two new lots. This would require two development allotments. This would be a total of 5 residences on the Railroad parcel. EXHIBIT I CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2004- 2005 10 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 24, 2005 The other house at North cabin site is proposed for a lot split to create two single-family sites. The old house and one cabin are historically designated. The old house plus cabin parcel becomes two fee simple lots each with one single-family house. The garage parcel is and remains a duplex lot. The south cabin is proposed for a lot split for two single- family houses each on one lot. Interior to the project will be a parcel dedicated to park. Bendon said one issue is Race alley. One of the city's subdivision standards requires. a determination on whether or not there is adequate infrastructure to serve the subdivision. Race alley is a 20-foot right of way developed as atwo-way road. Bendon told Council the city engineer and fire marshal comment this is not adequate to serve the subdivision and it is not currently adequate. The options are to widen the road or to make it one-way. The traffic safety advisory agreed that the road is currently inadequate and that needs to be addressed by widening or one-way. Bendon noted by right there could be an additional 8 residences along Race street or Race alley. Staff is recommending one-way is less destruction to properties along that right-of--way. Bendon said the historic TDR proposal is consistent with the code amendment just approved. The HPC gave a positive recommendation on moving the floor azea around within the subdivision. Bendon pointed out there is no more than 500 square feet landing on any parcel. The parcels getting that extra FAR are along Lone Pine road and will be within the range of the houses in the Mocklin subdivision. Bendon pointed out the open space parcel is the Hunter Valley Way parcel, which the Hunter Creek trail crosses. This parcel is in the county and the zoning is AFR-10, which has one development right in the county of 5750 squaze feet, which could be increased to 15,000 square feet with TDRs. The allotments from that parcel into town provide for the full subdivision of the Griffith properties, which only requires one development allotment to go from 3 houses to 6. There would be 3300 additional square feet on the Griffith properties. Fox Crossing lots 8 and 9 are internal to the subdivision and could end up with residences and about 2200 additional square feet. These are not directly adjacent to the historic resources. Bendon noted the school dedication fees need to be added to the ordinance. Camilla Auger, applicant, told Council this is a diverse area. They are proposing a low density, single-family development with a park in the middle, which will be open to the public. They also propose to help develop the park on Spruce street. Ms. Auger explained that the developers will give the Hunter Valley Way to the Aspen Valley Land Trust as a third party, it will be 20 acres of open space along the Hunter Creek trail. Ms. Auger said the plan is to restore the Griffith blue Victorian. The two cabins will be made into one residence while preserving the look of two cabins. Ms. Auger handed out letters from the fire department, the Smuggler trailer court homeowners association in support of the project, Dale Will the county's open space director, and adjacent property owners of Aley Park. Stan Clauson, representing the applicant, gave Council maps with roadway changes and increased readability. Clauson illustrated how this project will link a number of key open EXHIBIT I CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2004- 2005 11 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 24, 2005 spaces. There will be a trail from the north through the project and connecting to the Oklahoma Flats trail. The park to the south of the Aley property will be improved with a playground and a trail connection. Clauson showed the location of the historic house and the relocated cabins, which will be historically designated. Clauson said the pavement width of Race alley is 14+ feet in a 20 foot right-of--way with a wider right-of--way where is comes into Spruce street. Clauson said.the condition of the wider section is a storage lot for vehicles. Clauson proposed the portion of the Race street right-of--way which follows the old railroad alignment be vacated to allow lot 1 to have a reasonable development width and Race street will be developed with a 28 foot right-of--way and 20 feet of pavement and an 8 foot parking shoulder. Clauson noted this is a subdivision, not a PUD, and there aze no variances being requested. Every lot meets the minimum 6,000 square foot standard. There are no height variances being requested and no exemptions from the residential design standards. The proposal includes a permanent meadow, deed restricted and available for public use. Clauson said the original platting was to have this area be a very dense subdivision. Then the railroad needed a turnaround, which disrupted the subdivision plans. Clauson said interpretative signs will be included to provide background of the development of the area. Clauson presented an illustrative drawing indicating the densities and the intensity of development resulting from a code developed proj ect. There is a stream that the developers hope to enhance. Gilbert Sanchez, architect, told Council he is working on restoration of the Griffith blue Victorian as well as the two log cabins. Sanchez said the cabins are excellent examples of post WWII rustic style. Sanchez pointed out what is unique about these 3 structures is the way they sit on the landscape. Sanchez went over the proposed renovation plans and told Council they have gone through conceptual with HPC. Sanchez said they have tried to respond to the neighbors' comments during this process. Ms. Auger noted they have attempted to move the density away from Race street, which can least support it. Clauson said they have looked at looping the water main onto Lone Pine. This water main currently dead ends on Walnut street. Jay Hammond, engineer, told Council there has been interest in providing a street through the project from Race street to Lone Pine. Hammond said the applicants looked at this in context within the project and what it would do to the neighborhood. Hammond noted installing a road through the project would split the project into an east and a west project. Hammond said the east part of the project would generate about a net increase of 30 vehicles/day. Hammond pointed out the change of Race alley to aone-way street would bring more traffic. Hammond said the west side of the project will have more density and would generate a net increase of 45 cars/day. Hammond said from an internal standpoint, a connecting road would have negative impacts on the development plan, the context of the historic preservation, the context of the park. From an external standpoint, Spruce street is the only vehicular exit from the neighborhood to the north and could have up to 300 vehicles/day. Hammond said an EXHIBIT I CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2004- 2005 12 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 24, 2005 alternate route through the subdivision would create a new intersection off Spruce street, a new intersection onto Lone Pine, and the intersection on Gibson. This would add 2 turning movements and 2 stop signs. Hammond said for convenience and directness, going through the subdivision is not the hest option. This would bring the new road close to Hunter Creek and the residents have expressed some concern about that road. Hammond recommended against a road through the project. Brian Flynn, parks department, said staff feels the Hunter Way parcel would be an important addition to the city's open space. It appears as the entryway to the Hunter Creek valley. Mayor Klanderud asked if there is access to this parcel. Bendon said legally there is access; however, physically there is no road. Mayor Klanderud said this parcel maybe sterile. Councilman Semrau agreed Council needs to know what the development right is worth before they can assign development rights to another parcel. Ms. Auger pointed out the access through North Spruce street. Ms. Auger told Council there is a contract so the purchasers have an easement. When the purchasers are paid, they will relinquish the easement and Hunter Way parcel. Councilman Semrau asked if this application is rejected, would Ms. Auger provide access through her lot. Ms. Auger said she has provided the purchaser with the right that if they cannot pay them and affect the trade, they will have a development right. Ms. Auger noted that the combination of giving investors tax credits and allowing the project to raise the money to purchase the open space is a novel approach to obtaining more open space. Councilman Semrau said for Council's purposes this is a new subdivision. Councilman Semrau stated generally in new subdivisions of raw land, applicants require GMQS and 60/40 split with affordable housing. Bendon said that is correct; however, there is a lot of development right inherent in this property. These development rights run with the property. If a subdivision comes in to redistribute the existing development rights onto newly configured lots, this does not trigger a growth management review. There are 3 additional development rights this project relies on. These could be acquired through the growth management process where 60/40 would apply, or through some other mechanism. The code amendment is a mechanism to allow Council to acknowledge receipt of an open space parcel and to approve development rights in town, which is how the applicant proposes to acquire these 3 development rights. Mayor Klanderud asked what the housing requirement is in this subdivision. Bendon said for the lots that have existing development rights and are being redeveloped, the housing requirements is a cash-in-lieu payment or and ADU for each free market unit. For the new development rights in exchange for the open space parcel, the recently adopted code amendment states these parcels have to provide housing bycash-in-lieu or ADU. Councilman Semrau asked if staff checked with county to make sure there is a development right on the Hunter Way parcel. Bendon said there is one development right, which would allow a 5,750 square foot housing with TDRs up to 15,000 square feet. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. EXHIBIT I CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2004- 2005 13 Re ular Meetin As en Ci Council Janua 24 2005 Jon Busch submitted a letter for the record. Busch told Council he is the property most affected by this project. Busch pointed out the view of garages from his property. Busch said his first concern is parking. There is no public parking proposed anywhere in the subdivision, there is only parking for the residents. The additional units on Race alley are proposed while taking away parking on Race street. Busch said he would like the trail details finalized, where it will go, how wide it is, fencing, what the material will be. Busch stated he does not support putting a road through the subdivision. Busch said traffic slowing devices should be installed. Busch said he is concerned about the density of the project and would prefer not to have ADUs, which could double that density. Busch encouraged the applicant to keep all construction impacts on site. Busch said he supports the project with those caveats. Connie Harvey said this is a good project from the open space perspective. Ms. Harvey went over the history of Hunter Creek and the many battles to keep it open. Hunter Creek is Aspen's backyard; it is a wonderful place to go. Ms. Harvey said this is a creative way to keep open space and keep monster houses out. Councilman Torre moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting until 11:30 p.m.; seconded by Mayor Klanderud. All in favor, motion carried. Muriel Frey, Hunter Creek resident, said she was told there was an easement to the south of Hunter Creek that nothing could be built on that area. Clauson said the applicants had a survey done and there is no easement on that open space parcel. Ms. Frey asked the distance between the Hunter Creek building and the new subdivision. Jeff Lester, Hunter Creek resident, said they like the comment about the applicant respecting the landscape buffer and the pond. Lester said they do not favor the road through the project on to Lone Pine. Ms. Auger said they are pleased to have the cooperation of Hunter Creek and do not intend to do anything adverse to the landscape. Councilman Semrau asked if they are willing to agree not to go up the embankment. Clauson said they would accept a condition that would create a building envelope for that lot. Lester said they like the public access to the open space area as well as having the historic buildings fronting that space. Lester said they thought there would be 3 homes fronting Lone Pine and doubling the density is a surprise. Tim McFlynn said one of the most important values in this valley is access to trails and open space. McFlynn said the ability to secure this valuable open space is immeasurable. Many citizens worked to secure permanent access into Hunter Creek. McFlynn said Council should work to take care of immediate neighbors' concerns in order to affect a larger community value. Robert Zupancis noted he is located on Race street and Walnut street. Zupancis pointed out the public portion of Race street is one half of a block and it cannot handle construction parking. Zupancis presented a letter for the record. The applicants have not addresed off site parking or visitor parking at all. Loren Ryerson said adding sidewalks to this area is important to address pedestrian ease of using this area. Ryerson noted it is not good policy of the city to add pedestrians to an area that is already inadequate for safety. Ryerson said a trail in the middle of a EXHIBIT I CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2004- 2005 14 Re ular Meetin As en Ci Council Janua 24 2005 subdivision is not adequate. The safety issues of this area need to be looked at. Ryerson said his preference is to widen Race alley rather than one-way it. Colleen Burrows, Spruce Street resident, said this application has increased from 11 to 13 to 19 units. Ms. Burrows said it appears there is enough land to subdivide again to a total of 21 units. Ms. Burrows would like Council to look at the possibility of any increased density. Ms. Burrows noted the impacts grow every time the neighbors see this application. Spruce street will have to take all traffic from the development. Ms. Burrows said the neighborhood supports Race Alley remaining two-way. Ms. Burrows agreed the application has not addressed parking in the subdivision. Ms. Burrows requested Council look at the impacts being pushed out of the subdivision on to surrounding streets. LJ Erspamer, Spruce Street, said his biggest concern is that Race alley remain the same. Erspamer said they like the plan and have worked with the applicant. Erspamer said Council needs to look at the parking and the traffic in this area. Bill Stirling said he worked with the applicant to assemble this project. R-6 is the most dense zoning and the density in the west end is 8 houses/acre and this proposal is for 3 acre and a total of 19 units, which will be less dense than the west end. Stirling said an advantage of assembling all this property into one ownership and application is that it lends a coherence and pattern of development and a preservation of open space. Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. Councilman Semrau said there have been many questions raised by this application and he would like to continue this in order to have some of the questions answered. Councilman Semrau agreed that the trail through the project should be better defined, what it will paved with, how wide. Councilman Semrau said he would like to see sidewalks along the project, insuring real pedestrian access. Councilman Semrau said he would like to hear from the city engineer and fire marshal about the width of Race alley. Councilman Semrau agreed 14 feet cannot work for two-way traffic. Councilman Semrau requested staff check with Pitkin County to find out about the development rights on Hunter Way. Councilman. Semrau stated this is not free open space; it is open space being traded for development. The code amendment states it is up to Council to determine what a development right is worth. Councilman Semrau requested a staff recommendation on which way to one-way Race alley, if it is made one-way. Councilman Semrau said he would like an outline of the applicant's intentions on ADU or cash-in-lieu. Mayor Klanderud said she is concerned about sufficient parking on site and the neighbors should not have to bear the brunt of parking being pushed onto their streets. Mayor Klanderud noted the park will remain part of the subdivision and will be maintained by the homeowners. Mayor Klanderud said she is concerned about access by the general public in the future. Mayor Klanderud stated this does not serve a public park amenity but a great open space for the homeowners. Mayor Klanderud stated she wants assurance that this will remain available to the general public. Mayor Klanderud stated Hunter Way has been acting as open space for years and years. Mayor Klanderud EXHIBIT I CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2004- 2005 15 Re ular Meeting Aspen City Couacil January 24, 2005 requested the applicants look into dedicating a park across Lone Pine where the bus stop is located. Councilman Semrau stated when Council approves subdivisions, it is the chance to get safe pedestrian access, safe parking, safe fire access. Councilman Torre agreed about not expanding burdens to the surrounding roads. Councilman Semrau moved to continue Ordinance #50, Series of 2004, to February 28`t'; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #1, SERIES OF 2005 -Little Ajax PUD James Lindt, community development department, stated this is a 16 unit affordable housing project off West Hopkins at the base of Shadow Mountain. Council earlier. approved apre-annexation agreement and approved a subdivision for three-lots to enable three single family residences. This would be the back up plan to an affordable housing project consisting of 15 three-bedroom and ltwo-bedroom, category 4, for sale project. The first floor contains 25 parking spaces, storage areas and two units. The second floor is the first floor of the units, and the third floor is the bedrooms. This is a two-story building along the street for lower mass. The building is 35 feet calculated from the interior courtyard. The FAR is .94:1. Lot 3 will be deed restricted to the city with a conservation easement at a discounted price to be preserved as open space. Lindt stated staff feels the project is compatible with the neighborhood, which is made up of diverse uses. The dimensional requirements are also compatible with the immediate vicinity. Lindt said 25 parking space is 1.56 space/unit. The applicant is proposing auto disincentives of homeowners dues based on how many vehicles one owns and bicycle storage. Staff feels the parking ratio is appropriate based on these disincentives as well as the proximity to town. The Housing Board recommends a more diverse mix in the category of units. The applicants are willing to do this but will need a greater subsidy. The applicants are requesting a waiver of the park dedication fee. The parks department recommended against this waiver. The parks department also recommend the West Hopkins bikeway be maintained as a traffic calming measure. This project meets the goals of the AACP to provide quality affordable housing close to transit and the commercial core. P&Z voted 5 to 1 in favor of the project. Charlie Kaplan, applicant, presented a model of the proposed project, illustrating the entryway into the courtyard, the parking on the ground level. Kaplan pointed out the ADA units on the first floor. Kaplan said they brake the building into separate masses. The building along the street is low in scale and then steps up the hill. There are diagonal slices through the building to break it into 5 smaller buildings; which also creates more corner units than in a typical design. The slices also link the buildings together with bridges and with circulation. The owners will be able to get to the open space to the south without going down to the parking level. The slices also allow views through to the mountain for the pedestrians. EXHIBIT I CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 20041 005 Re ular Meeting Aspen City Council February 28, 2005 COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS ................................ COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS ............................................................. CONSENT CALENDAR ......................................................................... • Little Ajax Footprint Changes ........................................ • Resolution #5, 2005 -Contract for Parks Vehicle ......... 2 3 3 4 4 • Board Appointments -Jasmine Tygre P&Z; Liz Atkins - Board of Adjustment.. 4 • Minutes -February 14, 2005 .................................................................................. 4 RESOLUTION #4, 2005 -Main Street Banner -Mountain Travel Symposium ............... 4 SPRING JAM CORE PARTY SPECIAL EVENT REQUESTS ....................................... 5 FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES .............................................................................. 5 Ordinance #13, 2005 -Code Amendments -Miscellaneous Land Use ................. 5 • Ordinance #14, 2005 -Charter Amendment -Municipal Court Jurisdiction......... 5 ORDINANCE #50, SERIES OF 2004 -Fox Crossing Subdivision .................................. 6 ORDINANCE #4, SERIES OF 2005 - 701 West Main Street Historic Lot Split............ 13 ORDINANCE #8, SERIES OF 2005 - Soldner/Burlingame Ranch Initial Zoning......... 13 ORDINANCE #9, SERIES OF 2005 -Code Amendment Lodge Zone District ............. 14 RESOLUTION #6, SERIES OF 2005 -Appeal of Code Interpretation -Conditional Use for Parking Lot .................................................................................................................. 16 RESOLUTIONS #7 AND #8, SERIES OF 2005 -Initiated Ordinances added to Ballot 18 EXHIBIT I CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2004- 2005 1 Re ular Meetin As en Ci Council Februa 28 2005 Councilwoman Richards said for second reading she would like staffto clarify the definition of storage areas and whether they can be combined with utilities and not counted in that space, which might create 2 outbuildings. Councilwoman Richards said she would like some examples about allowing narrower balconies and how to avoid creating problems if someone built over the line, would it affect the neighboring property. Roll call vote; Councihnembers Torre, yes; Paulson, yes; Semrau, yes; Richards, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #50, SERIES OF 2004 -Fox Crossing Subdivision Councilwoman Richards and Councilman Paulson left the meeting due to a conflict of interest; they both live within 300 feet of the project. Chris Bendon, community development department, went through Council's questions from the last public hearing. The first was the trail through the park, its surface and width. Bendon said this will be a 6-foot wide concrete trail. Parks Department suggests the concrete trail use a city standard trail so it is inviting as a public trail. Bendon told Council the parks department does not espouse city-ownership of this park; it can be privately owned and still function as a public amenity. Bendon stated there were questions about Race street and Race alley. Bendon said if the streets wi11 have two-way traffic, a 30-foot right of way is necessary; this would require obtaining rights-of--way on both sides: If this is a 20 foot right-of--way, both the city engineer and the fue marshal suggest the street be one-way northbound. The fire marshal feels one-way southbound would create a bottleneck in an emergency. City staff also suggests Race street be one way and have parking on both sides of the street. The traffic safety advisory committee agreed with the one-way and suggested a sidewalk along one- way ofSpruce street as a pedestrian amenity. Bendon said this needs to be reviewed and discussed with the neighborhood. Bendon told Council there is an easement for access to the Hunter Valley way parcel. Bendon said this parcel would require 1041 approval and there maybe slope issues; however, if one is denied in a county 1041 process, they may go through a takings process, at which point the county decides whether to approve the development or to pay for the parcel. This parcel has one development right. It is zoned AFR-10 in the county which allows a 5750 square foot house with the ability to increase with TDRs. Councilman Semrau asked if prior to the applicant granting an easement, did the Hunter Valley Way parcel have access. Bendon said that is correct. Councilman Semrau said except for this easement, there is no access to the Hunter Valley Way parcel. Bendon told Council the county has recently adopted code amendments, which allow for development rights to be transferred from "constrained" parcels, which might apply to this parcel. EXHIBIT I CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2004- 2005 6 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 28, 2005 Bendon said there were issues from the last meeting about impacts on surrounding roads. Bendon said staff feels there would. be an increase in traffic; however, it is within the capacity of the roads and intersections. Staffrecommends the construction access be off Lone Pine road, which condition is contained in the ordinance. Bendon reminded Council they asked about the two log cabins being deed restricted to affordable housing. This was not a consideration before HPC. If Council wants to change that HPC decision, they will need to call up that decision. Bendon told Council this project is meeting its affordable housing obligation. Stan Clauson, representing the applicant, showed the location of the Hunter Valley Way parcel and its location to other pieces of open space. Clawson stated they have an opinion from Chris Lacroix regarding the access to the property.. Camilla Auger, applicant, gave Council an opinion from Mitch Haas about a takings and the process for that. Letters entered the record are from Patti and Tom Clapper, Tim McFlynn, Chris Lacroix, Schmeuser Gordon &~ Myer, Mitch Haas, MCG Mine Services and Garrett Brandt. Councilman Semrau asked if the letter from MCA mine services implies that the access could be a tunnel. Ms. Auger said it states a tunnel can be dug and used as access. Ms. Auger showed Randall park, owned by the county. Ms. Auger told Council one cannot sue a local government to get through government owned open space for access. Ms. Auger went over the history of attempts to get access to Hunter Valley Way through Randall park, all of which were thrown out of court. Ms. Auger showed access through her property and the cheapest, easiest, fastest route is a tunnel, which could go right to the building site. Ms. Auger told Council the applicants signed a contract with the investors to give them access to induce them to go into this development. The investors are doing this for the tax deduction, which deduction relies on the fact that the property could be commercially developed. Ms. Auger said this is developable and the value is $3.7 million far the raw land. The tunnel would cost up to $700,000, which makes it feasible. Ms. Auger noted that Hunter Valley Way is adjacent to Randall park, contiguous to the land given by Harley Baldwin and the land given by BLM, which is contiguous to land given by the Augers several years ago. This adds up to 42 acres of open space which can never been developed. Ms. Auger told Council the investors paid for this parcel and the developers have to pay them back. Ms. Auger said the developers found a group of investors willing to put up the money to buy Hunter Valley Way in exchange for the tax benefits and for being paid back with interest. Ms. Auger told Council she did not get any compensation for the access. The project uses the 3 development credits to raise enough money in the project to pay the developers back. Councilman Semrau said the Augers have created the threat of development with the access easement while asking the city for development rights to extinguish those development rights. Clawson stated it is likely the Hunter way property would be developed. There are opinions in the letters submitted to the record noting legal reasons for this. Clawson said the key issue is whether the Hunter Valley Way parcel meets the criteria in the code amendment to allow TDRs to sterilize a parcel. This parcel is visible and accessible to the trails. Councilman Semrau said the new code amendment states it is up to City EXHIBIT I CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2004- 2005 7 Re ular Meetin As en Ci Council Februa 28 2005 Council to determine the value of the open space against the development rights. Councilman Semrau said he is trying to determine the value of that open space. Councilman Semrau said there are 3 development rights being requested, which translates to 3 dwellings. Councilman Semrau asked if one of these development rights is going to the Griffith property for 3 dwelling units. Bendon said the property has 2 development rights and a limit through the lot split approval. One additional development right allows for 3 stand-alone parcels, large enough for duplexes to allow a total of 6 residences. Bendon noted there is a chart of development rights per parcel in the Council packet, outlining the existing lots and development rights, the proposed lots and development rights and FARs. The other 2 development rights would land on the old house plus north cabin lot, two new lots created a single family of 3240 and a single family at 3338. Councilman Semrau said the difference in the size of the project with added development right is 13 units at 31,000 square feet and 19 units at 48,000 square feet. The proposed trade for the open space would grant about 50% more FAR and 6 units. Clauson stated the extra development rights do not confer any greater density than zoning; they are used for growth management exemptions. Clauson said if one has a given lot and develops it as a single family or, as a duplex, the difference in floor area on that lot is a 10% increase. The properties would be getting the ability to have asingle- familyhouse rather than splitting a duplex and the ability to develop it as a duplex or as a single family. Bendon said on the Fox Crossing lots 8 and 9, the difference in the FAR if this were approved is 3350 square feet and on the Griffith lots is 3300, total of 6650 square feet. Clauson told Council the trail is intended to provide complete continuity from the Oklahoma Flats trail to the Hunter Creek trailhead on Spruce street. Clauson illustrated this on a map, showing where sidewalk exists, the trail through the project. Clauson said the trail material would be the same as that used by the city parks department, sufficiently wide to allow wheelchair access, bicycles and not overly wide. Clauson said the Fox Crossing meadow would be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. An easement would be provided to allow public access to the trail and the meadow. The responsibility for maintenance of that open space would be the homeowners association. This parcel would remain a historic site .and under the purview of the HPC. Ms. Auger reminded Council at the last meeting, Council brought up the possibility of a park at the Hunter Creek bus stop. Ms. Auger said they investigated this; the ownership is complicated. There is a pervasive easement from the county to RFTA and RFTA has not wanted to give up any of its easement. Ms. Auger said she is working on an agreement for Hunter Creek to maintain this park, the developers will do the plantings, trees and grass and the parks department will put in the irrigation system. Ms. Auger told Council she has spoken to RF'TA who would be willing to give up their easement as long as the bus stop is allowed to continue. Jeff Lester, Hunter Creek HOA, said they would be interested in selling the parcel; they have not discussed maintaining it. Clauson said another issue is traffic and circulation. This plan deals carefully with those issues. Clauson said a 20-foot right of way with an 8-foot parking shoulder on one side EXHIBIT I CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2004- 2005 8 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 28, 2005 has been provided on Race street, which the applicants feel could accommodate two-way traffc. If Council feels this street needs to be one-way, the 20-foot right of way could be reduced and parking could be provided on both sides of the street. Clauson said the question was asked at the last hearing, how much pazking is provided. Clauson stated there are 44 internal parking spaces on the lots and 38 are required by code, assuming maximum development of 19 units. Clauson told Council the applicants looked for additional parking and identified 3 azeas where public parking could be provided. One of these is 3 spaces at the end of Walnut street. Clauson noted along Spruce street is head in on city property except in front of lot 2 where there is an existing ditch. The applicants. propose an off site improvement of filling that ditch and providing a gravel, all weather surface for up to 6 parking spaces. Adjacent to lot 1, there is exit road from the Centennial and if the applicants provided a license to the city to bring parking on to lot 1, this could accommodate another 6 parking spaces, for a total of 15 parking spaces for the public. There would also be parking at Aley park. Clauson stated sidewalks along Spruce street is a neighborhood issue. With the current parking patterns, it would be disruptive to the neighborhood to install sidewalks, which would require the head in parking be shifted to paza11e1, resulting in a loss of pazking. This is a community planning issue, not a Fax Crossing issue. Jay Hammond, engineer, noted the way the site has been laid out, it has been divided into a east and a west zone. Hammond said the east zone, which represents about 40% of the traffic generation, will affect Spruce and South streets most heavily. The west zone represents about 60% of the traffic generation. Hammond said dividing the project splits the impacts. Hammond said the applicants looked at a through street, the impacts on the project, impacts to the open space and to the historic structures. Hammond pointed out there was concern about additional traffic in front of the Hunter Creek condominiums. Clauson stated the affordable housing requirements under the code will be fully met. Clauson reminded Council there was some issue about the historic cabins and using those far affordable housing. Gilbert Sanchez, architect, said there are 3 notable historical elements on the property; the Blue Victorian, the log cabins and the open meadow. Sanchez said these historic elements are important for the story of the Griffith family. Sanchez said the applicants did look at using the log cabins for affordable housing. One of the goals of this project was to maintain the R-6 lots size and configuration. The plan that works best and that won HPC acceptance is the plan in front of Council. Clauson went over the entire plan and the community benefits; the Hunter Valley way open space and its relationship to other open spaces, the improvements to Aley park, the creation of Fox meadow open space, the trail connection, and the improvements to Race street. Clauson read a letter into the record from Connie Harvey in support of this proposal and the value of the open space along Hunter Way. Councilman Semrau asked staff what they feel the minimum requirements should be for rights-of--way. Nick Adeh, city engineer, said the residential uses and the proximity of the buildings to the right of way, staff feels that adequate parking on both side of Race street should be provided. Adeh said Race alley is not adequate to maintain two-way EXHIBIT I CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2004- 2005 9 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 28, 2045 traffic and recommended this beone-way from South street going north to Spruce street. This would meet minimal requirements of 20' alleyway. Race street has a wide right-of- way and to accommodate two-way traffic and one-way of parking, 36 to 38' is required. Adeh said for Walnut, the unrestricted width should meet 21' with no parking. Adeh said there must be no parking on Walnut and Race alley to maintain the one-way access. Clauson said the development plan proposes a 28' right-of--way and adds 6' for the width of the trail. Clauson noted the city engineer requests 38' plus 6' for a total of 44' which cuts into lot 1 and eliminates the developability of that lot. Clauson said the right-of--way curves arid follows the railroad. Clauson suggested the city consider implementing a neighborhood parking program as in this area there are a number of "stored" cars, which could alleviate a portion of the parking problem. Adeh said another issue is to look at the dimensional movements of cars and the location of garages. Councilman Semrau said the affordable housing mitigation can either be ADUs or cash- in-lieu. If this were to be ADUs on-site, parking spaces would have to be provided for all those. Councilman Semrau asked if the applicant would be willing to accept a condition that there be no on-site ADUs. Ms. Auger said they would accept that condition. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. Vitashka Kirchen, Lone Pine, told Council she support this proposal and feels it is thoughtful and environmental, provides open space and trail connections. Ms. Kirchen urged Council to approve this application. Jeff Lester, Hunter Creek homeowners association, asked if the internal circulation stays the same and if a building envelope on lot 3 has been established; if not is should be a condition of approval. Clauson showed the area where the Hunter Creek homeowners do not want to see building and the applicants would be happy to accept a building envelop on that lot. Jim Ward said he has been working on saving Hunter Creek for 20 years and it behooves Council to approve this park and access and open space parcel. People in the area will be able to walk to the open space. Colleen Burrows, adjacent property owner, presented a handout of the area and the circulation. Ms. Burrows said it is too bad the open space is tied to the development project. Ms Burrows said the traffic and parking proposals will greatly affect their area. Ms. Burrows said she feels there should be a loop through the subdivision to connect to Lone Pine on the west. Ms. Burrows said no one has contacted the neighborhood about parking on Spruce street. A loop through the subdivision would allow the developer to make all his or her own parking on the site. Ms. Burrows noted in the traffic advisory committee meeting, all representatives stated their first choice was to go east/west through the subdivision. The developer and neighborhood did not like this idea as they felt it could turn into a speedway. Ms. Burrows requested Council to ask the developer to look at readjusting lot lines and rights-of--way to accommodate traffic and parking. Ms. Burrows presented a map showing the traffic flow and how it would affect the neighborhood. Ms. Burrows said the developer is getting additional rights and they should have to rework their plan. EXHIBIT I CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2004- 2005 to Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 28, 2005 LJ Erspamer, Spruce street, said he likes the project, does not want to see it denied, it should be tweaked. Erspamer speaking for Ward Hauenstein said Race street could be cut off. Erspamer agreed the neighborhood should be consulted before any pazking or sidewalk plan is adopted. Jon Busch, Race alley and Spruce street, told Council he supports the project as presented by the applicant. Busch pointed out there will be 5 new residences that do not already exist along the alley. This will not create a huge amount of traffic in the neighborhood. Busch agreed parking and sidewalks on Spruce street is a neighborhood issue. Robert Zupancis, adjacent property owner, said the one-way solution works for him; two way and taking square footage would not work. Zupancis noted the ordinance states Race street and Race alley should not be used for contractor parking. Zupancis requested Walnut street be added to that prohibition. Zupancis said he favors the restriction against ADUs in the project. Zupancis said.he does not think the extra traffic will be a large impact. Zupancis said he loves the Hunter Creek parcel. Zupancis approves of the extra parking spaces within the subdivision. Ruth Krueger, P&Z member, told Council she supports the project. Dave Hams said this is a bad project; it is doubling the size of the neighborhood in one development. Toni Kronberg said a lot of hard work has gone into this project. It is too bad the open space is linked to development. Ms. Kronberg said Council should take time to come up with solutions for traffic and parking. Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. Ms. Auger stated there is no density in the project in excess of existing zoning. Ms. Auger said the offer of parking at the ends of lots 1 and 2 was for public benefit. If the public does not want that parking, the developers will be glad to eliminate that. Ms. Auger told Council the original proposal was to close Race street; however, parking was the issue. Ms. Auger said an alternative is one lane of traffic with two lanes of parking and a trail. Ms. Auger said building a street east/west through the project is opposed by Hunter Creek condominiums and is a deal killer for the project. Bendon asked if the preservation of the Hunter Way parcel would sterilize it from further development and that no other development rights could be transferred off the parcel. Ms. Auger said they have not contemplated doing that. The idea is to give the land to the city and county with a conservation easement to AVLT. Bendon stated he would add a condition that if this parcel is used to generate TDRs in the county, city approval of a development right is null and void. The pazcel should generate development in the city or the county, not both. Bendon noted the Hunter Valley way parcel does not currently have a trail easement through it and there should be language that the applicant grant a trail easement through the pazcel. Ms. Auger said they are prepazed to give the property . to the city or the county and they would not need to give a trail easement. Bendon said a trail easement would be on top of that. Bendon asked who owns the land to the east of lot 1 where parking is proposed. Clauson said tlae ownership is cloudy; it is either Hunter Creek or a city right-of--way. EXHIBIT I CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2004- 2005 11 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 28, 2045 Clauson noted the maximum development on lot 2, even with historic TDRs would be 2 units each of 2242 square feet. Clauson said adding Walnut street as no contractor parking is fine. Clauson reiterated the proposed zoning is that allowed under R-6. The surrounding neighborhood of Smuggler mobile home park, and Hunter Creek are dense areas. This would be less dense than either of those areas. Mayor Klanderud noted Council has received much correspondence and information that they should be able to read and digest, and she suggested this ordinance be continued. Councilman Semrau moved to continue Ordinance #50, Series of 2004, to March 14; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Semrau asked about putting an eastlwest street through and connecting with Lone Pine as suggested by Colleen Burrows. Ms. Auger said that is not consistent with being able to do the project and to keep the park. This would eliminate 2 or 3 lots and to build on Fox Meadow. Councilman Semrau said the main thing that is being offered is open space. It is up to Council to determine what that open space is worth. Councilman Semrau asked staff to work the county staff to give Council something in writing about how much these development rights are worth. Councilman Semrau said these are two separate issues; although they are tied together. One is the open space parcel worth X and the development plan worth Y. Councilman Semrau stated the development plan should work on its own. Councilman Semrau said he would like to see the following amendments to the ordinance; show the building envelope on lot 3; no ADUs in the development; 3 parking spaces at the park; 2 rows of parking in the existing city right-of- way on Race avenue; no parking on Walnut street during construction; and the commitment to extra 6 spaces of on-site parking. Councilman Semrau said it seems time to institute a neighborhood parking plan. Councilman Semrau said he would like to reserve head-in parking on lots 1 and 2 if that is what the neighborhood agrees to. Mayor Klanderud said she would like in the ordinance that the donation of the Hunter Valley way parcel will have a third party, like the Aspen Valley Land Trust. Mayor Klanderud said she would like this development to handle the impacts internally, both parking and traffic on the surrounding roads. Mayor Klanderud said she would like to hear some alternatives or a solid explanation as to why that is not possible. Mayor Klanderud said she would like the development rights outlined very cleazly at the next meeting. Councilman Torre said he feels this project has a lot of merit. Councilman Torre stated his biggest concerns are the impacts on the immediate neighborhood. The character of Race alley will be greatly changed and Spruce street will have impacts. Councilman Torre said he would like to see more work on those issues. Bendon said staff could present some additional circulation options. Bendon told Council he cannot meet with the neighbors on a parking plan before the next meeting. Councilman Tone said he would like a better map showing current status of the streets in the neighborhood, especially outside the development azea. EXHIBIT I CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2004- 2005 12 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 28, 2005 Mayor Klanderud said the Meadow park is to stay in the developer's ownership and how does the city guarantee this stays open to the public and that the trail is available to the public. Bendon said there will be an operation and maintenance agreement between the city and the developer, which will be part of the subdivision improvement agreement. Councilman Semrau. said he has the same concerns and would like to hear from the parks department for the next meeting what their objections are, if it is an issue of money, haw much. Councilman Semrau said he would be more interested in parks maintaining this area. _ Councilman Paulson left the Council meeting. ORDINANCE #4, SERIES OF 2005 - 701 West Main Street Historic Lot Split Councilman Torre moved to continue Ordinance #4, Series of 2005, to March 28`''; seconded by Councilman Semrau. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #8, SERIES OF 2005 - SoldnerBurlingame Ranch Initial Zoning Chris Lee, community development department, told Council property annexed into the city needs to be given city zoning. Staff is recommending this be zoned conservation given the uses and location adjoining the larger conservation piece. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. Toni Kronberg asked the difference between conservation and open space zoning. Chris Bendon, community development department, said conservation is the least dense zone for development; open space is tantamount to an open space easement. John Worcester, city attorney, stated this parcel is joining the Burlingame ranch as part of the conservation easement given to AVLT. There will be no development no matter what it is zoned. Ms. Kronberg asked if roads could be built in open space. Bendon said open space is for trails, park benches, minimal impact. Ms. Kronberg told Council she made the argument before P&Z that this should be open space, not conservation. Ms. Kronberg said Deer Hill is zoned conservation but is also designated as Burlingame ranch open space. Deer Hill is one of the most important ecological areas and should be zoned open space. Worcester noted Council has approved construction of Harmony road. The remainder of parcel 1 will be conserved in perpetuity because of the conservation easement to AVLT. Nothing will ever be developed except this road. Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. Councilman Semrau moved to adopt Ordinance #8, Series of 2005, on second reading; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Richards, yes; Torre, yes; Semrau, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. EXHIBIT I CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2004- 2005 13 Re ular Meetin As en Ci Council March 14 2405 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ...................................................................................... 2 COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS ................................................................................. . 2 CONSENT CALENDAR ...................................................................................................... . 3 • Resolution #12, 2005 -Contract with CDOT Maroon Creek Bridge ................... . 3 • Resolution #13, 2005 -Hybrid Vehicle Contract .................................................. . 3 • Resolution #14, 2005 -Cozy Point South Property Acquisition ........................... . 3 • Minutes -February 28, 2005 ................................................................................. . 3 FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES ............................................................................. . 3 • Ordinance # 17, 2005 -Code Amendments -Parking ........................................... . 3 • Ordinance #19, 2005 -Sales Tax Bond Refunding ............................................... . 3 ORDINANCE #18, SERIES OF 2005 -Galena and Main Subdivision ........................... . 4 RESOLUTION #15, SERIES OF 2005 -Extension of Vested Rights Top of Mill ......... . 5 ORDINANCE #11, SERIES OF 2005 -Aspen Highlands Villas Zoning ........................ . 6 ORDINANCE #9, SERIES OF 2005 -Code Amendment Lodges .................................. . 7 ORDINANCE #50, SERIES OF 2004 -Fox Crossing Subdivision ................................ 10 ORDINANCE #10 SERIES OF 2005 -Code Amendment Signs ................................... 14 ORDINANCE #12, SERIES OF 2005 -Code Amendment - Neighborhood/Commercial Zones ................................................................................................................................. 14 ORDINANCE #13, SERIES OF 2005 -Code Amendment Miscellaneous Land Use Amendments ..................................................................................................................... 15 ORDINANCE # 14, SERIES OF 2005 -Charter Amendment -Municipal Court Jurisdiction ................................................................................................................•----... l5 MAY ELECTION BALLOT ISSUES .............................................................................. 16 Resolution #9, 2005 -Ballot Question Initiated ordinance Annexation ...................... 16 Resolution # 10, 2005 -Initiated Ordinance -Affordable Housing ............................. 16 Resolution #11, 2005 -Charter Amendment Ballot Question ..................................... 16 Resolution #16, 2005 -Postponing Election of Citizen Initiated Ordinances ............. 16 Resolution #17, 2005 -Referring Ordinance #39, 2004, Bar/X Annexation to the voters ............................................................................................................................. 17 EXHIBIT I CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2004- 2005 t Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 14, 2005 ORDINANCE #50. SERIES OF 2004 -Fox Crossing Subdivision Councilwoman Richards and Councilman Paulson left the room due to conflict of interest, living within 300 feet of the project. Chris Bendon, community development department, reminded Council the last meeting ended with a series of questions from Council. Additional information and letters from Robert Zupancis, Jon Busch, and Hunter Creek condominiums have been submitted to the record for this application. Bendon noted there is an accounting from the applicant to all letters and support for the application. Bendon said there was a question whether the parks department would rather own the parks or have an easement across the property. The parks department prefers not to own the park and the ordinance contains two options (1) private ownership and (2) public ownership of the pazk. The parks department suggests the Hunter Valley Way property be deeded to the city and the ordinance shows that. The improvements to Aley pazk with atop set contribution of $100,000 that that money be contributed to the parks department and could be used there or at the Hunter Creek bus stop. Bendon said Council questioned the value of the development rights on the Hunter Valley Way parcel. City staff asked the county staff to comment on the development approval, and they declined to comment. The county staff did review comments and agreed it does have legal access through the Auger property. Because of slopes, the driveway would probably be denied a 1041 review, which would then go to a takings hearing. At that point, the county has a choice to allow the development to proceed or to compensate the developer for that property. The property has one development right. The property in the county is zoned AFR-10 and could have a house up to 5750 square feet. There are provisions for landing TDRs on this parcel. The county recently adopted a constrained parcel ordinance, which allows for transfer of TDRs off of parcels considered constrained, which may apply to this parcel. Bendon outlined there are 3 Griffiths lots, currently restricted to 3 residences. With 1 additional development right, this will become 3 stand-alone parcels; each could contain a duplex, total FAR increase on that site of 3300 square feet. Lots 8 and 9 receive the remaining two development rights. These are residences that could be developed without the additional development right; by landing the development rights they become a stand- alone parcel with additional FAR is 2140 square feet. The total additional FAR increase as a result of the transferable density rights is 5440 for the entire project. Bendon noted Council wants to exclude ADUs in this subdivision, which has been included in the ordinance. The prohibition against construction parking on Walnut street has been included in the ordinance. The applicant offered to develop 6 spaces above those required by code within the site and this is reflected within the ordinance. Council requested information about the Spruce street rights-of--way. Bendon suggested a separate process with the neighborhood to develop a plan and what the improvements should be. Bendon noted the ordinance should include that the sidewalk along Spruce street should be an obligation of the applicant, whenever it is needed. EXHIBIT I CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2004- 2005 10 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 14, 2005 Bendon said there has been discussion of Race street to be a 38' R-O-W. The city engineer recommends a 36' curb-to-curb, which is in the ordinance, but is willing to accept a 34' curb-to-curb right-of--way. This would allow an 18' lane of travel, two 8' parking areas on each side of Race street. The applicant has suggested a 30' right-of- way. The ordinance states the applicant should provide sidewalk on at least one side of Spruce street if the neighborhood process indicates that is desired. Councilman Semrau noted Council requested 3 spaces at the internal park, which is not included in the ordinance. Stan Clauson, representing the applicant, told Council the applicants indicate they paid $600,000 for the Hunter Way parcel. This parcel should result in 3 TDRs and 3 TDRs in the county value at $170,000 for a total of $540,000. Clauson showed the contiguity of the Hunter Valley way to other open space parcels in the area. This would total over 40 acres of continuous open space with the inclusion of this 9.5 acre parcel. Clauson noted this entire parcel is in the R-6 zone and the requested density does not exceed that of the R-6 zone. The transferable development rights do not confer any additional density; they do confer growth management exemptions of about 5440 square feet. Clauson said other commitments from the applicants are a specific building envelop on lot 3 showing its relationship to the stream and to Hunter Creek condominiums. The ordinance states there will be cash-in-lieu payments rather than ADUs on site. The project will contain required parking and will contain construction impacts on site. The applicants have submitted 2 drawings for Race street, one showing parking on both sides of the street with none-way street; the other with parking on one side and atwo-way street. Clauson told Council the development design is based on a 30' right-of--way; however, they can live with a 34'right-of--way. Clauson said the applicants feel they can put into effect easements that will enable continued public use of the trail and the meadow area. Clauson said the applicants are willing to make improvements to the Hunter Creek bus station, if that is what is wanted. Clauson said there will be 6 parking spaces incorporated into Aley park. Clauson said parking on Spruce street to the east of the project involves property owned by Hunter Creek. This could be accomplished if that is what Council wants. There is parking planned at end of Walnut street. Clauson showed where the 3 properties receiving TDRs are located within the subdivision. Clauson said the applicants feel it is important to restore and preserve the cabin as well as the meadow in front of it. These are integral to the design of the project. Clauson told Council the applicants as well as P&Z and HPC reviewed various road alternatives, none of which were found to be the right way to go. It is desirous to have Fox Meadow as a park and to show case the Victorian property. Clauson said the water main will be looped into Lone Pine road. Clauson stated the additional loading of this is 2 duplexes and 2 single family houses, which is minimal. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. EXHIBIT I CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2004- 2005 11 Regular Meeting Aspen Citv Council March 14, 2005 Howie Mallory, Open Space Board, reiterated the open space benefits of the Hunter Valley way parcel and it is not often the city has the chance to get control over one of the corridors into the back country. Mallory said one issue that drives open space donations or easements is the tax laws. Mallory said there is no guarantee that will remain in effect and it is important to take advantage of these donations. Mallory said donations of open space should carry requirements for funds to cover on going maintenance. Dale Will, county open space director, stated this property is a critical piece of open space. Will said he has been working on acquiring this open space for years, It does tie up access to the upper Hunter Creek valley. LJ Erspamer presented an alternate route through the project. Erspamer said he would like Council and the applicant to consider this; however, he does not want to delay the project. Colleen Burrows said the neighbors were under the understanding that Race alley could stay two-way. After it was determined it had to be one-way, the neighbors suggested an east/west road through the project. The impact of not widening Race Alley shifts the impacts onto Spruce street. Ms. Burrows requested no contractor parking and construction impacts on Spruce street. Ms. Burrows noted there should be parking at the trailhead so that visitors do not park on lower Spruce street. Ms. Burrows suggested the. TDR land somewhere else than use lot 3 and use that Iot as the connector loop. Robert Zupancis said the trail from Oklahoma Flats through the project up to Hunter Creek works better than if there was a loop. A loop would require a person to go way out of their way. Lisa Thurston, representing the Hunter Creek condominiums, read a letter from the HOA and an attached note from Cathy Markle into the report. Bill Stirling noted this is the largest parcel of R-6 zoning on the east end. R-6 zoning is the densest in the city and is comparable to the west end. Two west end blocks are about the size of Fox Crossing. Atypical west end block contains about 5 dwellings on 27,000 square feet. There are only two parks in the west end Hillyard and Triangle parks for a total of 17,000 square feet. The Fox Crossing meadow is 9,000 square feet of open space. Ms. Burrows noted in the west end, every block has an alley to facilitate traffic flow. Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. Mayor Klanderud entered into the record letters from Colleen Burrows, Cathy Markle and Jvn Busch. Mayor Klanderud noted many of the letters to Council contain suggestions for this project. Clauson said the suggestion that Spruce street not have contractor parking will be added to the ordinance. Clauson reiterated many sketches were done before P&Z and HPC and this design gave the most benefit to the historic resource and the best layout. These plans received P&Z and HPC approval. The applicants do not think there is an alternate plan that confers as much public benefit that the one presented. Councilman Semrau asked why the suggestions of Ms. Burrows and Erspamer will not work. Clauson said Ms. Burrows' suggested loop closes off Race street, which was not acceptable to the residents of Race street. That configuration eliminates up to 41ots as development properties and destroys the park. Councilman Semrau asked the city EXHIBIT I CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2004- 2005 12 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 14, 2005 engineer if he is satisfied with this plan, is he satisfied with how it directs traffic outside the subdivision. Nick Adeh, city engineer, said the subdivision as proposed meets the minimum traffic distribution and safety standards. This is not an optimum solution but with the existing subdivisions and the existing patterns of the city; however, this does meet the minimum standards. Adeh noted a subdivision is supposed to mitigate its traffic with streets that are generally two-way traffic. This proposal has two relatively short one-way loops, which would meet the minimum safety standards. Clauson stated this development does not make any worse any problem that does not exist in this neighborhood. Councilman Torre said he would prefer to maintain Race alley in a two- way configuration. Councilman Torre said he would like Race street connected to Walnut and to Lone Pine; however, he does not want to lose the park over that loop. Councilman Semrau said he feels the applicants have done a great job. The city holds every developer up to the same safety standards. Councilman Semrau said he cannot see leaving Race alley two-way. Councilman Semrau suggested the section stating "prefers" not to have contractor parking be changed to will not have contractor parking. Councilman Semrau said it is important for everyone to understand all the options in a subdivision. Mayor Klanderud agreed the one-way on a street with minimum right-of- way is a serious safety consideration for this subdivision. Councilman Semrau said he would prefer the city own the pazk and take on the park maintenance. Mayor Klanderud asked about phasing of the construction. Camilla Auger said this will be done altogether with a coherent plan. Everyone would like to get the construction complete as possible. Mayor Klanderud noted Cathy Mazkle's letter mentions the wildlife and fences. Mayor Klanderud said wherever it is appropriate, she would like wildlife friendly fences to be discussed. Mayor Klanderud asked about parking for the subdivision. Clauson said the subdivision is meeting its parking requirements plus 6 additional spaces. Mayor Klanderud said the $100,000 contribution, she would like to generic to park and open space improvements in the immediate area. Councilman Tome brought up the vacation of city property. Clauson said the vacated area does not accrue to floor area or density. Bendon said a vacation does allow for the setbacks to be based on the new lot line; there is more room but it does not increase the density or floor area. The vacation is being done to allow for a more reasonable developable property. Brian Flynn, parks department, said there should be an service and maintenance agreement between the City and the Homeowners to make sure the expectations and responsibilities are spelled out. Ms. Auger said she would like all parties to agree on the park's design so the adjoining property owners can buy into that and that the homeowners' can add higher maintenance costs from their own association and that things like gazebos not be built in the park. Councilman Semrau moved to adopt Ordinance #50, Series of 2004, with the following modifications; (1}option 2, city ownership of the park with a maintenance agreement and future uses to he specified and brought back to Council; (2) addition of the 3 parking spaces on the park; (3) right-of--way on Race street to be 34'; (4) section 8{1}the word "prefer" be changed to "requires" and there is no construction parking on Spruce street; (5) in the section about Hunter Creek that prior to conveyance, there be some language EXHIBIT I CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2004- 2005 13 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council ~ March 14, 2005 about the timing of the transfer of that parcel; (6) definition of the $100,000, parks and trails improvements in the immediate vicinity be added; (7) that any fences be wildlife friendly; seconded by Councilman Torre. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Semrau, yes; Torre, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #10 SERIES OF 2005 -Code Amendment Signs Councilman Torre moved to continue Ordinance #10, Series of 2005, to March 28, 2005; seconded by Councilman Semrau. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Torre moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 10 p.m.; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Semrau. Motion carried. Councilman Paulson asked about adding items to the agenda in the middle of the meeting. Councilman Paulson asked why this was not announced at the beginning of the meeting. Councilwoman Richards noted the action items list May election ballot issues. John Worcester, city attorney, noted Council has adopted rules of procedure. Council has routinely added items to the agenda. The rules allow that items be added to the agenda if Council finds it necessary to the public health, safety or general welfare. ORDINANCE #12, SERIES OF 2005 -Code Amendment - Neighborhood/Commercial Zones Chris Bendon, community development department, pointed out there are two areas zoned NC, Clark's market and City Market/Durant mall. These areas are both covered by PUDs, which govern the dimensional requirements. The NC zone provides for mixed uses and the criticism is these uses have not been updated in years. This code amendment reviews the allowed uses. The FAR for commercial uses remains 1:1 and .5:1 FAR for residential, upstairs uses has been added. There is an additional NC area of 2700 square feet at the new Obermeyer project;. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. Councilman Tarre moved to adopt Ordinance #12, Series of 2005, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Semrau. Councilman Paulson said he does not feel this ordinance has had adequate public notice. Councilman Paulson said he knows of people who are concerned about changes in neighborhood commercial and they have not been given adequate notice to voice their concerns. Councilman Paulson said these changes have not been fully discussed with the community. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Richards, yes; Torre, yes; Paulson, no; Semrau, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. EXHIBIT I CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2004- 2005 14 c. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan COWOP Final Review Second Reading of Ordinance No. 34 Series 2008 -Public hearing DATE: November 24, 2008 SUMMARY: Tonight's hearing is a continuation from November lot" when an overview of the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan was presented. Tonight's focus will be on the architecture of the project. There will be a detailed review of the floor plans and uses as well as a review of the mass and scale of the project. At the conclusion of tonight's hearing, staff will request the hearing be continued to December 1St The December 1St agenda will be the more technical aspects of the project -the energy plan, construction management, financial perspective, engineering, etc. -and experts who assisted the task force will be on hand to address questions. To that end, staff asks that requests for technical information be made now so that the presenters on the 1St can be better prepared. Exhibit A -the "decision packet" -has Proposed Master Plan been amended to include the architectural renderings. Staff has decided to produce this as a binder and will distribute the binder at the hearing. The purpose of the decision packet is to capture the proposal and representations of the master plan. Staff did receive additional public comment and has included this as an addition to Exhibit E. s -` . ~- 1 BACKGROUND: City Council initiated the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan COWOP review through the adoption of Resolutions No. 13 and 80, Series of 2008. The was done to coordinate the redevelopment of several properties at the base of Aspen Mountain into a unified vision as opposed to a series of independent, unrelated projects. A 27-member Master Plan Task Force met every Thursday from April 10th through October 2°d to review the planning for this 8-acre site and made their final recommendation by a 19 to 1 vote (with one abstention). The Plan has been reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission. Both boards supported the project by unanimous votes. The proposed ordinance implements the recommendation of the Task Force and provides final approvals for the proposed redevelopment. The master plan accomplishes a rebirth of this side of the mountain. This is the original base of Aspen Mountain that currently accommodates an average of 3% of the Mountain's skier traffic. The plan is organized around open space and gathering places and allows for a balance of breathing room and function. The Master Plan incorporates a new high-speed quad lift replacing the current lift lA, a new surface lift along the historic lift one corridor, pedestrian pathways, a ski museum, public parking, all new street and drainage infrastructure, two new lodging facilities with associated commercial space, affordable housing both on-site and off-site, and rehabilitation and re-use of historic resources all within an existing neighborhood context. REVIEW SCHEDULE: November 10`h -Second Reading & Public Hearing. This provided an overview presentation of the Master Plan, the background, the COWOP process, project goals, the final site plan, lodging program, and a summary of the Task Force recommendation. November 24th -Continued Second Reading & Public Hearing. Tonight's hearing will include a more detailed presentation of the project including architectural character, massing and scale, and a review of the proposed ordinance. December ls` -Continued Second Reading & Public Hearing. This will be a chance for the project team to respond to questions from the first two public hearings. The COWOP process included several experts on mountain planning, project financing, energy efficiency, etc., and those experts will be on-hand for this meeting. Amore detailed review of the proposed ordinance is also expected. December 8`h -Continued Second Reading & Public Hearing. This is expected to be the final meeting where the project team will respond to any remaining questions and a final review of the proposed ordinance occurs. 2 APPLICANTS: 1. Aspen Land Fund II, LLC (Centurion Partners). Represented by John Sarpa. 2. Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge -Aspen, LLC. Represented by Robert Daniel. 3. Aspen Skiing Company. Represented by David Bellack 4. The City of Aspen. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council receive the presentation, conduct a public hearing, and continue the review of Ordinance No. 34 to December 1St. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to continue the public hearing for Ordinance No. 34, Series of 2008, The Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan, to December 1, 2008." ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance 34, Series of 2008 A - Decision Packet, November 24th meeting B - Project Binder attached by this reference. The project binder contains the entire history of the COWOP process and is located in the Community Development Department. Please contact City staff to review this document travisc(a~ci.aspen.co.us or 429.2751. C - Project website, http://www.aspenpitkin.com/depts/41/liftoneMP.cfm, attached by this reference. A copy of the website on the day of each hearing will be maintained in the project file. D - November 24th Power Point Presentation attached by this reference. A copy of the presentation will be maintained in the project file. E - Public Comments, P&Z review minutes and HPC review minutes (binder) 3 ORDINANCE N0.34 (SERIES OF 2008) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AMENDING AND CONFIRMING THE BOUNDARIES AND APPROVING THE LIFT ONE NEIGHBORHOOD MASTER PLAN AND GRANTING FINAL LAND USE APPROVALS AND A DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR ALL PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MASTER PLAN INCLUDING PROPERTY LOCATED ON BOTH SIDES OF SOUTH ASPEN STREET SOUTH OF DEAN STREET OWNED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN, THE ASPEN SKIING COMPANY, ASPEN LAND FUND II LLC (AKA CENTURION PARTNERS LLC), AND ROARING FORK MOUNTAIN LODGE-ASPEN LLC, ALL WITHIN THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received a completed application from Aspen Land Fund II, LLC also known as Centurion Partners, LLC; Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge -Aspen LLC; the Aspen Skiing Company; and, the Aspen City Manager, for a determination of eligibility for a project, known as the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan, reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare of the public (COWOP) for a redevelopment of lands, owned by the above mentioned parties, for the purpose of providing or improving the provision of lift-served skiing access to Aspen Mountain, pedestrian, vehicular and emergency vehicle access to properties along South Aspen Street, non-traditional energy sources such as ground source energy system, recreational facilities, a museum focused on the evolution of skiing in Aspen, public parking, and commercial, lodging, free-market residential, and affordable residential land uses; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen manages public rights-of--way in the planning area including Hill Street, Summit Street, Gilbert Street, the alley within Block 10 of the Eames Addition, South Aspen Street, Juan Street, and Dean Street and owns certain public land known locally as Willoughby Park and Lift One Park; and, WHEREAS, the legal descriptions of the lands subject to this review are attached as Exhibit 5 and are generally described as lands on both sides of South Aspen Street south of Dean Street, excluding the Shadow Mountain Townhomes; and, WHEREAS, the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan's public and private property landowners were represented by their respective property owners and/or representatives including Robert Daniel of Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge -Aspen LLC, John Sarpa of Centurion Partners LLC, David Bellack of the Aspen Skiing Company, and Chris Bendon of the City of Aspen, all of whom were authorized to represent their individual public or private property interests; and, WHEREAS, the COWOP land use review process, Chapter 26.500 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, was created and adopted by the City of Aspen to allow the planning of projects of significant community interest, when determined necessary by the City Council according to said Chapter, to evolve an iterative process considering input from neighbors, property owners, public officials, members of the public, and other parties of interest assembled as a formal reviewing authority of the City of Aspen providing recommendations directly to City Council; and, WHEREAS, via adoption of Resolution No. 13, Series of 2008 and No. 80 Series of 2008, the City Council found that the proposal for review as a project reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare of the public met the Standards for Determination, Section 26.500.040 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, for the following reasons: (a) The Master Plan could provide enhanced access to lift-served skiing on Aspen Mountain, lodging facilities that meet the needs of the of the community, affordable housing units that serve the needs of the community, improved vehicular, pedestrian and emergency vehicle access, the development of public parking, the preservation of important local and national historic resources, the development of non- traditional energy sources such as ground source energy system, recreational facilities, a museum focused on the evolution of skiing in Aspen, and a unified approach to managing construction impacts and ongoing maintenance and operations of the area's infrastructure; (b) Preserving and enhancing short-term lodging facilities, providing adequate emergency services and access, the provision of effective access to lift-served skiing, housing the workforce, and energy efficiency are stated community goals that could be addressed through master planning of this area; (c) Portions of the subject area are owned by the City of Aspen and a Master Plan could permit an advantageous disposition of those properties; (d) Portions of the subject area are managed by the City of Aspen as rights-of- way and a Master Plan could permit an advantageous disposition of those properties; (e) The bifurcated ownership of the subject area and independent projects in various stages of entitlement may result in an ad-hoc development pattern while a master planning process using an interactive and multidisciplinary approach with a diverse COWOP task team, including neighbors of the project and persons with special interest in the property and its development will lend itself to the type of open dialogue needed to determine a cohesive future vision for the neighborhood; and, WHEREAS, via adoption of Resolution No. 13, Series of 2008 and No. 80 Series of 2008, the City Council established a COWOP Task Force Team to develop a Master Plan for the Lift One Neighborhood including the quantitative elements of the plan, broad urban design elements of the plan, and the contextual relationship of the plan to surrounding properties; and Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 2 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan WHEREAS, the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan COWOP Task Force Team is comprised of citizens with a broad range of perspectives, expertise, and awareness of community issues. Following are the members of the task force and their affiliation: City of Aspen City Council Mick Ireland Dwayne Romero P & Z Cliff Weiss HPC Alison Agley Com. Dev. Chris Bendon, (non-voting) Landowners Lodge at Aspen Mtn. John Sarpa Lift One Lodge Bob Daniel Aspen Skiing Dave Bellack Com any Neighbors South -Shadow Chrissy McNamara Mountain West -Juan St., Derek Johnson Trainors Landing Denis Murray North -South Point, Galen Bright Timber Ridge Tami Solondz East - Sissy Erikson Mountain Queen Zachary Matthews Gilbert Street Other Affected or Aspen Hist. Society Georgia Hanson Interested Parties AVSC Mark Cole ACRA Debbie Braun Community At Large Yasmine dePagter Allyn Harvey Mark Hughes Mary Janss Andrew Kole Ruth Kruger Mary Anne Meyer Bernard Phillips *Brian Schaefer (*removed for non- attendance) Bill Wiener, Jr. and, Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 3 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Community Development Director was a non- voting member and served as the chair of the Task Force Team, in compliance with the requirements of Section 26.500 of the Aspen Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan COWOP Task Force Team has met every Thursday for a minimum of three hours and up to seven hours from April 10, 2008 to October 2, 2008, for a total of 26 meetings to consider the project goals, constraints, concepts, and possible development scenarios; and, WHEREAS, the COWOP review process enabled the planning and design of the master plan to reflect community values, taking into consideration various opinions and expressed points-of--view from neighbors, land owners, citizens, and technical expertise from professionals assisting the planning effort; and, WHEREAS, the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan COWOP Task Force Team adopted the following master plan goals which were subsequently acknowledged by the Aspen City Council via adoption of City Council Resolution No. 59, Series of 2008: • Respect Aspen's history: integrate the balance of architecture and design through the relationships, mass and scale of historic and proposed structures. • Showcase and promote Aspen's ski history and traditions. • Provide easy and welcoming access to all users that integrates the Lift One neighborhood and town while minimizing traffic and pavement. • Develop improved lift access and infrastructure that includes the World Cup venue and year-round activities. • Create a "lights on" mix of lodging, services, amenities and on-site affordable housing to attract visitors and locals while respecting the nature of the neighborhood. • Develop an economically viable and flexible project without imposing burdens on the community. • Create an environmental showcase that exploits on-site energy generation and responsibly uses energy and other resources. and, WHEREAS, the COWOP land use review procedure does not and has not lessened any public hearing, public noticing, or any critical analysis or scrutiny of the project as would. otherwise be required; and, WHEREAS, the Task Force meetings were run in a public hearing type format with the ability for members of the public and concerned citizens to comment on the progress of the master plan; and, Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 4 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan WHEREAS, the project received approximately 59 pages of emails and letters which can be viewed on the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan website accessed from www.aspenpitkin.com; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen internet website had approximately 340 page views per month; and WHEREAS, the progress of the task force and all materials, meeting summaries, diagrams, and maps related to the planning effort were maintained in 2 project binders available for public inspection at the City of Aspen Community Development Department and on the City of Aspen internet web site, www.aspenpitkin.com/; and, WHEREAS, during the planning process for the Master Plan updates on the progress of the planning effort were considered as agenda items at public meetings by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Board, the City Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Historic Preservation Commission; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission was updated regarding the progress of the Task Force throughout the project by their Task Force Representative Alison Agley; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission were updated regularly regarding the progress of the Task Force by their Task Force Representative, Cliff Weiss; and, WHEREAS, on August 12th, approximately 60 citizens attended an "open- house" style public meeting, notice of which was published in the Aspen Times, conducted to provide information and discuss planning issues with neighbors and interested citizens; and WHEREAS, approximately 18 articles in the Aspen Times appeared over the course of the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan Task Force review process detailing ongoing planning issues and the evolution of the plan, including 5 articles that were published prior to the formation of the Task Force and an additional 10 letters to the editor; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Daily News published 13 articles regarding the Lift One Project including 5 that were published prior to the formation of the Task Force; and, WHEREAS, staff and members of the Task Force presented the progress of the Task Force to the Board of Directors of the Aspen Chamber Resort Association on July 29, 2008; and, WHEREAS, On August 21, 2008, an update was provided at the annual ACRA Luncheon by Task Force member and ACRA President Debbie Braun to approximately 250 attendees; and, Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 5 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan WHEREAS, staff presented the progress of the Task Force to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority on August 6, 2008; and, WHEREAS, staff presented the progress of the Task Force to the Aspen Board of Realtors on August 13, 2008; and, WHEREAS, City of Aspen Project Assistant Travis Coggin and City of Aspen Community Relations Officer Sally Spaulding spoke about the project and where/how to access information related to the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan on the KSNO radio station on August 19, 2008; and, WHEREAS, City of Aspen Community Development Director Chris Bendon and Project Assistant Travis Coggin spoke about the project and where/how to access information related to the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan on the KSNO radio station on October 17, 2008; and WHEREAS, staff presented the progress of the Task Force to the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission on August 20, 2008; and, WHEREAS, staff presented the progress of the Task Force to the City of Aspen Community Development and Engineering Departments on August 20, 2008; and, WHEREAS, staff presented the progress of the Task Force to the Pitkin County Community Development Department on September 8, 2008; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen devoted one episode of City Matters to the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan and filmed an on-site program with members of the Task Force; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen filmed a special edition of City Matters on October 15, 2008 with members of the Task Force; and WHEREAS, the City Matters program covering the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan has aired approximately 11 times on CGTV; and, WHEREAS, there have been informational slides running continually on CGTV displaying the time and date of upcoming Lift One Task Force Meetings as well as the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan website; and, WHEREAS, staff, land owners, and members of the Task Force Team held an Open House on Wednesday November 5, 2008 in Council Chambers that was attended by approximately twenty members of the public; and, WHEREAS, an advertisement announcing the date, time, and location of the Open House ran in the Aspen Times October 31St, November 3rd, and November 5`"; and, WHEREAS, on November 13, 2008 City Community Relations Office Sally Spaulding was interviewed on TV8 about the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan and Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 6 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan presented information regarding the City Council public hearing process as well as where to find additional information on the Lift One Neighborhood Master Planning process and whom to contact with further questions; and, WHEREAS, City Council reviewed the progress of the Master Plan during two (2) publicly noticed work sessions on June 9 and July 21, 2008, considered progress of the effort and provided direction as to the proper planning and design objectives and issues to be fully considered; and, WHEREAS, the COWOP Task Force determined that the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan provides the following community benefits associated with the Goals created by the COWOP Task Force. History 1. Respect Aspen's history: integrate the balance of architecture and design through the relationships, mass and scale of historic and proposed structures. 2. Showcase and promote Aspen's ski history and traditions. Community Benefits under History -View plane corridor maintained. Revitalized sense of history. Museum integrated providing historical connection. Recycles historical buildings as historical assets. Accessibility 1. Provide easy and welcoming access to all users that integrates the Lift One neighborhood and town while minimizing traffic and pavement. 2. Develop improved lift access and infrastructure that includes the World Cup venue and year-round activities. Community Benefits under Accessibility -Creative and uniquely Aspen solution for people mover. Infrastructure updates -sidewalks on Aspen Street. Year-round access to top of hill, surface lift from Dean Street. Proven technology/appropriate to area. Improved skiing to Dean Street. Neighborhood -more inviting and more inclusive. Removes "load" from other lifts. Corner of Aspen and Durant will be safer. Vitali 1. Create a "lights on" mix of lodging, services, amenities and on-site affordable housing to attract visitors and locals while respecting the nature of the neighborhood. 2. Develop an economically viable and flexible project without imposing burdens on the community. Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 7 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan Community Benefits under Vitality -Lockers at starting point of skiing. Affordable commercial is a possibility. Local's friendly steak house for beer, etc. Revitalized and beautified a huge section of town at base of mountain. Lights-on neighborhood from addition of affordable housing. Added hot beds and hotel. Better World Cup venue. Sustainability 1. Create an environmental showcase that exploits on-site energy generation and responsibly uses energy and other resources. Community Benefits under Sustainability -Increased tax base--50% less fossil fuel consumption than similar uses, sets new standard for lodges--LEED Silver or Gold. and, WHEREAS, the Master Plan is of higher quality as a result of the COWOP Task Force Team review process and the thoughtful and interactive discussions that allowed multiple iterations and development scenarios to be discussed would not have otherwise occurred if the Master Plan had not been reviewed as a COWOP application; and, WHEREAS, the Master Plan is consistent with the Goals and Objectives of the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the project meets the goals created by the COWOP Task Force; and, WHEREAS, the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan received a vote of 19 in favor, one opposed and one neutral at the final Task Force Meeting on October 2, 2008; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission formally reviewed the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan during a series of public hearings beginning August 27, 2008 and concluding October 8, 2008, resulting in a vote of 4-0 in favor of the Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission formally reviewed the Conceptual Application for relocation of structures, development of Lift One Park, and development of Willoughby Park beginning August 27, 2008 and concluding October 8, 2008 and voted unanimously to grant Conceptual Approval for Major Development and Relocation for the properties located at Willoughby Park, Lift One Park, 233 Gilbert Street and 710 South Aspen Street, as evidenced by Resolution No. 23, Series of 2008; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission formally reviewed the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan during a series of public hearings beginning August 26, 2008 and concluding on October 7, 2008, resulting in a vote of 6-0 in favor of the Master Plan; and, Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 8 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan WHEREAS, Hill Street, Summit Street and their associated alleys, a portion of Gilbert Street, a portion of Juan Street and a portion of Dean Street west of South Aspen Street rights-of--way, as currently platted, do not provide for efficient or practicable vehicular movement and the City of Aspen believes it is in the best interests of the City, and its residents, to vacate the rights-of--way, concurrent with the approval of the development proposal and effective upon recordation of the Master Subdivision/Street Vacation Plat, such that the lands may be used for development purposes; and, WHEREAS, the lands subject to this right-of--way vacation are depicted on attached Exhibit 3 and shall be depicted and described on the Master Subdivision/Street Vacation Plat; and, WHEREAS, the vacation action, considering the Master Plan entire land assemblage, will not leave any land without a means of adequate access to a public right- of-way; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has reviewed, verifies, and hereby accepts the vacation of the Hill Street, Summit Street, a portion of Gilbert Street, a portion of Juan Street and a portion of Dean Street west of South Aspen Street rights-of--way and the reversion of associated lands to adjacent parcels, as depicted and described on the proposed Street and Alley Vacation Map, attached hereto as Exhibit 3, the Master Subdivision/Street Vacation Plat, as consistent with the requirements of C.R.S. Section 43-2-301 et. seq.; and, WHEREAS, the vacation of these portions of the Hill Street, Summit Street, a portion of Gilbert Street, a portion of Juan Street and a portion of Dean Street west of South Aspen Street rights-of--way meets or exceeds the review criteria for effecting such changes as adopted by the City of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.304 and 26.500 of the Land Use Code, City Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny all requisite land use approvals necessary to grant a development order for a proposed development determined eligible for COWOP land use review upon a recommendation from the Community Development Director and consideration of comments offered by the general public at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Community Development Director has reviewed the proposed development in consideration of the recommendations of the COWOP Task Force Team, the requirements of the Land Use Code, and comments from the City Engineer and applicable referral agencies and has recommended approval of all necessary land use approvals for granting a development order for the proposed Project including Final approval of a COWOP Land Use Review including: Subdivision, Final PUD Development Plan approval, Rezoning of portions of the lands within the Lift One Neighborhood to L, Lodge (PUD), Planned Unit Development Overlay; NC, Neighborhood Commercial (H)(PUD), Historic, Planned Unit Development Overlay; and PUB, Public ;(H)(PUD), Historic, Planned Unit Development Overlay, Vacation of certain public rights-of--way, Dedication of certain public rights-of--way and easements, Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 9 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan Growth Management Quota System ("GMQS") allotments for lodging, free market residential and affordable housing units, commercial net leasable space, and essential public facilities, Condominiumization, removing and re-establishing historic landmark designation of a parcel, Final Timeshare approval, Mountain View Plane review approval, 8040 Greenline approval, Conditional Use approval, and Commercial Design Review 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 Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan COWOP Task Force Team, the Community .Development Director, P&Z, HPC, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT the City Council hereby amends the boundary of the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan (the "Master Plan") as set forth in Section 1 below; hereby approves the Master Plan as described and depicted in the Decision Packet; and hereby declares that such approved Master Plan and all land use approvals necessary or appropriate thereto, as herein set forth, shall constitute a site specific development plan as defined in Section 24-68-102(4)(a) of the Colorado Revised Statutes, subject to the conditions described herein. Section 1: Eligibility Confirmation and Amendment to Master Plan Boundaries The lands included in the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan are hereby amended to include land owned by the Aspen Skiing Company extending generally to the south from the southwesterly boundary of the Mountain Queen Condominiums, the southerly boundary of Block 12 of the Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, the south end of the South Aspen Street right-of--way and the southerly boundary of the Shadow Mountain Condominiums to the southerly boundary of the City of Aspen, as depicted on the Master Plan Boundary Map attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The purpose of including these additional lands is to accommodate the uphill terminal of the new "surface lift" and the lower terminal of the new high speed Lift lA, and to accommodate certain pedestrian access improvements south of the South Aspen Street right-of--way. Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 10 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan Pursuant to Section 26.500.040 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan, as described in Resolution No. 13, Series of 2008, and in Resolution No. 80, Series of 2008, and with the inclusion of the additional Aspen Skiing Company lands as described above, is and continues to be reasonably necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public and eligible for the COWOP review process. Section 2: Legal Descriptions The legal descriptions of the lands within the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan boundary are attached hereto as Exhibit 5. Section 3. Master Plan Approvals; Vested Rights; Development Order (a) The Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan is hereby approved, and the respective owners of lands within the Master Plan boundary (the "Lift One Neighborhood"), as such lands are described in Section 2 above, are hereby granted all land use approvals necessary or appropriate to the implementation of the Master Plan, including without limitation the following: (i) Final PUD Development Plan approval for the developments described in Section 11 below; (ii) Subdivision approval as described in Section 4 below; (iii) Rezoning of portions of the lands within the Lift One Neighborhood to L, Lodge (PUD), Planned Unit Development Overlay; NC, Neighborhood Commercial (H)(PUD), Historic, Planned Unit Development Overlay; and PUB, Public (H)(PUD), Historic, Planned Unit Development Overlay as described in Section 8 below; (iv) Vacation of certain public rights-of--way as described in Section 9 below; (v) Dedication of certain public rights-of--way and easements as described in Section 10 below; (vi) Growth Management Quota System ("GMQS") allotments for lodging, free market residential and affordable housing units, and commercial net leasable space as described in Section 14 below; (vii) Condominiumization as described in Section 28 below; (viii) Final Timeshare approval for the developments described in Section 11 below; (ix) Mountain View Plane, 8040 Greenline, Conditional Use and Commercial Design Review approval for the developments described in Section 11 below; and (x) Removing historic landmark designation from 710 South Aspen Street a/k/a the Skiers Chalet Steak House and designating Lot 3 as a Historic Landmark. Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 11 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan (b) Pursuant to HPC Resolution No. 23, Series of 2008, unanimously adopted on October 8, 2008, Conceptual HPC Approval has been obtained for the relocation of the Skiers Chalet Steak House building to a portion of the South Aspen Street right-of--way being vacated pursuant to this Ordinance, and for the relocation of the Skiers Chalet Lodge to Willoughby Park and its conversion to a Ski Museum. Final HPC approval for these actions must be obtained before a Building Permit or Permits are applied for in connection therewith. (c) The right to undertake and complete the development and use of the Lift One Neighborhood pursuant to the site specific development plan hereby approved shall be vested for a period of fifteen (15) years from the date of final adoption of this Ordinance, all as shall be more specifically set forth in a Vested Rights Development Agreement to be approved contemporaneously with this Ordinance. (d) No later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption of this Ordinance, the Aspen City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and the creation of a vested property right for the Lift One Neighborhood pursuant to Section 26.304.070(A) of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. Following the publication of said notice, the Community Development Director shall issue a written Development Order containing the information required by Section 26.304.070(B) of the Land Use Code, which Development Order shall have an effective date as of the date of publication of the notice of approval of the site specific development plan. Section 4: Master Subdivision/Street Vacation Plat Within two (2) years following the date of final adoption of this Ordinance by the City Council, the record owners of the underlying lands shall prepare, execute and record a Master Subdivision/Street Vacation Plat of the Lift One Neighborhood which subdivides the area into the following parcels, as depicted on the Proposed Subdivision Map attached hereto as Exhibit 4. Lot 1: Lift One Lodge Lot 2: Lift One Park Lot 3: Skiers Chalet Steak House Lot 4: Willoughby Park Lot 5: Lodge at Aspen Mountain Lot 6: Deane Street Condominiums Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 12 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan For purposes of this Ordinance, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 together shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Lift One Project" and Lots 5 and 6 together shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project". The Master Subdivision/Street Vacation Plat shall also depict and describe a development envelope for the relocation of the Lift lA base area as more specifically addressed and described in Section 11.6 below, shall vacate the public rights-of--way described in Section 9 below, shall dedicate the public rights-of--way described in Section 10 below, and shall grant certain perpetual easements beneath, within or above public rights-of--way and beneath Lot 2, Lift One Park, and Lot 4, Willoughby Park, as described in Section 10 below. A Master Utility and Drainage Plan for the Lift One Neighborhood shall be recorded concurrently with the Master Subdivision/Street Vacation Plat. The City acknowledges that the boundaries of Lots 3 and 6, respectively, may need to be adjusted, and the Community Development Director shall have the authority to approve such adjustment(s) as an Insubstantial Amendment to this Ordinance. The final boundaries of such Lots (and of any adjoining Lots affected by the approvals granted by such adjustments) shall be depicted and established on the individual Subdivision Plats to be executed and recorded pursuant to Section 7 below. The City further acknowledges that lot line adjustments may be required to accomplish the conveyance of portions of vacated Deane Street and of vacated South Aspen Street into the ownership of adjacent property owners. The Community Development Director shall have the authority to approve and execute any related Lot Line Adjustment Plats via administrative review. Section 5: Master Development Agreement Contemporaneously with the recording of the Master Subdivision/Street Vacation Plat, the owners of the lands within the Lift One Neighborhood (excluding the City of Aspen) shall prepare, execute and record a Master Development Agreement which sets forth a description of the subdivision improvements and other amenities required by the Master Plan, including the following: (a) The relocation of South Aspen Street and associated sidewalks as depicted on the Proposed Subdivision Map attached as Exhibit 4; (b) The installation and/or relocation of all utilities and drainage facilities depicted and described on the Master Utility and Drainage Plan; (c) Deane Street right-of--way improvements, including sidewalks;* *The design of the Deane Street right-of--way improvements for that section of Deane Street between the South Aspen Street and Monarch Street rights-of--way shall be coordinated with the City of Aspen Community Development, Parks, and Engineering Departments. All, or a portion, of the $250,000 allocated to Deane Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 13 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan Street improvements by Ordinance No. 32, Series of 2005 (the Chart House contribution) may be used for the design and implementation of these improvements. (d) The landscaping of South Aspen Street and other public rights-of--way; (e) The new Lift lA high speed lift and other improvements to facilitate access to the lift from South Aspen Street; (f) The surface lift from Willoughby Park to the Lift lA Base Area Development Envelope; (g) 80 subgrade public parking spaces beneath areas to be depicted on the Master Subdivision/Street Vacation Plat; (h) Public locker facilities; (i) A Ski Museum located in Willoughby Park; (j) The relocation of the volleyball courts currently located in Willoughby Park; and (k) Improvements to Willoughby Park. (1) An allocation amongst the owners (excluding the City) of the responsibilities for the ongoing maintenance of said improvements and amenities. 5.1 Sequencing: If Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project Proceeds First. In the event the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project elects to proceed with the permitting and construction of its development ahead of the Lift One Lodge Project, the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project shall be obligated to provide financial assurances for and to construct the improvements and amenities described in Section 5 above, excepting utilities and drainage facilities that fall entirely within the other Project site and which are not required for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project, and excepting the surface lift and the improvements described in subparagraphs (i), (j) and (k) above, all of which will occur within the Lift One Lodge Project area. In lieu of the surface lift, the Lodge at Aspen Mountain shall establish and operate a regular public van service along South Aspen Street to the Lift lA base area until such time as the surface lift is operational. The Lift One Lodge Project shall construct these excluded improvements during the course of the development of its own Project. The Lift One Lodge Project shall be obligated to reimburse the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project, within ten (10) days following the date of issuance of the initial building permit for the Lift One Lodge Project, for all costs and expenses incurred to date by the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project that would otherwise have been the responsibility/share of the Lift One Lodge Project under the terms of the Master Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 14 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan Development Agreement. If the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project chooses to implement a Special District to provide the required improvements or some of them, then the Lift One Lodge Project's reimbursement obligation shall be to the Special District to the extent the Special District has incurred such costs and expenses. 5.2 Sequencing: If Lift One Lodge Proiect Proceeds First. In the event the Lift One Lodge Project elects to proceed with the permitting and construction of its development ahead of the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Lodge Project, the Lift One Lodge Project shall be obligated to provide financial assurances for and to construct the improvements and amenities described in Section 5 above, excepting utilities and drainage facilities that fall entirely within the other Project site and which are not required for the Lift One Lodge Project. The Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project shall be obligated to reimburse the Lift One Lodge Project, within ten (10) days following the date of issuance of the initial building permit for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project, for all costs and expenses incurred to date by the Lift One Lodge Project that would otherwise have been the responsibility/share of the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project under the terms of the Master Development Agreement. If the Lift One Lodge Project chooses to implement a Special District to provide for the required improvements or some of them, then the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project's reimbursement obligation shall be to the Special District to the extent the Special District has incurred such costs and expenses. Section 6: Special District To the extent the owners of the Lift One Lodge Project area and of the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project area elect to form a Special District to fund, construct, operate and/or maintain certain of these subdivision improvements and amenities, the details thereof shall be set forth in the Master Development Agreement. The Agreement shall provide that in the event either the Lift One Lodge Project or the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project is ready to proceed with its development ahead of the other Project, then that Project shall have the right to proceed on its own to form the Special District with the requirement that the other Project will join the Special District when it is ready to do so. If the Special District chooses to issue bonds for purposes of constructing improvements, and if the Special District has sold bonds sufficient in amount to cover the approved estimated cost of accomplishing the improvements undertaken by the Special District, the City agrees that such Special District funding shall be deemed adequate financial assurance from the Project owners for such subdivision improvements. In establishing the boundaries of and the real property interest to be included within the Special District, Lots 1, 3 and 5 shall be included and all publicly-owned property and facilities, including underground public parking, and owner .occupied affordable housing units, shall be excluded. Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 15 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan Section 7: Individual Subdivision/PUD Agreements No later than two (2) years following the date of recording of the Master Subdivision/Street Vacation Plat and the Master Development Agreement, individual Subdivision Plats and individual Subdivision/PUD Agreements shall be prepared, executed and recorded covering the Lift One Lodge Project and the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project, respectively. Said individual Subdivision Plats and Subdivision/PUD Agreements may be recorded at the same time or at different times, as the respective developers may determine to be appropriate. Contemporaneously with the recording of each individual Subdivision Plat and Subdivision/PUD Agreement, a Final PUD Development Plan shall be recorded for that property and shall include the following information: (a) An illustrative site plan of the Project depicting the proposed improvements, the approved dimensional requirements, and adequate snow storage areas; (b) A drawing(s) representing the Project's architectural character, which demonstrates the general architectural character of each building and depicts materials, fenestration, projections, and dimensions and locations of elevator shaft heads, skylights, mechanical equipment, etc.. Mechanical equipment shall be screened from pedestrian view; (c) A landscape plan depicting the location, amount, and species of landscape improvements with an irrigation plan, containing a signature line for the City Parks Department; this plan should also include any movable planters/pots within pedestrian areas; (d) A grading and drainage plan, with any off-site improvements specified; (e) A utility and public infrastructure plan meeting the standards of the City Engineer and City utility agencies; and (f) An exterior lighting plan meeting the requirements of Section 26.575.150 of the Land Use Code. (g) Cost estimates for the improvements and requirements described in the Subdivision/PUD Agreements; and (h) A description of the financial assurances to be provided. Section 8: Rezonings Upon the approval of this Ordinance by the Aspen City Council, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 are hereby rezoned as .depicted on the Proposed Zoning Map attached hereto as Exhibit 2. The rezoning shall become effective upon the recordation of the Master Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 16 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan Subdivision/Street Vacation Plat, and the Official Zone District Map of the City of Aspen shall be amended by the Community Development Director as follows. (a) Lot 1, Lift One Lodge, shall be depicted as included within the L, Lodge, zone district with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay. A portion of Lot 1 shall include H, Historic Overlay, to reflect the portion of Lot 1 containing a tower of the original Lift 1 system and the relocation of the Skier's Chalet Steak House building off of this Lot. The Lodge Zone District permits the development, operations, and maintenance of ski area structures, facilities, equipment, management and operations. (b) Lot 2, Lift One Park, shall be depicted as included within the PUB, Public, zone district with H, Historic Overlay and a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay. The PUB Zone District permits the development, operations, and maintenance of ski area structures, facilities, equipment, management and operations. (c) Lot 3, Skiers Chalet Steak House, shall be depicted as included within the NC, Neighborhood Commercial, zone district with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay. Lot 3 shall also include H, Historic Overlay, to reflect the prior Historic Designation of the Skiers Chalet Steak House building and its relocation thereto. (d) Lot 4, Willoughby Park, shall be depicted as included within the PUB, Public, zone district with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay. The PUB Zone District permits the development, operations, and maintenance of ski area structures, facilities, equipment, management and operations. (e) Lot 6, Deane Street Condominiums, shall be depicted as included within the AH, Affordable Housing, zone district with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay. Section 9: Public Right-of-Wav Vacations The following public right-of--way vacations within the Lift One Neighborhood shall be and hereby are approved, and the fee simple ownership of the lands underlying such vacated rights-of--way shall be combined with and incorporated into the respective adjacent parcels. Such vacations and resulting ownerships are shown on the Proposed Street and Alley Vacation Map attached hereto as Exhibit 3, shall be depicted and described on the Master Subdivision/Street Vacation Plat, and shall become effective upon the recording of the Master Subdivision/Street Vacation Plat and the Master Development Agreement. (a) That portion of Deane Street located east of Garmisch Street along the northern boundary of the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project; (b) That portion of Juan Street depicted on Exhibit 3, the Proposed Street and Alley Vacation Map; Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 17 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan (c) That portion of South Aspen Street located south of Juan Street and north of the northern boundary of the Shadow Mountain Condominiums; (d) Those portions of Gilbert Street depicted on Exhibit 3, the Proposed Street and Alley Vacation Map; (e) Hill Street east of South Aspen Street through the Lift One Lodge Project; (f) Summit Street east of South Aspen Street through the Lift One Lodge Project; and (g) The portion of the remaining alley in Block 9, Eames Addition to the City of Aspen, within the Lift One Lodge Project. Section 10: Public Right-of-Way Dedications and Perpetual Easements The Master Subdivision/Street Vacation Plat shall accomplish the following public right- of-way dedications and shall grant the following perpetual easements and encroachment licenses as depicted on the Proposed Subdivision Map attached hereto as Exhibit 4, to wit: (a) A public right-of--way for relocated South Aspen Street; (b) A public pedestrian easement along the vacated portion of Juan Street; (c) A public ski and pedestrian easement within Lot 1, Lift One Lodge Project, within Lot 2, Lift One Park, and within Lot 4, Willoughby Park; (d) An easement granted to the Aspen Skiing Company and/or assigns within Lots 1, 2 and 4 for purposes of constructing, operating and maintaining the surface lift and other associated skiing improvements and operations; (e) A perpetual subsurface easement beneath Lot 2, Lift One Park, and Lot 4, Willoughby Park, for the use and benefit of the Lift One Lodge Project and the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project for purposes of constructing, operating, using, maintaining and accessing parking garages; (f) A perpetual subsurface easement beneath a portion of relocated South Aspen Street for the use and benefit of the Lift One Lodge Project and the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project for purposes of constructing, operating, using, maintaining and accessing a parking garage; and (g) A perpetual access easement across Lot 1 for the benefit of the Aspen Skiing Company. In addition to the foregoing, the City of Aspen public right-of--way known as Dean Street, a/k/a Deane Street, is hereby officially named and designated Deane Street (with an "e"), Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 18 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan and this spelling shall be reflected in the various Plats and Agreements recorded pursuant to this Ordinance. Section 11: Approved Uses and Development Programs 11.1 Lot 1, Lift One Lodge. The Lift One Lodge Project is approved as a mixed use membership lodge/whole ownership project consisting of 35 lodge units, 5 free market residential units, the affordable housing components described in Section 16.1 below, a maximum of 9,000 square feet of net leasable commercial space and a total of 250 subgrade parking spaces. The Project's lodge component will consist of one-bedroom, two-bedroom, three- bedroom and four-bedroom suites. Each bedroom within the lodge component will be separately keyed as a "lock-off ' unit. For Growth Management Quota System purposes, the Project's lodge component will contain a total of 101 bedrooms equaling 101 keys or separately rentable divisions. The Project's commercial component shall consist of a public restaurant, kitchen and bar; and various facilities for the Aspen Skiing Company, including, but not limited to, a ticket sales area, public/employee locker rooms, ski equipment sales, servicing, and rental, other skier servicing facilities, etc. The public restaurant, bar and kitchen will contain a maximum of 4,000 square feet of net leasable commercial area. The Aspen Skiing Company's facilities will contain a maximum of 5,000 square feet of net leasable commercial area. The lodge will also include other guest service areas, facilities and ancillary spaces and uses which are not considered net leasable area for Growth Management Quota System purposes. The Historic Preservation Commission previously granted Conceptual Approval for the relocation of the Skiers Chalet Lodge and the Skiers Chalet Steak House. The Lift One Lodge Project shall require final approval from the Historic Preservation Commission for both relocations, which shall be processed separately from the Master Plan in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 26.415 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. 11.2 Lot 5, Lodge at Aspen Mountain. The Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project is approved as a mixed use hotel/fractional/whole ownership project consisting of 75 lodge units, 26 fractional ownership units, 5 free market residential units, the affordable housing components described in Section 16.2 below, a maximum of 18,000 square feet of net leasable commercial space, and a minimum of 238 subgrade parking spaces. The Project's hotel component will consist of 72 standard/executive and one-bedroom lodge rooms; 2two-bedroom lodge suites; and one two-bedroom presidential suite for a total of 78 bedrooms. The Project's fractional ownership component will consist of 8three-bedroom units and 18 four-bedroom units containing a total of 96 bedrooms. For Growth Management Quota System purposes, the Project's hotel and fractional Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 19 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan ownership components will contain a total of 174 bedrooms and 101 keys or separately rentable divisions. No "lock-off' bedrooms are proposed. The whole ownership component will consist of one three-bedroom free market residential unit and 4four-bedroom free market residential units. The Project's 18,000 square feet of net leasable commercial area will consist of a spa; the hotel's restaurant and kitchen, rooftop bar, lobby lounge, sundries shop, meeting rooms and ballroom; and a small sales center for the fractional ownership units. The hotel will also include other guest service areas, facilities and ancillary spaces and uses which are not considered net leasable area for Growth Management Quota System purposes. The Project will be condominiumized in two or more condominium regimes (one covering the Deane Street Condominium affordable housing project on Lot 6), and the fractional ownership units will be sold pursuant to a timeshare use plan. 11.3 Lot 3. Skiers Chalet Steak House. The Skiers Chalet Steak House is approved as a mixed use commercial/affordable housing building which will contain approximately 1,052 square feet of net leasable commercial space on its ground floor and a total of 5 dormitory affordable housing rooms on its second and third floors. An outdoor seating area will be provided adjacent to the building. The commercial space's net leasable area shall be identified in the Lift One Lodge Final PUD Development Plan and individual Subdivision/PUD Agreement. The Lift One Lodge Subdivision/PUD Agreement shall also include a list of permitted uses for the commercial space, which list shall be derived from those uses permitted within the (NC), Neighborhood Commercial, zone district. 11.4 Lot 4, Willoughby Park. Approval is granted for the relocation of the Skiers Chalet Lodge to Willoughby Park as depicted in the Decision Packet, and the use of the building for community purposes including, but not limited to, a historical museum, affordable housing, and/or affordable commercial space. The building's use shall be addressed in the Lift One Lodge Subdivision/PUD Agreement to be recorded concurrently with the Lift One Lodge Final PUD Development Plan. 11.5 Lot 6, Deane Street Condominiums. Lot 6 is approved for the development of a 15 unit affordable housing project. The Deane Street Condominiums Affordable Housing Project will consist of 7 studio units, 4one-bedroom units, 2two-bedroom units, and 2three-bedroom units. 11.6 Lift lA Base Area Development Envelope. The Lift lA Base Area Development Envelope is approved for the uses, activities and improvements necessary, ancillary and incidental to the development, function, operation and maintenance of winter and summer recreation and a ski area base, including, but not limited to the following: (a) Skiing, snowboarding, and other winter and summer recreational sports and activities; Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 20 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan (b) Ski and snow sports racing, competitions, demonstrations, other special events, including supporting activities, facilities, improvements and infrastructure; (c) Ski lifts and mechanized uphill transportation, including all related improvements and equipment, such as lift terminals, towers, platforms, supporting or retaining walls and foundations, stairs, elevators, plaza spaces, lift mazing, housings, roofs, and similar structures, operator houses or lift shacks and storage; (d) Ticketing sales and all necessary and incidental commercial skier services functions, facilities and equipment, including, but not limited to ski and equipment rental, lockers, public restrooms, offices, ski school facilities, emergency medical care, and related activities and uses; (e) Making, clearing, removing, sculpting, grooming and maintaining snow and snow surfaces, together with all the infrastructure, deep and shallow utilities, and equipment and machinery necessary for performing the same, whether fixed or mobile; (f) Motorized vehicle access and use, including snow grooming equipment as described above, as well as snowmobiles, emergency vehicles, wheeled vehicles, service and support trucks and other vehicles routinely used in the conduct and performance of mountain recreation, operations, services, construction, supply, events and the permitted uses described herein; (g) Operational, commercial, interpretive, and informational signage reasonably necessary and/or incidental to the performance of other activities and functions described herein; (h) Any and all customary activities, equipment, housings, structures, and functions which may be necessary, appropriate, ancillary and/or incidental to the full use, practice and enjoyment of skiing and other recreational sports and activities, mechanized uphill transportation, and related business purposes and activities; and (i) Installation, staging, construction, maintenance, alteration, repair, operation, servicing, and replacement of all of improvements, structures, materials, landscaping and/or equipment described or contemplated herein. Section 12: Approved Dimensional Requirements 12.1 Lot 1, Lift One Lode. The following dimensional requirements are approved for Lot 1 and shall be reflected in the Final PUD Development Plan for the Lift One Lodge Project. (a) Minimum Lot Size Per Final PUD Development Plan (b) Minimum Lot Width Per Final PUD Development Plan Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 21 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan (c) Minimum Front Yard Setback (d) Minimum Side Yard Setback (e) Minimum Rear Yard Setback (f) Maximum Building Height (g) Minimum Distance Between Buildings (h) Maximum Allowable Floor Area (i) Minimum Off-Street Parking Spaces 5' 0' 5' Varies, 55.5 ft. at highest point Per Final PUD Development Plan 135,000 sq. ft. 250 12.2 Lot 5, Lodge at Aspen Mountain. The following dimensional requirements are approved for Lot 5 and shall be reflected in the Final PUD Development Plan for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project. (a) Minimum Lot Size (b) Minimum Lot Width (c) Minimum Front Yard Setback (d) Minimum Side Yard Setback (e) Minimum Rear Yard Setback (f) Maximum Building Height (g) Minimum Distance Between Buildings (h) Maximum Allowable Floor Area (i) Minimum Off-Street Parking Spaces Per Final PUD Development Plan Per Final PUD Development Plan 5' 5' 5' Varies, 59.5 ft. at highest point Per Final PUD Development Plan 191,000 sq. ft. 238 12.3 Lot 3, Skiers Chalet Steak House. The following dimensional requirements are approved for Lot 3 and shall be reflected in the Final PUD Development Plan for the Lift One Lodge Project. (a) Minimum Lot Size (b) Minimum Lot Width (c) Minimum Front Yard Setback (d) Minimum Side Yard Setback (e) Minimum Rear Yard Setback (f) Maximum Building Height (g) Minimum Distance Between Buildings (h) Maximum Allowable Floor Area (i) Minimum Off-Street Parking Spaces Per Final PUD Development Plan Per Final PUD Development Plan 5' 5' 0' 34' Per Final PUD Development Plan 4,000 0 Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan Page 22 12.4 Lot 4, Willoughby Park. The following dimensional requirements are approved for Lot 4 and shall be reflected in the Final PUD Development Plan for the Lift One Lodge Project. (a) Minimum Lot Size (b) Minimum Lot Width (c) Minimum Front Yard Setback Per Final PUD Development Plan Per Final PUD Development Plan 40' (d) Minimum Side Yard Setback (e) Minimum Rear Yard Setback (f) Maximum Building Height (g) Minimum Distance Between Buildings (h) Maximum Allowable Floor Area (i) Minimum Off-Street Parking Spaces 10' 10' 32' Per Final PUD Development Plan 6,000 sq. ft. 0 12.5 Lot 6, Deane Street Condominiums. The following dimensional requirements are approved for Lot 6 and shall be reflected in the Final PUD Development Plan for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project. (a) Minimum Lot Size (b) Minimum Lot Width (c) Minimum Front Yard Setback (d) Minimum Side Yard Setback (e) Minimum Rear Yard Setback (f) Maximum Building Height (g) Minimum Distance Between Buildings (h) Maximum Allowable Floor Area (i) Minimum Off-Street Parking Spaces Per Final PUD Development Plan Per Final PUD Development Plan 0' 5' 5' 3 5' Per Final PUD Development Plan 13,000 sq. ft. 0 12.6 Height and Floor Area Measurements. (a) Height, building. For the purposes of calculating the maximum height for development within this master plan area, the height of a building shall be the maximum distance possible measured vertically from interpolated natural grade, to be recorded in the Master Subdivision/Street Vacation Plat, to the highest point or structure within a vertical plane. Architectural and mechanical appurtenances including but not limited to antennas, chimneys, flues, vents, trellises, flag poles or similar structures shall not extend over ten (10) feet above the specified maximum height limit. Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 23 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan (b) Floor area. For the purposes of calculating the maximum allowable floor area for development within this master plan area, there shall be included that floor area within the surrounding exterior walls as measured from the outside face of structural sheathing. The calculation of the floor area of a building or a portion thereof shall not include decks, balconies, exterior stairways, gazebos, porches, landscape terraces and similar features. For any story that is partially above and partially below interpolated natural grade, as recorded in the Master Subdivision/Street Vacation Plat, only the floor area above the point at which interpolated natural grade crosses the subfloor elevation of that story shall be counted towards floor area. Section 13: Reconstruction Credits The following reconstruction credits have been verified by the City of Aspen and shall be credited against the Growth Management Quota System allotment requirements of the Lift One Lodge Project and the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project. 13.1 Lift One Lode Project (a) A total of 38 lodging reconstruction credits consisting of 20 lodge units in the former Holland House Lodge; 10 lodge units in the former Skiers Chalet Lodge; and 8 lodge units in the former Skiers Chalet Steak House shall be credited against the Lift One Lodge Project's lodging GMQS allotment requirement. The 38 reconstruction credits shall equate to 761odging pillow for allotment purposes. (b) One free market residential reconstruction credit located in the former Holland House Lodge shall be credited against the Lift One Lodge Project's free market residential GMQS allotment requirement. (c) A commercial reconstruction credit of 3,374 square feet of net leasable area consisting of 2,429 square feet in the Skiers Chalet Steak House and 945 square feet in the Lift 1 A base structure shall be credited against the Lift One Lodge Project's commercial GMQS allotment requirement. 13.2 Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project A total of 19 free market residential reconstruction credits consisting of one single- family dwelling unit, and two duplex units and 16 multi-family dwelling units located in the former Mine Dumps Apartments, shall be credited against the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project's and the Lift One Lodge Project's free market residential GMQS allotment requirements. Section 14: Growth Management Quota System Allotments The following Growth Management Quota System allotments are hereby granted to the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project and the Lift One Lodge Project. Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 24 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan Develo went T e Allotment or Lod eat As en Mountain Residential-Free Market 0 Units (5 Reconstruction Credits) Commercial 18,000 Net Leasable S uare Feet Residential-Affordable Housing 15 Dormitory Rooms Lodging 348 Pillows Develo merit T e Allotment or Li One Lod e Residential-Free Market 0 Units (5 Reconstruction Credits) Commercial 6,680 Net Leasable S uare Feet Residential-Affordable Housing 16 Units Lodging 126 Pillows Develo merit T e Allotment or Skiers Chalet Steakhouse Residential-Affordable Housing 5 Dormitory Rooms Develo merit T e Allotment or Ski Museum Essential Public Facility Exempt (9,000 Gross Square Feet) Development Type Allotment for Deane Street Affordable Housin Residential-Affordable Housing 15 Units The above growth allotments are in addition to reconstruction credits associated witht he properties but which do not require new growth allotment. The Growth Management Quota System allotments granted pursuant to this Ordinance shall expire on the day after the fifteenth anniversary of the effective date of the Development Order issued by the Community Development Director described in Section 3(d) above. Section 15: Growth Manasement Quota System AccountinE The Lodging and Commercial Growth Management Quota System allotments granted in Section 14 above constitute multi-year development allotments as provided for in Section 26.470.090.1. of the Land Use Code. Pursuant to Section 26.470.090.1.c, the Community Development Director is hereby directed to reduce the Annual Allotment, as provided in Section 26.470.030.D, in future years to accommodate the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan as follows. Development Typical Lift One 2009 2010 2011 Type Annual Neighborhood GMQS GMQS GMQS Allotment Master Plan Year Year Year Lodging 112 pillows 474 pillows Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 25 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan Section 16: Affordable Housing Requirements 16.1 Lot 1, Lift One Lodge. The Lift One Lodge Project will generate 53.5 employees. The Project has committed to provide affordable housing mitigation for 40 employees or 75 percent of the employees generated. The Project's employee generation and mitigation commitments are as follows. (a) Lodge Bedrooms. The development of lodge units within the L, Lodge, zone district generates 0.5 employees per bedroom. The Lift One Lodge Project contains 101 lodge bedrooms and has a lodge GMQS reconstruction credit of 38 bedrooms. The Project's 63 net new lodge bedrooms, therefore, will generate 31.5 employees. (b) Main-Level Commercial Space. Commercial space on the main level of a building in the L, Lodge, zone district generates 4.1 employees per 1,000 square feet of net leasable space. The Lift One Lodge Project contains approximately 3,600 square feet of net leasable area on the main level and has a commercial GMQS reconstruction credit of 3,374 square feet. The Project's main-level net new commercial space, therefore, will generate approximately 1.0 employees. (c) Basement/Upper Level Commercial Space. Commercial space on the basement and upper levels of a building in the L, Lodge, zone district generates 3.075 employees per 1,000 square feet of net leasable space. The Lift One Lodge Project contains approximately 5,400 square feet of net leasable area on the basement and upper levels. The Project's commercial component on these levels, therefore, will generate approximately 16.5 employees. (d) Lot 3, Skiers Chalet Steak House Commercial Space. The Skiers Chalet Steak House will contain approximately 1,052 of commercial net leasable space on its main level. Commercial space on the main level of a building in the NC, Neighborhood Commercial, zone district generates 4.1 employees per 1,000 square feet of net leasable space. The Skiers Chalet Steak House's commercial space, therefore, will generate approximately 4.5 employees. (e) Total Employees Generated/Mitigation Requirement: (i) Lodge Bedrooms 31.5 Employees (ii) Main-Level Commercial Space 1.0 Employees (iii) Basement & Upper Level Commercial Space 16.5 Employees (iv) Skiers Chalet Steak House Commercial Space 4.5 Employees (v) Total Employees Generated 53.5 Employees (vi) Required Mitigation @ 75 Percent 40 Employees Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 26 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan (f) Affordable Housing Mitigation. The Lift One Lodge Project's affordable housing mitigation shall be met as follows. (i) On-Site Rental Units. The Lift One Lodge Project shall provide housing for no less than 21 employees in a configuration of studio units and two-bedroom units on Lot 1 within Lift One Lodge and dormitory rooms on Lot 3 within Skiers Chalet Steak House building. The configuration of the dormitory shall be set forth in the Final PUD Development Plan for the Project. The units will be deed restricted to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority ("APCHA") Category 3 income and occupancy guidelines for rental units in effect at the time of recording of a Condominium Map for the Project. The deed restriction will provide that whenever an affordable housing unit becomes available for rental, the unit owner shall have a period of thirty (30) days from the date of termination of the prior tenancy to rent the unit to a person employed within the Project, provided that such person is otherwise qualified under the current APCHA Guidelines. If no such qualified Project employee has signed a lease agreement on the unit within said thirty (30) day period, APCHA shall have the right to select a qualified tenant for the unit. No Final Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued for the Project until the deed restriction for the affordable housing units has been executed and recorded. Unless a different arrangement is worked out with the City Attorney, and only to the extent necessary to comply with applicable Colorado law, at the time of recording of the deed restriction the owner of the affordable housing units will convey aone-tenth of one percent interest in the affordable housing units to APCHA, subject to such terms and conditions as the owner and the City may mutually agree upon. (ii) Lift One Lodge/City of Aspen Partnership. The Lift One Lodge shall financially contribute to a City of Aspen affordable housing project in an amount necessary to house the balance of the 75% required mitigation not housed on Lot 1 and Lot 3 as delineated in (f)(i) above. It is anticipated that this will be the Burlingame Ranch affordable housing project, but a different City affordable housing project may be substituted in whole or in part, by mutual agreement of the parties. The Lift One Lodge Project and the City of Aspen shall enter into a Housing Agreement whereby the Project agrees to contribute to the City the dollar amount calculated to be required to build the number of units needed to house the number of employees calculated herein. Based on a cooperative analysis performed by the City and the developer, the Burlingame Ranch subsidy shall be $130,000.00 per employee. The Housing Agreement shall be attached as an Exhibit to the Lift One Lodge Project individual Subdivision/PUD Agreement. The affordable housing units developed with this financial contribution shall be sold or rented, at the City's election, at a sale or rental rate determined by the City in accordance with applicable APCHA Guidelines, and shall not be owned or controlled in any manner by the Lift One Lodge Project. (g) Total Employees Housed/Lift One Lodge. Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 27 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan (i) Lots 1 and 3, On-Site Rental Units 21 Employees (ii) Partnership Units 19 Employees (iii) Total Employees Housed 40 Employees 16.2 Lot 5, Lodge at Aspen Mountain. The Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project will generate 168.5 employees. The Project has committed to provide affordable housing mitigation for 126.5 employees or 75 percent of the employees generated. The Project's employee generation and mitigation commitments are as follows: (a) Demolition of the Mine Dumps Apartments. The pre-existing, prior to .demolition, Mine Dumps Apartments consisted of 16 multi-family units, 23 bedrooms, and 7,722 square feet of net. livable area. Demolition of these units resulted in a replacement requirement of 8 units, 12 bedrooms and 3,861 square feet of net livable area. These units, bedrooms and net livable area must be provided on Lot 5 to satisfy the replacement requirement. The replacement requirement equates to housing for 15 employees. (b) Lodge/Fractional Ownership Bedrooms. The development of lodge and fractional ownership units in the L, Lodge, zone district generates 0.5 employees per bedroom. The Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project contains 174 lodge/fractional bedrooms. The lodge and fractional ownership components of the Project, therefore, generate 87 employees. (c) Main-Level Commercial Space. Commercial space on the main level of a building in the L, Lodge, zone district generates 4.1 employees per 1,000 square feet of net leasable area. The Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project contains approximately 10,800 net leasable square feet on the main level generating approximately 44.5 employees. (d) Basement-Level Commercial Space. Commercial space on the basement level of a building in the L, Lodge, zone district generates 3.075 employees per 1,000 square feet of net leasable area. The Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project contains approximately 7,200 net leasable square feet on the basement level generating approximately 22 employees. (e) Total Employees Generated/Mitigation Requirement: (i) Mine Dumps Replacement (ii) Lodge/Fractional Ownership Bedrooms (iii) Main-Level Commercial Space (iv) Basement-Level Commercial Space (v) Total Employees Generated (vi) Required Mitigation @ 75 Percent Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan 15 Employees 87 Employees 44.5 Employees 22 Employees 168.5 Employees 126.5 Employees Page 28 (f) Affordable Housing Mitigation: The Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project's affordable housing mitigation requirement shall be met as follows. (i) On-Site Rental Units. The Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project shall contain 15 dormitory affordable housing units on Lot 5. Each dorm unit will house two employees for a total of 30 employees housed. The configuration of the dormitory shall be set forth in the Final PUD Development Plan for the Project. These affordable housing units will satisfy the Project's replacement affordable housing requirement described in Section 16.2(a) above. The units will be deed restricted to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority ("APCHA") Category 3 income and occupancy guidelines for rental units in effect at the time of recording of a Condominium Map for the Project. The deed restriction will provide that whenever an affordable housing unit becomes available for rental, the unit owner shall have a period of thirty (30) days from the date of termination of the prior tenancy to rent the unit to a person employed within the Project, provided that such person is otherwise qualified under the current APCHA Guidelines. If no such qualified Project employee has signed a lease agreement on the unit within said thirty (30) day period, APCHA shall have the right to select a qualified tenant for the unit. No Final Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued for the Project until the deed restriction for the affordable housing units has been executed and recorded. Unless a different arrangement is worked out with the City Attorney, and only to the extent necessary to comply with applicable Colorado law, at the time of recording of the deed restriction the owner of the affordable housing units will convey aone-tenth of one percent interest in the affordable housing units to APCHA, subject to such terms and conditions as the owner and the City may mutually agree upon. (ii) On-Site Sale Units. The Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project shall provide 7 studio, 4one-bedroom, 2two-bedroom and 2three-bedroom affordable housing units on Lot 6, to be known as the Deane Street Condominiums. These units will house a total of 26.25 employees. The unit mix and minimum sizes shall be set forth in the Final PUD Development Plan for the Project. These affordable housing units will be deed restricted to the APCHA Category 3 income and occupancy guidelines for sale units in effect at the time of recording of a Condominium Map for the Deane Street Condominiums. No Final Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project until the deed restriction for these affordable housing units has been executed and recorded. (iii)Off--Site Sale Units. It is anticipated that 27 employees will be housed in Units I-Q of the Pacific Avenue Condominiums, which are to be constructed at the Aspen Airport Business Center pursuant to BOCC Resolution No. 135-2004 recorded October 29, 2004 as Reception No. 503623. The Lodge at Aspen Mountain shall retain the right to select the first purchaser of each of these affordable housing units, provided only that such purchaser is qualified by the Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 29 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan APCHA to be a purchaser under the applicable APCHA Guidelines. No Final Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project until the deed restriction for these affordable housing units has been executed and recorded. (iv)Lodge at Aspen Mountain/City of Aspen Partnership. The Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project shall financially contribute to a City of Aspen affordable housing project in an amount necessary to house the balance of the 75% required mitigation not housed pursuant to (i), (ii) and (iii) above. It is anticipated that this will be the Burlingame Ranch affordable housing project, but a different City affordable housing project may be substituted in whole or in part, by mutual agreement of the parties. The Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project and the City of Aspen shall enter into a Housing Agreement whereby the Project agrees to contribute to the City the dollar amount calculated to be required to build the number of units needed to house the number of employees calculated herein. Based on a cooperative analysis performed by the City and the developer, the Burlingame Ranch subsidy shall be $130,000.00 per employee. The Housing Agreement shall be attached as an Exhibit to the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project individual Subdivision/PUD Agreement. The affordable housing units developed with this financial contribution shall be sold or rented, at the City's election, at a sale or rental rate determined by the City in accordance with applicable APCHA Guidelines, and shall not be owned or controlled in any manner by the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project. (v) Mine Dumps Tenants. The tenants in the Mine Dumps Apartments at the time of demolition thereof shall be provided a right of first refusal to purchase an affordable housing unit in the Deane Street Condominiums. Such buyers shall meet the qualification requirements of the APCHA. (g) Total Employees Housed/Lodge at Aspen Mountain: (i) On-Site Rental Units 30 Employees (ii) On-Site Sale Units 26.25 Employees (iii)Off--Site Sale Units 27 Employees (iv)Partnership Units 43.25 Employees (v) Total Employees Housed 126.5 Employees Section 17: Parking Spaces and Parking Garage The Lift One Lodge Project and Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project parking garage shall be considered an approved commercial parking facility. Minimum parking spaces to serve each Project are identified in Section 12 above. Allocated spaces shall be identified on the individual Subdivision/PUD Agreements (or the Final PUD Development Plans attached thereto) required under Section 7 above. Allocated spaces shall not be sold or Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 30 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan leased separate from the portion of a Project to which they are allocated. Unallocated spaces may be leased by the owners thereof on a daily or longer-term basis, or may be sold to third parties. The parking spaces in the parking garage shall be used for parking vehicles and accessory storage (such as ski storage at the head of a parking space), and shall not be principally used for storage, trash containers, mechanical equipment, or other non-automobile related purposes. Section 18: Building Permit Application The building permit application for each of the Lift One Lodge Project, the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project, and the Lift lA Base Area Project, respectively, shall include the following: (a) A copy of this final City Council Ordinance, as recorded, and a letter from the primary contractor stating that the Ordinance has been read and understood. (b) The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. (c) A completed tap permit for service from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. (d) Evidence that a tree removal permit has been attained pursuant to the requirements of the City Parks Department. The tree removal permit shall be accompanied by a detailed landscape plan indicating which trees are to be removed and new plantings proposed on the site. (e) A drainage plan including an erosion control plan and snow storage runoff plan prepared by aColorado-licensed Civil Engineer which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 5-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. (f) A final construction site management plan and parking plan pursuant to the requirements set forth in Section 19 below. (g) An excavation/stabilization plan prepared by a licensed Engineer. (h) A fugitive dust control plan approved by the Environmental Health Department which addresses watering of disturbed areas including haul roads, perimeter silt fencing, as-needed cleaning of adjacent rights-of--way, speed limits within and accessing the site, and the ability to request additional measures to prevent a nuisance during construction. The Project developer shall wash tracked mud and debris from the street as necessary, and as requested by the City, during construction. Section 19: Construction Management Plan Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 31 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan At the time that each of the Lift One Lodge Project and the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project submits a proposed individual Subdivision/PUD Agreement to the City for review, and at the time the Lift lA Base Area Project submits a building permit application to the Building Department for review, the Project developer shall also prepare and submit a Construction Site Management Plan and Parking Plan (the "CMP") to the City for consideration. The CMP shall be reviewed by the City's Construction Management Officer and the City Engineer, and shall be consistent with the City's revised CMP Requirements Manual of June, 2007, as it may be amended from time to time. The final CMP shall be attached as an Exhibit to the Project's Final PUD Development Plan, or in the case of the Lift lA Base Area Project, to its Building Permit. Any further regulations regarding construction management that may be adopted by the City of Aspen prior to application for a building permit for a Project shall be applicable. A temporary encroachment license is required for use of City right of way for construction purposes. A Project developer shall not be allowed to close South Aspen Street during construction except for relocation and reconstruction of the street and the construction of subgrade improvements beneath the street. Street closure of South Aspen Street concurrent with significant public events like World Cup shall be avoided. Throughout the construction process, access will be maintained to Lift 1 A and Shadow Mountain Condos. A Project developer shall provide phone contact information for the on-site project management to neighboring properties, and shall post such information on a sign at the construction site in full public view so that concerns about the development may be made directly to construction management personnel. Section 20: Soil Stabilization The Lodge at Aspen Mountain project has installed inclinometers and conducted bi-monthly monitoring. This information shall continue to be collected and made available to the City Engineer. If any slope movement is identified by the bi-monthly monitoring, the project will not be allowed to exacerbate the historic rate of slope movement during or after construction. If the historic rate of movement is exacerbated during the construction process, the City shall stop work on the project and require the Applicant to make such improvements that are necessary to reduce the slope movement back to historic rates. If the inclinometers determine that there is a historic rate of slope movement, the design shall exhibit a global stability meeting the AASHTO requirements, which implies a minimum factor of safety of 1.5. In preparing soil stability reports for the property, a soil bearing grid with no more than 100 feet between test locations shall be used under the building's footprint. In areas outside of the building's footprint, test locations shall not exceed 500 feet apart. The depth of soil borings must exceed the elevation of the lowest footer by twenty (20) feet. Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 32 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan Section 21: Hazardous Soils: This site has not been previously identified as containing hazardous soils. However, detailed soils reports shall be submitted with the Building Permit application and if any hazardous materials are reported the applicant shall provide the City with a mine waste testing and handling plan provided by a registered engineer or other entity with experience in soils and hazardous waste disposal. The plan must comply with the following conditions of approval regarding development and handling of any hazardous or toxic soils encountered on the property unless adequate information is provided to the Environmental Health Department indicating that certain requirements should be waived: a. Any disturbed soil or material containing more than 1000 ppm lead that is to be stored above ground shall be securely contained on and covered with anon- permeable tarp or other protective barrier approved by the Environmental Health Department so as to prevent leaching of contaminated material onto or into the surface soil. Disturbed soil or material may be stored onsite if the Environmental Health Department determines that there exists a satisfactory method of disposal at the excavation site. Disturbed soil and solid waste may be disposed of outside of the site upon acceptance of the material at a duly licensed and authorized receiving facility. b. Non-removal of contaminated material. No contaminated soil or solid waste shall be removed, placed, stored, transported or disposed of outside the boundaries of the site without having first obtained any and all necessary disposal permits. c. Dust suppression. All activity or development shall be accompanied by dust suppression measures such as the application of water or other soil surfactant to minimize the creation and release of dust and other particulates into the air and to prevent such dust and particulates from traveling off the site. d. Any contaminated soil or mine waste rock that is disturbed or exposed shall be contained on the property such that runoff does not exit the property or contaminate clean soils existing on or off the property. e. Any contaminated soil or mine waste rock to be left on-site shall be placed under structures, pavement or covered by a minimum of 1 foot of clean soil that contains less than 1,000 ppm lead. Section 22: Approval for Temporary Use of Willou~hby Park and Lift One Park The City Council hereby approves the temporary use of Willoughby Park and Lift One Park for construction-related purposes in connection with both the Lift One Lodge Project and the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project, respectively, provided that the details and conditions of any such uses shall be described in the CMP for each Project pursuant to Section 19 above and shall be coordinated with the City Parks Department. Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 33 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan Section 23: Pre-Submittal Meeting A Project developer shall arrange with the Community Development case planner to conduct apre-submission meeting with the City Community Development Staff prior to submittal of a building permit application. This meeting shall include the developer, the general contractor, the architect of the construction drawings, the project planner, the Community Development Engineer, a representative of the City Building Department, the City Construction Management Officer, and the Community Development Department's case planner. Section 24: Juan Street Pedestrian and Emer~ency Vehicle Easement The Juan Street Pedestrian and Emergency Vehicle Easement, as depicted on the Proposed Subdivision Map attached hereto as Exhibit 4, shall be established as a perpetual easement on the Master Subdivision/Street Vacation Plat pursuant to Section 4 above. The bridge over Juan Street connecting components of the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project shall be at least sixteen and a half feet above Juan .Street to allow for the passage of emergency vehicles under the structure. Section 25: Impact and Other Project Fees The Lift One Lodge Project, the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project, and the Lift lA Base Area Project respectively, shall be responsible for payment of impact, permit, timeshare mitigation and other project fees to be defined in the Master Development Agreement. Section 26: Funding of Replacement of Lift lA 26.1 Lode at Aspen Mountain Proiect. Pursuant to an agreement with the Aspen Skiing Company, in the event the developer proceeds with the construction of the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project, the developer shall provide Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000) to the Aspen Skiing Company towards the cost of replacing Lift 1 A with a new high-speed lift. Such commitment is hereby incorporated into this Ordinance as a condition to City Council approval. If the new lift is not yet operational when the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project is ready for occupancy, in order to be granted a right of occupancy by the City the developer shall provide to the City and to the Aspen Skiing Company, as co-beneficiaries, a Letter of Credit or Performance Bond in the amount of $4,000,000 (less any portion thereof already advanced by the developer to the Aspen Skiing Company), in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney, as collateral security for developer's performance of this condition. Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 34 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan 26.2 Lift One Lode Project. In the event the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project does not proceed, the Lift One Lodge Project and the Aspen Skiing Company have agreed to share the cost of replacing Lift lA with a new high speed lift. If the new lift is not operational when the Lift One Lodge Project is ready for occupancy, in order to be granted a right of occupancy by the City the developer of the Lift One Lodge Project and the Aspen Skiing Company shall together provide to the City a Letter of Credit or Performance Bond in the amount required to complete the installation of the new lift, as calculated by the Aspen Skiing Company and reviewed and approved by the City, in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney, as collateral security for the completion of the new lift. Section 27: Environmental Initiatives The Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project and the Lift One Lodge Project have each committed to the following energy goals for their respective Projects. Such goals are hereby included as conditions of approval. (a) Fifty percent (50%) less fossil fuel consumption in the Project's buildings compared to the Ashrae 90.1 baseline; (b) LEED Silver or Gold Certification when the Project becomes operational; and, (c) Post-occupancy "true-up" through off-sets, operating improvements, or capital improvements. The details of the energy conservation program shall be set forth in the individual Subdivision/PUD Agreement for each Project. Section 28: Condominiumization Condominiumization of (a) the Lift One Lodge Project; (b) the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project, and (c) the Deane Street Condominium Project, respectively, are hereby approved by the City of Aspen. Upon substantial completion of construction of each Project, the developer shall submit a Condominium Map of the Project to the Community Development Director for review and approval. During the period of vested rights described in Section 3(c) above, the Condominium Maps shall be reviewed under the applicable provisions of the City's Land Use Regulations in effect on the date of final adoption of this Ordinance. Following expiration of said vesting period, the Condominium Maps shall be reviewed under the then-current condominiumization requirements of the Land Use Regulations. The condominiumization of each Project shall be accomplished prior to the closing of the sale of any unit or fractional interest in the Project. Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 35 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan With regard to the Deane Street Condominiums, the Condominium Declaration and the HOA Articles and Bylaws shall be reviewed and approved by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority before the affordable housing deed restriction is recorded on the property. The Condominium Declaration and HOA documents shall be consistent with the provisions of the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act. Section 29: Vacation of Townhome Annrovals; Further Vested Rights Extension. The developer of the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project has represented to the City that the approvals previously granted by Ordinance No. 32 (Series of 2003) for the development of 14 free market townhomes and 17 affordable housing units on the Project site, together with all vested rights extensions associated therewith (the "townhome approvals"), shall be deemed fully and forever vacated, terminated and of no further force or effect upon the execution and recording of the Master Subdivision/Street Vacation Plat described in Section 4 above. The Project developer and the City shall cooperate in the execution and recording of such instruments as may be necessary or appropriate to accomplish the vacation and/or termination of said townhome approvals. The foregoing commitments by developer are incorporated herein as a condition to the City Council's approval of this Ordinance. The vested rights period associated with the townhome approvals presently expires on July 28, 2009. In light of the complexity of the several developments approved by this Ordinance and the two (2) year time period established in the Ordinance for the recording of the Master Subdivision/Street Vacation Plat, said vested rights period is hereby further extended by the City Council for a period of two (2) additional years, to expire on July 28, 2011. Section 30: Master Plan Amendments The entire Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan shall remain active as a COWOP land use review subject to the provisions of Land Use Code Section 26.500, Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public, and the procedures therein and as established pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 13 (Series of 2008) and Resolution No. 80 (Series of 2008), for the entire vested rights period set forth in Section 3(c) above or as otherwise extended by the Aspen City Council. The purpose of the COWOP land use review remaining open is to allow for the consideration and enactment of potential amendments to the Master Plan, some of which could be substantive and require City Council approval. Amendments may be processed at any time and from time to time by any one or more of the developers of the Lift One Lodge Project, the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project, and the Lift lA Base Area Project. Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 36 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan Amendments which are not materially inconsistent with a representation or condition of approval and which are substantially consistent with the goals of the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan and the use, character, intensity, traffic generation, employee generation, circulation patterns, and public amenities of the Master Plan development as approved in this Ordinance by the City Council, may be approved by the Community Development Director. By way of example and not of limitation, the types of amendments to the Master Plan approval which may be approved by the Community Development Director may include insubstantial changes to the site plan, architectural materials, fenestration, character, projections, floor area, gross floor area, net leasable commercial area, unit counts and configuration, interior partitioning and circulation, parking ratios and layout, insubstantial height modifications, location and vertical projections for mechanical equipment or elevator overruns, the location and design of pedestrian amenity space, and the conversion of free market residential units to fractional ownership units and the conversion of fractional ownership units to lodge units. The Community Development Director may choose to refer all or part of an amendment request to the City Council. The Director's decision shall be considered the final administrative action on the matter. An amendment not considered insubstantial by the Community Development Director shall be reviewed as a substantive amendment. An applicant may appeal a decision by the Community Development Director to the City Council, which appeal shall be processed as a substantive amendment, as outlined below. Substantive amendments shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council. Substantive amendments shall be those which represent a fundamental change to the use, character, intensity, traffic generation, employee generation, circulation patterns, or public amenities of the Master Plan development. Amendments to the plan as a result of denial by the Colorado State Tramway Board of the requested variation to lift setback requirements for the surface lift shall be reviewed as a substantive amendment. The review shall be at a public hearing and shall require adoption of an Ordinance. The City Council shall use the same Land Use Code criteria as used for the initial City Council approval of this within Ordinance, unless certain criteria have no bearing on the specific amendment request. At the discretion of the City Council, a COWOP Task Force Team may be convened or reconvened to consider substantive amendments and to provide advice and guidance to City Council pursuant to Section 26.SOO.OSO.D of the Land Use Code. Amendments to the Master Plan after the expiration of the vested rights period and any extensions thereof that may be enacted shall be reviewed in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in the City of Aspen Land Use Code then in effect that govern amendments to a Planned Unit Development. Section 31: Material Representations Preserved All material representations and commitments made by the Lift One Project, the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Project, and/or the Lift lA Base Area Project, respectively, in connection with the Master Plan development approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Lift One Neighborhood Task Force or the Aspen City Council, are hereby incorporated in such development approvals and Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 37 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 32: Existing Litigation This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of any ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 33: Separability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 34: Public Hearing A public hearing on this Ordinance was held on 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 day of , 2008. [signatures on following page] Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 38 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2008. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: John P. Worcester, City Attorney Attachments: 1 -Adjusted Master Plan Boundary 2 -Proposed Zoning Map 3 -Public Rights-of--Way Vacations & Dedications 4 -Proposed Subdivision Map 5 -Legal Descriptions Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 39 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan Exhibit 1-Adjusted Master Plan Boundary -._.~.~ l Monarch Street / ~ _ J I e - Yr ~ y~i ~1'~ ~ a'r-j { ~ ~ a ~ ~ - M er Ian H ~ ~ . ~ ~L .. _ Boundary I v ~ I I I I: I ~ eaac o I ~ ~ I ~~ .. _ .. _ I creenhns ~ L_ _ _ . _ .I ; ~, _ J L _ 1 J ~J South Aspen Street ~~ I ~~ ~ ~~ ~ e q ~ ~ Aspen Cny~ l ~~ ~~.-~r~''~ ~ Limits . a L- ~LJ •1 i ~~rm=hS=~~ / I Litt One Nei4hhorhoad Master Plan Exhibit 2 -Proposed Zoning Map PUB (H) (PUD) a..a,... ~ •~ i i ~ Puhlk, NkO~ic Orrlry, - / / ~ PlannaC UnN e DawloDmant OvMay ~ +'~.~ ~.~. 1 ( a~ PUB (PUD) ~ ~ ~~tt~n 1 Public, PknneE Und a ~~~~~~ ~~ r DGelopmeM OMIy . a~ ~ ~.~J e I NC (H) (PUD) L (PUD) I ~ ~' Naishbmhootl Cpnmmeial, LoCea, Pknmtl Unit I HktMc Owly, Pknnad e ~ Dsaiopmat Owrkr . Unit DaNapmam Orarlry f e '~'"° AH(PUD) e r~._.~~J MfaMable Housing ~ , 1 Pimnad UnN ~ ' 7 DaraNpmsM Ouerlry a ~ • 1 / , I e r J . ~~ . r / I r Litt One NeiQhhorhood Maater Plan POSS O . ~. o~was~4 ~a ~ 2 Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 40 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan Exhibit 3 -Public Right-of-Way vacations and Dedications Map ~~ I a s G li' bert Streetq ~ 1` ,South Asp~n~--- ~ Street r.J ~__ I a .~- r-,~ Juan Street ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ I , Doan street ~ `- f :=.r/ ~..~ , / Hill5treet ,~, •/ / `"" ~immit Stroet ` ' t w.~^ . / I r~ i i ~ i i i ~ ~ ; i ~ ~~ i s ~ ~ .:~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ i ~ i i ii 4_~J~.r.~~ .L..JV~.r..~ J i ..~.. r------~ / 1 Remaining AI ~ ~ - Block 9, Eames ~ ~~ I .Addition ~ J l `-"'~I f ,.-.~ / ~ r LiR One INighborhood M»ter Plan ...,o... Oft ~...~~ ~ i ~~ r~.,°.Nnr;r~ F~ . "" o~ ^""~s ~,~w 3 Exhibit 4 -Proposed Subdivision Map I ,,,+„ ~ .( .• _ ~.. ~° ....~ t ~ ~_ _ _~ Publlc Ski end J 1 Pedestrian ~ Lot 3 I _ ~ ' J / • 1 Easement ~ ~..1 Easement=~: =~ t I __.~ ~__ o....,- j I ~_ • s ~ Lot 5 ~ ~~ I ^ ^ J l ~-4~ • r...,.... ~..- r s / ~ ~~ ~.~ Lot6 • .~.~ r lilt One Ne~l~bOrheod Masbr wn ..,d.. ~OSf ~kcant~.ioxr -F_aNmim~; ~ . . . ~ ,,,~ Wo o~.~wus 4 Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 41 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan Exhibit S -Legal Descriptions A. Property of Aspen Land Fund II, LLC South Aspen Street Subdivision/Planned Unit Development Lots 1, 2, and 3, as described on the plat thereof recorded Apri127, 2007 with the Pitkin County Clerk and recorder as reception number 537080 in Book 83, Page 50. B. Property of Aspen Skiing Company 1. Land Under Contract with Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge -Aspen, LLC which is included in the Lift One Lodge Application: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, Block 10, and Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, Block 12, EAMES ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, TOGETHER WITH an easement and right of way for the construction, erection, operation and maintenance of a cable ski chair lift, as created, defined and established by Easement Agreement between the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Pitkin and Friedl Pfeifer recorded October 24, 1962, in Book 199 at Page 489, and, TOGETHER WITH an easement and right of way for skiing purposes, as created, defined and established by Easement Agreement by and between the City of Aspen and Aspen Skiing Corporation recorded October 17, 1969, in Book 244 at Page 31, and TOGETHER WITH that portion of the alleyway for Block 10 vacated in Book 259 at Page 83. 2. Land Area generally adjacent to and south of the Lift One Lodge Site: That property owned by the Aspen Skiing Company extending generally to the south from the southwesterly boundary of the Mountain Queen Condominiums, the southerly boundary of Block 12, Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, the south end of the South Aspen Street Right-of--way and the southerly boundary of the Shadow Mountain Condominiums to the southerly boundary of the City of Aspen. C. Property of Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge -Aspen, LLC Lots 12, 13 and 14, Block 8, together with that portion of the alley in Block 8 abutting said lots, Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Eames Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen (Skiers Chalet Steakhouse); Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, Block 9, together with Lots 4 and 11, Block 9, less the west 22 feet thereof, Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, and that portion of the alley in said Block 9 vacated by the Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 42 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan City of Aspen in Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2006, recorded April 11, 2006 under Reception No. 522845 (Skiers Chalet Lodge); and Lots 1, 2, 13 and 14, Block 9, Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, together with that portion of the vacated alley between Lots 1 and 14 and the west 20 feet of the vacated alley between Lots 2 and 13, Block 9, Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen (Holland House). D. Property owned or maintained by the City of Aspen. Willoughby Park: Lots 1-14, Block 7 and Lots 1-3, Block 8 Eames Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen, and that portion of Juan Street east of South Aspen Street between Blocks 7 and 8, Eames Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen and that portion of the alley in Block 8 adjacent to Lots 1, 2, and 3 Block 8, Eames Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen. Lift One Park: Lots 3 and 12 Block 9 and the western 22 feet of Lots 4 and 11, Block 9 Eames Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen. Public rights-of--way: • South Aspen Street south of Durant Avenue. • All unvacated portions of Dean Street west of Monarch Street. • Juan Street between South Aspen Street and Garmisch Street. • The alleyway between Lots 1, 2 and 3 and Lots 12, 13, and 14, Block 8, Eames Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen (unopened). • Garmisch Street from Juan Street to Durant Avenue. • Gilbert Street west of Monarch Street. • Hill Street west of Monarch Street (unopened). • Summit Street west of Monarch Street (unopened). • A one-block section of alleyway between Hill Street and Summit Street east of South Aspen Street (unopened). • A one-block section of alleyway south of Summit Street east of South Aspen Street (unopened). Ordinance No 34, Series 2008 Page 43 Lift One Neighborhood M aster Plan To: Aspen City Council John Sarpa ~cr~-af- l~cll~c h~ ~- ~' !JYI~ /lil You are aware that I respect other people's opinions, but I was considerab~ distresse~at someone's suggestion which would result in an onslaught of new residents descending on the lodging neighborhood which is already full to the brim. We already can't park on the street in the "lodging" neighborhood and we have to contend with drunken workers coming home at 1:00 AM every night during the summer. Oh yes, we do. Regardless of anyone's justification for filling the lodging core to the brim with residents, I am totally opposed to 100% mitigation for employee housing in MY neighborhood! Without being rude, I rather resent other people filling up this neighborhood where I live with more people than it can hold. Already there's no place to park on the street---how much fun is that when one is carrying groceries? There's not a single evening during the summer when we aren't subjected to intoxicated loud workers getting off work at 1:00 AM making disturbing noises in the street. I've never once complained, but now I'm complaining! I don't want more of this nightly disturbance when the bars close---and we shouldn't be subjected to nightly disturbances-- --after all, we live in the mountains! Andrew Kole can attest to the fact that I take a trash bag and put on gloves and go to the street to pick up broken glass, beer cans, trash, and grocery carts left on Durant Street. I don't call the City and complain---I clean it up myself, but I shouldn't have to because the trash didn't use to be there. Council members, South Aspen Street is the ONLY high end property remaining in Aspen. If you choose to fill it with employee housing---- you prevent the flow of high ..end sales tax which provides us with all the social services we hold so dear. It's just REASONABLE NOT to fill this neighborhood overflowing with such density that we have too many people for comfort, no place to park, additional noise disturbances at night added to the loudest street in town---which would further reduce our quality of life. I've heard Mayor Ireland s,~y on numerous occasions--"not everyone who wants to live in Aspen can do so". I echo this opinion. We MUST NOT ruin Aspen by creating a density that compares with Detroit and ruins our quality of life. Please be reasonable and do NOT ruin our little neighborhood! Thank you for respecting the wishes of the people who live in this neighborhood who are directly involved because it is they who will have to endure the horrific traffic problems if you bring hundreds of additional residents into such a small neighborhood. Thank you for your respect of our opinions because I speak on behalf of many people at South Point. Regards, Susan O'Neal Aspen T`el. (480) 664-3200