Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20090209CITY COUNCIL AGENDA February 9, 2009 5:00 P.M. I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Scheduled Public Appearances IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes) V. Special Orders of the Day a) Mayor's and Councilmember Comments b) Agenda Additions or Deletions c) City Manager's Comments d) Board Reports VI. Consent Calendar (These matters maybe adopted together by a single motion) a) Minutes -January 14, 26, 2009 b) Resolution # 10, 2009 - 210 West Francis Ordinance 48 Negotiation Extension c) Resolution # 11, 2009 - 411 Pearl Court Ordinance 48 Negotiation Extension VII. First Reading of Ordinances a) Ordinance #3, 2009 -Adopting Instant Runoff Voting Procedures P.H. 2/23 VIII. Public Hearings a) Ordinance #1, 2009 -Historic Designation -Aspen Athletic Club b) Resolution #9, 2009 -Extension of Vested Rights -South Aspen Street PUD c) Resolution #3, 2009 -Aspen Valley Hospital Conceptual PUD IX. Action Items a) 621 West Francis Ordinance 48 Negotiation X. Information Items XI. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting February 23. 2009 COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. v« MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Dir666ector I ' I II I'~~ DATE: February 9, 2009 VVV~~V`~~~ RE: Resolution #fD, Series of 2009, 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-landmazked buildings constructed at least 30 yeazs ago, unless it was determined that no potential historic resource was negatively affected. The purpose of the Ordinance was to protect Aspen's significant azchitectural heritage; not only Victorians, but more modem 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, azchitectural, azchaeological, 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 forwazd 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 landmazk 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 landmazk 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 landmazk designation. Historic Preservation staff and the City Attorney's office aze working with the applicant to prepaze 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 requested an additional delay until after the holidays and now asks to delay meeting with Council until a date to be determined, before the end of April. 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 Apri129, 2009. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Resolution #~Q Series of 2009, 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 Resolutiou No. ~ b ,Series of 2009 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 for 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 was to expire 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; and WHEREAS, at the request of the property owner, Council approved an additional extension of the negotiation period for 210 W. Francis to February 15, 2009 through Resolution #111, Series of 2008; and WHEREAS, staff and the property owner are in agreement that more time is needed, and an extension of the negotiation to April 29, 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 Apri129, 2009. APPROVED by the City Council at its regular meeting on February 9, 2009. Approved as to form: John Worcester, City Attorney Attest: Mayor: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor v-~. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~~ DATE: February 9, 2009 RE: Resolution #1, Series of 2009, Extending the 411 Peazl Court, "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-landmazked 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 azchitectural 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, azchitectural, azchaeological, 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. 411 Pearl Court is identified on the List of Potential Historic Resources as part of Ordinance #48. Owners of property listed on Ordinance #48 can still move forwazd 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 landmazk designate the property, the building permits will be processed as requested. The owner of 411 Peazl Court, Jim Curtis, has submitted an application for a remodel. Staff fmds the remodel will negatively affect the architectural integrity of the structure. We were not able to accommodate the 90 day review with meetings that work for Mr. Curtis' schedule, therefore he is in favor of Council extending the discussion period. On March 25a', HPC will review the proposal and make a recommendation to Council as to the value of negotiating for the preservation of this structure. Council discussion is to take place on April 13~'. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council approve an extension of the time period to discuss voluntary historic designation with the owner of 411 Peazl Court to April 13, 2009. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Resolution #~~, Series of 2009, approving approve an extension of the time period to discuss voluntary historic designation with the owner of 411 Peazl Court 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 411 PEARL COURT Resolution No. ~, Series of 2009 WHEREAS, 411 Peazl Court, Lots 7 and 8 and a strip of land being one half of the alley width adjacent to the southerly border of Lots 7 and 8, situated in Block 101 of Hallam's Addition to the 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 for City Council to negotiate with the property owner to secure voluntary historic designation; and WHEREAS, the owner of 411 Pearl Court, Jim Curtis, is in the process of said negotiation. The negotiation period was triggered by Mr. Curtis's application for a permit to remodel the structure at 411 Peazl Court. 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, due to schedule conflicts, the HPC and Council meetings could not be conducted before the end of the 90 day negotiation period, which expires on February 15, 2009; and WHEREAS, staff and the property owner are in agreement that an extension is appropriate, and request an extension to April 13, 2009. 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 411 Peazl Court, is hereby extended to April 13, 2009. APPROVED by the City Council at its regulaz meeting on February 9, 2009 Approved as to form: John Worcester, City Attorney Attest: Mayor: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM Kathryn Koch, City Clerk James R. True, Assistant City Attorney DATE: January 27, 2009 vita.. RE: Ordinance #3, 2009 -Adoption of Instant Runoff Voting Procedures REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests approve Ordinance #3 ,Series 2009, on first reading which adopts voting procedures for instant runoff to be used in May 2009 election. BACKGROUND: The Charter amendment approved by voted in November 2007: AMENDMENT TO CITY OF ASPEN HOME RULE CHARTER TO ALLOW INSTANT RUN-0FF VOTING PROCEDURES AND COUNCIL MEMBERS TO BE ELECTED BY MAJORITY VOTE Shall Ordinance No. 38, Series of 2007, be approved to amend Section 2.7 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter to require City Council fo adopt and implement instant run-off voting procedures for the election of Mayor and members of Council; and to amend Section 3.2 to require members of Council to be elected by majority vote? Yes 615 No 186 Council approved a task force in September 2008 composed of Kathryn Koch City Clerk John Worcester City Attorney Jack Johnson City Councilmember Su Lum Citizen Blanca O'Leary Citizen Sy Coleman Citizen Peter Nicklin Citizen Linda McAusland Citizen Pam Schilling Town Clerk -Basalt Janice Vos-Caudill Pitkin County Clerk Barry Crook Independent Voter Mayor Ireland, Jim True, and Pamela Cunningham have been added since them. This committee has worked assiduously to have procedures before Council to be enacted for the May 2009 election. Iustaut Ruuoff Votiug (IRV) is a voting system used in elections in which voters can rank candidates in order of preference. In an IRV election, if no candidate receives a majority of first choices, the candidate with the fewest number of votes is eliminated and ballots cast for that candidate are redistributed to the surviving candidates according to the voters' indicated preference. This process is repeated until one candidate obtains a majority. A ballot question in November 2007 changed Aspen's voting system from a regular election and runoff and directed Council to adopt procedures for Instant runoff voting before the May 2009 election. The Charter change also requires a candidate for Council to receive 50% plus of the vote in order to be elected. Staff and a committee of citizens have worked on these procedures over the past several months. Council approved that committee in September 2008. Runoff elections approved by the voters in 2000 and held in 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007. We have structured Aspen's election procedures to be similar to the elections plus runoff as used in the past. Mayor Race The ballot for the Mayor's race will look like this: MAYOR Two Year Te rm, Vote for OnelColumn ,fat Ind 3rd 4th Choice choice choice choice Fill in one oval per choice Your 2"d or 3rd choice will be considered if your 1°t choice Loses Mark only one circle per column or per row Colonel Mustard O D O O Scarlett O'Hara O O O O Nicholas Nickleby O O O O Eleanor Rigby O O O O Before, if there were 4 candidates for Mayor in a May election and no candidate received a majority, in June there would have been 2 candidates. In IRV, if there are 4 candidates for Mayor and no candidate receives a majority, the two candidates with the lowest vote totals are eliminated and the votes are recounted reassigning the votes of the candidates who were eliminated to their highest remaining candidate, if there is one. Colonel Mustard 22 Scarlett O'Hara 42* Nicholas Nickleb 25 Eleanor Rigby 27* Rouud 1 119 voters - 3 spoiled ballots = 116 votes for Mayor X .50 = 58 plus 1 = 59 votes needed to win and there is no candidate who meets the threshold in this round. Round 2 The top two vote getters enter Round 2. Each ballot is recounted as follows: Everyone who voted for the Colonel and Nickleby will have their second choice votes added to the candidate remaining in the race. Scarlett O'Hara 63 Eleanor Ri by 47 Scarlett O'Hara is elected. Council Race The ballot for City Council will look like this: No community has exactly the same parameters for Council seat as Aspen. While a single seat contest is straightforward, the Council race in Aspen is for two seats and each candidate must garner 50% plus 1 vote to be elected. CITY COUNCIt_ (four year term) Two City Council Members will be elected for 4-year terms.. Renk your chdces i n cdumns 1 through 8. Your fir st end second choices will be coupl ed in the first round d tallies. Do NOT duplicate your chdces. Vde for Vde for Vde for Vde for Vde for Vde for _ ~6~ ` ~ r~~~rii'v'. ~v~i i?:5~~ ONE ..r~ ONE tl1 ONE tl~ ONE wtn ONE 1h ONE ~h _ ~ J 4 S V 7 8 Mark on/ one circle er colu 7~~~ . ` Jack B. Nimble ~`1° ,!'~ n n n n n n sw: Greta Greenwood f1 ` n n n n n n ~ v~€;s_ - David Crockett ~'~i~~ n n n n n n k~ls, ~i5 Travis Thompson ~=~~:3'i;=~ n n n n n n Che Guevara ~I l~'~5~;~.~ n n n n n n i ~~v5R5,wvm .. r::~~: John Q. Adams ~'~~'si~ ~ n n fi n n n "` iii " ' ' ' ~ Wilbur Mills { : . f!%~ih 1, a?a v ~ ~ n n n n n n y'x 4y'y~-~.~.. i Peter Romanov v t'1 `rv~~~l ~ho~ by f ' vi' n n n n n n ~~~ p A two-seat race where each candidate has to receive 50% plus 1 vote to be elected is much more challenging. The committee went through several different ways to count the Council runoff, choosing to emulate the previous elections and have batch elimination. If there were 8 candidates running for two seats, all first and second choices on a ballot would be counted (as in previous elections, electors were able to vote for two Council candidates). SCENARIO A Round 1 In this example 115 ballots were cast with the following results after counting the 1st and 2md choices on each ballot. Jack B. Nimble 42* Greta Greenwood 50* David Crockett 36* Travis Thom son 17 Che Guevara 26* John Q. Adams 21 Wilbur Mills 13 Peter Romanov 25 With 115 ballots cast, i.e. 115 voters participated in this Round 1, the threshold is 115 X 50% = 57.5 plus 1 = 58. No candidates in round 1 received the required 50% plus 1 so the 4 candidates with the highest votes continued to round 2. All the votes for the 4 candidates being eliminated are now allocated to the remaining candidates with the highest votes according to their second choices. Round 2 Two Winners Jack B. Nimble 57* Greta Greenwood 67* David Crockett 55 Che Guevara 46 In this case, 113 ballots were counted. Thus, the threshold is 113 X 50% plus 1 = 57. Two candidates met the threshold in round 2 and are elected. The threshold is lower because two voters did not cast any votes for candidates still in the race. Those ballots are deemed blank. Scenario A-2 Round 2 One Winner In the following example, the threshold is sti1157 and the two highest votes are counted; however, in this case, one candidate, Greta Greenwood reaches the threshold and is elected. Jack B. Nimble 55 ____ Greta Greenwood 67* David Crockett 53 Che Guevara 48 Since one candidate is elected, the next two highest vote getters move into Round 3. Round 3 In this Round 3, all ballots are recounted, giving the highest vote cast to the candidate remaining in the election. This yields the following result: Jack B. Nimble 57 David Crocket 53 At this point, the candidate with the most votes will have a majority of the votes cast and will be elected. Scenario A-3 In this scenario no candidate meets threshold in Round 2, above, the lowest vote getter is eliminated. The two highest rankings for the candidates remaining aze counted. This yields the following results: Jack B. Nimble 55 Greta Greenwood 67 David Crockett 53 In this example Greta Greenwood is elected and Jack B. Nimble and David Crockett are recounted as Round 3, above. SCENARIO B Round 1 In this example, as in Scenario A, 115 ballots were cast with the following results after the count of the 151 and 2"d choices on each ballot: Jack B. Nimble 42 Greta Greenwood 60* David Crockett 36 Travis Thom son 15 Che Guevara 24 John Q. Adams 21 Wilbur Mills 10 Peter Romanov 22 With 115 ballots cast, i.e. 115 voters participated in this Round 1, the threshold is 115 X 50%= 57.5 plus 1 = 58. This threshold is needed to be elected. In this case Greta Greenwood is elected. The next two highest vote getters enter Round 2. Round 2 All ballots are recounted giving the highest ranking to the candidate who is still in the race. Jack B. Nimble 57 David Crockett 53 In this example, 110 ballots are cast for one of these two candidates. Thus, the threshold is 56. Jack B. Nimble wins. In all cases, the threshold will be met unless there is a tie. Ties are broken pursuant to set procedures. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance #3 on first reading. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ORDINANCE NO. 3 Series of 2009 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING TITLE 2 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ADOPTION OF A NEW CHAPTER 2.26, INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING PROCEDURES. WHEREAS, Article XX, Section 6(d) of the Colorado State Constitution grants to Home Rule municipalities the power to legislate in "all matters pertaining to municipal elections;" and WHEREAS, on September 4, 2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 38, Series of 2007, to amend Sections 2.7 and 3.2 of the Aspen City Home Rule Charter to require the City Council to adopt and implement instant run-off voting procedures for the election of Mayor and members of Council, and to require members of Council to be elected by majority vote; and WHEREAS, on November 6, 2007, the electorate of the City of Aspen did approve Ordinance No. 38, Series of 2007; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk has met with a number of citizens of the City of Aspen for the purpose of formulating instant run-off voting procedures and said committee of citizens has recommended the adoption of this ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Title 2 of the Aspen Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new Chapter 2.26, Instant Runoff Voting Procedures, which Chapter shall read as follows: Chapter 2.26 INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING PROCEDURES Sec. 2.26.010 Applicability. This Chapter shall apply to all elections conducted using instant runoff voting to elect the Mayor and Councilmembers. All other provisions of the Colorado Municipal Election Code, Sections 31-10-101, et seq., C.R.S., and Section 1-7-1003, C.R.S., shall apply to the extent they are not inconsistent with this Chapter. Sec. 2.26.020 Definitions. (a) Instant runoff voting -means ranked voting for single and multiple winner contests. Instant runoff voting simulates a series of runoff elections in a single election. In each round of "instant runoff," the last place candidates with no chance of winning aze eliminated. Voters for those candidates have their ballots count towards their next choice in the following round. (b) City Clerk -means the City Clerk of the City of Aspen or his or her designee. Sec. 2.26.030 Adoption of a Procedure Manual.. A "City of Aspen -Instant Runoff Voting Procedures Manual," appended as Exhibit A to this ordinance, is hereby adopted to implement procedures for instant runoff and choice voting elections consistent with the requirements of this Chapter. The Procedural Manual shall incorporate, to the extent not incompatible with this Chapter, the rules set forth in the latest version of the "Election Rules of the Colorado Secretary of State." Three (3) copies of the Procedure Manual, all certified to be true copies by the Mayor, and three (3) copies of the "Election Rules of the Colorado Secretary of State" shall be on file with the City Clerk and shall be open for public inspection in his or her office at City Hall, any weekday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Sec. 2.26.040 Amendments to the Procedure Manual. The Procedures Manual may be amended from time to time by the City Clerk upon the passage of a resolution by the City Council evidencing its approval and the conduct of a public hearing. Sec. 2.26.050 Voting Tabulation Center. The City Clerk shall designate one location within the City of Aspen to serve as the Voting Tabulation Center prior to each election. The center shall be reasonably accessible to the public for the purpose of observing the vote tabulation. At a minimum, the City Clerk shall arrange the counting of ballots so that the candidates and their representatives may observe the ballots as they are counted. The City Clerk shall ensure that public observation does not interfere with the counting of the ballots. Tabulation of votes shall be conducted as described in this Chapter and the Procedure Manual referenced in Section 2.26.030. Sec. 2.26.060 Tabulation of Votes. The City Clerk shall conduct the tabulation of votes as required by this Chapter as soon as possible a$er the close of the polls. The City Clerk may adjourn the tabulation of votes at any time he or she believes in his or her sole discretion a need to recess the tabulation of votes, including a recess over night. No single recess period called by the City Clerk shall extend beyond 12 continuous hours. At any time the tabulation of votes is discontinued for a recess period, all ballots shall be safely secured in a combination safe. The Procedures Manual referenced at Section 2.26.030 shall include provisions to ensure the safekeeping of ballots during all recess periods. Sec. 2.26.070 Reporting Results. A. The City Clerk shall issue the following reports: (i) A summary report listing the total number of votes for each candidate in each round; (ii) A ballot image report listing for each ballot the order in which the elector ranked the candidates, the precinct of the ballot, and whether the ballot is a mail-in ballot or early voting ballot; and (iii) A comprehensive report listing the results in the summary report by precinct. B. The City Clerk may be required to establish additional requirements for the reports issued pursuant to this Section as set forth in the Procedure Manual referenced in Section 2.26.030. C. Preliminazy versions of the summary report and ballot image report shall be made available to the public as soon as possible after the commencement of the official tabulation of votes. Sec. 2.26.080 Voter Education. The City Clerk shall conduct an education and outreach campaign prior to each election to familiarize electors with ranked choice voting. Section 2: This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a sepazate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 23'~ day of February, 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 9`~ day of February_ 2009. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved, this day of Michael C. Ireland„ Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 1PW-saved: 11/25/2008-1407-G:\john\word\ords\ins[an[runof£doc City of Aspen Instant Runoff Voting Procedures Manual City Clerk's Office City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 January 2009 -1- MAYOR'S CERTIFICATION I, the undersigned, as Mayor of the City of Aspen, pursuant to Section 2.26.030, of the Aspen Municipal Code, do hereby certify that this "Instant Runoff Procedures Manual" (version: February 2009) is a true and correct copy of the latest version of said Manual reviewed and approved by the City Council by Ordinance No. ,Series or 2009. Dated this _ day of By: Mayor, City of Aspen Attest City Clerk of the City of Aspen -2- 1 Introduction 1.1 Background On September 4, 2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 38, Series of 2007, amending Sections 2.7 and 3.2 of the Aspen City Home Rule Charter to require the City Council to adopt and implement instant runoff voting procedures for the election of Mayor and Councilmembers, and to require Councilmembers to be elected by majority vote. On November 6, 2007, the electorate of the City of Aspen did approve Ordinance No. 38, Series of 2007. On 2009, the City Council did adopt Ordinance No. J Series of 2009, for the adoption of a new Chapter 2.26 of the Aspen Municipal Code establishing procedures for the conduct of instant runoff voting elections. That ordinance requires that the City Clerk adopt a Procedural Manual to guide the conduct of instant runoff voting elections. The City Clerk has met with a number of citizens of the City of Aspen for the purpose of formulating instant runoff voting procedures and said committee of citizens has assisted in the development of this manual of procedural guidelines for conducting elections using instant runoff voting methods for the election of Mayor and Councilmembers for the City of Aspen. 1.2 Instant Runoff Voting Instant runoff voting (IRV) is used for both single and multiple seat contests. In Aspen, IRV is used to select the office of Mayor and Councilmembers. IRV is a majoritarian voting method because, in the end, over 50% of participating voters elect the winner. IRV simulates a series of runoff elections in a single election. 1.3 Voter Intent. The City of Aspen hereby adopts and incorporates herein the Voterlntent - A Guide to the Determination of Voter Intent for Colorado Elections (2008), adopted by the Colorado Secretary of State (hereinafter "State Voter Intent Guide'), attached hereto as Attachment 3. 2 Definitions. To the extent not contrary to the definitions set forth in the State Voter Intent Guide, Attachment 3 ,the following definitions shall apply to this document: Blank ballot - Blank ballots shall also include ballots that cast no vote for a continuing candidate. (See, also, "Undervote", Attachment 1.) City Clerk- means the City Clerk of the City of Aspen or his or her designee. -3- Continuing candidate - means a candidate who has not been eliminated. Damaged ballot - means a ballot that has been torn, bent, or otherwise mutilated or rendered unreadable, so that it cannot be processed by an optical scanner ballot reader. Duplicated ballot - means a true copy of a ballot that is made in order to be properly processed and counted due to damage, improper marking or some other reason which would prevent a ballot tabulating machine from accurately reading the ballot (if such a machine is used.) Defective ranking - means a ballot in which more than one candidate is given the same ranking. (See "Defective Ranking", Attachment 1.) Duplicate ranking -describes the process by which a voter ranks the same candidate at multiple rankings. (See "Duplicate Ranking', Attachment 1.) Exhausted ballot- means a ballot that cannot be counted for a lower ranked candidate because the next rankings are blank or there is more than-one candidate given the next ranking. (See "Exhausted Ballot", Attachment 1.) Majority - as used in the mayoral election, shall mean the next whole number greater than fifty percent (50%) of the votes cast. Overvote - describes a race or ballot which contains votes for more than the maximum number of candidates or responses for a ballot measure allowed. (See "Overvote', Attachment 1.) Tabulation center -means the place selected where a central count electronic voting system is used for the automatic or hand processing and tabulation of ballots. Ranked-choice voting - means a method of casting and tabulating votes that allows electors to rank candidates for an office in order of preference and uses these preferences to determine the winner of the election. Round - means a stage of the tabulation of a ranked voting contest in which votes may be counted, and candidates elected or eliminated. Skipped ranking -describes the process by which a voter leaves a ranking blank and ranks a candidate at a subsequent ranking. (See "Skipped Ranking", Attachment 1.) -4- Threshold -means the minimum number of votes that a candidate must receive in order to be elected to the City Council. The threshold amount may change as voting continues. See 6.2.1, below. Undervote -means the occurrence when the voter does not vote for a candidate in a race, or for or against a ballot measure, or, when more than one person in a race is available, the voter does not vote the maximum number of votes allowed. Write-in Vote - means a vote on a ballot on which the voter physically writes in the name of a legally qualified write-in candidate in the space reserved on the ballot for write-in votes and properly marks the oval or connects the arrow on optical scan ballots according to the directions provided to the voter. 3 Ballots 3.1 Ballot Format. Ballots shall be designed to allow an elector to rank as many choices as there are candidates. Ballots shall be designed to allow the elector to rank no less than two write-in candidates. 3.2 Ballot Instructions All ballots shall include instructions to voters that substantially instruct voters as follows: INSTRUCTIONS: Mark your first choice in the first column by completely filling in the oval next to your choice, as shown in the picture. To indicate a second choice, select a different candidate in the second column. To indicate a third choice, select a different candidate in the third column. Proceed in the same manner to rank all of your choices in the order of your preference. 1. Rank candidates in order of preference. 2. You may rank as few candidates as you wish or as many as is allowed. 3. Do not skip rankings. 4. Do not give the same ranking to more than one candidate. 5. Do not rank the same candidate more than once. (See Example Ballot, Attachment 2.) 5- 3.3 Uniformity across ballot types If more than one type of voting equipment or ballot will be used in a ranked voting contest, all equipment and ballot types used shall provide substantially similar instructions and shall allow voters to rank the same number of candidates and write-ins. 4 General Tabulation Provisions 4.1 Determination of winners To determine the winners of a ranked voting contest, the tabulation method of Section 5 or Section 6 shall be used, depending on whether the number of seats to fill is one or more than one, respectively. 4.2 Summary reports The City Clerk shall issue the following reports as soon as feasible: (i) A summary report listing the total number of votes for each candidate in each round; (ii) A comprehensive report listing the results in the summary report by precinct. Preliminary versions of the summary report shall be made available to the public as soon as possible after the commencement of the official tabulation of votes. Preliminary reports shall be clearly marked as "Preliminary." 4.5 Publicizing tabulation procedures In advance of the election, the City Clerk shall conduct an education and outreach campaign prior to each election to familiarize electors with ranked choice voting. The education and outreach program shall include sample ballots and examples of ranked choice voting methods and tabulations. 5 Instant Runoff Votine - Sinsle Seat Contest (Ranked Choice) 5.1 OVERVIEW Instant Runoff voting for Mayor is a majoritarian voting method using ranked choice voting designed to accommodate more than two candidates seeking the office of the mayor. Each voter may rank candidates by preference from first choice to last choice. All ballots are counted. Votes are tabulated in rounds until one candidate has a majority of the votes cast. That candidate shall be declared the winner. -6- It should be noted that as in any election there is a mathematical possibility, albeit slight, that voting could be completed following all rounds of voting with two or more candidates tied without achieving a majority. A tie break system is set forth in Section 5.2.4, below. 5.2 TABULATION OF VOTES FOR MAYOR 5.2.1. Round One, Initial Tabulation of Votes In the initial ballot tabulation, all first ranked votes that are cast shall be counted for the candidate who received that vote. If a candidate receives a majority of all of the first ranked votes cast in the election, then that candidate shall be declared the winner. In the event that no candidate receives a majority of the first ranked votes cast, then the instant runoff procedure set forth below shall be commenced. 5.2.2 Commencement Of Instant Runoff Vote Round Two In the event that no candidate receives a majority of the total of the first ranked votes, then the two candidates with the highest vote total shall enter the instant runoff tabulation. In the event that the lowest vote total of the candidate that would enter the instant runoff tabulation is tied between or among two or more candidates, then all candidates with that vote total shall enter the instant runoff tabulation. (In the unlikely event that the number of candidates in the second position equal the remaining number of candidates, then the tie break procedure shall be employed so that only two candidates move forward into this round.) In this Round Two tabulation, all ballots shall be recounted giving the highest ranked vote for a continuing candidate to that candidate.. By way of example, if a ballot contains a first ranked vote for candidate A, a second ranked vote for candidate B, a third ranked vote for candidate C and a fourth ranked vote for candidate D, but candidates A and B are not in the runoff because of the failure to be one of the top two vote getters in a preceding round, then the third ranked vote for candidate C shall be counted. Following a count of all the ballots, the candidate who receives the most votes shall be declared the winner. In the event there were three or more candidates in this round due to a tie in the initial tabulation, the candidate with the most votes shall be declared the winner, so long as the candidate has received a majority of the votes cast in this round. In the event that the candidate who has received the most votes does not have a majority, then the candidates with the two highest vote totals shall enter Round Three. In the event of a tie between the two candidates with the second highest vote totals, then the tie- break procedure set forth below shall be used so that only two candidates enter Round Three. 7- Round Three In the event that no candidate receives a majority in Round Two, then the two candidates with the highest vote total shall proceed into this Round Three. The counting procedure shall remain the same for Round Three as in Round Two. After completion of the tabulation in Round Three, the candidate with the most votes shall be declared the winner and the election shall be completed. 5.2.4 Determination of Tie Votes. In the event that a tie exists at any level of the proceeding that would prevent moving forward without a resolution of the tie, the tie shall be resolved pursuant to this section. The first tie-breaker shall be based upon the number first ranked votes, with the candidate with the largest number of first ranked votes being determined the winner of the tie breaker. In the event that number shall be tied, then the winner shall be determined by lot pursuant to Colorado State Statute, C.R.S. Section 31-10-1204, 6 Instant Runoff Votinl; -Multiple Seat Contest (Ranked Choicel 6.1 OVERVIEW Instant Runoff voting for City Council is also a majoritarian voting method using ranked choice voting designed to accommodate multiple candidates seeking two open seats. If necessary, the ballots are counted in a series of rounds. Each voter may rank candidates by preference from first choice to last choice. All ballots are counted. Votes are tabulated in Rounds until two candidates who have the most votes also receive the threshold number of votes to be declared the winner. It should be noted that as in any election there is a mathematical possibility, albeit slight, that voting could be completed following all rounds of voting with two or more candidates tied without achieving the threshold. A tie-break system that is consistent with Colorado State Statute is set forth herein. 6.2 TABULATION OF VOTES FOR CITY COUNCIL 6.2.1 Commencement of Tabulation/Threshold Calculation 6.2.1 a. Initial Threshold. -8- At the commencement of the vote tabulation, the City Clerk shall certify the total number of votes cast for City Council and the number required to be elected to a seat on the City Council, which by Charter is defined as fifty percent (50%) of the total ballots casts for city council plus one vote. All ballots with a counted first (1s`) or second (2"d) ranking for a candidate for City Council shall be counted in the total number of votes cast. Blank ballots for City Council shall not be counted in this total. By way of example, if 2000 ballots are cast in the election, including four blank ballots for City Council, then a candidate will need the highest number or second highest number of votes of all the candidates and at least 999 votes in order to be deemed a winner of a council seat. (((2000-4) )2) + 1 = 999). This number shall be referred to below as the "initial threshold". 6.2.1 b. Instant Runoff Thresholds. If the instant runoff is necessary, the threshold shall be recalculated for each Round of the Instant Runoff. The Clerk shall count all of the ballots that cast a vote for any candidate who is remaining in the Instant Runoff. If a ballot does not cast a vote in the appropriate rounds for any candidate remaining in the Instant Runoff that ballot shall be deemed a blank ballot. Blank ballots for shall not be counted in this threshold total. By way of example, if 2000 votes were cast in the election with four blank votes for City Council, then the threshold is 999, asset forth above. If after the initial tabulation, 6 additional ballots did not rank any of the remaining candidates for the round being counted, those ballots shall also be deemed blank. Thus, the threshold would be 996. (((2000-4-6))2) + 1 = 996). 6.2.1 c. Miscellaneous Threshold Rules. In the event that the number of ballots cast is odd, fifty percent is a fraction. The next whole number shall be deemed the threshold. By way of example. If 2000 votes are cast and five are deemed blank ballots the threshold shall be 998. ((2000-5) )2 = 997.5. The next whole number is 998.) 6.2.2. Round One -Initial Tabulation of Votes All votes cast for first and second ranked candidates shall be counted in Round One, the initial ballot tabulation. The two candidates who receive the most votes among the first and second ranked votes casts shall be declared the winners, so long as the candidate has received the initial threshold determined by the Clerk pursuant to 6.2.1.a., above. In the event that the two candidates who have received the most votes have both reached the initial threshold in the Round One ballot tabulation, then both candidates shall be declared winners and the election shall be deemed completed. In the event that one or more of the candidates who have received the highest vote total in the initial tabulation have not reached the initial threshold, then the instant runoff voting procedures set forth below shall commence. -9- 6.2.3 Commencement of Instant Runoff Vote Instant Runoff Vote shall be conducted under the following circumstances: 1. The candidate with the most votes does not achieve the initial threshold, thus, no candidate is elected in Round One, the initial vote tabulation (See, 6.2.3. a., below.); 2. The candidate with the most votes reaches the initial threshold but the candidate with the next highest vote does not reach the initial threshold; thus, only one candidate is elected in Round One, the initial vote tabulation (See 6.2.3. b., below); 3. The candidate with the most votes achieves the initial threshold, but two candidates with an equal number of votes also achieve the initial threshold, thus, only the one candidate who has the most votes is elected in Round One, the initial vote tabulation (See 6.2.3. c., below); 4. Three candidates achieve the initial threshold but all three have an equal number of votes in the initial tabulation, thus, no candidate is elected in Round One, the initial vote tabulation (See 6.2.3. c., below). 6.2.3. a. Procedure If No Candidate Receives the Initial Threshold in Round One In the event that no candidate receives the initial threshold set forth above, and there are more than four candidates in the election, the following instant runoff procedure shall be implemented: Round Two In the event that no candidate receives the initial threshold in Round One, then the four candidates with the highest vote total shall enter Round Two. In the event that the lowest vote total of the candidates who would enter the instant runoff tabulation is tied, then all candidates with that vote total shall enter the instant runoff tabulation. (In the unlikely event that the number of candidates in the fourth position equal the remaining number of candidates, then the tie break procedure set forth in Section 6.2.4, below, shall be employed so that only one of the candidates with the lowest vote total moves forward into this round.) In this Round Two tabulation, all ballots shall be recounted giving the two highest ranked votes to those candidates who remain in the runoff. By way of example, if a ballot contains a first ranked vote for candidate A, a second ranked vote for candidate B, a third ranked vote for candidate C and a fourth ranked vote for candidate D, but candidates A and C are not in the runoff because of the failure to be one of the top four vote getters in Round One, candidate B and D each receive one vote. In this example if A, B and C have been eliminated then Candidate D receives one vote and the candidate ranked fifth receives a vote. Following a count of all the ballots, the two candidates who receive the most votes shall be declared the winners, so long as the candidate has received the threshold determined by the Clerk pursuant to 6.2.1.b., above. In the event that both of the two candidates who have received the most votes have reached the threshold -10- in this Round Two, then both candidates shall be declared winners and the election shall be deemed completed. In the event that one or more of the candidates who have received the highest vote total in this Round Two have not reached the threshold, then Round Three shall be commenced. Round Three a. Round Three -Three Candidates. In the event that no candidate receives the threshold set forth above for Round Two of the instant runoff tabulation, then the candidate with the least highest vote total shall be eliminated. In Round Three, if three candidates remain, the votes shall be counted so that the two highest rankings shall be counted. Byway of example, if a ballot contains a first ranked vote for candidate A, a second ranked vote for candidate B, a third ranked vote for candidate C and a fourth ranked vote for candidate D, but candidates A and B have been eliminated, then candidates C and D each receive a vote. After completion of the tabulation in Round Three, if the candidate or candidates with the most votes receive the threshold calculated for this Round Three, then that candidate or those candidates shall be deemed the winner or winners. If the two candidates with the highest votes both achieve the threshold, then both shall be deemed the winners and the election shall be completed. If the candidate with the second highest vote total does not achieve the threshold for this Round Three, then the two remaining candidates shall enter Round Four. b. Round Three -Two Candidates. In the event that one candidate achieves the threshold set forth in paragraph 6.2.1.b., above, in Round Two of the instant runoff tabulation, then the two candidates with the next highest vote totals shall enter Round Three of the instant runoff tabulation. In the event that the lowest vote total of these positions is tied, then all candidates with that vote total shall enter the instant runoff tabulation. In this Round Three only the highest ranked vote for a candidate still in Round Three shall be counted. By way of example, if candidates A and B are the only candidates remaining in the Round and an elector ranked A as his or her third choice and B as the fourth choice, then A shall receive a vote. The candidate who receives the highest number of votes and achieves the threshold shall be declared the winner of this tabulation and the election shall be deemed completed. If there were more than two candidates in this Round Three, due to a previous tie, if no one is elected in this Round Three, the candidate with the lowest total shall be eliminated and the counting procedure with the recipients of the two highest vote totals shall be conducted in Round Four. In the event of a tie vote between the final two remaining candidates, then the winner shall be determined pursuant to paragraph 6.2.4, below. Round Four -11- If a fourth or fifth round is required, the same procedure shall be utilized until the candidate with the highest vote total achieves the threshold set forth for that round. 6.2.3. b. Procedure If One Candidate Is Elected In Round One In the event that the candidate who receives the most votes also receives the initial threshold in Round One, the initial vote tabulation, then that candidate shall be deemed the winner of one city council seat. The two candidates with the next highest vote totals shall enter the instant runoff tabulation. In the event that the lowest vote total of these two positions is tied, then all candidates with that vote total shall enter Round Two. The voting procedure set forth in Section 6.2.3.a., Round Three -Two Candidates, above shall continue until the candidate with the highest vote total achieves the threshold for this instant runoff round. That candidate shall be declared the winner of the second council seat. In this case, a third round or subsequent round of voting would only be required in the event that there was a tie between or among one or more candidates with the lowest vote total needed to move on from one round to another. In the event of a tie vote between the final two remaining candidates, then the winner shall be determined pursuant to Section 6.2.4., below. 6.2.3. c. Procedure If Three Candidates Achieve Threshold In Initial Vote Tabulation but All Have Received An Equal Number Of Votes or the Two Candidates with the Lowest Vote Totals have an Equal Number of Votes. Round Two -Three Candidates In the event that three candidates have received the threshold but all three have received an equal number of votes in the initial tabulation (Round One, above) then Round Two shall be conducted among the three candidates, with the two highest ranked votes on all ballots counted. Since all candidates met the initial threshold, the two candidates with the highest vote totals in this Round shall be elected. In the event of a tie between the two lowest vote getters, then the Candidate with the highest vote total shall be deemed elected. The two remaining candidates shall enter Round Three. Round Two -Two Candidates In the event that three candidates reach the threshold with the candidates with the lower vote total tied, the candidate with the highest vote total shall be deemed the winner. The two other candidates shall enter Round Two, where all votes are recounted with the highest ranked vote for these two remaining candidates counted. If after this count the vote is still tied, then the tie break procedure set forth in Section 6.2.4 below shall determine the winner. Round Three. If a Round Three is required due to tie in Round Two -Three Candidates, the procedure set forth for Round Two-Two Candidates shall be conducted. -12- 6.2.4. Determination of Tie Votes. In the event that a tie exists at any level of the proceeding that would prevent moving forward without a resolution of the tie, the tie shall be resolved pursuant to this section. The first tie-breaker shall be based upon the number first ranked votes, with the candidate with the largest number of first ranked votes being determined the winner of the tie breaker. In the event that that number shall be tied, then the winner shall be determined by lot pursuant to Colorado State Statute, C.R.S. Section 31-10-1204. 7. Tabulation Center. The City Clerk shall designate one location within the City of Aspen to serve as the ranked- choice voting tabulation center prior to each election. The center shall be reasonably accessible to the public for the purpose of observing the vote tabulation. At a minimum, the City Clerk shall arrange the counting of ballots so that the candidates and their representatives may observe the ballots as they are counted. The City Clerk shall ensure that public observation does not interfere with the counting of the ballots. 8 Hand Tabulation Provisions. 8.1 General Provisions. This section shall apply only to ranked voting contests tabulated by hand. 8.2 Uniform Counting Standards. Pursuant to Section 1-7-309, C.R.S., judges counting ballots shall take into consideration the intent of the voter. To the extent not contrary to the rules set forth in the State Voter Intent Guide, Attachment 3 ,the following rules shall apply a. When a defective ranking is encountered during the tabulation the column containing the defective ranking shall be deemed an overvote. No votes in that ranking column nor any vote in a subsequent ranking column shall be counted and the ballot is deemed blank at that point. b. When a duplicate ranking is encountered, the first ranking of the duplication shall be counted. No further votes on the ballot shall be counted. -13- 8.3 Ballots not Counted. Ballots not counted because of election judges' inability to determine the elector's intent for all candidates shall be marked "defective' on the back, banded together and separated from the other ballots, returned to the ballot box, and preserved by the City Clerk pursuant to Section 1- 7-801, C.R.S. 8.4 Recounts Recount shall be permitted in accordance with state laws and conducted in accordance with the rules set forth in the latest version of the "Election Rules of the Colorado Secretary of State." 9 Chaneesto Procedures The City Clerk may change the procedures described in this document to accommodate any voting equipment that may be available for processing votes or for tabulating votes, provided that the new procedures are insubstantial compliance with the procedures described here, the smallest feasible number of changes is made, and the changes to the tabulation procedures are made public in accordance with this document. 10 Recess in Tabulations. The City Clerk may in his or her sole discretion call for a recess in the tabulation of ballots for a period of no more than twelve (12) hours, including a period of time to include over night. In the event that the City Clerk calls for a recess all ballots shall be secured during the period of the recess. The process of securing the ballots shall include the following: a. The City Clerk shall place all ballots in a combination safe capable of protecting the ballots from theft, fire, and water damage. b. The combination to the safe shall be known only to the City Clerk, the Chief of Police and the Finance Director. c. Each time the ballots are placed in the safe or taken out of the safe, at least two witnesses shall be present and shall sign the following statement under oath: I, the undersigned, do swear, under penalty of law, that I witnessed (remove/place) all of the ballots (into/out) of a combination safe on this day of at approximately o'clock _.m. and securely locked the same in my presence (with the ballots inside the combination safe/after removing all of the ballots.) -14- vnta. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Jason Lasser, Special Projects Planner ,J1, RE: 720 East Hyman Avenue, Historic Landmark Designation Ordinance No 1, Series of 2009 -Public Hearing DATE: January 29, 2009 MEETING DATE: February 9, 2009 APPLICANT /OWNER: CM, LLC c/o Roger Marolt, represented by REPRESENTATIVE: Lenny Oates, Oates, Kenezevich, Gardenswartz, and Kelly, P.C. LOCATION: 720 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen Athletic Club Condominium & Duvike Condominium, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. CURRENT ZONING: Mixed Use (MU) SUMMARY: The application requests (voluntary) designation as a Historic Landmark. Designation and review by the City Council allows the project to proceed through Ordinance 48, Series of 2007. Photo: view from the southeast - 720 East Hyman, commonly known as the Aspen Athletic Club Building. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request to be designated as a Historic Landmark SUMMARY: The property is among those listed as "Potential Historic Resources" provided with a level of protection under Ordinance #48, Series of 2007. The building, located on the corner of East Hyman Avenue and South Original Street, is a three story (above grade) mixed use building built in the mid 70's (drawings dated 1976). The project was designed by Robin Molny, who was trained under Frank Lloyd Wright at Taliesin and later worked with Fritz Benedict. In addition to the recently designated Hearthstone House, he designed other significant buildings and projects in Aspen including the Hyman and Cooper Avenue pedestrian malls. On October 8, 2008, the Historic Preservation Commission voted 4-1, recommending approval to designate 720 East Hyman as a Historic Landmark (minutes attached as Exhibit D). The HPC application included minor review for a proposed remodel of the building, which was approved with conditions on Oct 8, 2009. Due to the difficult economic climate, the applicant may be revising the approved proposal to remodel the building, at this time is only requesting review for Historic Designation. The application requests (voluntary) designation as a Historic Landmark. Designation and review by the City Council allows the project to proceed through Ordinance 48, Series of 2007 and provides the owner with Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) exemptions that are relevant to their project. If the applicant chooses to remodel the building as proposed in the HPC application, the relevant exemptions would exempt the development from competition for GMQS Allocations. Up to four (4) employees generated by the additional development shall not require the provision for affordable housing. Up to one free-mazket residence may be created (without having to provide affordable housing). Additional free-mazket units (beyond one) shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.470.080.2 -New Free-Market Residential Unit s within a Multi-Family or Mixed-Use Project. HISTORIC DESIGNATION 26.415.030B. Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmazk Sites and Structures, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The significance of the property located at 720 East Hyman Avenue will be evaluated according to the following criteria: Sec. 26.415.030. Designation of historic properties. 2. A property or district is deemed significant as a representation of Aspen's 20th Century history, was constructed in whole or in part more than thirty (30) years prior to the year in which the application for designation is being made, possesses sufficient integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association and is related to one (1) or more of the following: a. An event, pattern, or trend that has made a significant contribution to local, state, regional or national history, b. People whose specific contributions to -ocal, state, regional or national history is deemed important and can be identified and documented, or c. A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman or design philosophy that is deemed important. Staff Response: Staff finds that all of the above criteria are met: a. An event, pattern, or trend that has made a significant contribution to local, state, regional or national history: Staff does not azgue that Aspen Athletic Club Building exemplifies textbook Wrightian architecture in town. Restricting the analysis of a design profession like architecture to a uniform set of criteria that qualify a building as contributing to a specific style fails to recognize the artistic freedom azchitects like Molny exercised- as Wright expressed to Molny, "If you understand the principles of my architecture, then your buildings need not look like mine." Applying this idea to preservation of 720 East Hyman; while it does not replicate the exact teachings of a master architect, it is defined in part by Aspen's creative environment where azchitects, and other creative professionals, could experiment with modern philosophies and the built environment in this specific context. It is exactly this creative adventure that produced interesting architecture in Aspen-architecture that communicates both a sense of place (the high country and extreme environment) and a higher level of design. Spatial connections, relationship to the site and connection with nature, and utilizing the materials for both aesthetic and structural functions are all examples of Wrightian philosophy. Molny used Wrightian design philosophy- for example: organic architecture (composing buildings with space rather than mass and scale; and creating a harmony of architecture and environment) - to create an open floor plan and aninterior/exterior courtyard. Aspen was lucky to be home to many intellectuals, including modernist azchitects, who were starting out in the field. Molny used his foundation at Taliesen to draw upon the physical and intellectual environment of Aspen, and create a building that is not a replica of Wright, but indicative of his own background, design, experiences, and client. Molny was not the only architect in Aspen whose training under Frank Lloyd Wright influenced the towns architectural chazacter. Please refer to Community Developments paper; Aspens 20`" Century Architecture, Modernism for more information about this trend. Staff finds that criterion a. is met. b. People whose specific contributions to local, state, regional or national history is deemed important and can be identified and documented, Aspen was fortunate to attract a variety of highly trained architects who left a modern impression throughout the town. Among the azchitectural crowd was Robin Molny who trained at Taliesen under Frank Lloyd Wright for five years and in the 1950s was selected by Wright to supervise the Greenberg Residence in Dousman, Wisconsin. Wright is quoted as describing Molny as a "poet" saying "he'll be a good architect one day." Subsequently, Molny moved to Aspen, worked for Fritz Benedict, and opened his own azchitecture firm. The Hearthstone House (134 East Hyman, 1961), the Mason and Morse Building (514 East Hyman, heavily altered, 1971), and the downtown pedestrian malls (1970s) were all designed by Molny. The HPC awazded Molny two Welton Anderson Preservation Honor Awards in 1995 for the pedestrian malls and again in 1997 for significant architectural contributions to Aspen. Dick Carney, Chairman of the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation Board, wrote a letter honoring Molny when he was presented with the Welton Anderson Preservation Honor Awazd in 1997. Robin Molny's azchitectural contributions are locally significant in their representation and communication of Aspen life in the 1960s and 1970s. As indicated through the careful orientation of the main atrium, Molny was sensitive to spatial relationships: he designed the atrium to serve as a flexible, light-filled, transition between the exterior and interior, taking advantage of the views to the mountain, and creating interest for those inside the building. Staff finds that criterion b. is met. c. A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman or design philosophy that is deemed important. The elegant use of structural members to create the form, fenestration, and azchitectural interest, attention to small details like bolt patterns display the craftsmanship and philosophy of a quality designer. Robin Molny represented his appreciation and knowledge of materials and azchitectural history in the construction of the Aspen Athletic Building with the use of the current technology and construction techniques. The first patents for glu-lam beams were issued in Switzerland and Germany, and the first U.S. manufacturing standard for glu-lam was published in 1963, Staff believes that Molny allowed the materials of the day to drive the design process, resulting in a building that explores the technical possibilities of the day. Staff finds that the design and history of the Aspen Athletic Club Building to be indicative of an important design philosophy. Staff finds that criterion c is met. Recommendation: Staff finds that criteria for the Historic Designation are fulfilled. Staff recommends approval of the request to be designated as a Historic Landmark. DECISION MAHING OPTIONS: The City Council may: • approve the application, • disapprove the application, or • continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council approve the request for Historic Designation for the property located at 720 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen Athletic Club Condominium & Duvike Condominium, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): I move to approve Ordinance # ~ ,Series of 2009, designating the property located at 720 East Hyman Avenue as a Historic Landmark. Exhibits: A. Integrity Assessment -Existing Building B. Photos of Existing Building C. Application D. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes -October 8, 2008 ORDINANCE NO.1, SERIES OF 2009 AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 720 EAST HYMAN AVE (COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB BUILDING), ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB CONDOMINIUM & DUVIKE CONDOMINIUM, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2737-182-11010 (through 11031) & 2737-182-11800, and 11801 WHEREAS, the applicant, CM LLC c/o Roger Marolt, represented by Lenny Oates, Oates Kenezevich, Gazdenswartz, and Kelly, P.C., has requested Minor Development for the property located at 720 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen Athletic Club Condominium & Duvike Condominium, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado 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, Section 26.415.050 of the Aspen Municipal Code establishes the process for Designation and states that an application for listing on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmazk Sites and Structures shall be approved if City Council, after a recommendation from HPC, determines sufficient evidence exists that the property meets the criteria; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 8, 2008, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application for Minor Development and Historic Landmazk Review met the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and the Aspen Municipal Code Historic Landmazk Standards review criteria, and approved the application by a vote of four to one (4 to 1). WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all the 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 Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 9, 2009, the Aspen City Council approved the request for the property at 720 East Hyman Avenue to be designated as a Historic Landmark, as described herein, by a vote of to ~-~: NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: The Aspen City Council approves the application for Historic Landmark Designation of the property at 720 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen Athletic Club Condominium & Duvike Condominium, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 720 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, Colorado. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. The rights granted by the approval of this site-specific development plan shall remain vested for a period of three (3) years from the effective date of the approved development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded by this Code within one-hundred- eighty (180) days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Subsection 26.304.070.A. Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The establishment of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this development approval, the applicant shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption there from is granted in writing by the City. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 12`s day of January, 2009. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of , 2009. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Approved as to form: John Worcester, City Attorney EXISTING BUILDING -EXHIBIT A INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT- WRIGHTIAN Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its signif cance. • LOCATION Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. 5 -The structure is in its original location. 3 -The structure has been moved within the original site but still maintains the original alignment and proximity to the street. 0 -The structure has been moved to a location that is dissimilaz to its original site. Staff Response: The structure is in the original location. Staff finds the location score to be a 5. TOTAL LOCATION POINTS (maximum of 5) = 5 • DESIGN Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. BUILDING FORM 10- The original plan form, based on authenticating documentation, is still intact. 6 -The plan form has been altered, but the addition would meet the design guidelines. 0 -Alterations and/or additions to the building are such that the original form of the structure is obscured. Staff Response: The original plan, building form, footprint, structural elements, spatial relationships, and style are still intact. The glu-lam beams are the primary structural and aesthetic elements, and have not been altered. Staff finds the building form score to be a 10. ROOF FORM 10 -The original roof form is unaltered. 6 - Additions have been made that alter roof form that would meet the current design guidelines. The overall horizontal emphasis and wide overhangs have been maintained. 0 -Alterations to the roof have been made that obscure its original form or that detract from its horizontal emphasis. Staff Response: The roof form is a flat roof, with no overhang, and a parapet wall on the west eave. Staff believes that the original design has not been altered. The uppermost glu-lam beam defines the roofline, and has not been modifted. Staff finds the finds form score to be a 10. SCALE 5 -The original scale and proportions of the building are intact. 3 -The building has been expanded but the scale of the original portion is intact and the addition would meet the design guidelines. 0 - The scale of the building has been negatively affected by additions or alterations. Staff Response: ~, :'` The original scale and proportions are still intact, there have been no expansions, additions, or alterations. Staff finds the scale score to be a S. SOLID/VOID PATTERN 10 -The original pattern of glazing and exterior materials is intact. 6 -The original pattern of glazing and exterior materials has been altered but in a manner that would meet the design guidelines. 0- The original pattern of glazing and exterior materials is altered. Staff Response: The pattern of glazing, details, and exterior solid/void relationships have not been modified materials are intact. The original glazing and Stafffinds the solid/void score to be a 10. CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES 10-The horizontal form, relationship to the environment through battered foundation walls, cantilevered floors and/or porches, clear areas of glazing which create visual connections to the outside and the inside, and the effect of the roof plane hovering over the ground aze intact. 6 -There aze minor alterations to the horizontal form, relationship to the environment through battered foundation walls, cantilevered floors and/or porches, cleaz areas of glazing which create visual connections to the outside and the inside, and the effect of the roof plane hovering over the ground. 0 -There have been major alterations to the horizontal form and design features that relate the building to its environment. Staff Response: The glu-lam beams that are used for both the structure and to establish the horizontal banding and voids for glazing or open space are the primary character defining features of the building. Below the largest horizontal beam is the main space vertical butt joined glazing which creates a light filled space which creates nearly transparent visual and physical connections from the exterior and interior. The existing sliding glass doors on the ground floor allow the space to be converted into what feels like a covered patio, which is strengthened by the use of pavers which are the same, both indoor and outdoor, Staff finds the character defining features score to be a /0. TOTAL DESIGN POINTS (maximum of 45) = 45 • SETTING Setting is the physical ~nvironntent of a historic property. ,,. ~, 5- The physical surroundings are similar to that found when the structure was originally constructed. 3- There are minor modifications to the physical surroundings but the changes conform to the design guidelines. 0- The physical surroundings detract from the historic character of the building. Staff Response: The exterior physical surroundings, which consists of several brick planters and walls, trees, bushes, berms, and a herringbone brick sidewalk paving(that matches the interior main space of the building are believed to be constructed at the same time as the structure. Staff finds the setting score to be a 5. ,;, _~ TOTAL SETTING POINTS (maximum of 5) = 5 • MATERIALS Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. EXTERIOR SURFACES 15-The original combination of exterior wall materials and glazing are intact. 10-There have been minor alterations to the original exterior wall materials and glazing made in a manner that conform to the design guidelines. 5-There have been major changes to the original combination of exterior wall materials and glazing. 0- All exterior wall materials and glazing has been replaced. Staff Response: The exterior surfaces, combination of exterior wall materials and glazing are intact. The surfaces on the NE and SW corners and the parapet wall on the west faFade have been painted beige, which is the only painted surface on the building, as the beams, hoppers, and miscellaneous trim pieces are stained. Staff questions the authenticity of the beige paint, but understands that it is minor in nature, and is reversible. Staff fonds the exterior surfaces score to be a 14. DOORS AND WINDOWS 10-All or most of the original door and window units are intact. 5 -Some of the original door and window units have been replaced but the new units would meet the design guidelines. 0 -Most of the original door and window units have been replaced with units that would not meet design guidelines. Staff Response: The existing doors, specifically the sliding doors on the ground~loor that retract to expose the pedestrian level to the outside, are an integral component of the facade and design. The operation and stacking characteristics are intact. The windows, essentially sheets of insulated, tempered, and mirrored or tinted glass are elegantly connected to each other and the structure to r x' minimize obstruction to the natural view, or reflecting it from the exterior. The original window, configuration, and operation are intact, Staff finds the doors and windows score to be a 10. TOTAL MATERIALS POINTS (maximum of 25) = 24 • WORKMANSHIP Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. COMPOSITION 15 - The structural composition that distinguishes the stylistic category of Wrightian is intact. Materials are usually natural and hand worked; such as rough sawn wood timbers and brick. Brick is generally used as a base material, wall infill or in an anchoring fireplace element. Wood structural systems tend more towazd heavy timber or post and beam than typical stud framing. Structural members and construction methods aze usually expressed in the building. For example; load-bearing columns may be expressed inside and out, the wall plane is then created by an'infill of glass or brick. 10- There have been some alterations to the structural composition, but the changes would meet the design guidelines. 0 - There have been some alterations to the structural composition, and the changes would not meet the design guidelines. Staff Response: The wood structural system is expressed both on the interior and exterior, and the wall plane is created by an infall of glass and plywood. While the style is not easily identifable as a Wrightian design, the characteristics of the composition criterion precisely match the existing building. Staff finds the composition score to be a I5. FINISHES & COLOR SCHEME 5 -The natural color scheme and finishes that define the stylistic category of Wrightian is intact. 3 -There have been minor alterations to the natural color scheme and finishes that define the stylistic category of Wrightian. 0- There have been significant alterations to the natural color scheme and finishes that define the stylistic category of Wrightian. Staff Response: The color (dark wood) and finishes (stain) which Eompliment the desire the expression of the natural materials are believed to be intact. Staff questions the authenticity of the beige paint, but understands that it is minor in nature, and is reversible Staff finds the f Wishes and color scheme score to be a 4. TOTAL WORKMANSHIP POINTS (maximum of 20) = 19 TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 100) = 98 MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS=100 MINIMUM THRESHOLD FOR DESIGNATION= 75 POINTS Note: Each area of the integrity analysis includes a description of the circumstances that might be found and a point assignment. However the reviewer may choose another number within the point range to more accurately reflect the specific property. ~, C' ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8, 2008 The alley is gone and has basically lost its use and it might as well be planted as long as they are traditional plant materials. Sarah concurred with Brian and Ann. Stan said the city could open the alley at agytime. Stan said they will work with the Parks department and ask Mr. Hodgson to get involved and hopefully he will participate. Sarah said it needs to be thought out as to what it will look like in 30 years. Ann said the applicant has worked hard to make this work and the conditions can be worked out with staff and monitor. Michael went over the conditions: 1. Front porch is approved as presented tonight. 2. The palate is approved with further review in terms of refinement of the detailing and the choice of final roof material. (detail of rain screen) (detail of posts). 3. Eliminate 4. Chimney cap eliminated and to be restudied and reviewed by staff and monitor. 5. Landscaping in alley to be approved by staff, monitor and the Parks Department. ' MOTION.• Sarah moved to approve resolution #24 for Lift I as amended; second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. Monitor -Ann and Brian Popcorn Wagon MOTION: Sarah opened the public nearing and moved to continue the Popcorn Wagon until 10/22/2008; second by Brian. All in favor, motion carried. 720 E. Hyman Ave. -Aspen Athletic Club -Minor Development And Landmark Designation 11 l~ ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8.2008 Jason Lasser, planner said this is a voluntary designation. Designation has three criteria, (a)the event pattern or trend related to local histories (b) people who .contributed and in this case it was Robin Molny (c) physical design and whether it contributes. We aze looking at the exterior. The second component is minor review. Keep the existing planters which are in the right-of--way guideline 1.16. There is no encroachment license. Engineering doesn't have a problem with that if they aze not modified or changed at all. They aze OK with the conifer trees being removed from the planters but they are not OK with redoing anything structural on the walls of the planters. Guideline 2.9 covering original building materials. Right now they aze painted and we are recommending removal of the paint. Guideline 3.3 keeping ratio to the windows. They are adding a new floor on the interior side, the courtyard space. Right now it is a two story volume. They are proposing to put a floor in there so the perception is that you look through the exterior glazing and that floor line will interrupt the vertical glazing that is butt jointed along the fagade. There will also be a glass railing. I am not sure HPC has purview over the inside but it is something that you will perceive from the exterior, guideline 3.3. Guideline 3.5, 3.7 talk about the windows. They aze proposing to replace the plywood hoppers that are in two locations. There are two glue lamb beans across that create a horizontal structure and in between that is the glazing. Above that is a line of hopper windows that fold out to provide ventilation. They are proposing to replace those with glazing in the same location and they are not changing the proportions or the framing detail. Staff supports the change. Guideline 4.1 talks about preserving the doors. On the ground floor there are sliding doors. You can open the doors and it looks like a transparent space. The proposal is that the doors be fixed and staff is recommending that they keep the existing aluminum clad sliding doors. 14.6 and 14.7 relates to the lighting. We haven't seen any lighting and that should be discussed. Staff recommends approval of designation and the minor review with conditions. Condition: Keeep existing doors on the ground floor. Remove the conifers. If the planters are replaced Parks has a planting recommendation. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8, 2008 Remove the beige paint to reveal the existing wood. If planters are modified or removed that will have to be put within the lot line. Amy pointed out that there are pictures that the planters are original. Robin Molny studied at Taliesen. The integration of the inside to the outside would have been important. You can see through the building and how the flooring on the inside comes out. These planters are important and are part of modern historic landscape in which we do not have many examples of in town. Staff feels they should stay. Rich Kailen, architect with Charles Cunniffe. We would continue the plants on Hyman and plant aspen trees around Original to keep the pedestrian link. That would require us to redevelop the planters. The basement continues out to the lot line and the planters have done water damage to the basement. We would we rebuild them to what they were before. Our client loves the building and has already done some repairs to bring out the character of the wood. Ne also has put copper flashing on the glue lamb beans. Either v~+ay the planters need to be torn apart and reworked. The planters aze as high as they are because there is a basement under them. We would also pull off the pavers and determine the water damage. Jason said there are solaz shades proposed and we need to see how they are going to be attached to the building. Rich said the shades would match the color of the existing windows. They would cantilever off the middle of the structural beams. Ann said from the exterior you will see a line across the building. Rich said all the windows would be retained. Nora said you will no longer see the atrium. Rich said what we are proposing with the shades is reversible. Rich said he doesn't feel the doors are historic but we could recreate them. We want to keep the quality of the building as is. We aze proposing to 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8.2008 replace simple store front window in a medium bronze color insulated glazing panel that wouldn't change the profile of the exterior. Michael said the building is very inefficient. Amy said in the future plans they might lia~putting residential up above on the third floor and they could receive growth management exemptions for the new residential units. If they have net leasable they could have some relief on some mitigation requirements. It is a nice gesture for the owner to offer. Sarah asked when the building was built. Jason said the drawings indicate 1976. Rich said the public access will be on Original and the existing access will be Coates Reid and Waldron's dedicated entrance. Michael said it is hard to perceive how the interior remodel will be perceived from the outside. Brian asked about the new design of the planters. Rich said they would be retained at the 2x6 level and brought to the lot line. Amy said she feels more discussion shouid'occur with Engineering in order to come to a middle ground and allow repairs and water proofing. If they need to get an encroachment license that is OK. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Brian said we are discussing: Landscaping, planters, window shading and designation. The board supported designation of the building. Michael went over the conditions. Existing ground floor exterior sliding doors: Brian said sliding glass doors rather than fixed glass would be his preference. Sarah agreed. ;~~j 14 ' ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8.2008 Jason said how the doors are hung is important. If the glazing gets thicker it might go beyond. Rich said the slider would be insulated and the profile would not change. Ann said the planters are an integral part of the project and creating a directed entrance needs to stay the same. Rich said a ramp needs to be created on the Original side. Sarah said this building was designed as a two story atrium and the whole use of it is changing. Michael said he is in favor of retaining the existing planters. Brian said the main concern is that we maintain the main character that was crafted which is along Hyman. Nora said the experience from the outside and the inside is critical in this building. Brian said if the architect does this properly they can do a Wrightian type architecture of bringing the inside to the outside and see the internal functions on both sides of the wall. Jason the walls are reversible. They are not taking out the glue lambs etc. Michael said the atrium creates a lack of vitality in the building. Rich said we can make the floor plate as thin as possible. Michael said the way that the light plays ~on the interior atrium is an important part of the design of the structure. It is not clear to me that this new design is going to be perceived in the same way as the existing structure is. Ann said the interior walls are very transparent. Lennie Oats said we have acceded to the transparency on the inside and that is as far as we are willing to go. 15 Sarah said we have to make buildings more efficient. Jason said staff and monitor can look at the details of the floor as it tapers. Sarah said the proposal hits many of our guidelines, 1.9,1.13, 1.16,2.1, 2.6, 2.7. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve resolution #25 for 720 E. Hyman Ave., Aspen Athletic Club for a minor development and landmark designation with the following conditions: 1. The applicant will replace the ground floor exterior sliding doors and maintain their existing configuration and operation. 2. That the applicant will retain the existing planters primarily on the Hyman side but will look at the planter configuration on Original Street and work with the new acce$sible needs and try to maintain as much of the original landscape as pq~ssible. 3. The applicant will remove the Cori~erous trees in conjunction with Parks and Engineering. 4. The beige paint will be removed. S. The applicant will apply for aright-of--way permit for all the landscaping items as stated in staff's memo. 6. The applicant will work with parks to choose the appropriate tree species from the Arbor Guide and those plantings will be appropriately and carefully considered in size as they grow. 7. The new awning windows are approved. 8. The breeze-alay as proposed are approved but final design will be approved by staff and monitor. 9. Historic Designation is approved. Motion second by Ann Ann made two amendments: Amendment take out (new) in #6 and add restored planters. Amendment: #4 -The applicant will need to comply and apply for all landscaping standards etc. ~j Sarah second the amendment. Brian, yes; Sarah, yes; Ann, yes; Nora, yes; Michael no. Motion carried 401. 16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8, 2008 MOTION: Brian moved to adjourn; second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried. Meetin adjourned at 8:00 p.m. ~ ; Kathleen 7. Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk 17 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8.2008 Sarah asked what kind of material the siding is. Tim said mahogany. The size and height are correct. The spacing between the board is like a rain screen on the entire house. Chairperson Michael Hoffman opened the>public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Sarah commented on the porch and the tapered columns are a nice addition and work well on the house. The new fascia detail is more complimentary and in keeping with the guidelines. Ann said the revisions of the porch aze fine and the materials aze appropriate. Texturally they are different and a nice solution. The windows are fine. Amore contemporary light should be researched. Sazah said the material palate is fine and having the rain screen is OK. I am in favor of the metal clad windows. The mahogany. is beautiful and with a little stain will work well. The palate has a lot of the same thing but that could be OK. The most important thing is the mass and scale and we have reached that. The details need to be kept fine and keep the rusty look out of it. Brian said he has no problem with what is~~being proposed. The photos presented showing how the mahogany siding works are very helpful. It is something that can work. If the siding is mahogany I would said eliminate the spacing in between or go with a painted siding that allows the spacing to occur. The windows are fine. Tim said the gap in the siding gives a shadow line and we can certainly work with staff on the size of that gap. I've done it a couple of times. On the porch return the neighbor to the north has the same return and secondly it is in line with the windows. The side of the porch dies into the wall. We could certainly go to cedaz shingles rather than shakes. Jeffrey said they can simplify the chimney cap. Brian stated that the landscaping in the alley is beneficial to the applicants and the people next door. The houses are relatively close together. 10 MEMORANDUM TO: THRU: RE: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council Chris Bendon, Community Development Director vaib ~MV~ South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD -Extension of Vested Rights Resolution - ~, Series 2009. Public Hearing HEARING DATE: February 9, 2009 SUMMARY: The Applicant, Aspen Land Fund II, requests an 18-month extension of the vested rights for an approved residential townhome project to January 28, 2011. The current vested rights are set to expire July 28, 2009. The project consists of fourteen (14) free-market residential units and seventeen (17) affordable housing units in a townhome configuration. The townhomes project was put on hold by the landowner in order to pursue a master planning process in partnership with adjacent landowners, including the City of Aspen. The Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan was the subject of a recent public process and is scheduled for a public vote in May, 2009. The request is to provide sufficient time to obtain building permits and construction financing for the townhomes project (if necessary) after the public vote on the master plan. Staff believes the criteria have been met, that the community will be served by an extension, and supports the extension request. APPLICANT /OWNER: Aspen Land Fund II, LLC. John Sarpa, Authorized Agent. REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann, Vann Associates, LLC. LOCATION: West side of South Aspen Street near the base of Aspen Mountain between the Shadow Mountain Townhomes to the South and the Timberidge Condominiums and the Lift One Condominiums to the North. The legal description is included in Exhibit 2 of the Application. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval: • Extension or Reinstatement of Vested Rights to extend the existing vested rights of the approved residential project to January 28, 2011, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.308.010 C., Extension or Reinstatement of Vested Rights. (Gifu Council is final review authority who may approve or deny the proposal). PROJECT SUMMARY: The townhomes project was approved by Ordinance No. 32, Series 2003, which allows the applicant to develop the site with fourteen (14) free-market residential units and seventeen (17) affordable housing units. Since the approvals were granted, the landowner entered into a master planning effort with adjacent landowners, including the City of Aspen, called the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan. The results of this planning process are expected to be voted on by the public this coming May. STAFF COMMENTS: The Applicant is requesting an extension of their vested rights for 18 months to January 28, 2011, pursuant to Section 26.308.010 C. of the City's Land Use Code. The Applicant is requesting the proposed 18-month extension of the vested rights, "to permit sufficient time following the May election in the event reguired to complete the building permit process, secure construction financing, and commence construction. " Not extending the vested rights may cause the landowner to proceed with the townhomes construction prior to, and potentially nullifying, a public vote on the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan. Staff believes that the community would be served by allowing the public vote on the future of this property to proceed as planned. Staff believes the criteria of Section 26.308.OIO.C have been met and that a community of interest would be served by the extension. Therefore, Staff believes that the proposed extension of vested rights should be granted. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the requested extension of vested property rights and establish an expiration date of January 28, 2011, for the South Aspen Subdivision/PUD with the following condition: 1. That the statutory vested property right shall not preclude the applications or regulations which aze general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, and all adopted impact fees. The developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, and impact fees that are in effect at the time of building permit, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No.~, Series of 2009, approving with a condition, an 18- month extension of vested property rights for the South Aspen Subdivision/PUD. The new expiration date will be January 28, 2011." CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Resolution No. ~, Series of 2009. Exhibit A -Application RESOLUTION NO. (Series of 2009) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF THE VESTED RIGHTS GRANTED BY ORDINANCE N0.32, SERIES OF 2003, FOR THE SOUTH ASPEN STREET SUBDIVISION/PUD APPROVAL, BEING A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCELS 1, 2, AND 3, OF THE SOUTH ASPEN STREET SUBDIVISION/PUD, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITHIN COUNTY, COLORADO. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen Land Fund II, LLC, represented by Sunny Vann, of Vann and Associates, requesting approval of an 18-month extension of the vested rights granted for the South Aspen Street Subdivision/ PUD pursuant to Ordinance No. 32, Series of 2003; and, WHEREAS, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 32, Series of 2003, which approved asubdivision/PUD and awazded Vested Property Rights status for the development of fourteen (14) free-mazket residential units and seventeen (17) affordable housing units until July 28, 2006; and, WHEREAS, the statutory vested rights for the project were subsequently extended via the adoption of City Council Resolution No. 9, Series of 2008, to July 28, 2009; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is described as Lots 1, 2, and 3, of the South Aspen Street Subdivision/Planned Unit Development as described on the subdivision plat thereof recorded as reception number 537080 in Book 83, Page 50, with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.308.010 Vested Property Rights of the Land Use Code, City Council may adopt a resolution granting an extension of vested rights after a duly noticed public heazing; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the application and has recommended approval of the extension of vested rights for the South Aspen Street Subdivision/ PUD; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the requested extension of vested rights for the South Aspen Street Subdivision/ PUD 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 fmds that the extension of vested rights proposal meets or exceeds all applicable land use standards and that the approval of the extension of City Council Resolution No. , Series of 2009. Page 1 vested rights proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO,THAT: Section 1• The Aspen City Council does hereby extends to January 28, 2011, the statutory vested rights as approved by Ordinance No. 32, Series of 2003 for pazcels 1, 2, and 3, of the South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD, City and Townsite of Aspen for the South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD with the following condition: 1. That the statutory vested property right shall not preclude the applications or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, and all adopted impact fees. The developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, and impact fees that are in effect at the time of building permit, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. Section 2• Due to the Applicant's voluntary participation in the COWOP process, and its suspension to date of the building permit process, the Applicant, in its discretion, may reactivate its building permit application at any time prior to January 28, 2011. Section 3• All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4• 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 repeated or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a sepazate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. City Council Resolution No. _, Series of 2009. Page 2 Section 6• A duly noticed public hearing on this Resolution was held on the 9s' day of February, 2009, at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. FINALLY, resolved, adopted, passed, and approved by a to L-~ vote on this day of , 2009. Approved as to form: John P. Worcester, City Attorney Approved as to content: Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk City Council Resolution No. Series of 2009. Page 3 VANN ASSOCIATES, LLC Planning Consultants January 23, 2009 HAND DELIVERED Mr. Chris Bendon Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RFC~~VE~ SAN 2 3 1009 c~> y of ~OMMUN/TY pE E1~OpM N! Re: South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD Vested Rights Extension Dear Chris: Please consider this letter an application to extend the vested rights for the South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD, afree market residential/affordable housing project which has been approved for development on three parcels of land located on the west side of South Aspen Street near the base of Aspen Mountain (see Exhibit 1, Pre- Application Conference Summary, attached hereto). The application is submitted pursuant to Section 26.308.O10.C. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations by the owner of the property, Aspen Land Fund II, LLC (hereinaf- ter "Applicant"), a Colorado limited liability company (see Exhibit 2, Title Commit- ment). Permission for Vann Associates, LLC, to represent the Applicant is attached as Exhibit 3. Aland use application form, application fee agreement, and a list of property owners located within three hundred feet of the project site are attached as Exhibits 4, 5 and 6, respectively. Final PUD approval was granted by the City Council on July 28, 2003 pursuant to Ordinance No. 32, Series of 2003 (see Exhibit 7). As a consequence of several prior extensions granted by City Council, the approval is currently vested until July 28, 2009. The most recent extension, which was approved pursuant to Resolution No. 9, Series of 2008, also stayed the processing of the project's building permit application for the duration of the vested rights period (see Exhibit 8). The original vested rights extensions were granted to accommodate the City's review of an alternative project for the property while the most recent extension was granted to permit the Applicant's participation in the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan COWOP process. The Lift One COWOP task force completed its work and forward- 230 East Hopkins Ave. Aspen, Colorado 8161 ~ 9'0/925-6958 Fax 970/920-9310 ~t Mr. Chris Bendon January 23, 2009 Page 2 .. ~.°. ed its recommendation to the City Council on October 2, 2008. On January 14, 2009, a motion to approve Ordinance No. 34, Series of 2008, granting approval to the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan and granting all required land use approvals with respect thereto, resulted in a 2 to 2 tie vote. A subsequent motion to refer the project to the Aspen electorate passed 3 to 1. A ballot question is now scheduled for the May 2009 general election. Inasmuch as the future of the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan will not be known until the electorate votes in May, an additional extension of the July 28, 2009 expiration date of the Applicant's South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD's vested rights will be required. The Council acknowledged the necessity of the extension at its January 14 meeting. An eighteen month extension is requested to permit sufficient time following the May election in the event required to complete the building permit process, secure construction financing, and commence construction. If approved, the new deadline for the expiration of the residential project's vested rights would be January 28, 2011. Pursuant to Section 26308.O10.C. of the Regulations, the City Council may by resolution at a public hearing approve an extension of vested rights. The specific review criteria which the Council shall consider, and the Applicant's response thereto, are summarized below. 1. The applicant's compliance with any conditions requiring performance prior to the date of application for extension or reinstatement. Section 2 of Ordinance No. 32, Series of 2003, requires the Applicant to record a final PUD development plan, a PUD agreement, and a subdivision plat memorializing the South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD's development approval. All of these instruments were recorded on April 25, 2007. 2. The progress made in pursuing the project to date including the effort to obtain any other permits, including a building permit, and the expendi- tures made by the applicant in pursuing the project. The City's review of the building permit application for the project was in progress when it was allowed to become dormant pursuant to Resolution No. 9, Series of 2008, to permit the Applicant's participation in the Lift One COWOP process. The Applicant, however, was permitted to reactivate the permit application at any time prior to the July 28, 2009 vested rights expira- tion date. Mr. Chris Bendon January 23, 2009 Page 3 Prior to the Resolution's adoption, the Applicant made diligent efforts to obtain the requisite building permits for the project. These efforts included, inter alia, the preparation and recording of all necessary PUD documentation, the development of final architectural and engineering plans and specifications, additional environmental testing and monitoring, the demolition of the Mine Dump Apartments, and the submittal of various building permit applications and related materials to the City's Building Department. Aggregate expenditures made by the Applicant in connection therewith pursu- ing the project are in the range of $3,000,000. 3. The nature and extent of any benefits already received by the City as a result of the project approval such as impact fees or land dedications. Permit and impact fees paid to date by the Applicant to the City in connection with the project amount to approximately $270,000. 4. The needs of the City and the applicant that would be served by the approval of the extension or reinstatement request. No community benefit would result by requiring the Applicant to obtain a building permit and commence construction of the residential project when the preferred alternative is a new mutually acceptable hotel. Both the City and the Applicant would best be served by the granting of the requested extension of the residential project's vested rights. An extension will accommodate the electorate's vote on [he project in May of this year without unnecessarily burdening both the Applicant and the City with the continued processing of the residential project's building permit applica- tion. Given [he Applicant's voluntary participation in the COWOP process, and its suspension to date of the building permit process, fundamental fairness also supports the requested extension. The Applicant, in its sole discretion, however, may reinstate its building permit process at any time prior to January 28, 2011. Should you have any questions, or require additional information, please do not hesitate to call. Mr. Chris Bendon January 23, 2009 Page 4 Your scheduling of this application for consideration by the City Council at its February 9, 2009 meeting would be sincerely appreciated. Yours truly, VANN ASSOCIATES, LLC CP cc: John Sarpa Arthur C. Daily, Esq. d:\oldc\bus\ciry.app\app45303.ext Attachments FJ(HIBIT CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Jennifer Phelan, 429-2759 DATE: 1.13.2009 PROJECT: South Aspen Street PUD, Vested Rights Extension REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann DESCRIPTION: The prospective applicant would like to extend the vested rights that were originally granted to the South Aspen Street PUD in Ordinance No. 32, Series of 2003.The applicant has extended the vested rights in previous applications in conjunction with the Lift One master plan that is currently being considered by the City Council. The Applicant has indicated a desire to extend the vested rights to provide additional time for the building department to complete its building permit review. Relevant Land Use Code Section(s): 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.308.010 C. Extension or Reinstatement of Vested Rights http:llwww.aspenpitki n.comldepts/381citycode.cfm Review By: -Staff for complete application and recommendation. City Council for final decision. Public Hearing: Yes at City Council Planning Fees: $1,470.00 Deposit for 6 hours of staff time (additional staff time required is billed at $245 per hour) associated with applicant initiated zoning of subject property Total Deposit: $1,470.00 Total Number of Application Copies: ] 0 Copies To apply, submit the following information ^ Proof of ownership with payment. ^ Signed fee agreement and deposit ^ Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. ^ 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. ^ 10 Copies of the complete application packet and maps. ^ An 8 1/2" by 11"vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. ^ A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing conditions as well as proposed. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing ^ Copies of prior approvals. ^ 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. ,~i~t~I~~~E; •inoiwpnaougv EXHIBIT ,,, 2 ALTA Commitment For Title Insurance American Iced Title Assoriatioe (1%~ AUTHORIZED AGENT: PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS AVE. 3~FLOOR ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 970-925-1766-PHONE 970-925-6527-FAX 877-217-3158-TOLL FREE E-MAIL ADDRESS: TTTLE MATTERS: CLOSING MATTERS: Vince Higens-vinceQsopris.net TJ Davis-tjd@sopris.net Priscilla Prohl-priscilla@sopris.net Joy Higens-joyC~3sopris.net Brandi Jepson-brandi@sopris.net (Closing & Title Assistance) leaned By LLL!~T~I CAP. orau«,~ Home Office: 101 Gateway Cents Parkway, Gateway One Aiclnnond, Virginia 232355153 1-800-44b7086 B 1004-268 COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A 1. Effective Date: March 6, 2006 at 8:00 AM Case No. PCT15438PR2 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: (a) ALTA Owner's Policy-Fonn 1992 Proposed Insured: Amount$ 0.00 Premium$ 0.00 Rate: (b) ALTA Loan Policy-Form 1992 Proposed Insured: (c) ALTA Loan Policy-Form 1992 Proposed Insured: Amount$ 0.00 Premium$ 0.00 Rate: Amount$ Premium$ Rate: 3. Title to the FEE SIMPLE estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in: ASPEN LAND FUND II LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 4. The land referted to in this Commitment is situated in the County of PITKIN State of COLORADO and is described as follows: See Attached Exhibit "A" PrII~I courrrr TITLE, uac 6m E. HOFKEVS, ASPEN, CO. 81611 970.9251766 Phom/970.925-6527 Faz 877-2173158 Toll Free AUT1I012IZED AGENT Countersigned: Schedule A-PG.1 This Commitment is invalid unless fhe Insudng Provisions and Schedules A and B are attached. EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCELI Block 6, FAMES ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, more particularty described as follows: Beginning at a point which is the intersection of the Eastedy right of way line of Garmisch Street and the Southerly right of way line of Dean Avenue, from whence the Northeast Comer of Section 13, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., bears N 53°20'28" East 814.56 feet; thence along the Southedy right of way line of Dean Avenue S 75°09'11" E 330 feet to the Westedy right of way line of Aspen Street; thence along said right of way line of Aspen Street S 14°50'49" W 130 feet to the Northery right of way line of Juan Street; thence along said right of way line of Juan Street N 75°09'11" W 330 feet to the Easterly right of way line of Garmisch Street; thence along said right of way line of Garmisch Street N 14°50'49" E 130 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING therefrom: The portion described in Book 232 at Page 362 The above parcel is also described as follows Beginning at a point which is the intersection of the Eastedy right-of-way line of Garmisch Street and the Southerly right-of--way line of Dean Avenue, from whence the Northeast comer of Section 13, Township 10 South, Range BS West of the Sixth Principal Meridian bears N 53°20'28" E 814.56 feet, more or less; thence along the Southedy right-of-way line of Dean Avenue S 75°09'11" E 330 fee, more or less, to the Westedy right-of-way line of Aspen Street; thence along said right-of-way line of Aspen Street S 14°50'49" W 130 feet, more or less to the Northedy right-of-way line of Juan Sfeet; thence along said right-of-way line of Juan Street N 75°09'11" W 298.20 feet, to the Southeasterly comer of that parcel of land described in Book 232 at Page 362; thence N 40°21'11" W along the Northeasterty line of said parcel, a distance of 38.73 feet to the Northeasterty right-of-way line of Garmisch Street; thence along said right-of-way line of Garmisch Street N 14°50'49" E 107.90 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. SAID PARCEL OF LAND ALSO BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS Block 6, FAMES ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, more particularty described as follows: Beginning at a point which is the intersection of the Eastedy right of way line of Garmisch Street and the Southedy right of way line of Dean Avenue, from whence the Northeast Comer of Section 13, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th Principal Meridian., bears N 53°20'26" East 814.56 feet more or less; thence along the Southedy right of way line of Dean Avenue S 75°09'11" E 330 feet, more or less to the Westedy right of way line of Aspen Street; thence along said right of way line of Aspen Street S 14°50'49" W 130 feet, more or less to the Northerty right of way line of Juan Street; thence along said right of way line of Juan SVeet N 75°09'11" W 330 feet, more or less to the Eastedy right of way line of Gannisch Street; thence along said right of way line of Garmisch Street N 14°50'49" E 130 feet, more or less to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING therefrom: That parcel of land described in Book 232 at Page 362 in the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado. Said Parcel 1 is also described as follows: Beginning at a paint which is the intersection of the Eastedy right-of-way line of Gannisch Street and the Southedy right-of-way line of Dean Avenue, from whence the Northeast comer of Section 13, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian bears N 53°20'28" E 814.56 feet, more or less; thence along the Southerly right-of-way line of Dean Avenue S 75°09'11" E 330 fee, more or less, to the Westerly rightof--way line of Aspen Street; thence along said right-of-way line of Aspen Street S 14°50'49" W 130 feet, more or less to the Northerly right-of-way line of Juan Street; thence along said right-of--way line of Juan Street N 75°09'11" W 298.20 feet, to the Southeasterly comer of that parcel of land described in Book 232 at Page 362; thence N 40°21'11" W along the Northeasterly line of said parcel, a distance of 38.73 feet to the Northeasterty right-of-way line of Garmisch Street; thence along said right-of-way line of Garmisch Street N 14°50'49" E 107.90 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. PARCEL2 That portion of the Northeast one-quarter of the Northeast one-quarter (Lot 1) of Section 13, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast Comer of Lot 13, Block 11, Eames Addition; thence N 75°09'11" W 181.25 feet; thence S 14°50'49" W 78.00 feet; thence S 03°55'43" W 164.99 feet; thence S 75°09'11" E 150.00 feet; thence N 14°50'49" E 240.00 feet to the point of beginning. ALSO KNOWN AS Lots 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20, Block 11, EAMES ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, and a tract of land being part of Lot 1 of Section 13, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., described as follows: Beginning at the Northwesterly comer of Lot 13, Block 11, Eames Addition; thence S 14°50'49" W 240.00 feet along the Westerly line of said Block 11 to the Southwesterly comer of Lot 20, Block 11, Eames Addition; thence N 03°55'43" E 164.99 feet; thence N 14°50'49" E 78.00 feet; thence S 75°09'11" E 31.25 feet fo the point of beginning. AND Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, Block 11, EAMES ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, more fully described as follows: Beginning at the Northwesterly comer of said Lot 7; thence S 75°09'11" E 180.00 feet along the Northerly boundary line of said Block 11; thence S 14°50'49" W 100.00 feet along the Easterly boundary line of said Block 11; thence N 75°09'11" W 180.00 feet along the Southerly boundary line of said Lots 7-12 to the Southwestery comer of said Lot 7; thence N 14°50'49" E 100.00 feet along the Westerly boundary line of said Lot 7 to the point of beginning. SAID PARCEL OF LAND ALSO BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: Beginning at the Southwest comer of said Lot 7, a rebar and cap PLS # 29030, from which a rebar and cap PLS # 2547 bears N 55° E a distance of 0.7 feet; ' thence N 14°50'49" E along the westerly line of said Lot 7, a distance of 100.00 feet to the Northwest comer of said Lot 7, also being at the Southerly right-of--way of Juan Street in the City of Aspen, a rebar and cap PLS # 2547; thence S 75°09'11" E along the Northerly line of said Block 11, also being the Southedy right-of-way line of said Juan Street a distance of 180.00 feet to the Northeast comer of said Block 11, a rebar and cap PLS # 29030; thence S 14°50'49" W along the Easterly line of said Block 11, also being the Westerly right-of-way of Aspen Street in the City of Aspen a distance of 100.00 feet to the Southeast comer of said Lot 12, a rebar and cap PLS # 29030; thence N 75°09'11" W along the Southedy line of said Lots 7,8,9,10,11 and 12 a distance of 180.00 feet to the point of beginning. AND The vacated alley situated in Block 1 t, EAMES ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN. EXHIBIT January 14, 2009 Mr. Chris Bendon, Duector Community Development Depaztment 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Permission to Represent Dear Mr. Bendon: Please consider this letter authorization for Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, LLC, Planning Consultants, to represent us in the processing of our application to extend the vested rights period for the South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD. Mr. Vann is hereby authorized to act on our behalf with respect to all matters reasonably pertaining to the aforementioned application. Should you have any questions, or if we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Yours truly, ASPEN LAND FUND, LLC a Colorado limited liability company c:\oldc\bus\ciry.ltr\1tr45303.cb4 LAND USE APPLICATION APPLICANT: EXHIBIT Name: ~'~~~~/'!~~'~~!>/~~ GGG Location: C SSE ~T~ ~u~~//T/-~5~/r (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Parce(ID # (REQUIRED) Name: y/--/~f~ ",~/~~t~ ~~ Address: Z3~ ~ yGY`a"r~~ /f,$/"~s~ Ga ~~G~~ Phone #: i Ste- G r~ S~8 ~~ ~ PROJECT: ~~p~ ~ Name: ~~7~~'~{Y-`.'~`+ ST~T~~~T ~-7/31~1~/.5~~ /'~-~7 Address: Phone #: S~-GS7% TYPE oP APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ^ Conditional Use ^ Conceptual PUD ^ Conceptual Historic Devt. ^ Special Review ^ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ^ Final Historic Development ^ Design Review Appeal ^ Conceptual SPA ^ Minor Historic Devt. ^ GMQS Allotment ^ Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) ^ Historic Demolition ^ GMQS Exemption ^ Subdivision ^ Historic Designation ^ ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream ^ Subdivision Exemption (includes ^ Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane ^ Lot Split ^ Temporary Use [~ Other: (~ Lot Line Adjustment ^ TexUMap Amendment ~/~TE/7 /~~S c:°k~~~~~ PROPOSAL: (description of Havyyou attached the following? FEES DUE: $ P e-Application Conference Summary [~ Attachment #], Signed Fee Agreement ^ Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form []'Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards EXHIBIT CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and ~~ ~~y~ ~'~~~ GG C (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: I. ~~~ IC~~as~~ fitted t C gQap~ation y ,~ , ~ (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). c~X ~`-''~/ 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of 2000) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accme 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 sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a tlet~~!!rnnination of apphcation completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an tmhal deposit in the amount of $ ~7~ which is for G hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recor ed costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for [he processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $220.00 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 Chris Bendon Community Development Director g: \suppo rt\fo rms\agrpayas.doc 11/30/04 ~s S/~~i 9"S~Y~ 3°~ ,~j'<~s,/ Go $l~// Billing Address and Telephone Number: Required 5~-83x Easy Peel Labels. ® i ~ ~ See Instruction Sheet i- ~ EXHIBIT Use Avery®TEMPLATE 5160® iFeed Paper for Easy Peel Featurei ~ // -- -_. ___ __ __ C~ a 124 E DURANT AVENUE LLC 205 EAST DURANT 1B LLC 603 SOUTH GA C/O WOGAN WENDY 117 N MONARCH ST #Ot 603 S GARMISC 533 W FRANCIS ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ALYEMENI MOHAMMED 8 ALICE 3109 OAKMONT DR STATESVILLE, NC 28625 ASPEN SKIING COMPANY LLC PO BOX 1248 ASPEN, CO 81612 APRIL FAMILY TRUST 1/4 INT 3501 S 154TH ST WICHITA, KS 67232-9426 ASPEN KABINN LLC C/O NIKE COMM/NINA KAMINER 75 BROAD ST RM 500 NEW YORK, NY 10004-2415 BARBEE MARY K LIV TRUST BASMA AKRAM 8 NADA 625 SKYLINE DR 6318 23RD ST NW CODY, WY 82414 BOCA RATON, FL 33434 BERHORST JERRY BIEL ALEXANDER L 8 LEE M BILLINGSLEY FAMILY LP BERHORST CAROLE 381 LOVELL AVE 1206 N WALTON BLVD 7161 LINDENMERE DR MILL VALLEY, CA 94941 BENTONVILLE, AR 72712 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48301 BLACKW ELL CLARENCE A 8 ANNE H BLUE LLOYD JR PO BOX 3180 PLEAS ALEXA ANNAPOLIS, MD 21403 PO BOX 1569 GRAYTON BEACH, FL 32459 BRIGHT GALEN BRIGHT GALEN 205 E DURANT AVE #3D 407 S HUNTER ST #3 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BRUMDER PHILIP G 8 ASMUTH BUSH STEVEN S ANTHONY 0046 HEATHER LN QUARLES 8 BRADY C/O ASPEN, CO 81611 411 E WISCONSIN AVE STE 2500 MILWAUKEE, WI 53202 CABELLJOE C/O CHARTHOUSE 1765 ALA MOANA BLVD HONOLULU, HI 96815 CAIN DOUGLAS M CALKINS GEORGE W GASPER MARY LYNN CAIN CONSTANCE MOFFIT TRUSTEES 105 S CHEROKEE 124 E DURANT #4 1960 HUDSON ST DENVER, CO 80223-1834 ASPEN, CO 81611 DENVER, CO 80220 CHAPIN ANZLE TRUST CHAPLIN ARLENE 8 WAYNE CHIATE PROPERTIES LLC 1887 STILLWATER ST 54 LAGORCE CIR 20628 ROCKCROFT DR ST PAUL, MN 55110-8507 MIAMI BEACH, FL 33141 MALIBU, CA 90265-5342 CHRISTENSEN CINDY 109 JUAN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 CHU FAMILY TRUST 2/3 INT LU NANCY CHAOTRUST 1/3 INT 38 CORMORANT CIR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 BRENNAN JOHN PATRICK 31 TRAINORS LANDING ASPEN, CO 81611 BROWN JAMES R JR 195 HUDSON ST #4B NEW YORK, NY 10013 CITY OF ASPEN ATTN FINANCE DEPT 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 EriQuettes taciles B ler De Consukez la feuille www.averycom Ilfiliros le nw6wrb AVCGV~ ccC11® Swnc da rhambmant .IR..efw..fi.... f eM_r•~_wveev __ Easy Peel Labels. C'- , • ~ See fhstruction Sheet 2 C~ i Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® ® iFeed Paper for Easy Peel Featurei ~ AVERY®576D® l CROW MARGERY K 8 PETER D CYS RICHARD L AND KAREN L CZAJKOWSKI MICHAEL 46103 HIGHWAY 68:24 5301 CHAMBERLIN AVE CZAJKOWSKI SANDRA J GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815 90 LA SALLE ST APT 16G NEW YORK, NY 10027 DANCING BEAR LAND LLC PO BOX 571 ASPEN, CO 81612 DAVIS CAROL L 7838 HILLMONT ST HOUSTON, TX 77040-6108 DOLINSEK JOHN 619 S MONARCH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 DONCER ASPEN LP 7641 W 123RD PL PALOS HEIGHTS, IL 60463 ELDER TRUST ELDER JERRY TRUSTEE PO BOX 308 LA JOLLA, CA 92038-0308 ETKIN DOUGLAS M & JUDITH G 701 S MONARCH ST #2 ASPEN, CO 81611 FARR BRUCE K & GAIL H PO BOX 4844 ANNAPOLIS, MD 21403 FLETCHER JAY R PO BOX 3476 ASPEN, CO 81612 GARMISCH LLC C/O MIE PROPERTIES 2560 LORD BALTIMORE DR WINDSOR MILL, MD 21244 GINSBURG ANNE C & ROBERT B 7933 YORKSHIRE CT BOCA RATON, FL 33496-1323 GREGORY NEIL MARTIN & LYNETTE 1801 PITTWATER RD MONA VALE NSW 2103 AUSTRALIA, DUNN STEVEN G 107 JUAN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ELLIS JAMES BYRON 17 1/2 FLEET ST MARINA DEL REY, CA 90292 EVANS DAVID COURTNEY PO BOX 952 ASPEN, CO 81612 FAULKNERJOHNL 2433 ROCKINGHAM ST ARLINGTON, VA 22207 FREIRICH MARK A PO BOX 774056 STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, CO 80477 GILBERT DONALD C 2004 TRUST 67 TURTLE BACK RD S NEW CANAAN, CT 06840 GLICKMAN EDWIN C 2322 LAZY O RD SNOWMASS, CO 81654 GREINER JERRY M GREINER TERESA U 330 BICKLEY RD GLENSIDE, PA 19038 EAST JAMES COLLIER TRUSTEE 5800 R ST LITTLE ROCK, AR 72207 ELLIS PAUL DAVID 100 E DEAN ST #2F ASPEN, CO 81611 FALL CREEK CONSTRUCTION LLC PO BOX 10420 ASPEN, CO 81612 FELDMAN SELMA 300 S POINTE DR APT 2403 MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139-7329 FRIEDKIN THOMAS H 8 SUSAN J PO BOX 4718 HOUSTON, TX 77210-4718 GILLESPIE JOHN E REV TRUST 775 GULFSHORE DR #4219 DESTIN, FL 32541 GOLDSMITH ADAM D SMITH RONA K PO BOX 9069 ASPEN, CO 81612 GROOS NICHOLAS D 210 N INDUSTRIAL PARK RD HASTINGS, MI 49058 -_.__ Etiquettes faciles a peter • CohsgRez la feuitle www.averycom Easy Peel Labels Li i • ~ See Instruction Sheet i Li , Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® ® iFeed Paper for Easy Peel Featurei ~ Dj0-VERY®steo® i HANG TEN ADVENTURE HARRIS NORMAN LINDSAY JR HARVEY JEFFREY & NANCY 809 S ASPEN ST #2 100 E DEAN ST UNIT 1 E 711 S DEARBORN ST - #507 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60605 HATCHER HUGH S 205 E DURANT AVE APT 2E ASPEN, CO 81611 HENRY WAYNE SCOTT PO BOX 2383 GRAPEVINE, TX 76099 HEIM WILLIAM D 124 E DURANT AVE APT 1 ASPEN, CO 81611-1769 HOLLY TREE INVESTMENTS LLC 4823 HOLLY TREE DR DALLAS, TX 75287 IAVARONE GIANFRANCO & RITA 341 ORIENTA AVE MAMORONECK, NY 10543 IMREM SUE GORDON TRUSTEE 219 E LAKE SHORE DR #5D CHICAGO, IL 60611 KAHN LIBA PO BOX 11137 ASPEN, CO 81612-9627 HEIMANN GEORGE R 100 E DEAN ST #2E ASPEN, CO 81611-1967 HOTELDURANT 122 E DURANT ASPEN, CO 81611 IMHOF FAMILY TRUST 2409 GREEN ST SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94123 J8E HANSEN LLC JAMES FAMILY TRUST 1/4 INT C/O EDWARD HANSEN 1 CASTLEWOOD CT 255 SEASPRAY AVE NASHVILLE, TN 37215-4617 PALM BEACH, FL 33480 JOHNSON KERRI & DEREK JOHNSTON MARGARET S 9.87% JUAN STREET HOA 117 JUAN ST #1 30 DEXTER ST 119 JUAN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 DENVER, CO 80220 ASPEN, CO 81611 KABERT INDUSTRIES INC KAPLAN BARBARA KAUFMAN STEVEN PO BOX 6270 3076 EDGEWOOD RD 0554 ESCALANTE VILLA PARK, IL 60181 PEPPER PIKE, OH 44124 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 KINGSBURY FAMILY TRUST KLINDWORTH J TODD & HEATHER KUHLMAN JEFFREY W 8 CARI D PO BOX 198 ~ PO BOX 25318 48 TRAINORS LANDING RD HOLDERNESS, NH 03245 ST CROIX, VI 00824 ASPEN, CO 81611 KULLGREN NANCY A LACY ROANE M JR LARKIN THOMAS J & MARYANN K 205 E DURANT AVE UNIT 2-C PO BOX 367 1 SHELDRAKE LN ASPEN, CO 81611 WACO, TX 76703-0367 PALM BEACH GARDENS, FL 33418-6820 NORTON KAREN JANE TRUST 588 S PONTIAC WAY DENVER, CO 80224 HILL EUGENE D III & JOAN L TRUST NINES TOM 8 CAROLYN 3 AVALON AVE P O BOX 129 21 TRAINORS LNDG PRIDES CROSSING, MA 01965 ASPEN, CO 81611-1652 EHquettes fables ~ paler • Consukez la feuille www.averycom I Milims to na6arit AVFR1/® C1fJ1® Sens de rhamement d~:.........:.... .. enn_~.....~e.. : Easy Peel Wtiels ~ i • ~ See Instruction Sheet ~ ~ aA~~®5160® i Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® !Feed Paper for Easy Peel Feature! 1 LEONARD-PECK SHEILA KATHRYN LEVY HELEN JOAN TRUST LEVY HYMAN & GAIL RR 1 PO BOX 375-P 421 WARWICK RD PO BOX 1365 VINEYARD HAVEN, MA 02568 KENILWORTH, IL 60043-1145 BOCA RATON, FL 33429-1365 LIBMAN KENNETH J 800 S MONARCH ST #2 ASPEN, CO 81611 LIFT ONE CONDOMINIUM ASSOC 131 EDURANTAVE ASPEN, CO 81611 LIFT ONE LLC 72.40% 24 LINDENWOOD LN LITTLETON, CO 80127 LOCHHEAD RAYMOND R 8 EMILIE M 200 SHERWOOD RD PASO ROBLES, CA 93446 MACGREGOR ROBERT DUNCAN 710 E DURANT AVE STEW 6 ASPEN, CO 81611-2070 MANDICH ROBERT M 100 DEAN ST #3F ASPEN, CO 81611 MCCONNELL THOMAS W 8 KAY L 3814 OAKHILLS BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48301 MENDEL M MARK MENDEL GRACE A - JT TENANTS 1620 LOCUST ST PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 MORGAN MICHAEL L 115 JUAN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 NOBLE GUY T PO BOX 9344 ASPEN, CO 81612 OLSON PAUL S 6 DIANE C PO BOX 2936 BRECKENRIDGE, CO 80424 LUNDHOLM KERSTIN M 115 JUAN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 MACHUCA EDGAR F 11 TRAINORS LANDING ASPEN, CO 81611 MARK KENNETH A 200 PANTIGO RD EAST HAMPTON, NY 11937 MCKENZIE BART B & PAIGE PARAVANO 4840 30TH ST NORTH ARLINGTON, VA 22207-2716 MONIGLE ETHEL M 803 S GARFIELD ST DENVER, CO 80209 MULKEY DAVID A DR TRUSTEE 2860 AUGUSTA DR LAS VEGAS, NV 89109 NOREN LARA L & STEPHEN C 11211 FONTHILL DR INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46236-8630 ONEAL PROPERTIES LLC 8100 E CAMELBACK RD #31 SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85251-2773 MACDONALD KENNETH HUGH REV TRUST 44 W HANNUM SAGINAW, MI 48602 MAGES LAWRENCE M & MARY K 84% 216 LINDEN AVE WILMETTE, IL 60091 MCCARTNEY BRENDA DAHL 113 JUAN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 MCNAMARA CHRISTIANE J TRST PO BOX 1053 ASPEN, CO 81612 MOORE JOHN W 50% 10426 WHITEBRIDGE LN ST LOUIS, MO 63141 MURRAY DENIS PO BOX 3770 ASPEN, CO 81612 NORTH LAUDERDALE PETROLEUM LLC 6318 23RD ST NW BOCA RATON, FL 33434 ONEILL ROGER PO BOX 711 LAKE GENEVA, WI 53147-3579 Eti4uettes faciles ~ paler • Consultez la feuille wwwsverycom ~:.:¢..__ :_ __~__t. wveav® r~an® Cane is .6n...e...e..~ -u:_~.-.:__ ....... ~.. ........ Easy Peel Labelz i ~ Use Avery®TEMPU-TE 5160® ® iFeed Paper PASCO PROP LLC SMITH PATRICK A PIECE C 360 SOUTHFIELD RD PO BOX BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 ASPEN, PINES LODGE DEVELOPMENT LLC 2353 IRVINE AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ROARING FORK PROPERTIES C/O HOWARD A W ILL JR 5055 26TH AVE ROCKFORD, IL 61109 ROSE JON E ROSE RITA L 303 MAGNOLIA LAKE DR LONGWOOD, FL 32779 S C JOHNSON AND SON INC TAX DEPT 412 1525 HOWE ST RACINE, WI 53403 SCHAYER CHARLES M III 588 S PONTIAC WAY DENVER, CO 80224 SEMRAU TIMOTHY R HEIDI ROBBIN 58 TRAINORS LANDING RD ASPEN, CO 81611 SHADOW MTN AERIE PTNRSHP LLP C/O ARTHUR J & PAMELA T WASHINGTON 21 BRIARCLIFF RD LARCHMONT, NY 10538 SHINE FAMILY LLC 8677 LOGO 7 COURT INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46219-1430 ~ see mstructioln sheen ~ AVERY®stso® 1 for Easy Peel Feature ~ THE PIE LLC PINES LODGE CONDO ASSOC ?492 152 E DURANT AVE :O 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 RINGSBY GRAY PO BOX 1292 HAIKU, HI 96708 ROBERT FAMILY TRUST 1/4 INT 771 FERST DR ATLANTA, GA 30332-0245 ROARING FORK MTN LODGE ASPEN LLC TWO CREEKS BLDG PO BOX 6237 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 RUDERMAN ERIC P & MIMI E 1536 OGDEN ST DENVER, CO 80218-1406 SCHAINUCK LEWIS I & MICHELLE T 2900 OCEAN BLVD CORONA DE MAR, CA 92625 SCHERER ROBERT P TRUST 217 GOLDENROD AVE CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 SEVERY FAMILY TRUST 70.39% 1077 RACE ST APT 1004 DENVER, CO 80206-2829 SHEFFER DOUGLAS & BARBARA PO BOX 2763 BASALT, CO 81621 SILVERMAN MARC A & MARILYN L 937 DALE RD MEADOWBROOK, PA 19046 SKY BLUE LLC 27.60% SLOAN SUSAN MARIE 5743 CORSA AVE # 101 500 S ORANGE AVE WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91362 SARASOTA, FL 34236 ROBLES ENRIQUE ALVAREZ ALVAREZ CRISTINA MONTES URALES 350 LOMAS CHAPULTEPEC MEXICO DF MEXICO, 11000 RYAN ELIZABETH H 1!2 INT COPE G RICHARD & NANCY M 1/2 INT 419 WINNEBAGO DR JANESVILLE, WI 53545 SCHAPIRO MARC & PATRICIA 1685 TAMARAC DR GOLDEN, CO 80401 SCHUMACHER JUDY M 0115 GLEN EAGLES DR ASPEN, CO 81611 SEVERY RICHARD L 9.87% 30 DEXTER ST DENVER, CO 80220 SHENK ROBERT D 290 HWY 133 CARBONDALE, CO 81623-1530 SIMON HERBERT REV TRUST 8765 PINE RIDGE DR INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46260-1778 SM-15 SEELBACH WILIIA - C/O 45000 S WOODLAND CHAGRIN FALLS, OH 44022 Eti4uettes taciles a peter ~ Consukez la feuille vrww.averycom Easy Peel Labels Ci i • ~ See Instruction Sfieet ~ A i Use Avery®TEMPLATE 5160® ® l~ Paper for Easy Peel Feature ~ AVERY®51 W® i SOLONDZ TAMI S SOUTH POINT CONDO LLC SOUTH POINT CONDOMINIUM PO BOX 2829 150 N MARKET ASSOCIATION ASPEN, CO 81612 WICHITA, KS 67202 205 E DURANT AVE #2F ASPEN, CO 81611 SOUTHPOINT-SUMNER CORP 4828 FORT SUMNER DR BETHESDA, MD 20816 SPAULDING RICHARD W THOMPSON ELEANOR M PO BOX 278 CONCORD, MA 01742-0278 SPRING LANE INVESTMENTS LLC 8 OAK LAKE DR BARRINGTON, IL 60010-5914 STANTONJAMES C/O WORLD-WIDE HOLDINGS CORP 950 THIRD AVE 18TH FL NEW YORK, NY 10022 STAPLETON DAVID W 206 E DEAN ST #2A ASPEN, CO 81611 STEINER DONALD R STONE FAMILY TRUST BULKHEAD GRAND 1 THROCKMORTON LN 3338 PEACHTREE RD #3307 MILL VALLEY, CA 94941 ATLANTA, GA 30326 STUART FAMILY TRUST 1/4 INT 1 CASTLEWOOD CT NASHVILLE, TN 37215-0617 TAYLOR ELAINE D W301 N9430 COUNTY TRUNK E HARTLAND, WI 53029 THREE REEDS LLC 2224 VIA SEVILLE RD NW ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87104-3096 TUCKER TIMOTHY H & PATRICIA A 809 S ASPEN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 VANDER WALL DEAN ROBERT & VANTONGEREN HAROLD V 8 LIDIA M BEVERLY J 2000E 12TH AVE BOX 8 PO BOX 189 DENVER, CO 80206 LONE PINE, CA 93545 SZYMANSKI WILLIAM R & LYNNE E 2220 E SILVER PALM RD BOLA RATON, FL 33432 TELEMARK APARTMENT 2 LLC C/O ANDREW HILL 20351 NE 61ST CT REDMOND, WA 98053 STARK RENEE A 205 E DURANT AVE APT 1 D ASPEN, CO 81611-3813 STRAWBRIDGE GEORGE JR 3801 KENNETT PKE BLDG #8-100 WILMINGTON, DE 19807 TAROCH HOLDINGS LTD C/O PATRICK D MCALLISTER PC 315 E HYMAN AVE #305 ASPEN, CO 81611-2909 TELEMARK ASPEN LLC 55 SECOND ST COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80906 TOLLEFSON JON S 8 JOANN M TOWNE PLACE OF ASPEN CONDO 38 TRAINORS LANDING ASSOC INC ASPEN, CO 81611 C/O ASPEN LODGING COMPANY 747 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 TYDEN FAMILY FARMS PTNP UHLFELDER FAMILY INVESTMENTS 1730 IROQUOIS TR RLLP HASTINGS MI 49058 210 AABC STE AA , ASPEN, CO 81611 WOLF FAMILY TRUST 12/23/1986 1221 MYRTLE AVE SAN DIEGO, CA 92103 WOODING MERRITT B PO BOX 339 HOPE, NJ 07844 WHITE JALEH THICKMAN DAVID 152 E DURANT AVE ASPEN, CO 81611-1737 WOODSON TATJANA REV TRUST PO BOX 125 TETON VILLAGE, WY 83025 _. _ _ _- EtiQUettes ladles a peter • Consnkez la feuille www.averycom ::.a:___ ~_ __~__. w::envA ~.~n® ce... Ae .{.~...e...e..t ~,:~~._.:__ . sw.. ~.....~..., Easy Peel Labels L'- i ~ ~ See Ihstrudioh Sheet i n ~ ~ Use Avery®TEMPLATE 5160® ® iFeerl Paper for Easy Peel Feature ~ AVERY®576D® 1 WOW LIFT ONE LLC WRIGHT LISA WUGALTER JOEL C/O WARSTLER ROBERT T p0 BOX 3770 131 E DURANT AVE #209 3225 ELK CANYON CIR ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 8161 t SEDALIA, CO 80135-8573 Etiquettes faciles ~ paler ~ _ Consukez la feotlle www.averycom EXHIBIT 7 ORDINANCE N0.32 -- (SERIES OF 2003) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE SOUTH ASPEN STREET SUBDIVISION/PUD AND FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN INCLUDING SUBDIVISION, GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (CMQS) E%EMPTION5 FOR AFFOanA~LE HOUSING AND RECONSTRUCTION OF A nEMOLI5HED MlJl;1'1-FAMILY BUILDING, Rh'LONING'I'O L.PI'R WI'1'I1 A 1'UD OVI?.RI.AY, ANU A SPECIAi. RhVIEW'I'O E5'1'ABLI511'I'111C AFI~OKDABLh IIOU5ING PARKING REQUIREMENT'S FOR'I'1IE PROI'LR'I'Y'l'O BF. DE5CR113Ell A5 PARCELS I, 2, AND 3, OF'CIiE SOU9'Fl ASHEN S'I'KEET 5UBDlVISiON/PUD, CITY AND 1'OWNS(TE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2735-131 -001 (Parcel 1) Parcel No. 2735- 1-14-003 (Parcel 2) ~~ Parcel No. 27 -131-23-001 (Parcel 3) WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen Land Fund II, LLC, owner, represented by Vann Associates, LLC, requesting approval of a Final Planned Unit Development Plan including requests for Subdivision, Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemptions for Affordable Housing and reconstmction of a demolished multi-family building, Rezoning to LlfR, and- Special Review to establish the off-street pazking requirements for the property described as, Parcel 1: Block 6 of the Eames Addition to the-City and Townsite of Aspen, Parcel 2: Lots 7-12, Block 11, Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Parcel 3: Lots 13-20, Block 11, Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of AsPan; and, WHEREAS, the development property consists of three (3) parcels zoned L/TR and R-15 with a Lodge and PUD Overlay; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310, Map and Text Amendments; Section 26.445, Planned Unit Development; Section 26.470, Growth Management Quota System; Section 26.480, Subdivision; the City Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the land use requests made by the Applicant during a duly noticed public hearing after taking and considering comments. from the general public, and recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission, Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed and considered the development proposal tinder the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein and recommended approval with conditions; and, ~~I~III~IIIII~III~IIIII~III VIII IIII~IIIIil~IIIIIIIIIIIO 8$640 00'0.498 WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 3, 2003, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 14, Series of 2003 by a three to zero (3-0) vote, recommending that City Council approve the proposal with conditions; 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 :ald considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Conununity Development Director, the Aspen/Pitkin County lirntsing Authority, the applicnhlu rcliard agencie~t, and has taken and considered public I:nituriuttl at a public huu-ing; and, WIICIiL+'AS, lhu City Cuuuuil Inds Lhal the devclopmatt proposal mcuts or uxceals 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 welfaze. NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council hereby rezones Parcel 2, and a portion of Parcel 3, of the South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD, City and Townsite of Aspen, to L/TR (Lodge/Tourist Residential) and rezoned Pazcels 1, 2, and 3 of the South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay. Section 2 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council hereby approves the South Aspen Street Final PUD Plan, which includes application for Final PUD, Subdivision, Growth Management Quota System Exemptions (GMQS) for Affordable Housing and for the reconstmction of the multi-family building to be demolished (Mine Dump Apartments), and for Special Review to establish the off- street pazking requirements for the development of fourteen (14) free mazket town homes and seventeen (17) affordable housing units subject to the following conditions: 1. A Subdivision/PUD Agreement shall be recorded at the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office within 180 days of the final approval by City Council and shall include the following: a. The information required to be included in a PUD Agreement; pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.070(C). I i II I1 I1I I I 4864© x010 i I~iIIVIII~IIIII IIIIII II~IIIII~~IIII iII~IIIIIIII I~iI 00 5/04/2003 1 49fi cn v,o oRVIS PI iKIN .,OUN 2. A Final PUD Plan and Subdivision Plat shall be recorded at the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office within 180 days of the fmal approval granted by City Council and shall include: a. A final plat meeting the requirements of the Community Development Engineer and showing easements, encroachment agreements and licenses with reception numbers for physical improvuncnls, and Lhe location of i.dility pedestals. An illustrative situ plan of the prujoel showing the proposed improvements, landscaping (including all plantings, species, numbers, and locations), parking, and the dimensional requirements as approved. c. A drawnn re resenting the project's architectural chazacter. d. revised drainage plan and r rt, including an erosion control plan, shall be re a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, in w c wells will only be allowed to handle runoff from foundation drains, pazking gaz3ge ramps, and roof drains. All other runoff shall be directed towards the City's storm water system. e. revised infrastructure plan mdicating that all road 'mprovements shall b ned: The plan shall also indicate that there s a e no super-elevated curves permitted. Juan Street and South Crannisch Street (to the extent of Pazcel 1's street frontage) shall be widened to 27 feet as measured from the outer edges of the curbs. The minimum slope of Juan Street shall be .75%. 3. The following dimensional requirements of the PUD aze approved and shall be printed on the Final Illustrative Plan: Dimensional R uirement ' Proposed Development Minimum Lot Size 6,000 sf. Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit 1,100 sf. per bedroom (81 bedrooms on 89,127 sf. of lot azea that applies to density calculations) Minimum Lot Width 60 feet Front Yazd Setback 10 ft. er azcel Side Yard Setback S ft. er azcel Reaz Yazd Setback 10 ft. per pazcel Maximum Height 28 feet except where deed restricted Percent of en Space 27% (cumulative over all 3 azcels) III~II~~ININ9AlIH1111 m-:. •.. External ~ .83:1 (73,381 sf. cumulative. over all three 4. FAR arcels) AFI Off-Street Pazking 30 Parking Spaces (2 spaces for each dwelling unit of 2 or more bedrooms, and 1 space for each one bedroom and studio unit)(cumulative over all three aroels Prcc Market OFf-Street 28 Parking Spaces (2 spaces for each dwelling Parking unit of 2 ur more hcdrornns, and I space lin• each nne hedraum and studio uuil)(cunu;lalivc over all three narcclsl "fhc building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the Gnal recorded Ordinance. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any approval from the Pazks Department Director for off- site replacement or mitigation of any removed trees. e. A detailed ventilation plan of the pazking gazage ventilation system prepared by an engineer that specializes in the design of ventilation and heating systems. f. A fugitive dust control plan which includes proposed construction fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed azeas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads, construction speed limits, and other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line. A letter from the primary contractor to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and aze understood. h. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid prior to building permit issuance. If an alternative agreement to delay payment of the W ater Tap and/or Parks Impact fee is finalized, those fees shall be payable according to the agreement. i. A State of Colorado Sterm Water Management (Erosion Control) Permit because the land azea of the development is over an acre: j. A PM-10 mitigation plan for review and approval by the Environmental Health Department or a cash-in-lieu payment in the amount to be calculated by the City Environmental Health ~NPN~IIEIYINillIRfMIN'~Ifl 'a,,.:'-. Director that is to be used entirely to implement PM-10 reduction methods. 5. The Applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. on Monday tlu-u Saturday. fi. The Applicant shall agree Ihat there will tic no construction material or dumpstcrs stored on the public rights-of-way wilcss a tanporary encroachment license is granted by the Cily lsngiuecr. hi addition, the Applicant shall submit a fill set ol'a~nslruction management plans as part ol'lhc building permit application, and the management plans shall include a noise, dust control, and consltvclion tralTic and conslntclion parking management plan which addresses, at a minimum, the following issues: a. DeFining the construction debris hauling routes and associated impacts on local streets; and, b. Construction parking mitigation, except for essential trade trucks, no other personal trucks are to be parked in the area around the site. The city encourages that site workers be shuttled in from the airport parking azea. The Applicant shall complete (prior to any of the remodel work, including removal of drywall, carpet, tile, etc.,) the Building Department's asbestos checklist, and if necessary, a person licensed by the State to do asbestos inspections must conduct an inspection. The Building Department cannot sign any building permits until they get this report. If there is no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestosis present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it in accordance with the applicable regulations. 8. The Applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. 9. The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with applicable standazds of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. The Applicant shall enter into a Water Service agreement. 10. The Applicants shall at their sole expense install a new eight (8) inch water line within South Gamusch Street and Juan Street. In addition, the Applicant shall abandon the existing six (6) inch water line that exists in South Garmisch and Juan Street. The point of beginning for the main replacement on South Garmisch Street shall be the existing valve complex (serving the Barbee PUD) north of the intersection of Dean and Gatmisch. ~'III'III~~~II~II~II~IIII~IIII~II'~~III~II~~~I~~~~~II x864©e3 i:aaG This is approximately 80 feet further north of the point of beginning shown on the schematic utility plan dated June 21, 2002. 11. The Applicant shall also schedule the abandonment of the existing water taps prior to applying for new water taps. 12. The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's talus and regulations. If new sewer lines are required, then the existing service must be cxwvuled and disconnected al the main sewer lino. No clear water amncctions (root; foundation, perimeter drains) shall be allowed In drain to ACSD lines. All improvements below grade shall require the use of a pumping station. The Applicant shall install an oil and sand separator in the parking garage that meets the Aspen Sanitation District's standazds. in addition, the Applicant shall enter into a shared service agreement if more than one unit is served by a single service line. 13. Elevator shaft drains shall flow thru an oil and sand interceptor. 14. The Applicant shall fund proportionate costs associated with the development for the replacement of the main sanitary sewer lines located in S. Aspen Street, Dean Street, and neaz the Post Office. 15. The Applicant shall enter into a main line extension and collection system agreement with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District prior to applying for building permits for the development. 16. In the event that snowmelt is installed, the Glycol contaimnent azeas must be approved by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on any of the units within the development. 17. The Applicant shall at their sole expense replace the existing substandard sewer line located in the alley of Block 61 between S. Garmisch and First Street in First Street. 18. The Applicant shall extend the existing storm water sewers south on both S. Aspen Street and S. Gamrisch Street as far as Dean Avenue. Additionally, the Applicant shall extend the existing stone sewers to the Dean Avenue/ S. Aspen Street intersection and to the Dean Avenue; S. Garmisch Street intersection. As required by the City Engineering Department, catch basins shall be installed at these intersections. 19. All landscaping in the public tight-of--way shall meet the requirements as set forth in Municipal Code Chapter 21:L0, Trees and Landscaping on Public Right-of--Way. Any landscaping in the public right-of--way shall be approved by the City Parks Department prior to installation. The ~~II~ ~~III I!I{II IIIIIi III ~IIII IIiI~II III IIIIIIIII IIII 48647 t0 ~L Applicant shall also obtain a revocable encroachment license from the City Engineering Department prior to installation of any landscaping or improvements in the public right-of--way. All plantings along the edge of the subject properties or within the public right-of--way shall be of a size and a species that will not require major maintenance (pruning trimming due to over growth) by the City or the developer. 30. All exterior lighting shall meet the Cily of Aspen Lighting Code reyuircmunls set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.575.1511, ns may he amerulcd Ir•om time to limo. 21. The Applicant shall pay a proportional amount of the applicable school land dedication fees as determined by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer prior to building permit issuance on each of the units. 22. All affordable housing units to be constructed on Pazce13 of the PUD shall obtain certificate of occupancies prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy on any of the free market units within the development. In addition, the free mazket units on Parcel 2 shall not be issued Certificates of Occupancy until all of the affordable housing units on Pazce12 have eceived Certificates of Occupancy. The free market units on Pazcel 1 shall also not be issued Certificates of Occupancy until the affordable housing units on Parcel 1 have received Certificates of Occupancy. 23. The Applicant shall convey an undivided fractional interest (one-tenth of one percent) in the ownership of the deed restricted employee housing uriits to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority for the purpose of complying with the Colorado Supreme Court Decision regazding rent control legislation. The deed of conveyance shall contain such terms and conditions that aze mutually acceptable to the City and the Applicant. To satisfy the rent control issue, the Applicant may submit an alternative option acceptable to the City Attorney. 24: The Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and the City of Aspen from any claims, liability, fees or similaz chazges related to ownership in the deed restricted affordable housing units. 25. The mix of affordable housing categories shall be as follows: 2-1 Bedroom Category 1 Units 2-1 Bedroom Category 2 Units 2-3 Bedroom Category 1 Units 7-3 Bedroom Category 2 Units 4-3 Bedroom Category 3 rJnits 26. The deed restrictions on the affordable housing units on a given pazcel shall be filed in conjunction with an application to condominiumize the free mazket units but prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on any of the units on said parcel:. The deed restrictions shall meet the following: a. The deed restrictions on the affordable housing units shall be defined by the rental price terms in the Aspen/Firkin County AlTonlahle Housing Guidolines in alTect at lhu time of Final PL1D approval. 27. The Applicant shall record a housing replacement agreement which sets forth the terms and conditions by which the replacement housing will be provided prior to demolishing the Mine Dump Apartments. 28. The most recent tenants of the Mine Dump Apartments who meet the Affordable Housing Guidelines for the proposed units shall be granted first priority through an internal lottery at the time of the initial rental of the replacement affordable housing units. 29. The Applicant shall erect signage and install pavement mazking on ~ uan Street that prohibits on-street parking. 30. The Applicant or their successors or assigns shall maintain the common driveway between Parcels 2 and 3. . 31. The Applicant shall install an adequate fire alarm system throughout the development as determined by the Fire Marshal. The Applicant shall also install fire sprinkler systems and fire extinguishers that meet the requirements of the Fire Mazshal. The Applicant shall meet with the Fire Mazshal prior to building permit issuance to review alarms and sprinkler system plans. 32. Soil nails shall not be allowed within or under the public right-of--way. 33. The Applicant shall submit financial assurance in an amount and form acceptable to the City Engineer for excavation in the public right-of--way. 34. The Applicant shall provide a form of mitigation approved by the City Engineer for increased vehiculaz traffic on South Aspen Street, causing a revocation of the road's 15-yeaz pavement warranty that results from accelerated road deterioration. The Applicant shall be proportionately reimbursed by future developments that cause a substantial increase in vehicle trips on the portion of South Aspen Street that is subject to [he 1~- yeazpavement warranty. ~II~WHIyl.9!II.III~IIIhM~ a.~~~ .. 35. The Applicant shall provide atwenty-five (25) foot wide improved public access way with drive-on, slanted-face curbs and a stabilized shoulder on Dean Avenue for vehicular access into Pazcel 1's affordable housing units. 36. The City Engineering Department recommends that the Applicants obtain flood insurance for the proposed units if available. 37. 'fhe Applicant shall install tree saving conslruclion fences around the drip line ol'any trees to he saved. a. The City Forester orhis/her designee must inspect this fence before any conslruclion activities commence. b. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction equipment, construction backfill, foot or vehicular traffic shall be allowed within the fenced drip line. 38. A native vegetation protection fence shall be installed on the western property boundary of Pazcels 1 and 2 between Pazcels 1 and 2 and the Bazbee Family Subdivision Property. The fence shall be installed and inspected by a City of Aspen Parks Department Representative prior to constmction. There shall be no storage of construction materials, back fill, tools, or construction traffic beyond this protective fence. There also shall be no excavation or disturbance of the native area beyond this protective fence. 39. The Applicant or their successors or assigns shall maintain the Open Space on the site including the Park proposed on Pazcel 1. 40. Pet waste stations shall be installed in the Park. 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 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 shall be held on the 28th day of July, 2003, 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 23rd day of June, 2003. s: Ile en Kan I t e ~ , ayor Attest: ~, Kathryn S. K h, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved by a vote of three to zero (3-0), this 28th day of July 2003. Helen eru ayor Attest: Kathryn S. ,City Clerk Approved as to forth: f</~f~~ John P. Wormer, City Attorney IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII0486~0 @~110a9R SILV/R DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY C~ RESOLUTION N0.9 (Series of 2008) EXHIBIT 8 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF THE VESTED RIGHTS GRANTED BY ORDINANCE N0.32, SERIIS OF 2003 FOR THE SOUTH ASPEN STREET SUBDIVISIONlPUD APPROVAL, BEING A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCELS 1, 2, AND 3, OF THE SOUTH ASPEN STREET SUBDIVISION/PUD, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITHIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2735-131-39-001 (Parcel l) Parcel No. 2735-131-39-002 (Parcel 2) Parcel No. 2735-131-39-003 (Parcel 3) WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen Land Fund II, LLC, represented by Sunny Vann, of Vann and Associates, requesting approval of a one (1) year extension of the vested rights granted for the South Aspen Street Subdivision! PUD pursuant to Ordinance No. 32, Series of 2003; and, WHEREAS, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 32, Series of 2003, which approved a subdivision/PUD and awazded Vested Property Rights status for the development of fourteen (14) free-mazket residential units and seventeen (17) affordable housing units until July 28, 2006; and, WHEREAS, the applicant submitted the application for extension of vested property rights on Mazch 20, 2006 before the vested rights expired, which was approved via Resolution No. 36, Series of 2006; and, WHEREAS, the applicant submitted the application for extension of vested property rights before the vested rights expired in 2007, which was approved via Resolution No. 29, Series of 2007; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.308.010 Vested Property Rights of the Land Use Code, City Council may grant an extension of vested rights after a public hearing is held and a resolution is adopted; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the application and recommended approval of an extension of vested rights for the South Aspen Street Subdivision! PUD; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Counci] has reviewed and considered the requested of vested rights for the South Aspen Street Subdivision/ PUD under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and wnsidered the recommendation of the Community Development Duector, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the extension of vested rights proposal meets or exceeds all applicable land use standards and that the approval of the extension of vested rights, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of ffie Aspen Area Community Plan and will allow the applicant to participate in a master planning process of the subject property and some surrounding azeas; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1 The Aspen City Council does hereby extend the vested rights until July 28, 2009, as approved by Ordinance No. 32, Series of 2003 for parcels 1, 2, and 3, of the South Aspen Street Subdivision/PIJD, City and Townsite of Aspen for the South Aspen Street SubdivsionlPUD with the following conditions: That the establishment herein of a vested property right shall not preclude the application or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, and all adopted impact fees. The developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, and impact fees that aze in effect at the time of building permit, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. 2. Due to the Applicant's consideration of participating in a master planning process of the subject property and certain neighboring parcels, the existing application(s) for building permit shall be considered dormant by the Chief Building Official and Section 105.3.2., Time limitation of application, of the 2003 International Building Code shall not apply until July 28, 2009. Applicant shall have the right to reactivate the building permit application at any time prior to July 28, 2009. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 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• A duly noticed public hearing on this Resolution was held on the 28th day of January, 2008 at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. FINALLY, adopted, passed, and approved by a 5 to 0 vote on this 28a' day of January 2008. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: . Wo cester, City Attorney Michael C. Ireland, Attest: I{athryn S. och, City Clerk Exhibit A Legal description ofpazcels 1, 2, and 3 P71 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL I: 81ock 5, EAMES ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, more par5culariy described as follows: Beginning of a point which is the intersection of U^e Easterly right of way Gne of Garmisch Street and the Southerly right of wav line cf Cean Avenue, from whence the NorUheast Comer of Section 13, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.fvi.. Sears N 53°20'28" East 814.56 feek ',hence =_iorgse Southerly right of `r+aY line of Dean Avenue 5 75°09'11" E 330 feet to the Westedy right of way fine of Aspen S'.r_=-t: t,^>_^;a z!org said :^:ght of way line of Aspen Street S 14°50'49" W 130 feet to the NorSerty right of way tine of Juan Streak =.r_=_ along said right of way line of Juan Street N 75°09'11" W 330 feet to the Ea_1eAy right of way line of Gamisch Sleets thence along said .dyht of way fine of Garmisch S`reet N 14°50'49" E 130 feet to the poir~ of Segirs,ing. E; :C=?TIAIG therefrom: The portion descrbed in Sock 232 at Page 362 The ahoy=_ par*_al is also described as folows: Beginning =_t a poi; t which is the intersection of Lhe Eastery right-of-way line cf Garmisch Street and the Southerly rig:^.:-of-way tin= of Goan Avenue, from vrhence tha Nodheast comer of Sectcn 13, Tovmshio 10 South, Range 85 West of Lye Sim ii Principal Maridian bears N 53°2028" E 614x6 fezt, more or less; L;er,ce along the Southerly right-of--way fin_ of Dean Avenue S 75°09'11' E 330 fee, more or less, to the Westerly right-of-way ling of Aspen Stre=_t; thence along said right-of-way line of Aspen Street S 14°50'49" W 130 feet, more or less [o the Northerty right-of-way fine of Juan Sleet; th=_rc=_ a!crg said right-cf--way fine of Juan Street N 75'09'11" W 298.20 feet, to the Sottheastedy comer of that pamel of Iar Jest.^Sad fir. 3ook 232 al Page 362; tharc=_ tv 40°?1'11' ~~! along the Noriheasiarty lire of said parcel, a distance of 33.13 feet io the Northeastedy right-of-way Gns o' Gamisch 57eet; th=nc_ along said :fight-of-way fine of Gar:risch Stre=_t N ?4°50'49" E 107.90 tset, mere or lest, to the point of beginning. SAID PARCEL O~ LAND ALSO BEING DESCP.IBED AS FOLLOWS: °Icc% c, c-.A~!ES ADDITIGN TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, mere par`cu:ady described as follows: Bzginning at a p•=int which is the intersection of :`.e E=star!y right of way fine of Gannis: h Streat and the Southery right of may lire of Dean ~~: ernue, from whence the Nor.',easl Comer of Section 13, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th Princpa{ Mardian., b=_ars N 53°20'28° East 314.58 `• aet more or less; thence atono the Southerly right of way tine of De=^ Avenue S 75°09'11' E 330 f=_et, more or less to the Wesfedy right of way line of Pspen Street; ther_ along said right of way line of Aspen S7ee: 314`50'49" W 130 feet, more or less to th>_ NoCheriy right of way line of Juan Street, f,,ence along said right of way line of Juan Street N 7~ 09'11" W 330 feet, more or {ass to the Eastedy right of way Gne of Garanisch Street; th=_nce along said right of way Tine of Gamisch Street N 14°50'49" E 130 feet, more or less to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING therefrom: That parcel of land described in Book 232 at Page 362 in the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitltin County, Colorado. Said Parcel 1 is also described as follows: Beginning at a point which is the intersection of the Easterly right-of-way line of Garmisch SVeet and the Southedy P72 right-of-way line of Dean Avenue, from whence the Northeast comer of Section 13, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the Stith Principal Meridian bears N 53°20'28° E 814.56 feet, more or less; thence along the Southerly right-of-way line of Dean Avenue S 75°09'11" E 330 fee, more or less, to the Westery right-of--way line of Aspen Streek thence along said right-of-way Gne of Aspen Street S 14°50`49" W 1311 feet, more or less to fhe Norhedy right of-way line of Juan Streek thence along said right-of-way line of Juan Street N 75°09'11" W 296.2D faet, to the Southeasterly comer of that parcel of land d=_scribed in Book 232 at Page 362; t.':ence N 40°21'11" W along the Northeasterly line of said parcel, a distance of 38.73 feet to the Northeastedy right-of--way line of Gamdsch Street', thence along said right-of-way line of Garmisch Street N 14°511'49" E 107.90 faet, more or less, to the point of beyinning. PARCEL 2: That portion of the Northeast one-quarter of the Northeast ona-quarter (Lot 1) of Section 13, Township 10 South. Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., descnbed as follows: Beginning at the Northeast Comer of Lot 13, Block 11, Eames Addition thence N'r 5°09'11" W 151.25 feek thence S 14°50'49" W 78.00 feet; thence S 03°5543" N/ t6a.99 feet; thence S 75°09'11" E 150.00 feek thence N 14°50'49" E 240.OD feet to the point of beginning. ALSO KNOWN AS Lots 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20, Block 11, EAMES ADDiTiON TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE 0'r ASPEN, and a tract of land being Part of Lot 1 of Section 13, Tcwrship 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., descdbed as follows: Beginning at th=_ Northwesterty comer of Lot 13, Block 11, Eames Addton; thence S 14'~0'4S" VY 240.00 feet along the Westedy ling of said block 11 to the Southwesterly comer of Lot 20, Block 11, Eames Addition; thence N 03°55'43" E 164.99 feel; thence N 1d°50'=3" c 73.00 feet: thence S 75'09'1 ;" . 3125 teat to the point of beginning. AND Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, Block 11, EAMES ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWttSITE OF .>SPEN, more fully described as follows: Beginning at the Northwestedy comer of said Lot 7; thence S 75°09'11" E 190.00 feet along the Northery boundary line of said Block 11; thence S 1d°50'43" W 100.00 feel along the Eastedy twundary fine of said Block 11; thence N 75°0511"'v`f 19G.G0 feet along the Southerly boundary line of said Lots 7-12 b the Southwestedy comer of said Lot 7; thence N t 4°SG a9" c 100.00 feet along the Westery boundary line of said Lot 7 to Ghe point of beginning. SAID PP.RCEL O> ~aND ALSO BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: Beginning at th=_ Sou:h'.vest comer of said Let 7, a rebar and cap PLS # 29030, from which a rebar and cap PLS # 2547 bears N 55° E a distance of 0.7 feek henca N 14';;1,'43" `_ along G`' westedy line of said Lot 7, a distance of 100.00 feet to the hJorthwest comer of said Lot 7, also being at the Southerly rrg`tit-of-way of Juan Street in the City of Aspen, a rebar and cap PLS # 2547; thence S 7~ 09'11" E along tha Northerly line of said 31ock 11, also being the Southerly right-of-way line of said Juan Street a distance of 180.00 `szt to the Northeast comer of said Block 11, a rebar and cap PLS # 29030; thence S 14°50'49" W along Ire Eastedy line of said Block 11, also being the Westerly right-of-way of Aspen Street in the City of Aspen a distance of 100.00 toot to the Southeast comer of said Lot 12, a rebar and cap PLS # 29030; thence N i 5°09'11" W along the Southerly line of said Lots 7,8,9,10,11 and 12 a dstance of 1 BO.OD feet to the point of beginning. P73 AND The vacated alley sttuatad'm Biock'11, EAMES ADD[T10N TO THE CITY AND TONMSITE OF ASPEN. MEMORANDUM ~'' TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council 11~^,,^~ THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~ f yl FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director RE: Aspen Valley Hospital -Master Facilities Plan (401 Castle Creek Road) - Conceptual Planned Unit Development -Resolution No. 3, Series 2009 - Public Hearine (continued from January 26, 2009) MEETING DATE: February 9, 2009 APPLICANT /OWNER: Aspen Valley Hospital, David Ressler, CEO REPRESENTATIVE: Leslie Lamont, Lamont Planning Services. LOCATION: Parcel C, Aspen Valley Hospital District Subdivision, commonly known as 401 Castle Creek Road. CURRENT ZONING aSc USE Located in the Public (PUB) zone district. Lot C contains 19.1 acres or approximately 832,085 sq. fr. of lot area. PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant is requesting to develop a master plan for the redevelopment and expansion of the hospital campus. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends conceptual approval of a Planned Unit Development with conditions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the hearing be continued to April 13, 2009 at the conclusion of tonight's hearing. Page 1 of 9 LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: As noted in previous staff memos, the Conceptual Planned Unit Development review for the proposed master facilities plan of the hospital is being divided into a minimum of three hearings with individual topics as noted below: January 12, 2009: Project Overview: Operational Needs, Program, Trends, Phasing, Architecture & Design January 26, 2009: Employee Housing, Site Improvements (grading, drainage, trail location), Noise Analysis, Housekeeping items February 9, 2009: Transportation (parking generation, trail easement, site, roads, bikes, trails, parking garage), Miscellaneous Items, Conditions of approval April 13 or 27, 2009: Additional meeting, potential vote Again the purpose of Conceptual PUD is to allow the Council the opportunity to identify any major questions or concerns that you would like to have the Applicant address further, either at this stage of review (conceptual) or at a later more specific stage of review (final). CONTINUED APRIL 13TH OR 27TH HEARING: The Applicant has requested the AVH heazing be continued to April 13`h or the 27`s after tonight's heazing. It is anticipated that the applicant will come back to discuss affordable housing location in greater detail as well as some other programmatic issues. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant, Aspen Valley Hospital District, LLC has requested approval to redevelop and expand the existing hospital campus which was annexed into the city in 2003. The focus of the proposal is on Parcel C of the campus, where the hospital, senior center/assisted living (Whitcomb Terrace), ambulance barn, heli-pad and the hospital CEO's residence is located. Parcel A of the campus includes the Schultz building and Mountain Oaks employee housing. Pazcel C contains approximately 19.1 acres or 832,085 square feet. A site map is provided on the next page per Figure 1. The Applicant would like to redevelop the parcel taking into account a twenty yeaz program life cycle with an anticipated 2016 build-out timeline. The following tables compare existing and proposed development for the site and the buildings on the campus. Tahle 1 Fxistinn and Prnnnsed Conditions Existin Conditions Pro osed Conditions Pazcel Area 832,085 s . ft. 832,085 s . ft. Building Footprint (residence, hospital, bus barn, & hase I) 90,849 sq. ft. 171,164 sq. ft. O en S ace 550,536 s . ft. 471,067 s . fr. Surface azkin 175 110* Notes: * The proposed surface area does not include parking structure spaces, with parking gaza e s aces the total e uals 339 s aces. Page 2 of 9 TahlP'J• Fxictino anA Prnnncerl Crrncc Rmtare Feet of Develnnment Existin Facili Pro osed Total at Build-Out Below Grade 5,000 24,558 29,558 Above Grade 70,700 96,121 166,821 Med. Office 0 17,716 17,716 Sub-Total 75,700 138,395 214,095 Parkin Gaza e 0 76,000 76,000 Total 75,700 214,395 290,095 Figure 1: Subject Site /~__ - ~ \ rroRrH ~,, --. ; ~ ~, ~'~ 1 ~ ~ ~\ 1'. 1 ~ \\ ~ ~~\ ~ ~~,~ ~\ ~ ~• i .~; ; ~ „ ~ , ~, '~ i ~ \\ i ~ ~~, ~~ ~~~ -~~ ~~~ 1 ~,~- _ _ .~~ _ ~ ~z r~ <<` '% nib (~~ ~~"~// \~1 Site Access• Currently all vehiculaz traffic to and from the hospital is accessed via the intersection of Castle Creek Road and Doolittle Drive. The Applicant is proposing a looped service road accessed off of the existing curb-cut for Whitcomb Terrace to separate service/delivery traffic from general visitors and staff access. In the application, the Applicant states that improvements to the Whitcomb Terrace/ Castle Creek Road entrance aze necessary to meet engineering standazds for grade and sight distance. In addition to providing a deceleration lane on Castle Creek Road for the intersection, the Applicant is proposing to raise the height of a portion of Castle Creek Road. The application notes that improvements aze planned for the Castle Creek Road/ Doolittle Drive/ main hospital entrance. With regazd to trail access, the proposal provides some realignment to the Page 3 of 9 paved pedestrian trail that roughly parallels Castle Creek Road. Additionally, the hospital entrance is redesigned to better accommodate RFTA pick-up and drop-off service (upon request). Since the project's review before the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Applicant has been working with staff and RFTA on improvements to the Doolittle access including the RFTA bus stop as well as pedestrian crossings on the campus and across Castle Creek Road as shown in Figure 2, below. The proposed changes will reroute pedestrian circulation in the vicinity of the intersection and make improvements to the bus stop. Figure 2: Proroosed Hospital Entrance Improvements Staff Comments and Recommendation: The Planning and Zoning Commission, with staff input recommended that improvements associated with this application include the bus stop and Castle Creek pedestrian crossing as well continued Page 4 of 9 study of the need to raise Castle Creek Road. The Applicant is taking those recommendations into consideration as the project has moved forward. Staff Recommendation: • RFTA bus stop. As the application continues to be developed in further detail, the Applicant will need to design the stop to appropriately queue two busses and ensure that wheel paths and turning radiuses work appropriately. Pedestrian pathways and crossings (which will change as development occurs in phases) will be reviewed and evaluated for safety and lack of conflicts during construction and in their final configuration The Applicant should also consider installing the improvements to the bus stop and pedestrian crossing during the second rather than fourth phase of redevelopment. • Service Road. Based upon the concerns voiced by the City Engineer with regard to raising the height of Castle Creek Road and the construction that it will entail, staff recommends that the Applicant continue evaluating options that that are less impactful and meet the goals of the master plan. Traffic Analysis: The initial traffic analysis provided by the Applicant indicates that the cunent Level of Service (LOS) for Castle Creek Road/Doolittle Drive is a LOS B (rated from A to F) and is projected to remain at that level of service over time if certain improvements aze made including: improving the intersection of Castle Creek Road and Whitcomb Terrace as well as the implementation of various auto disincentives. Staff Comments and Recommendation: Potential impacts with regard to some of the proposed improvements have been noted by other departments or agencies and detailed analysis is necessary to evaluate and address those potential impacts. Staff Recommendation.• • Site Transportation Impact Analysis t"17A). Staff recommends that a detailed TIA be submitted at Final PUD that includes the roundabout, proposed service road and the Doolittle Drive/RFTA bus stop/pedestrian crossings. Additional information that responds to the questions that the Transportation Department raised (Exhibit K) should be provided. It is recommended that a Rodel analysis be used for the roundabout study. This should include a plan for an extensive TDMprogram by the applicant. Elements of the TDMprogram could include increased transit service, van pooling, carpooling, preferential HOV parking, paid parking, carsharing, and other TDMprograms. • While the LOS (Level of Service) analysis has provided important data on all of the intersections impacted by the proposed development, it is recommended that a RODEL or SIDRA computer sofrivare program be used in the analysis of the roundabout. These macroscopic software models analyze traffic operations at roundabouts and predict the performance, capacity, and delays associated with roundabouts. Parlrin¢• Currently, surface parking is provided on-site and when measured, according to the land use code's dimensional standard for a parking space, provides 175 stalls. The Applicant is proposing to relocate some of the existing parking and expand the overall number of parking stalls Page 5 of 9 available to 339 stalls, an increase of 164 stalls. The bulk of the stalls will be provided in a pazking garage. The number of parking stalls provided will peak during phase II due to the construction of the parking gazage as well as the existing pazking on the west side of the property not being removed until a later phase of development. The pazking gazage is accessed from both the main hospital entrance and from the proposed service road. The pazking garage is sited to take advantage of the topography that drops in elevation as you move towards the north end of the property. The gazage provides three (3) stories of pazking; however, when you access the pazking from the main entrance the top story of the gazage is level with adjacent at grade parking. As noted in the application and shown in Table 3 below, the overall number of pazking stalls estimated to be necessary are 392 due to on-site staffing, the medical office space, and patient stations. This number is greater than the proposed number of stalls, as the reduced number takes into account alternative modes to get to the hospital. Table 3: Parking Demand Projection Table 2 Aspen Valley Hospital Aspen, Colorado Master Plan Parking Demand Projection (November, 2006; LSC #osoa20j Peak Perad Parked Demand Component Units Rate _._. __ Soule Vehicles Stall (Maximum orws9e) 200 employees . 0.75 perked vehices per employee (1) 150 Medical -Dental Office 29 K$F 3.5 perked vehices per KSF (2) 101.5 Patient Stations 152 Beds or Statons 0.75 parked vehicles per station (3) 121.5 373 Vacancy Factor (5%) 1.05 Tohl Spsees Needed 392 Notes: (1) Based on Empbyes Survey conducted at Aspen Valley Hospital in August, 2006 (2) Source: Parking Generedon, 3rd Edition, 2004 pub0stted by the Institute of Trensportation Engineers (3) Source: HLM 8 LSC estimate Staff Comments and Recommendation: It is important for the facility to provide adequate parking for the users of the hospital, but also consider how alternative modes of transportation such as bus service, walking/cycling, and car pooling reduce the overall number of spaces needed. Parking garages are often associated with hospital development and can limit the overall footprint of impervious surface area associated with parking. Staff also recommends that a car share vehicle parking stall be initially included as a surface stall and later incorporated into the garage. Page 6 of 9 Staff Recommendation: Revaluate Parking Needs. The summary provided by the transportation consultants considers the parking needs of the development based on staffing, a parking generation rate for medical office space and patient stations; however, the medical office space is based on a gross number of 29,000 sg. ft. rather than the 17,000 sq. ft. proposed. Staff; as well as the Planning and Zoning Commission, recommends that the Applicant re-evaluate the parking needs and adjust accordingly based on up to date plans at the Final PUD application. POTENTIAL CONDITIONS: The following are potential conditions that staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission have recommended to include in a resolution approving Conceptual PUD. Additionally, issues raised by council are also noted. Please review the bulleted points to ensure that an accurate list of conditions is proposed. Employee Housine/Generation: • The Applicant may consider the effects of volume, support services, decompression and increased efficiency as outlined in the Conceptual Application dated January 2008 when determining Employee Generation. • Medical office space employee generation evaluation methodology will be determined by the conceptual vote. The generation rate may be evaluated by auditing other medical offices or by using an employee generation rate from the land use code. • Existing Employees Housed credits can be used for Employee Generation mitigation; however, a detailed inventory of the total number of employees housed, credits that have been used, and those remaining shall be provided. It is recommended that a credit be based on what is actually occurring with regazd to residency vs. adopted Employees Housed rates. • It is stronely recommended that some employee housing be provided on the hospital campus. Site Improvements rading, drainaee, trail location): • Any relocation of the Nordic trail will be finalized with the input of neighbors and the consent of the Parks Department. The Applicant will further evaluate the feasibility of using the proposed detention ponds for snow storage, as the proposed vehiculaz use of the trail to access the ponds is not permitted by the city. An alternative solution for access to the ponds or for snow storage needs to be considered and developed. Easement Housekeeping: • Consent by departments potentially affected by the removal of the 100 feet easement shall be received prior to removal of the easement. A clear history of the 100 feet easement and the affordable housing `parcel' designated on the site shall be provided for the city to consider removal of both. Site Access: • The Applicant shall include a greater study area for the main entry to the hospital to include the RFTA bus stop, the pedestrian crossing across Castle Creek and Doolittle Drive. Any Page 7 of 9 proposed options will be reviewed with RFTA, the Parks Department, Transportation Department and Engineering Department. • As the application continues to be developed in further detail, the Applicant will need to design the RFTA bus stop to appropriately queue two busses and ensure that wheel paths and turning radiuses work appropriately. Pedestrian pathways and crossings (which will change as development occurs in phases) will be reviewed and evaluated for safety and lack of conflicts during construction and in their final configuration The Applicant should also consider installing the improvements to the bus stop and pedestrian crossing during the second rather than fourth phase of redevelopment. • Based upon the concerns voiced by the City Engineer with regard to raising the height of Castle Creek Road and the construction that it will entail, staff recommends that the Applicant continue evaluating options that that are less impactful and meet the goals of the master plan. Traffic Analysis: • A detailed traffic impact analysis (TIA) is required to be submitted at Final PUD that includes the roundabout, proposed service road and the Doolittle Drive/RFTA bus stop/pedestrian crossings. Additional information that responds to the questions that the Transportation Department raised should be provided. It is recommended that a Rodel analysis be used for the roundabout study. This should include a plan for an extensive TDM program by the applicant. Elements of the TDM program could include increased transit service, van pooling, carpooling, preferential HOV pazking, paid pazking, cazsharing, and other TDM programs • While the LOS (Level of Service) analysis has provided important data on all of the intersections impacted by the proposed development, it is recommended that a RODEL or SIDRA computer softwaze program be used in the analysis of the roundabout. These macroscopic soflwaze models analyze traffic operations at roundabouts and predict the performance, capacity, and delays associated with roundabouts. Parking: • By Final PUD application, the Applicant shall provide a current, detailed parking needs assessment based upon the proposed size and use of the building. Overall Building Size, Uses, Architecture. and Design. • The proposed building size, massing and scale are conceptually appropriate for the site as well as the proposed uses; however, the parking garage should be evaluated and treated to minimize visual impact. The proposed materials and architecture of the building are appropriate for the site. • The Applicant should consider the potential for future development/expansion needs of the hospital past the twenty year development horizon. This may include proposing a building that can add an additional story. • Additional community services should be considered in the program for the hospital. Page 8 of 9 RECOMMENDATION: At this point and time, Staff recommends the City Council continue the public heazing to April 13 or the 27, 2009, dependant on the Applicant's request. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to continue the heazing on the AVH Master Facilities plan to April 13 or 27, 2009." ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A - PUD Review Criteria (provided 1/12/09, 1/26/09, 2/9/09,) Exx[a[T B -Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 23, Series of 2008 (provided 1/12/09) ExxiaiT C -Planning and Zoning Commission minutes: July 1 S`, July 15~', August 5~' and August 19, 2008 (provided 1/12/09) Exx[siT D -Map of hospital district boundaries (provided 1/12/09) Exx[siT E -Application dated January 2008 (provided 1/12/09) ExxtaiT F - APCHA Referral dated July 3, 2008 (provided 1/26/09) EXHIBIT G -Engineering Referral dated May 17, 2008 (provided 1/26/09) EXHIBIT H -Parks Department Referral (provided 1/26/09) ExxIaIT I -Draft snow storage/drainage design changes (provided 1/26/09) EXHIBIT J - Pitkin County referral comments dated May 6, 2008 EXHIBIT K -Transportation Department referral EXHIBIT L -Public comment from Karen Ryman dated July 2, 2008 Page 9 of 9 EXHIBIT A Chapter 26.445, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Sec. 26.445.050. Review Criteria conceptual, fiual, consolidated and minor PUD. A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited issues associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standazds and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff believes that a number of the goals in the Aspen Area Community Plan aze met at a conceptual level including: "containing development...to ensure development is contained and sprawl minimized," "maintain and improve the appeal of walking and bicycling," and "protect and enhance the natural environment." The development is located with the urban growth boundazy, has multimodal opportunities for getting to the hospital, and minimizes the development footprint of the site. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. The proposed development is on a large tract of land that acts as a campus setting for the hospital, senior housing, ambulance bam, and health and human services building. The property is close to open space and some dense neighborhoods. The development is an expansion of an existing use. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of the area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Not Applicable at this point in the review. The Applicant will be required to make a Growth Management Application as part of the Final PUD. Under the current proposal, the application will be reviewed as an essential public facility, and may Exhibit A -PUD Review Criteria Page 1 of ]0 require growth management approval for the development of new commercial space/medical clinics (net leasable) and the development of affordable housing. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in Genera[ Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The PUD development plans establish dimensional requirements for all properties in a PUD. The dimensions of the PUD shall be memorialized during the Final PUD review. 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following in, jluences on the property: a. The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. The dimensional requirements allow for the expansion of the hospital while minimizing the footprint of the hospital and maintaining open space. At a conceptual level, the proposed building expansion and its location on the site is compatible with the character of the azea. b. Natural or man-made hazards. No known natural hazazds exist on the lot. The relocation of the heli-pad will reduce a potential man-made hazazd. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c. Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and Landforms. Most of the development proposed is within azeas of the site that have already been impacted by development. The applicant is proposing to maintain a lazge percentage of open space and natural vegetation on the site. Staff finds this criterion to be met. d. Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. The applicant is proposing a service loop road with certain improvements to sepazate circulation by use. Improvements with regard to vehiculaz circulation Exhibit A -PUD Review Criteria Page 2 of 10 aze proposed as well as pedestrian improvements. At a conceptual level, staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. The Applicant is proposing to concentrate the redevelopment to an area that is already developed, minimizing the impact of the new development and maintaining a large amount of undeveloped land on the site. As noted eazlier, a large portion of the site is undeveloped and the proposal will maintain that feeling of openness. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. The Applicant provided a summazy of the parking needs analysis in the application. The consultant undertaking the analysis considered alternative modes of transportation that can be used to get to the hospital and reduced the estimated number of off-street parking spaces needed for the redevelopment. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if.• a. There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities or other utilities to service the proposed development b. There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance to the proposed development. The applicant is not proposing any housing for this review. Staff finds this criterion not applicable. Exhibit A -PUD Review Criteria Page 3 of 10 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if.• a. The [and is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mudjlow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution. c. The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d. The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. The applicant is not proposing any housing for this review. Staff finds this criterion not applicable. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. a. The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b. The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identifted in Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided or those characteristics mitigated c. The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses and characteristics. Notes: a. Lot sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher or lower rate than specified in the underlying Zone District as long as, on average, the entire PUD conforms to the maximum density provisions of the respective Zone District or as otherwise established as the maximum allowable density pursuant to a jcnal PUD Development Plan. b. The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD are required to be reflected in the final PUD development plans. The applicant is not proposing any housing for this review. Staff finds this criterion not applicable. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public Exhibit A -PUD Review Criteria Page 4 of 10 spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. A large portion of the site is undeveloped and in a natural state. The redevelopment is proposed to maintain that feel and limit the developed area of the 19 acre site. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. As mentioned previously, a lazge portion of the site is undeveloped and in a natural state. The redevelopment is proposed so as to maintain that feel and limit the developed area of the 19 acre site. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. The proposed building is generally oriented towards the public street but is set back from the street which contributes to the more open feel of Castle Creek Road. Existing vegetation currently screens the hospital. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. The City of Asperi Fire Mazshal has reviewed the proposal, and has noted that final details on the service loop road will be necessary in the future. Staff finds this criterion to be met at a conceptual level. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided According to the Application, the project will comply with all applicable requirements. Improvements aze being proposed for the pedestrian trail. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. According to a letter submitted by the Applicant's engineer, site drainage will be handled with retention ponds in the more natural, undeveloped area of the site. Staff finds this criterion to be met at a conceptual level. Exhibit A - PUD Review Criteria Page 5 of 10 7. For non-residential [and uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. The Application has developed the master plan to accommodate the multiple functions at the site: helicopter access, ambulance and service access, as well as patient access. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: The Applicant provided a drafr landscaping plan as part of the original Conceptual application. An updated version will be provided as part of the Final PUD Application. 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. The Applicant has provided some conceptual landscaping on the site plan in the application and has developed the landscaping to correspond with the two development zones of the project: developed and natural. A number of new plantings are proposed with a more intensive/traditional landscaping near the hospital and natural grasses, serviceberry and gambel oak in the natural areas. A final landscape plan will be submitted as part of the Final PUD application. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Signifecant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. The undeveloped area of the site provides a natural open setting. Enhancements in this azea need to preserve these features. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. The Applicant will provide a final landscape plan in with the Final PUD. This will ensure existing landscaping is preserved or mitigated for if it is to be removed. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Architectural Character. 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a Exhibit A -PUD Review Criteria Page 6 of 10 character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. A vaziety of materials aze being proposed for the redevelopment of the hospital: glass, masonry, and stone. As an institutional type of use, the conceptual design reflects the use of the building with a palette of materials that fit well on the site. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. The Applicant has noted that the building is expected to be designed to achieve LEED certification and that it is anticipated that the building is designed and constructed in an environmentally sustainable way. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. The Applicant has submitted a conceptual plan for snow removal and storage as part of the application. A final detailed plan will be required to be addressed at final application. Staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Lighting. 1. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. 2. Al[ exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the fenal PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. The Applicant will comply with all lighting regulations in place. Amore detailed plan will be provided as part of the Final PUD. C. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: I. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. Exhibit A -PUD Review Criteria Page 7 of 10 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. There are no common park, open space or recreation areas proposed by the Applicant. The site contains the existing Nordic trail and Pedestrian trail that have easements allowing for public use on private property. Changes or improvements to these two trails will need to be approved by city staff. The Applicant is proposing a new passive use area in the vicinity of the proposed retention ponds. There is no public access easement being proposed at this time for the passive use area. Staff finds this criterion to be met at a conceptual level. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustifted financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. The Water, Sanitation, and Electric Departments reviewed this application and determined there is adequate service for this development. This will be addressed in greater detail at Final PUD. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. At this time no adverse impacts on the public infrastructure are anticipated. This will be addressed in greater detail at Final PUD. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately jor the additional improvement. This criterion will be addressed at Final PUD when a finalized site plan and associated materials are available for City Departments to review. I. Access and Circulation. (Only standards 1 &2 apply to Minor PUD applications) The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and Exhibit A -PUD Review Criteria Page 8 of 10 recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. Staff believes that all structures and uses will have appropriate access to a public street. A thorough traffic impact analysis with final application will detail any necessary improvements related to access. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development Staff believes the conceptual design of adding a service access road, potential improvements to Doolittle Drive and a new parking circulation scheme will ease congestion at this site. Staff does find this criterion met. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. The proposed development has existing trail easements on the property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. The Parks department has reviewed the application and found that no additional easements are necessary at a conceptual level. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. There are no internal streets proposed as part of this PUD. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. Exhibit A -PUD Review Criteria Page 9 of 10 There aze no gates or guazd posts proposed as part of this PUD. Staff finds this criterion to be met. J. Phasing of Development Plan. (does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted ftnal PUD development plan. Does not apply to conceptual review; however, the applicant is proposing a phased final development plan. Exhibit A -PUD Review Criteria Page 10 of 10 ~x~h~~T ~ TO: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director, City of Aspen FROM: Ellen Sassano, Long Range Planner, Pitkin County RE: Referral Comments -Aspen Valley Hospital Conceptual PUD Application & Master Facilities Plan DATE: May 6, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to provide the following Staff comments regazding the Conceptual PUD application for the Aspen Valley Hospital Master Facilities Plan. Please give a call if you have questions, or would like to discuss any of the issues raised. Traffic Impacts Round About Intersection The applicant's traffic impact analysis concludes that proposed improvements to access points, construction of a deceleration lane and other grade improvements in combination with proposed auto disincentives, will mitigate impacts to Castle Creek Road associated with anticipated traffic generation. Improvements proposed by the applicant aze intended to keep the service levels on Castle Creek Road at the current "B" rating. The applicant does not however, address the impact of their proposed growth on the round-about at the intersection of Highway 82 and Castle Creek Road. The County has recently been made aware of the fact that the round-about is functioning at a service level of "F " at peak periods. While there are and will continue to be other factors contributing to the level of service at this intersection, the County recommends that the Hospital be required to contribute a pro rata shaze for improvements determined to be necessazy at this intersection. Construction Management The County supports the applicant's proposal to coordinate the timing of Castle Creek Road improvements contemplated for Phase II with construction of the Castle Creek pedestrian path proposed by the Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Board. To further limit traffic disruption on Castle Creek Road and at the Highway 82 intersection, the Hospital should be required if feasible, to coordinate timing of road improvements and general construction with the construction schedule contemplated for the Music School. It is recommended that a staging and construction management plan be required of the applicant prior to issuance of any building permits. Traii Crossing If proposed auto disincentives aze successful and prove to increase pedestrian use of the Mazolt Trail to access the Hospital, it may be appropriate to require the applicant to contribute to payment for and/or design of safety improvements for the trail crossing from Marolt to the Hospital. RFTA The Hospital should be required to provide funding or facilities to RFTA at a level determined by RFTA, based on the extent to which services/facilities will be impacted by the proposed expansion improvements at the Hospital campus. Medical Office Space While Growth Management Exemption requests are not typically addressed at the Conceptual PUD stage of review in the City, the following is offered while the County has the opportunity to comment. It is our understanding that the Hospital will request that the proposed 17,716 sq. ft. of Medical Office Space be exempted from Growth Management competition as an essential community facility. This request has been controversial when it's been proposed by the Hospital in past applications to the County. In past application reviews, Staff has found the office building space to be a "growth generator," not meeting the definition of an "essential community facility." Furthermore, the concern has been raised that the medical office space competes directly with medical office space that could be provided in downtown Aspen and in the B-2 zone district (the Aspen Business Center.) On that basis, it may be inequitable to exempt medical office space as an essential community facility at the Hospital campus, when it is not exempted in other locations which are providing similaz services to the same mazket. In the event that the City grants a GMQS exemption for the office space, the County recommends that the space be owned by the Aspen Valley Hospital or anon-profit corporation controlled by the Hospital Boazd; and that the office space only be occupied by medical practitioners with hospital staff privileges or non-profit, non commercial medically oriented organizations, patients, and support staff. General It is recommended that the applicant be required to comply with all prior commitments made to the County regarding affordable housing mitigation, trail and road improvements, provided they aze still relevant. 2 ~~~~~ ~ AVH Master Plan Comments and Clarifications - -Transportation General 1. We would like to review and comment the full LSC traffic study. 2. We would like a copy of the pazking management plan as soon as it is completed 3. We would like a copy of the employee parking/travel patterns survey. 4. We would like to place a cazshaze vehicle in the parking structure or lot as part of Phase I. This will provide an additional incentive for employees to use public transportation. 5. We would like the following bus stop improvements to the Castle Mazoon bus stop as part of this development: 1. Larger shelter 2. Additional trash receptacles. 6. Have traffic impacts to the roundabout been studied? 7. Pitkin County is considering improvements to the Roundabout as part of this project. The developer should financially contribute towards this effort to improve traffic flow. 8. How will maintenance of LOS B be verified? Will there be a future traffic study? 9. We would like a detailed transportation and parking plan that will address the questions below: Pages 14-15 10. Is the parking garage intended for hospital employee/guest use only? Could it be used as a small park & ride facility? 11. Explain the dial-a-ride program. Who will operate it? What aze the hours? How will it be accessed? 12. Explain the vanpool program. How will it be operated? Where will the vans originated from? How many employees will access the vans? When will this program commence? 13. Explain what is meant by coordinating with Aspen Highlands on shuttle service. 14. Explain what is meant by improving down valley bus service. 15. What is intended to trigger a paid parking program? 16. How will the parking lot be enforced to allow RFTA access to the AVH front door? Page 24 17. Please provide more information about the carpool gas stipend and other carpool incentives. Section F 18. Explain the parking permit program mentioned in this section. 19. Explain further the coordination with RFTA to move residents between Hwy 82 and the campus. ~~~~ ~_ Karen Ryman 343 Grove Ct. Aspen, CO 81611 krvman _msn.com 970 925-6499 July 2, 2008 Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission c/o Jennifer.PhelanCa)ci.aspen.co.us Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Commissioners, I request that when you review the master plan for the Aspen Valley Hospital expansion that you take into consideration an updated transportation system for in-patients, visitors, out-patients, hospital employees and potential medical and office staff that will use the proposed attached medical building. I also would like to have you look at the current bus stop and make changes to accommodate the increased number and diversity of the passengers using the stop. I live and am a member of the board at the Twin Ridge Townhomes. I did attend the local meeting for nearby residents when the architect and hospital director explained the new hospital plans and its' phases of development. My concerns are twofold on the bus system: 1. The buses now circle through past the front door of the hospital (if snow plowing in the winter is completed) only if requested. Visitors don't know this is a possibility and don't ask. Injured patients from labs, therapy or ER often hobble over to the bus stop because they don't know to ask for the bus to come to the door. The master plan for the remodel at AVH did not have any change in this system. It did not have a route planned that would drop patients and employees off at the proposed medical clinic, therapy entrance, or the front entrance where the out-patients would arrive. Given the promotion of the use of buses in this county, this does not seem appropriate at all for moving people. I believe their plan is to continue with the current "on call" system in place. They have a somewhat complicated two entrance plan to the hospital, parking garage, and parking spaces, but parking not increasing a great deal to compensate for the medical building parking. It's going to be quite a way to the current bus stop from that proposed building. Please look at a possible route the buses could take to give these passengers better service. 2. The current bus stop is on Doolittle Drive. It serves Marolt Housing, Castle Ridge, Water Place, Mountain Oaks, Twin Ridge, Meadowood, HHS, and AVH. This summer there are I believe 11 buses an hour. It is probably the second busiest bus stop in town. The buses do not have a way to pull off the road. The passengers can walk in front or back of the bus right into the road and passing traffic. The bus stop could be moved back towards Castle Creek Rd. and allow the bus to pull into a lane off the road. The lighting is one large light high overhead on a phone pole. It does not give safe lighting to the stop or security for women and young people at night. The APHA is proposing more 3`~ floor housing at the Marolt and 35 units on the Marolt lot above. Our board is concerned as well as the Castle Ridge Mgmt., the homeowners at Water Place, and the Health and Human Services Director, Nan Sundeen. For safety reasons from the above pull off problem, the school bus stops at the Health and Human Services. This allows the students to come in the building without supervision, use the vending machines when they should be going on home. The Right Door and counseling services offices are in place there. I believe proposed and increased expansion of AVH, APHA at Marolt and Water Place, and MAA all will impact the number of passengers on RFTA increasing considerably. It is time to look at the infrastructure for bus service at the same time as P & Z considers these approvals. RFTA is looking to the city and county as they do not develop the bus areas per their representative. Sincerely, Karen Ryman Twin Ridge Homeowners Board ~xa. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~~ DATE OF MEMO: January 30, 2009 MEETING DATE: February 9, 2009 RE: 621 West Francis Street, Ordinance #48 negotiation process REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Council is asked to use the information provided to determine the significance of 621 West Francis Street and subsequently what benefits they are willing to offer the property owner in exchange for landmark designation. BACKGROUND: 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-landmazked 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, azchitectural, 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. 621 West 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: 621 West Francis Street, Ordinance #48 negotiation Page 1 of 5 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 voluntazily complying with Staff or HPC review (depending on the scope of work) of the project, or C. 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 landmazk designate the property, the building permits will be processed as requested. Marsha and Bob Cook, the property owners of 621 West Francis Street, submitted a building permit to remodel their home. Staff reviewed the proposal and determined that the work was detrimental to the potentially historic architectural chazacter. Mrs. Cook is an active member of the Historic Preservation Task Force and understands the historic designation process, benefits and incentives available. The owners prefer to proceed with obtaining a building permit (option C above), rather than negotiate with the City at this time. During the 90 day negotiation period, meetings aze scheduled with the HPC and the City Council. HPC discussed this issue on January 28, 2009 and visited the site on the same day. After an extensive discussion of the property's merits, HPC voted 3-3 to recommend that Council not negotiate for landmark designation of the property. A tie vote constitutes a failed motion and no other motion was introduced. The three members voting for the recommendation to discontinue any negotiation were primarily concerned that 621 West Francis Street is not an exemplary example of the Modern Chalet style. They recognized that the Modern Chalet style is important to Aspen, but found that there aze better examples of this style in town. Minutes from the meeting aze not ready yet. SUGGESTED APPROACH: The property owners are not interested in entering into a negotiation with City Council regarding the designation of 621 West Francis Street; rather they would prefer to obtain their building permit. In the spirit of Ordinance 48, Staff recommends that Council end the 90 day negotiation with the property owners and allow the property owner to proceed with the pending building permit. APPLICANT: Mazsha and Bob Cook, 621 West Francis Street, Aspen, CO 81611 PARCEL ID: 2735.124.011 and 2735.124.26.012 ADDRESS: 621 West Francis Street, Reeds House Condominiums, Units A and B, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6, Medium Density Residential. 621 West Francis Street, Ordinance #48 negotiation Page 2 of 5 DISCUSSION: Council is asked to decide whether this property's significance warrants negotiations with the property owner for its preservation. The criteria for designation are listed below and staff s analysis follows. 26.415.030.B. Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The significance of properties will be evaluated according to the following criteria. When designating an historic district, the majority of the contributing resources in the district must meet the criteria described below: 1. A property or district is deemed significant for its antiquity, in that it is: a. In whole or in part more than one hundred (100) years old, and b. It possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age; or 2. A property or district is deemed significant as a representation of Aspen's 20th Century history, was constructed in whole or in part more than thirty (30) years prior to the yeaz in which the application for designation is being made, possesses sufficient integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association and is related to one (1) or more of the following: a. An event, pattern or trend that has made a significant contribution to local, state, regional or national history, b. People whose specific contribution to local, state, regional or national history is deemed important and the specific contribution is identified and documented, or c. A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman or design philosophy that is deemed important. 3. A property that was constructed less than thirty (30) yeazs prior to the year in which the application for designation is being made may be considered under Paragraph 2 above, if the application has been filed by the owner of the 621 West Francis Street, Ordinance #48 negotiation Page 3 of 5 property at the time of designation or, when designating an historic district, the majority of the contributing resources in the district meet the thirty-yeaz age criterion described above. STAFF FINDINGS: Staff finds that criterion c is met due to the property's representation of Modern Chalet style. 621 West Francis Street, pictured below, is a two story A-frame style duplex residence built in 1968 by Ted Reeds, a local Aspenite. The azchitecture fuses both Modern aesthetics (glazing in the gable end, A-frame form) and chalet traditions embodied in the deep Ted Reeds was a local Aspenite, not a trained architect, but built this home for his family. He was presumably influenced by other similaz style azchitecture typical throughout town in the 1960s. Directly across the street, 624/626 West Francis Street (built in 1962 and pictured below), is a duplex residence with similar azchitectural features that Staff has termed "Modern Chalet." This type of architecture signifies the progression of Aspen as a tourist destination with modest homes that pay homage to the mountain lifestyle (large gable roof) and modern building technology and aesthetics of the era. 621 West Francis Street, Ordinance #48 negotiation Page 4 of 5 ASPEN'S 20~" CENTURY ARCHITECTURE: MODERN CHALET STYLE BUILDINGS The Modern Chalet style in Aspen describes buildings constructed in the 1950's to early 1970's that combined the influences of Chalet architecture with the modernist approach employed by trained local architects, typically within the offices of Fritz Benedict, Herbert Bayer, Rob Roy, and their associates. The low pitched roof, deep overhangs, balconies, simple form, orientation towards the mountain and other aspects of the Chalets were re-visited with much more glazing on the primary fagade, typically carrying all the way up to the roof. Decoration was minimal, but still focused on the eaves, fascias, and balconies. To a degree, this style made the characteristics of modernism more sympathetic to the mountain environment and Aspen's architectural context. CHALET PRECEDENTS MODERN CHALET EXAMPLES »e e.x ei..w.raew~ +ees A RECOMMENDATION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) REGARDING NEGOTIATIONS FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 621 W. FRANCIS STREET, REEDS HOUSE CONDOMINIUMS, UNITS A AND B, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE N0.48, SERIES OF 2007 RESOLUTION N0.4, SERIES OF 2009 PARCEL ID: 2735.124.011 and 2735.124.26.012 WHEREAS, Marsha and Bob Cook, 621 West Francis Street, Aspen, CO 81611, have applied for a building permit to construct an addition determined to destroy character defining features on the house they own located at 621 West Francis Street, Reeds House Condominiums, Units A and B, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. Under the provisions of Ordinance #48, Series of 2007, Mr. and Mrs. Cook subsequently consented to a ninety day review and negotiation of potential historic significance of the subject house; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.025 (e) of the Municipal Code states that "the Community Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation Commission, during a public meeting, regarding the proposed building permit and the nature of the Potential Historic Resource. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting with the Historic Preservation Commission;" and WHEREAS, the property owner was notified of the Historic Preservation Commission meeting and attended the meeting; and WHEREAS, Saza Adams, in her staff report dated January 28, 2009, performed an analysis of the building as a potential local historic landmazk; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on January 28, 2009, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application and approved a motion to recommend Council does not pursue negotiations for landmark designation by a vote of 3 to 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: HPC recommends City Council does not negotiate with the owner of 621 W. Francis Street, Reeds House Condominiums, Units A and B, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, to seek landmark designation of the property. [signatures on following page] 621 West Francis Street Ordinance #48 Negotiation Review Page 1 of 2 APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 28~h day of January 2009. Michael Hoffman, Chair Approved as to Form: Jim True, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 621 West Francis Street Ordinance #48 Negotiation Review Page 2 of 2 .r- t ~~:~;i .7~;R~e~l i9 Sc~g p} ~e ¢~~•~Y e q g iF 3e 6 @ Y `4 ~ 6 t ~' #'~~~ ¢~~~~ - - t~ _ ~ -- - e -- -- [ -___= I -_ r cD N m ,- 0 c n^ II ~ _.._- O ~'~€~ ~ s4g~~ i~e~~ ~~~~3 g~ e ~~&~~~~~~~ t $°~~t~I~i~ ~~ g 6~~~~~~~ :~ t ~ ~~~~d= t~~~~ ~ 3~; $~`E n + ~-~- i ~ c o 0 r a f • p q F Y } 6p•g ~; • ~~ +fl g5 I~~~ ~ ~ ~~~t ~ ~~g~g~~:~ ~~ a 9 ~& 9 F; 8ie ~ x i i r I ~~ ~,„i 3 j~~ ;I m _~i~ -A YT ~ YJ € iip ~i~~ f z E d6 ~e 4F'4 R~~jt~Rq §~ ~3'33 ~a t!i `9`91~~d€RkGt~p~ ~ra~i ~ga~a' a F1~ ` B J O B~ • Y~ 6~F 'J~ P p~_k ~ i F ~ ep tt[5g && pp g+ 3 g C9 ~ •ar~~p~ "~ ~ ~ 9y a a ~ §a~ ~` ~ €g€ ($ ~~ "~ $~ 3Bg vntd 5 ~~3s?~~ gg G a~ 3•~§~ R ~ ~~9 ~ i % ~ @ a ~~~ €~ x~ ~ a A r! z€ ~~ ~ 9~€ ~~} Flie=iFQ p~t€~ ~`x9',• T •F G ~ €6 .~ ~i ~ 6~ .a~~d ~R€ R .~ h t~ ?Ob 'i y y Zoo z~~ b .'~~ ' n 0 h OPJ O ~~ I.. 6 o °m.. .~1 ~;~ ~ ~ ~~o ~~ 9 a ~~ ~ysGBf tits Li-tt# ~~ ;~~I '~~~ ~d~~~i P: ~~ s ~8~~ _{ 0 co v N O O l~ ~ ~~l 4~ S X €m d~~e~ ~m 333a~a~ i~I~ .~ b- ~w a y ~ ~ ~ O ~Ob< y zno~i~ n ~ Z o C,y~ z b~b'On ~" ry~7y on ~Z y~~ h 00'iZ S~°~~ y o~ti Cq ~~ 'C ~[~~'~ {{ x s ~ ~a a p~~a~ ~ x~ a ~~a as ' ~~$~~~€6i @a3~~x gy ygg€ F¢'~ e i O 8. • 4 q` a° $ YBP$ • o~ =g @~ ~Pg gg~a '§4&P&gp~ ¢RS ~" y~~~~ ~8€~eeE~ 111 4 i E6k i~ a p"pas: ~ @ 6 ,a5 66 8n'..3_~.. q9 gg cFg ~ $ & 9 ~ tl~@ ie °a E`~ ~ ~ ~~ ~g 9~g.•c@~ S 7S~5:k~ k e~i 3 @$ ;: k ~a9 ~ g~g k i ~ P tl ~6 5a' a~ ~ a ~ r~ ~€ ~$ .8 ~$9 ~~+~ a ~EnSf~v 6~~P~~ ~i~~~ H g @ ~ gg g ~D~... - ..gaq ~ ~ ~ i~$ ~~ H~ ~ ~ 9 ~~ eE $ k~ Ci~P'~ §~" i ~ ~; ?Agc k~:~ E' _ ~ O e y d ~ ~y ~ oE$ aP ~ @R # 2g~g ° eq ~ p€ ~ s ~ d; ~~ i ~`~ P ~ ~ ~¢ $ ~3~ aft '':;. g Le '!!, 0 8 €F 's P b@t$ dpi V 6 ~:.-.. P a$.i: sE a. G m