Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20090511CITY COUNCIL AGENDA May 11, 2009 5:00 P.M. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Scheduled Public Appearances a) Proclamation — Month of the Young Child IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes) V. Special Orders of the Day a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments b) Agenda Deletions and Additions c) City Manager's Comments d) Board Reports VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion) a) Resolution #29, 2009 - Extending Ordinance #48 Negotiation VII. First Reading of Ordinances a) Ordinance #12, 2009 — 627 West Main — TDR Establishment P.H. 5/25 b) Ordinance #13, 2009 — 219 South Third Ordinance #48 Negotiation Vlll. Public Hearings a) Ordinance #11, 2009 — Adoption of International Energy Code b) Resolution #3, 2009 — Conceptual PUD Aspen Valley Hospital c) Ordinance #8, 2009 — Jewish Community Center SPA Amendment d) Ordinance #9, 2009 — Supplemental Appropriations e) Ordinance #10, 2009 - Disconnection of Territory South of Airport IX. Action Items X. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting May 26, 2009 COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. PROCl.��1.A�IO.�V City of i"en, Colorad6 Incorporated-msi yV-A(TRE-;U Elie RaaringFork✓Assocuationfor the Yducation of young Children, .xuis jrst, the City of -Aspen, childcare provid rs, and -other local -organizations are celebrating Me .Month of the young Chi!din May; and tiV3lE•RTAS, By caging attention to the needfor high -quality early n6ifw oodservicesforallfamilaes ivit`iin our community, thesegroups callfor improvedqualty and availirbilty of our children, care andeducation; and 'W3f=U Tfwfuture of our community dpends- on the early chiliihoodexperiences of our young children today and quality of their care, and JV91=U, .9ligh quality early 4ildAoodeducationprovid s the critical foundation for our children- soundgroivtli and dvelopment. NOW -II.r' ED, that the City Councilandcitizenr of✓Arpery Coloradojoin the 9lrational Association for the Education of young Chifdren Mproclaiming.May zoos as the Mon of tie young Chdd 'We extendour heartfel thanks andappreciation to adthose who workso hard -to care for our youngest citizens, andwe commend -these forts and - encourage community involvement ofadcitizens to recognize andsupport the needs of young children. .ASS - ___________________________ By ordr ofthe City Council .xathryn S..xocl4 City Clerk this 1f" day of May 2oog. - --------------------------------- .MichaelC Irelan.4mayor VIA MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director DATE: May 11, 2009 RE: Resolution #23, Series of 2009, Extending the 211 W. Hopkins Avenue, "Ordinance #48" Historic Preservation negotiation SUMMARY: In July 2007, Aspen City Council adopted an emergency ordinance, Ordinance #30, Series of 2007. That ordinance prohibited any exterior alterations, land use applications, or building permits affecting all non-landmarked buildings constructed at least 30 years ago, unless it was determined that no potential historic resource was negatively affected. The purpose of the Ordinance was to protect Aspen's significant architectural heritage; not only Victorians, but more modern structures as well. Ordinance 930 was in place for 5 months, during which time Council held numerous meetings to discuss the effect of the new regulations and potential amendments. In particular, Council wished to see the applicability of the Ordinance narrowed down dramatically from all properties over 30 years of age to a specific list researched by staff and found to potentially qualify for landmark designation. In December 2007, Ordinance #48, Series of 2007 was adopted to replace Ordinance #30. Ordinance #48 creates a formal list of potential historic resources in Aspen that may have historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering and cultural importance. Detrimental development or demolition actions affecting these properties will be limited while the City undertakes an evaluation of the historic preservation program via the HP Task Force. 211 W. Hopkins Avenue 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 448 (routine maintenance work for example); or B. Submit plans and seek staff determination that the work, while not exempt from Ordinance 448, 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 Resolution # , Series of 2009 211 West Hopkins Avenue Ordinance 448, 90 Day Negotiation Extension negotiate for appropriate preservation of the property. If the negotiation does not result in an agreement to landmark designate the property, the building permits will be processed as requested. In March of 2009, the owners of 211 W. Hopkins Avenue, submitted an application for a demolition permit and requested negotiation with Council. The owners, represented by John Kelly, are receptive to a discussion of potential landmark incentives. Historic Preservation staff is working with the owners' representatives to figure out a possible solution for the property. The 90 day negotiation period expires on June 17, 2009. The property owners request that the process be extended an additional 90 days until September 15, 2009 to allow additional time to discuss options for the property. Staff appreciates the owners' 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 and incentives with the owner of 211 West Hopkins Avenue to September 15, 2009. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Resolution #41, Series of 2009: approving an extension of the negotiation period to discuss voluntary historic designation with the owner of 211 W. Hopkins Avenue under Ordinance #48, Series of 2007 until September 15, 2009." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Resolution # , Series of 2009 211 West Hopkins Avenue Ordinance #48, 90 Day Negotiation Extension A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL EXTENDING THE ORDINANCE #48, SERIES OF 2007, NEGOTIATION FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION OF 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE Resolution No.a, Series of 2009 WHEREAS, 211 West Hopkins Avenue, Lots F and G, Block 53, 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 211 West Hopkins Avenue, Vaughan Family Trust, is in the process of said negotiation. The owner triggered the negotiation period by submitting an application for a permit to demolish the structure at 211 West Hopkins Avenue. 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, the 90 day negotiation period for 211 West Hopkins Avenue is to expire on June 17, 2009; and WHEREAS, staff and the property owner are in agreement that more time is needed, and an extension of the negotiation to September 15, 2009 is appropriate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: The negotiation period established by Ordinance #48, Series of 2007, as it affects the property at 211 West Hopkins Avenue, is hereby extended to September 15, 2009. APPROVED by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on May 11, 2009. Approved as to form: John Worcester, City Attorney Attest: Mayor: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor V11 a� MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Sara Adams, Preservation Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director DATE OF MEMO: May 1, 2009 MEETING DATE: May 11, 2009 RE: 627 Main Street, Establishment of One (1) Transferable Development Right, First Reading of Ordinance #L, Series of 2009 (Parcel 2735-124-48-010) Second Reading is scheduled for May 26, 2009. REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The applicant requests City Council approve the establishment of one 250 square feet Transferable Development Right certificate (TDR). 627 West Main Street BACKGROUND: ■ Lot History: The subject property is a 3,000 square foot lot located within the Main Street Historic District. 627 West Main Street is a designated Victorian era structure that is still used as a residence. ■ Previous actions: o Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) Approvals Page 1 of 3 o In 2008, HPC approved a 500 Floor Area Bonus for rehabilitation of the historic resource and granted a development order for anew addition.' A permit is currently pending for the addition. o City Council Approvals ■ In 2008, City Council approved the establishment of one 250 square foot TDR.z The TDR has already been severed from the site. DISCUSSION: ■ The purpose of a TDR is to encourage the preservation of Historic Landmarks within the City of Aspen by permitting those property owners to sever and convey, as a separate development right, undeveloped Floor Area to be developed on a different and non - historic property within the City of Aspen. Each TDR comprises 250 square feet of Floor Area. The TDR program enables standard market forces, and the demand for floor area and increased unit sizes in specific zone districts, to accomplish a community goal of preserving Aspen's heritage as reflected in its built environment. Funds that are gained from the sale of TDRs may be invested back into the landmark. To date, 31 TDRs have been approved by City Council and 23 TDRs have actually been severed from the property. The applicant requests approval from City Council to sever an additional 250 square feet of unbuilt Floor Area from the property in the form of one (1) TDR certificate. As mentioned previously, one TDR has already been established and severed from this property. After the approved development order is acted upon, the resultant unbuilt FAR after the severance of an additional TDR will be 0 square feet. ■ The review criteria found in Exhibit A analyze the existing built development on the property against the maximum allowable floor area to determine the amount of unbuilt development that can be turned into TDRs. Development that already received approval is also analyzed as part of the review process for establishing TDRs.3 The property must be a local landmark, i.e. listed on Aspen's Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, to establish TDRs. ' HPC Resolution 9, Series of 2008 (conceptual approval and FAR bonus) Exhibit B and HPC Resolution 16, Series of 2008 (final approval) Exhibit C. 2 City Council Ordinance 2, Series of 2008. s See Exhibit A, criterion d. Page 2 of 3 Floor Area Analysis for 627 West Main Street: Total allowable floor area for 3,000 square foot lot single family residence in MU zone district (2,400 — 250) = 2,150 square feet of (2,400 square feet) — allowable floor area severed TDR (250 square feet) Existing floor area at 627 West Main Street 1,916 square feet existing built floor area Available unbuilt floor area (2,150—1,916) = 234 square feet unbuilt floor area Approve the establishment of 1 TDR certificate (234 — 250) = (46) square feet at 250 square feet each remaining unbuilt floor area on the site after severing TDR4 Complete partial demolition of at least 16 (16 + 234) = 250 square feet of unbuilt square feet to increase the amount of unbuilt floor area floor area After demolition of at least 16 square feet, (250 — 250) = 0 square feet of unbuilt floor issue 1 TDR certificate worth 250 square feet. area on the site after severing a TDR Currently the property is deficient 16 square feet to establish a second TDR. Prior to second reading the applicant will obtain a demolition permit for the approved development order. Council is asked to approve the establishment of a second TDR with the condition that it is not severed until demolition of at least 16 square feet of the existing building is completed and confirmed by the Building Department. A second TDR will not be severed by the City until the existing property meets the required 250 square feet of unbuilt floor area through the demolition of the non -historic addition. RECOMMENDED ACTION: "In reviewing the proposal, Staff finds that the project meets the applicable review criteria to Establish one Transferable Development Right and finds that TDRs are a good tool for preserving a historic resource by reducing development pressure. Staff recommends approval of the one TDR certificate." PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance # Series of 2009 upon First Reading, and schedule Second Reading for May 26, 2009" CITY MANAGER Severance of the requested TDR will be permitted only after a demolition permit is issued by the building department for the approved development order and at least 16 square feet is removed from the existing building. Page 3 of 4 ATTACHMENTS: A - Review Criteria. B -- HPC Resolution 49, Series of 2008, granting Conceptual approval and FAR bonus for new addition. C - HPC Resolution 418, Series of 2008, granting Final approval for new addition. D -Application. Page 4 of 4 Exhibit A Section 26.535.070 REVIEW CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF HISTORIC TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT, A Historic TDR Certificate may be established by the Mayor of the City of Aspen if the City Council, pursuant to adoption of an ordinance, finds all the following standards met: a) The Sending Site is a Historic Landmark on which the development of a single- family or duplex residence is a permitted use, pursuant to Chapter 26.710. Properties on which such development is a conditional use shall not be eligible. Staff Finding: The proposed 3,000 square foot sending site is located within the Mixed Use (MU) zone district, which allows residential single-family use. The sending site is a designated Historic Landmark, listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures that is used as a single family residence. b) It is demonstrated that the Sending Site has permitted unbuilt development rights, for either a single-family or duplex home, equaling or exceeding two -hundred and fifty (250) square feet of Floor Area multiplied by the number of Historic TDR Certificates requested. Staff Finding: The subject property has a total allowable FAR of 2,400 square feet for a 3,000 square foot single family residential property in the MU zone district. One TDR (250 square feet) has already been severed from the property, which leaves an allowable FAR of 2,150 square feet. A total of 234 square feet of floor area remains unbuilt on the site, which is 16 square feet under the amount needed for a 250 square feet TDR certificate. The applicant has agreed to obtain a building permit for demolition of the non -historic addition, as part of the approved development order, prior to second reading of the ordinance. The applicant must act on the demolition permit and reduce the existing floor at least 16 square feet area prior to severance of a Historic TDR Certificate. A remainder of 0 square feet of unbuilt floor area on the property after the completion of the approved development order. c) It is demonstrated that the establishment of TDR Certificates will not create a nonconformity. In cases where nonconformity already exists, the action shall not increase the specific nonconformity. Staff Finding: The establishment of one TDR will not increase or create a non -conformity. d) The analysis of unbuilt development right shall not only include the actual built development, any approved development order the allowable development right prescribed by zoning, and shall not include the potential of the Sending Site to gain Floor Area bonuses, exemptions, or similar potential development incentives. Exhibit A 627westmainExhibitA. doc Pagel of 3 Staff Finding: This is a two part analysis: 1) actual built development, i.e. the existing condition of the property and 2) analysis of approved development Analysis of actual built development: The existing single family residence includes 1,916 square feet of floor area out of an allowable floor area of 2,150 square feet. The unbuilt floor area existing on the site is 234 square feet. The applicant requests to sever one TDR worth 250 square feet. The actual built development does not meet the threshold (by 16 square feet) to allow for the establishment of a TDR; however, the applicant is currently awaiting the issuance of a demolition permit to commence work on the approved development. The applicant agrees to have the demolition permit in hand before second reading of this Ordinance. Demolition of at least 16 square feet must be completed prior to the issuance of the TDR certificate at which time the analysis of actual built development will comply with this standard. Analysis of approved development: HPC granted approval for a new addition and the 500 square feet floor area bonus for historic resources. A building permit for the project is pending. The total floor area approved for the new addition is 2,400 square feet. Including the 500 square feet floor area bonus, the total allowable floor area on the parcel is 2,650 square feet (2,150 + 500 bonus = 2,650), which leaves 250 square feet of unbuilt floor area. The request to sever one more TDR will leave 0 square feet of unbuilt floor area on the property. e) Any development order to develop Floor Area, beyond that remaining legally connected to the property after establishment of TDR Certificates, shall be considered null and void. Staff Finding: The property will not include any development order to develop Floor Area beyond that remaining legally connected to the property after the establishment of one additional TDR certificate. J) The proposed deed restriction permanently restricts the development of the property (the Sending Site) to an allowable Floor Area not exceeding the allowance for a single-family or duplex residence minus two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of Floor Area multiplied by the number of Historic TDR Certificates established The deed restriction shall not stipulate an absolute Floor Area, but shall stipulate a square footage reduction from the allowable Floor Area, as may be amended from time to time. The Sending Site shall remain eligible for certain Floor Area incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City of Aspen Land Use Code, as may be amended from time to time. The form of the deed restriction shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. Staff Finding: The applicant clearly states an understanding of this standard (f) in the application. g) A real estate closing has been scheduled at which, upon satisfaction of all relevant requirements, the City shall execute and deliver the applicable number of Historic Exhibit A 627westmainExhibitA.doc Page 2 of 3 TDR Certificates to the Sending Site property owner and that property owner shall execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development right of the subject property together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. Staff Finding: The application states that the requirements of section (g) are understood by the applicant. h) It shall be the responsibility of the Sending Site property owner to provide building plans and a zoning analysis of the Sending Site to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Certain review fees may be required for the confirmation of built Floor Area. Staff Finding: The application demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements of section (h). Exhibit A 627westmainExhibitA. doc Page 3 of 3 ORDINANCE NO. l;L (SERIES OF 2009) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING ONE (1) 250 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA HISTORIC TRANSERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT CERTIFICATE FOR THE SENDING SITE OF 627 WEST MAIN STREET,LOT B, BLOCK 25, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL NO. 2735-124-48-010. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Douglas Kelso 627 W. Main Street, Aspen, CO (hereinafter "the Applicant'), represented by Steev Wilson of Form Phi, requesting the establishment of one (1) Historic Transferable Development Right Certificate for the property located at 627 West Main Street, Lot B, Block 25, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned MU (Mixed Use) and contains a single family residence; and, WHEREAS, 627 West Main Street, Lot B, Block 25, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures; and, WHEREAS, City Council Ordinance numbered 2, Series of 2008, established a TDR for the subject property that was subsequently severed through the recordation of a deed restriction on April 18, 2008. WHEREAS, in order to establish a Historic Transferable Development Right Certificate, the applicant shall meet the following requirements of Aspen Municipal Code: Section 26.535.070 which is as follows: 26.535.070, Review Criteria for the Establishment of Historic Transferable Development Right. A Historic TDR Certificate for 250 square feet of Floor Area may be established by the Mayor of the City of Aspen if the City Council, pursuant to adoption of an ordinance, finding all the following standards met: a) The Sending Site is a Historic Landmark on which the development of a single-family or duplex residence is a permitted use, pursuant to Chapter 26.710. Properties on which such development is a conditional use shall not be eligible. b) It is demonstrated that the Sending Site has permitted unbuilt development rights, for either a single-family or duplex home, equaling or exceeding two - hundred and fifty (250) square feet of Floor Area multiplied by the number of Historic TDR Certificates requested. Ordinance No. _, Series 2009 627wmainstreet ordinance.doc Page I of 4 c) It is demonstrated that the establishment of TDR Certificates will not create a nonconformity. In cases where nonconformity already exists, the action shall not increase the specific nonconformity d) The analysis of unbuilt development right shall not only include the actual built development, any approved development order the allowable development right prescribed by zoning, and shall not include the potential of the Sending Site to gain Floor Area bonuses, exemptions, or similar potential development incentives e) Any development order to develop Floor Area, beyond that remaining legally connected to the property after establishment of TDR Certificates, shall be considered null and void. fi The proposed deed restriction permanently restricts the development of the property (the Sending Site) to an allowable Floor Area not exceeding the allowance for a single-family or duplex residence minus two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of Floor Area multiplied by the number of Historic TDR Certificates established. The deed restriction shall not stipulate an absolute Floor Area, but shall stipulate a square footage reduction from the allowable Floor Area, as may be amended from time to time. The Sending Site shall remain eligible for certain Floor Area incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City of Aspen Land Use Code, as may be amended from time to time. The form of the deed restriction shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. g) A real estate closing has been scheduled at which, upon satisfaction of all relevant requirements, the City shall execute and deliver the applicable number of Historic TDR Certificates to the Sending Site property owner and that property owner shall execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development right of the subject property together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. h) It shall be the responsibility of the Sending Site property owner to provide building plans and a zoning analysis of the Sending Site to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Certain review fees may be required for the confirmation of built Floor Area. WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval, with conditions, of the proposed establishment of a second Historic Transferable Development Rights on the subject property; and, WHEREAS, on the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. Series 2009, on First Reading by a vote, approving with conditions the establishment of one (1) Historic Transferable Development Right Certificates for the property located at 627 West Main Street, Lot B, Block 25, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, upon second reading of this Ordinance, the applicant has received a building permit for demolition of the non -historic addition; and, Ordinance No. , Series 2009 627wm ai n street_ord finance. doc Page 2 of 4 WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 26s', 2009, the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No., Series 2009, by a vote, approving with conditions the establishment of a second Historic Transferable Development Right Certificate for the property located at 627 West Main Street, Lot B, Block 25, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the request to establish one (1) Historic Transferable Development Right meets the intent of the Aspen Historic Preservation Program and is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 The City Council finds that the application meets all required standards and eligibility as stated in Section 26.535.030 and Section 26.535.070, and applicant's submission is complete and sufficient to afford review and evaluation for approval; and Section 2 The City Council does hereby establish a second Historic Transferable Development Rights of 250 square feet of Floor Area each to the sending site located at 627 West Main Street, Lot B, Block 25, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 1. Issuance of the second Historic TDR Certificate subject to the completion of approved demolition to reduce the existing floor area to comply with Land Use Code Sections 26.535.070(b) and 26.535.070(d.) 2. Upon satisfaction of all requirements, the city and the applicant shall establish a date on which the respective Historic TDR Certificates shall be validated and issued by the City and a deed restriction on the property shall be accepted by the City and filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. 3. On the mutually agreed upon date, the Mayor of the City of Aspen shall execute and deliver the applicable number of Historic TDR Certificates to the property owner and the property owner shall execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development right of the Sending Site (627 West Main Street, Lot B, Block 25, City and Townsite of Aspen) by an additional 250 square feet together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. Section 3• This Ordinance shall not 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 Ordinance No. , Series 2009 627wmainstreet ordinance.doc Page 3 of 4 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 will be held on the 261h day of May, 2009, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. Section 7• This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final passage. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the I I th day of May, 2009. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of 12009. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: John P. Worcester, City Attorney Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Ordinance No. _, Series 2009 627wm ai nstreet_ord inan ce. doc Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT B HPC CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) AND AN FAR BONUS FOR 627 W. MAIN STREET, LOT B, BLOCK 25, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO; RESOLUTION NO.9, SERIES OF 2008 PARCEL ID: 2737-07-330-010 WHEREAS, the applicant, Doug Kelso, represented by Steev Wilson, Forum Phi, has requested approval for Major Development (Conceptual) and an FAR bonus in order to make an addition to his residence at 627 W. Main Street, Lot B, Block 25, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for approval of an FAR bonus, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.110.0 of the Municipal Code, that: a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; and b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building and/or c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; and/or e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated May 14, 2008, performed an analysis of the application based on the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and recommended HPC approve the project; an RECEPTIONM 550529, 06/26/2008 at 09:25:29 AM, 1 OF 2. R $11.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K. Vas Caudill, Pitkin County, CO EXHIBIT B HPC CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on May 14, 2008, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found that it was consistent with the review standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and granted approval by a vote of 4 to 2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC grants Major Development (Conceptual) and a 500 square foot FAR bonus for the property located at 627 W. Main Street, Lot B, Block 25, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado as proposed. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION on the 14th day of May, 2008. Approved as to Form: Jim True, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVA ION COMMISSION 61//w" Mylchael Hoffman, Chair ATTEST: thy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk EXHIBIT C HPC FINAL APPROVAL A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) FOR 627 W. MAIN STREET, LOT B, BLOCK 25, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO; RESOLUTION NO.16, SERIES OF 2008 PARCEL ID: 2737-07-330-010 WHEREAS, the applicant, Doug Kelso, represented by Steev Wilson, Forum Phi, has requested approval for Major Development (Final) in order to make an addition to his residence at 627 W. Main Street, Lot B, Block 25, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Final Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated July 9, 2008, performed an analysis of the application based on the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and recommended HPC approve the project; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on July 9, 2008, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found that it was consistent with the review standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and granted approval by a vote of 4 to 1. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC grants Major Development (Final) for the property located at 627 W. Main Street, Lot B, Block 25, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 1. HPC granted a 500 square foot FAR bonus as part of the Conceptual review of the project. 2. Staff will review and approve test patches of the brick restoration to ensure proper preservation of the masonry. 3. HPC staff and monitor must approve any changes with regard to the type and location of exterior lighting fixtures by reviewing a plan prior to wiring, purchasing, or installing the fixtures. 4. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved drawings shall be provided for review and aooroval by staff and monitor when the information is available. RECEPTION#: 553881, 10/3012008 at 09:19:41 AM, 1 OF 3, R $16.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO EXHIBIT C HPC FINAL APPROVAL 5. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board. 6. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 7. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 8. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site -specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104,050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site -specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 604 West Main Street 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. EXHIBIT C HPC FINAL APPROVAL APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION on the 9th day of July, 2008. Approved as to Form: im True, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Michael Hoffman, Nair ATTEST: Id Kathy Stric and, Chief Deputy Clerk r ATTACHMENT 2-LAND USE APPLICATION A DDT 1/ A VI' - i :;;t? - - 2RL9 t fi Name: Douglas Kelso "I',Ek Location: 627 W. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611, Block 25 Lot B, city and townsite of Aspen (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 273512448010 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Forum Phi Address: 103 Devon Court Basalt, CO 81611 Phone #: (970 279-4157 PROJECT: Name: Kelso Residence Address: 627 W. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 Phone #: (970)925-3349 TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ❑ Conditional Use ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Conceptual Historic Devt. ❑ Special Review ❑ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Final Historic Development ❑ Design Review Appeal ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ Minor Historic Devt. ❑ GMQS Allotment ❑ Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) ❑ Historic Demolition ❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Subdivision ❑ 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: Historic TDRs ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Text/Map Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) Existing building is an 191k square foot single family residence PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) We are requesting 1 Historic TDRs Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: S ® Pre -Application Conference Summary ® Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement ® Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form ® Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards All plans that are larger than 8.5" x 11" must be folded and a floppy disk with an electronic copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. All plans that are larger than 8.5" x 11" must be folded and a floppy disk with an electronic copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Project: Applicant: Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: ATTACHMENT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Kelso Residence Douglas Kelso 627 W. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 3000 Square feet 3000 Square feet (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing.•_0 Proposed: 0 Number of residential units: Existing: I Proposed: 1 Number of bedrooms: Existing: 3__Proposed. 3 Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing. 1916.5 SF Allowable: 2/50 SF -Proposed: 1 546.5 SF Principal bldg. height: Existing:_N/C Allowable:_25feet Proposed:_N/C_ Access. bldg. height: Existing: none Allowable:_none Proposed.•_none_ On -Site parking: Existing: N/C Required:__ Proposed:_N/C % Site coverage: Existing. Required. NIA_ _ Proposed. % Open Space: Front Setback: Rear Setback: Combined F/R: Side Setback: Side Setback: Combined Sides: Distance Between Buildings Existing: Required: N/A Proposed: Existing_N/C Required: 10_feet Proposed:_N/C Existing: N/C Required:5JeetProposed:_N/C Existing:_N/C Required: Proposed:_N/C Existing:_N/C Required:5feet Proposed:_N/C Existing_N/C Required.• 5feet Proposed. _N/C Existing: N/C Required: --Proposed: NIC Existing. _NIA _Required10feetProposed.N/C Existing non -conformities or encroachments: House currently lies in a setback The following is a written response to the criteria for establishing a Historic Transferable Development Right. The criteria are show in 26.535.070 A-H. The written response requirement is show in 26.535.090 A6. The property referenced is 627 W. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 owned by Douglas Kelso. A: The Sending Site is a Historic Landmark on which the development of a single-family or duplex residence is a permitted use, pursuant to Chapter 26.710. Properties on which such development is a conditional use shall not be eligible. Response: The sending site is zoned Mixed Use (MU) and pursuant to the land use code 26.710.180 B12 a single family residence is a permitted use. Per the City of Aspen zoning map the property lies within the main street historic district and this is a Historic Landmark. B: It is demonstrated that the Sending Site has permitted unbuilt development rights, for either a single-family or duplex home, equaling or exceeding two -hundred and fifty (250) square feet of Floor Area multiplied by the number of Historic TDR Certificates requested. Response: Per the Mixed use zoning regulations specifically 26.710.180 D1 IA "For properties within the Main Street Historic District, this maximum cumulative FAR shall be 1:1 ". The lot size of the lot in question is 3000 square feet, thus the FAR is 2400 square feet. There exists a TDR affecting the site leaving 2150 in FAR. Since the FAR after the partial demolition of the non historic portion of this project will be 1,546.5 square feet per the included existing and demo drawings there exists 250 square feet of unbuilt FAR. C: It is demonstrated that the establishment of TDR Certificates will not create a nonconformity. In cases where nonconformity already exists, the action shall not increase the specific nonconformity. Response: Since the property is presently in compliance with FAR regulations and also will be in compliance with present regulations minus 250 square feet, there is no noncomformity created by this request. D: The analysis of unbuilt development right shall only include the actual built development, any approved development order, the allowable development right prescribed by zoning, and shall not include the potential of the Sending Site to gain Floor Area bonuses, exemptions, or similar potential development incentives. Response: The floor area analysis presented in item B of this response only considers the Mixed Use zoning. Thus the property will comply without any bonuses exemptions or other incentives. E: Any development order to develop Floor Area, beyond that remaining legally connected to the property after establishment of TDR Certificates, shall be considered null and void. Response: This is hereby agreed by the owner. F: The proposed deed restriction permanently restricts the development of the property (the Sending Site) to an allowable Floor Area not exceeding the allowance for a single-family or duplex residence minus two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of Floor Area multiplied by the number of Historic TDR Certificates established. The deed restriction shall not stipulate an absolute Floor Area, but shall stipulate a square footage reduction from the allowable Floor Area, as may be amended from time to time. The Sending Site shall remain eligible for certain Floor Area incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City of Aspen Land Use Code, as may be amended from time to time. The form of the deed restriction shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. Response: This is hereby agreed by the owner. C: A real estate closing has been scheduled at which, upon satisfaction of all relevant requirements, the City shall execute and deliver the applicable number of Historic TDR Certificates to the Sending Site property owner and that property owner shall execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development right of the subject property together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. Response: Such a real estate closing can be scheduled at the City's convenience and such title will be delivered to the Pitkin County Clerk at that time. H: It shall be the responsibility of the Sending Site property owner to provide building plans and a zoning analysis of the Sending Site to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Certain review fees may be required for the confirmation of built Floor Area. Response: This clause is agreed upon and appropriate drawings and analyses have been included with this response. c 4" a JJ I r 7 Lk r ! X V I x , �uu a a u� lT1 3" 5gEs I fi S��'y6. F€�� glad 119 d pe a yea a § ~ \} \ ;\ \ . |& \ $ % � �\ �`� �� �� � \/ � \ �\ IT, Mli n - co ��i >, MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director an/1 FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: First Reading of Ordinance A5' Series of 2009, Historic Landmark Designation, Historic Landmark Lot Split, and Ordinance #48, Series of 2007 Negotiation DATE: May 11, 2009 SUMMARY: 219 S. Third Street is a modern home constructed in 1965. It is identified on Ordinance #48, Series of 2007 as a "potential historic resource." Owners of property on Ordinance #48 have a few options if they wish to proceed with work. They can request staff or HPC approval for their immediate plans without actually agreeing to designation, they can volunteer for designation based on a package of incentives negotiated with City Council, or they can pass on designation and accept a 90 day delay period for the processing of a permit to alter or demolish the building. The owners of 219 S. Third Street are willing to negotiate for designation. HPC discussed this property, and the owners' redevelopment goals, on January 28a' and March, 11t', 2009. The board agreed that examples of the Modern Chalet style of architecture, particularly this example. are worthy of preservation. HPC members expressed concern that negotiated benefits could overload the site in a manner that defeats the value of designation. Between the two meetings with the Commission, the property owner decreased the proposed floor area, density, and bedrooms on the site. HPC's minutes and recommendation to Council are provided as "Exhibit A." This Council meeting is First Reading of an Ordinance to establish incentives, if any, that Council will commit to the property owner to achieve voluntary designation. The City is not able to designate any properties listed on Ordinance #48 without the owner's consent. The owner of 1 219 S. Third Street plans to preserve the existing 1,500 square foot home, and to make an 1,100 square foot addition at the rear corner. The western half of the lot is to be subdivided into a new lot that will contain a 2,400 square foot home to be designed in the future. To facilitate the proposed project, the applicant requests Council approval for Historic Designation, Historic Landmark Lot Split, setback variances, an FAR bonus, a Residential Design Standards variance, waiver of Affordable Housing Mitigation and extended vested rights. The incentives being requested of Council are not within HPC's purview. The proposed project does not increase development rights beyond what could be achieved through existing code processes. Council negotiation would however assure the applicant the entitlements and configuration they are seeking. HPC will still have design review purview over the proposed development on this site, and is scheduled to hold a formal Conceptual review on May 13''. Staff will inform the board of Council's initial opinion of the negotiation requests. HPC will be asked to grant a number of benefits that are traditionally within their authority. On May 26t', Council will hear Second Reading of the Ordinance, then the applicant will return to HPC for Final. Legend Subject Parcel Roads City Boundary 0 20 40 so 120 160 Feet N W E S APPLICANT: YLP West, LLC, represented by Suzanne Foster. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-65-005. ADDRESS: 219 S. Third Street, portions of Lots O-S, Block 39, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-15, Moderate Density Residential HISTORIC DESIGNATION 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 20a' century properties like 219 S. Third Street is evaluated according to the following criteria: 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 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. Staff Finding: 219 S. Third Street was built in 1965 as a vacation home for the family of Tom Cleary. It remained in the same ownership for over 40 years. The house was designed by Eric Friis, an architect from the area of the Cleary's residence in northern Wisconsin. Staff has been unable to find information about Eric Friis, and is continuing to try to find additional building history from relatives of the original owner. Regardless, staff finds that this house represents the character of typical vacation homes being built here in the 50's and 60's. Staff has termed houses like 219 S. Third "Modern Chalets." Buildings like this one combined classic Chalet architectural features, such as low pitched roofs, deep overhangs, balconies, simple form, and orientation towards the mountain with modern aesthetics such as 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. 3 Examples of classic Chalet buildings in Aspen include: 04 Examples of Modern Chalets in Aspen include: E Staff finds that 219 S. Third meets designation criteria "C." It is part of a collection of buildings that uniquely illustrates cultural and design influences that significantly changed the built environment of Aspen as it developed into a ski resort. The neighborhood surrounding this property is a microcosm of the architectural influences that have dominated Aspen's history. To the north is perhaps the oldest residence in town, a circa 1885 log cabin. 1930's tourist cabins occupy the nearby L'Auberge property. Along Hopkins Avenue are The Boomerang Lodge and several 1960's era apartment structures. To the east, Chalets, Wrightian structures, and Victorians are common. As part of landmark designation review, staff typically completes an integrity score sheet to determine the amount of original features and material that exists. We are unable to do so for this property because the Modern Chalet style is one that has become recognized as potentially significant during the course of the Ordinance #30 and #48 discussions. At this point no context papers or scoring forms have been adopted for use, although a draft statement is attached as "Exhibit B." This house appears to be unaltered from the original design. We did not locate building permits for any significant work on the exterior of the structure, therefore we feel that the building has a high degree of integrity and authenticity. Staff supports landmark designation for this structure finding that the review criteria are met. HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT In order to complete a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the Municipal Code states that the application shall meet the following requirements of Aspen Land Use Code: Section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section 26.470.070(C), and Section 26.415.120(A). In preparing this review, staff has discovered that recent amendments to the code have rendered the latter two code citations inaccurate. Section 26.470.070(C) previously provided for Growth Management exemption of a new home on a Historic Landmark Lot Split parcel. The exemption is now found at Section 26.470.060(2). Section 26.415.120(A) refers to appeals of HPC decisions. The correct code citation is 26.415.110(A), which is procedures for review of Historic Landmark Lot Splits. The relevant code sections are addressed below. During the HPC reviews, a neighboring property owner raised concerns about whether the subject site is impacted by natural hazards due to its location at the toe of Shadow Mountain. Staff asked the applicant to provide a professionally prepared analysis of this question. A letter from Yeh Associates is attached as "Exhibit C." In addition, the neighbor raised concerns about adding another residential unit on what is a dead end alley. The alley currently serves the neighbor's home, a log cabin, and the Modern Chalet at 219 S. Third. Staff consulted with the Streets Department, who stated that they are required to remove the snow regardless of how many units use the alley. Property owners must retain their own snow on their site, and not dump into the right-of-way. There are other dead end alleys in town with multiple residential and commercial units located along them. 5 The Fire Department is not concerned with providing service, particularly because the dead end alley is only half the length of the block. They are likely to require fire sprinklers for the new house on the Historic Landmark Lot Split as a precautionary measure, but would not ask for a fire truck turnaround or other mitigation. 26.480.030(A)(2). SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, LOT SPLIT The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the following conditions are met: a) The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969. This restriction shall not apply to properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures; and Staff Finding: The property is part of the original Aspen townsite, not located in a subdivision approved by the City or the County. b) No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.470.070(B); and Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to create two lots. Both conform to the lot size requirements (minimum lot size of 3,000 square feet) and lot area per dwelling unit requirements (minimum area of 3,000 square feet per unit) for Historic Landmark Properties in the R-15 Zone District. This property will contain one single family residence on a 5,868 square foot lot and one single family residence on a 4,122 square foot lot. With regard to affordable housing mitigation, Section 26.470.070(B), the Growth Management section has been revised and the correct standards are found at Section 26.470.060(2)(a) of the Municipal Code. New homes on vacant lots formed through a Historic Landmark Lot Split are required to provide affordable housing mitigation. The applicant has asked for a waiver as part of the negotiation process, discussed later in the memo. c) The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.470.040(C)(1)(a): and Staff Finding: The land has not received a subdivision exemption or lot split exemption. Go d) A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Staff Finding: The subdivision plat shall be a condition of approval. It must be reviewed by the Community Development Department for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land use action. e) Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. Staff Finding: The subdivision exemption agreement shall be a condition of approval. In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. Staff Finding: No demolition is proposed. g) Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. Staff Finding: A single family home is proposed on each lot. 26.480.030(A)(4), SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT a.) The original parcel shall be a minimum of sir thousand (6,000) square feet in size and be located in the R-6, R-15, R-15A, RMF or O Zone District. Staff Finding: The subject parcel is 9,942 square feet and is located in the R-15 Zone District. b.) The total FAR for both residences shall be established by the size of the parcel and the Zone District where the property is located The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the subdivision exemption plat. Staff Finding: FAR is based on lot size, in this case after areas of steep slopes created by an existing berm at the rear of the site are deducted. The lot size for purpose of determining FAR is 7 7,472 square feet, which equals a base allowable FAR of 4,042 square feet for a landmarked site. The applicant proposes to add 993 square feet of bonus FAR to that, discussed below. The FAR for each unit will be noted on the plat. c.) The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying Zone District The variances provided in Paragraphs 26.415.120.B.I.a, band care only permitted on the parcels that will contains an historic structure. The FAR bonus will be applied to the maximum FAR allowed on the original parcel. Staff Finding: The development meets the dimensional requirements of the zone district except for setbacks and FAR. Variance requests are detailed below. Section 26.470.060(2). Administrative Applications for Growth Management. New houses on a landmark lot split property are exempt from Growth Management competition, but are deducted from the overall residential development ceiling levels. To receive an exemption, affordable housing mitigation is to be provided. The applicant is requesting a waiver. 26.415.110(A). Benefits. This section describes the review process for Historic Landmark Lot Splits. The process is being properly followed. Both HPC and Council will hold noticed public hearings, with Council making their final determination based on a recommendation from HPC. ORDINANCE #48, SERIES OF 2007 NEGOTIATION The project is a combination of designation incentives that are within HPC's purview, and incentives being requested from Council through Ordinance #48. Requests that exceed the benefits currently available for landmarks are shown in red. (Note: This numbered list references an attachment provided by the applicant.) 1. Approval of a Historic Landmark Lot Split. Staff Finding: The proposed site plan complies with the criteria for a Historic Landmark Lot Split. No special consideration is needed from Council. 2. Approval of 2,400 square feet of FAR for a single family residence on the new lot including the granting of the variances for side and front setbacks that are needed, and exempt this property's requirement for a detached building due to the unique shape of the site. 0 Staff Finding: The duplex at 219 S. Third is currently considered non -conforming because the parcel isn't large enough for two units (it is 9,942 square feet, instead of the minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet.) The duplex is legal because the original building permit issued for the property clearly indicated this use, however the undersized lot is penalized by restricting development to the maximum FAR allowed for a single family house (3,652 square feet, after deducting some lot area for steep slopes.) There are other development choices that could add FAR to a site like this one. The applicant has described the maximum build out (in a non - landmark scenario) as a single family or duplex, plus a voluntary carriage house, which is exempt from FAR up to 1200 square feet, and earns a 600 square foot FAR bonus. Landmarked properties have different minimum lot sizes, so with the proposed designation, the house can be designed to duplex FAR, which at 4,042 square feet is 390 square feet more than a non -landmark scenario is allowed. Within the framework of the negotiation for voluntary designation, the property owner intends to ask for floor area bonuses to achieve their desired program. The bonuses are the 500 square feet that HPC often considers for exemplary projects, and an additional grant of 493 square feet from City Council. Of the total 5,035 square feet of FAR requested, 2,400 square feet is to be allocated to a new house on a lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split, and 2,625 square feet is to accommodate the existing approximately 1,500 square foot house and an 1,100 square foot addition to it. The allocation of a limited amount of FAR for an addition to the resource, and transfer of all remaining buildable area to a detached structure is very consistent with the intention of the Historic Landmark Lot Split. In general, staff finds the size and placement of the proposed addition to the Modern Chalet to be sympathetic, and successful in preserving the primary facades of the building with little direct alteration to them. Council must determine whether to commit to the HPC bonus at this time or to defer that issue to the board. The HPC's 500 square foot bonus must be earned by creating a project that is particularly well designed and sensitive to the historic resource. Staff believes that the project can meet the HPC's criteria, but that decision should be left to them. Staff supports the 493 square foot bonus that is requested of Council. As described above, a property owner can receive FAR bonuses on this site through the Carriage House program. The owner is requesting the bonus without a required deed restriction. HPC does not have the authority to grant setback variances on the new parcel created through the lot split, however variances such as these could be requested of the Board of Adjustment. Instead, the applicant requests Council approval as part of the negotiation. The applicant is attempting to establish a building envelope for the new building. As drawn it requires a 16'6" front yard setback variance (staff finds this particularly appropriate in order to be consistent with the placement of the Modem Chalet) and a 5' east sideyard setback variance. The east sideyard variance allows more flexibility in the footprint of the new house, and is "internalized" on the 0 site; not directly affecting an adjacent property owner. Staff recommends Council support the variance requests for the vacant lot. The applicant's other request within this line item is for Council to waive compliance with the "Secondary Mass" requirement of the Residential Design Standards for the new lot. This could be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, but again is being consolidated with the Council review. The Residential Design Standard requires all new homes to place at least 10% of their mass in a detached structure. Staff can support waiver in this case because of the constrained building envelope and the fact that the property does not relate to the streets and alleys in the traditional manner (i.e. the primary building fronts on the alley and there is no rear access to the lot.) A chart that compares the FAR that is allowed on the site without designation, with designation, and with the requested negotiated benefits follows. 10 c E 3 c o b° o c a x o U o ' 7 0 0 abi Chi N O P� 0 U Up x C. O qp 0 y t a 0 In •cd cd � W W D o j o .. Y o O L o a 3 Y a o 9 o c + P. 6 o c to c y p 8 •O 2Oz W y O_ •.•' cC \ y u Y c) .� cc a L bA K ^ run y CQ o o c a v a v a s i o? d r3 C Y u Q. y al k 0 CL N u •° rx w r, �1 a� av �3 �o U :� k .0 C 7. C u O tA 0 y C C wvNi to r G 7 ctl w N .fir. �. o• .� -o 2 0 .3 N b. N T G. O LI c3 C> X O 0 'C 'vi d f1i D\ N U_ ri w. u Z u W t 04 fx O. a > E� 8 cl ca 3. Approve the 2625 square feet of FAR, footprint and basic design for the expansion of the duplex including the setback variances that will be needed. Staff Finding: The final FAR available to this project will be determined through Council's decision on the 493 square foot bonus and the HPC's determination in awarding their 500 square foot bonus. The design review approval and setback variances needed for the work occurring on the lot that will contain the Modern Chalet are within HPC's typical purview, have been noticed for their Conceptual review being held on May 13a', and should be left to their discretion. Staff is in the process of preparing the memo for the HPC review, and we support the proposed expansion of the Modern Chalet. Related to the Modern Chalet, the building is already out of compliance with the front yard and east sideyard setbacks. The proposed new lot line and new addition require setback variances on the west and rear. HPC has the authority to grant these variances, which should be done in conjunction with the design review that is to follow Council's negotiation. 4. Award the 500 square feet allowable bonus for maintaining appropriate HPC historic guidelines for the duplex, and award an additional 493 square foot bonus as economic incentive. Staff Finding: This request is encapsulated in line items 2 and 3, above. Again, staff supports Council awarding the 493 square foot bonus and recommends that HPC review the 500 square feet. 5. Exemption from the Growth Management Quota System (employee housing) and a waiver of Park Dedication fees for both the duplex addition and the single family development as outlined in your draft DTD 11/10/08 (references an earlier list of benefits requested by the applicant.) Staff Finding: At 2,400 square feet, the new home would be required to provide an on -site Accessory Dwelling Unit, or to pay a cash -in -lieu fee of $171,888 (2,400 sq. ft. x $71.62/sq.ft.). Staff sees this waiver request as a policy matter for Council. The property owner could receive a waiver of affordable housing requirements within the existing benefits program if the new house and existing house were condominiumized instead of separated through a Historic Landmark Lot Split. Park dedication fees are waived for development on historic landmark properties. No special consideration from Council is needed. Four bedrooms exist on the site now. A total of 6 are proposed. The fee waiver is 2 bedrooms x $4,429= $8,858. 11 6. Omitted due to typo. 7. Approval of the new North elevation of the existing duplex (faces alley) which includes a new window configuration, full light wells for the submerged level and new windows for the submerged level. Staff Finding: This will be addressed through the HPC design review. The applicant has called it out as an issue of importance to them. Staff believes that a solution can be found through the standard design review process. 8. Approval to leave the existing duplex as a multi -family dwelling, or to convert it to a single family residence at any time in the future with no change in the available FAR and bonus. Staff Finding: Whether the owner chooses to develop this property as two single family homes, or a duplex and one single family home, the base FAR is unchanged by right. Once bonuses are awarded, they cannot be withdrawn. The request to retain the right for the Modern Chalet to be a duplex does raise one issue. As proposed it is on a lot of 5,868 square feet. Either the lot size has to be increased to 6,000 to meet the dimensional requirements of the zone district, or the property owner needs to ask for an exception to the minimum lot size for a duplex on a landmark site in the R-15 zone district. The house was designed as a duplex, and the decision on this topic does not have any architectural ramifications, so staff is somewhat neutral. However, it does require a lot size variance and, during the HPC meetings, when density was raised as a concern, the applicant stated that the Modern Chalet would become a single family house. This is reflected in information provided in the Council application as well. 9. Approval for a change of roofing material and color change for roofing material. Staff Finding: This is related to the Modem Chalet. HPC routinely approves roof material replacement, but the board needs to review the specifics of the proposal to ensure that the original characteristics of the roof are retained. This should be handled by HPC. 10. Approval to change the chimney materials. 12 Staff Finding: This will be addressed through the HPC design review. The applicant has called it out as an issue of importance to them. Staff believes that a solution can be found through the standard design review process. 11. Approval to change the color of the building and trim. Staff Finding: HPC does not review paint color. 12. Approval to change, windows with like design as found necessary due to poor condition and/or poor economy. Staff Finding: The existing window units do not appear to have any distinctive character that would be lost through replacement. Typically HPC is presented with cut sheets for replacement windows to verify that the original units are being replicated. This requires more in depth discussion by HPC and should be handled by them. 13. 10 year vesting for all approvals granted. Staff Finding: Once a land use approval is granted, it never expires, however it can become subject to new laws after a certain period of time. "Vested Rights" is the time period when the approval is protected from most changes that may be adopted (approvals are never protected from amendments to the Building Code, and some other life/safety issues.) The City is required to provide a 3 year vesting period. The applicant's request for 10 year vesting is a policy matter for Council. 14. Approval to remove the existing porch and rebuild with materials appropriate to the Modern Chalet style. Staff Finding: Staff understands this request to be related to the rear deck, which the applicant represents is more recent construction. As stated, we believe all design review issues should be handled by HPC after the Council negotiation. In concept we do not object to reconstruction of the deck, particularly if old drawings or photographs can be used to guide the work. 13 RECOMMENDATION: This applicant is the first property owner subject to Ordinance #48, Series of 2007 who has volunteered to designate subject to the negotiation process. Staff appreciates their effort to enter into a process that is new for the City. Staff recommends Council adopt Ordinance #_, Series of 2009, on First Reading. As drafted, the Ordinance includes a commitment to grant the following, conditioned upon voluntary designation of 219 S. Third Street. 1. Approval of a Historic Landmark Lot Split, as represented on the proposed site plan dated and attached to the Ordinance as Exhibit B. The allowable FAR is 2,625 square feet for a single family house on Lot 1 and 2,400 square feet for a single family house on Lot 2, assuming that a 500 square foot FAR bonus is approved by HPC. 2. Approval of a 493 square feet FAR increase, available through the Carriage House program, but without the requirement to create a deed restricted affordable housing unit. 3. Approval of a 16'6" north (front) yard setback variance and a 5' east side yard setback variance on Lot 2. 4. Waiver of the "Secondary Mass" requirement of the Residential Design Standards for Lot 2. 5. Waiver of the affordable housing cash -in -lieu fee for a new house of 2,400 square feet on Lot 2. 6. Deferral of all design review on the property to HPC's authority. 7. 10 year vesting of the Council and HPC approvals granted for the proposed project. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance No.,19 Series of 2009, Historic Landmark Designation, Historic Landmark Lot Split, and Ordinance #48, Series of 2007 Negotiation on First Reading." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Exhibits: Ordinance #a Series of 2009 A. HPC's minutes and recommendation to Council B. Draft historic context statement for Modem Chalets C. Letter from Yeh Associates regarding natural hazards D. Application 14 ORDINANCE # 115 (Series of 2009) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO APPROVING LANDMARK DESIGNATION, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT, AN FAR BONUS, SETBACK VARIANCES, A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE, WAIVER OF CASH IN LIEU PAYMENT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING MITIGATION, AND 10 YEARS VESTED RIGHTS FOR THE SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 219 S. THIRD STREET, PORTIONS OF LOTS O-S, BLOCK 39, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2735-124-65-005 WHEREAS, the applicant, YLP West, LLC, represented by Suzanne Foster, has requested negotiation for landmark designation pursuant to Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2007 for the proposed alterations to the property located at 219 S. Third Street, portions of Lots O-S, Block 39, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado (legal description attached as Exhibit A); and WHEREAS, the property is included on Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2007, as a potential historic resource; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.025(E) of the Municipal Code states that, curing the negotiation period set forth in the Code, "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 owners were notified of the Historic Preservation Commission meeting; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report to HPC dated March 11, 2009, performed an analysis of the building and the impact of the proposed alterations to the potential historic significance of the building and found that the criteria for landmark designation are met; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on March 11, 2009, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application and approved a recommendation to City Council by a vote of 5-0; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, 219 S. Third Street Ordinance #48 Negotiation Review Page I of 5 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Historic Designation Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Aspen City Council hereby approves Historic Designation for 219 S. Third Street, portions of Lots O-S, Block 39, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. Section 2: Subdivision Exemption Pursuant to Sections 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section 26.470.070(C), and Section 26.415.110(A) of the Municipal Code, and subject to those conditions of approval as specified herein, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the subdivision exemption: 1. The applicant's submission is complete and sufficient to afford review and evaluation for approval; and 2. The subdivision exemption is consistent with the purposes of subdivision as outlined in Section 26.480 of the Municipal Code, which purposes include: assist in the orderly and efficient development of the City; ensure the proper distribution of development; encourage the well -planned subdivision of land by establishing standards for the design of a subdivision; improve land records and survey monuments by establishing standards for surveys and plats; coordinate the construction of public facilities with the need for public facilities; safeguard the interests of the public and the subdivider and provide consumer protection for the purchaser; acquire and ensure the maintenance of public open spaces and parks, provide procedures so that development encourages the preservation of important and unique natural or scenic features, including but not limited to mature trees or indigenous vegetation, bluff, hillsides, or similar geologic features, or edges of rivers and other bodies of water, and, promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen. Section 3: Subdivision Plat Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for a Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision Plat. The Subdivision Plat shall comply with current requirements of the City Community Development Engineer. At a minimum, the subdivision plat shall: 1. Meet the requirements of Section 26.480 of the Aspen Municipal Code. 2. Depict any easements and signature blocks for utility mains not administered by the City of Aspen. 3. Contain a plat note stating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to the provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application. 219 S. Third Street Ordinance #48 Negotiation Review Page 2 of 5 4. Depict the approved setbacks and allowable FAR assigned to each lot. Section 4: Subdivision Agreement and Ordinance #48, Series of 2007 Negotiation Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Aspen City Council hereby grants the following Land Use entitlements, conditioned upon the voluntary landmark designation of 219 S. Third Street, portions of Lots O-S, Block 39, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision Agreement binding this property to this development approval. The Agreement shall include the necessary items detailed in Section 26.445.070, in addition to listing the following: 1. Approval of a Historic Landmark Lot Split, as represented on the proposed site plan dated _ and attached hereto as Exhibit B. The allowable FAR is 2,625 square feet for a single family house on Lot 1 and 2,400 square feet for a single family house on Lot 2, assuming that a 500 square foot FAR bonus is approved by HPC. 2. Approval of a 493 square feet FAR increase, available through the Carriage House program, but without the requirement to create a deed restricted affordable housing unit. 3. Approval of a 16'6" north (front) yard setback variance and a 5' east side yard setback variance on Lot 2. 4. Waiver of the "Secondary Mass" requirement of the Residential Design Standards for Lot 2. 5. Waiver of the affordable housing cash -in -lieu fee for a new house of 2,400 square feet on Lot 2. 6. Deferral of all design review on the property to HPC's authority. Section 6: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 7: Existing Litigation This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 8: Vested Riehts The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site -specific development plan vested for a period of ten (10) years from the date of issuance of a 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. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 219 S. Third Street Ordinance #48 Negotiation Review Page 3 of 5 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site -specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of ten (10) 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: 219 S. Third Street, portions of Lots O-S, Block 39, City and Townsite of 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. Section 9: Public Hearing A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 26t' day of May, 2009, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the _ day of 12009. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of _, 2009. ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor 219 S. Third Street Ordinance 448 Negotiation Review Page 4 of 5 APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney Exhibit A: Legal Description of 219 S. Third Street. Lots O, P, Q, R and S, Block 39, City and Townsite of Aspen, excepting therefrom that portion of Lots O, P and Q that lies south of the northerly boundary of a right of way described as a 17 foot strip of land being 8.5 feet on each side of a centerline of the Colorado Midland Railway right of way and southerly 25 feet of Lot R and S as described and show in deed and map recorded February 27, 1950 in Book 175 at Page 628. 219 S. Third Street Ordinance #48 Negotiation Review Page 5 of 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2009 five feet from the house and the length 20feet and the length of the house is around 36 feet. Staff feels the decking was perpendicular to the house. Dave Rybak said he got an e-mail from Christine Brumner who said the porch was relocated in the 1980's. The porch we took off was 20 to 25 years old and we removed the joists. Sarah said a twenty foot long length joist would run perpendicular. Ann pointed out that when the decking was removed photos should have been taken and the contractor should have contacted Sara or the project monitor. Jay also mentioned that the contractor blatantly didn't read the instructions and it is troubling. The contractor needs to know that his actions are not acceptable and it made more work for the architect and the RPC. Amy agreed that there is a need to account for people not carrying out what their obligated to do through licensing. The board recommended that the deck remain parallel to the house as approved in the resolution. 219 S. Third St. — Conceptual Review and Ordinance #48 negotiations/historic designation (public hearing cont'd from Jan. 28�h) Suzanne Foster, owner: My family has been coming here for five years. We live on the east coast and one of our issues is to raise our five year old son in a gentler environment. We have been trying to identify a property so that we can raise our son. At the last meeting it was determined that modem chalet is potentially a viable historic resource for Aspen and that this particular property did fit within those parameters. With that endorsement it is our intent to voluntarily designate the existing duplex under Ord. #48. The original density was a duplex, eight bedrooms and a single family with three bedrooms. The revised density is to convert the modern chalet into a single family which would have three bedrooms and to have a single family home on the empty lot that would have three bedrooms as well. We originally had 12 bedrooms and now we have six bedrooms. The original building height of the chalet addition was going to be 25 feet but we decided to keep the building height of the addition in line with the current roof height so nothing 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2009 sticks up higher than the original roof line. The original variances were for all four sides. We are asking for two variances, five foot between the two buildings and 8'6" on the front. The original FAR bonus was 500 square feet plus an additional 1900 square feet. We have revised that and are asking for the 500 square feet and 493 square feet as an economic incentive. That would be 2625 square feet for the chalet 2400 square feet for the single family. Those kinds of square footages are consistent with the neighborhood. If we did not landmark this property and build a single family home and build an affordable housing unit next to it we would sell the affordable housing unit and when you do that none of that counts as FAR on the property. If you build a unit that is 1200 square feet you get a 600 square foot bonus. If you take the 1200 or 1500 square foot unit you take the existing FAR that is available for the single family/duplex and add the 600 square feet that is actually 700 more square feet than what we are proposing. Asking for the 493 square feet is less than what would be allowed. We would like the ordinance 48 lot split approved, approve 2400 square feet of FAR for the single family, approve, 2625 square feet of FAR for the duplex and the award of 500 square feet and 493 square feet for economic incentives and exemption from grown management for employee housing. Susan asked the board to look at her model and make comments that can be addressed at the next HPC meeting. Amy clarified for the board that staff is not asking HPC to grant approvals tonight. We are asking feedback for council on the negotiations: Is the building worthy of landmark designation and worthy of council discussing the kind of benefits that the applicant has asked for. The property was built in 1965 and on ordinance #48 as a potential historic resource. Designation criteria were applied. There are three criteria and HPC needs to make a finding that the building is a) Associated with an event, pattern or trend that is significant to our history. b) People who are significant to our history. c) A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristic of a type, period or method of construction. A handout was give on the modern chalet style and how we used other examples in town that this was a common building type in the 50's and 60's. Staff feels it is a representation of the evolution from the classic chalet alpine architecture, the decorative architecture that was brought here by Europeans in the 1940's and the modem influence of architects Bayer and Benedict. This is a natural evolution of vacation homes in particular that were being built at the time. k, ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2009 The building has not had a lot of alternations it was a vacation home that was owned by the same family for over 40 years until Suzanne's family had purchased it. We feel it meets the designation criteria and has integrity. Amy identified areas where HPC should make a statement to council if they are in support of these benefits. 1. Support the landmark designation. 2. Support the lot split. 3. If the chalet is being kept as a duplex and has another single family she needs an exception to the minimum lot size for a duplex. 4. 493 square feet of FAR above and beyond the 500 square feet of FAR is being requested. 5. Variances are being requested for the new vacant lot that HPC cannot grant. Front yard setback so that the new house can align with the setback of the existing modern chalet. Five foot interior side yard setback. 6. Waiver of the secondary mass requirement of the Residential Design Standards. 7. Waiver of cash -in lieu for affordable housing. 8. Longer period of vested rights. 9. Neighbors are asking for story polls to be installed. 10.Friends of Shadow Mountain — letter expressed concern that the project be sensitive to the Midland right-of-way and the trail that exists behind the site. Amy said she talked to Brian Flynn from the Parks dept. and he feels they have more than enough of a buffer near the trail. Amy also pointed out that HPC will look at the addition and the new house on the vacant lot. Suzanne said they calculated the square footage for the property differently due to the slope. Brian inquired about the square footage available as is. Suzanne said if we tore the building down we could build 3,652 square feet for a single family home or a duplex. We can build a detached unit, the ADU unit that would be 1,200 to 1,500 square feet. We would sell that unit. If you sell the unit you get up to 50% or 600 square feet bonus for your duplex. We would actually have 4,252 square feet for the single family/duplex and about 1,500 square feet for the ADU unit which comes to about 5,700 square feet. We are requesting about 5,025 square feet for the single family. It is actually a net reduction. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2009 Brian ask how large the addition could be if you added on. Amy said it could be doubled. Sarah said it would be about 3,600 square feet all together. Amy pointed out that the building permit was issued for a duplex so they can keep a duplex even if they tear the building down and their FAR is 3,600 square feet. Nora asked if there is a way to accommodate the neighbors with story polls. Michael said this application will come back to us at conceptual and at that time we can discuss story polls with the applicant. Jim pointed out that this is a negotiation under the historic preservation ordinances that are set forth in the statute and this property is on the list. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Herb Klein, attorney for the neighbors, Paul and Angela Young The land use code has provisions that are possibly being violated or we need to pay particular attention to comply with them. Exhibit I — Copies of the land use code submitted by Herb Klein. Herb said in the general code historic lot splits are a subdivision exemption and it is covered by the subdivision standards in the code. This was not pointed out in staff s memo. There is a feeling around town that if you are designated historic you get this lot split by right and that is not the case, as the code in another section says it is not by right and that is not the case. Maybe this is an example where a lot split should not be approved. Michael said if we didn't grant the lot split why wouldn't the applicant be able to condominumize and what difference would it make. Amy said two detached units is an allowed use. The lot split is a form of different ownership. Instead of condominumization it is fee simple. Herb said he would think you needed a GMQS exemption to build the second house. Amy said as an historic landmark it is exempt from GMQS and affordable housing. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2009 Herb said section 26.480.03 2 B discusses lot splits and it references mitigation for affordable housing. I don't believe that there is any authority to grant FAR beyond the 500 square foot bonus. We have heard about this negotiation issue. I think it is a defacto in zoning to grant any square footage otherwise authorized by the code. Michael clarified that the HPC has no authority to grant extra FAR. We are only here to make a recommendation to City Council. Amy said she is suggesting that the HPC let Council know if they are in support of that but it is council's decision. Herb said he feels the general subdivision standards have not been addressed and not in the application and not in the staff memo. Another criteria is suitability for land subdivision. This refers to life safety issues. You have to determine that it is no located on land unsuitable for development. Michael pointed out that there are a lot of things that City Council needs to be aware of in order to make their decision. Herb said you are making a recommendation and before you do that you should consider the subdivision standards because you don't want to make a recommendation on something that will become a hazard. Also 26.415.026 mentions voluntary designation. This owner is requesting that which means you are at conceptual level. The code is very vague. MOTION: Michael made the motion that this application is not a conceptual hearing; second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. Herb said everything here you do is hypothetical. Jim said the owner has not submitted a request for conceptual approval yet. Herb said at the last meeting the 621 W. Francis property had more valuable features than this one. You are doing the best you can with the tools available but you don't have sufficient guidelines. You said 621 W. Francis could be demolished and we come up next and you say we should preserve this one. I don't know how you reconcile that.' The difference is in that one that owner wanted it demolished and this one, the owner wants to get the benefits of not demolishing it. The point is shall or shouldn't it be ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2009 designated. I don't see how you can proceed without the standards. I feel this should be tabled until you get adequate standards and score sheets in place. The floor area bonus is for exemplary properties. It is not a matter of right you need to make findings that this is exemplary. It also says that a work session needs to occur and I don't know if that occurred. Also in the code you need to determine whether the variances,will have no negative impacts. There are serious procedural questions as to where you are in this process and whether you are in a position to act on it at all tonight. Exhibit II — Lisa Purdy letter Exhibit III — full list of buildings that might be worthy of designation Herb said the issue of single family or duplex and which one it will be, it seems that the applicant wants all the benefits and density and wants the ability to go back to a duplex. It seems that the applicant wants to keep the duplex until such time she wants to develop. I would like to see a commitment to keep the bedroom count as submitted which is three in the single family and three bedrooms in the vacant lot. That is what is being proposed to you. In closing there are serious procedural problems. Nobody is served well without action that does not have guidelines. Jake Vickery, architect Jake said he has been engaged by a few of the neighbors to represent them and more importantly to be a watch dog. This is a whole new territory and a complicated process. On top of that in terms of the property it is complicated. We all need to work through this in a systematic way. Jake said he is more focused on the landmark and whether or not this property is worthy of landmark designation. I would request that the commission look at Lisa Purdy's letters and address each point for the record. I have been struggling with this application for three days. The spread sheet that Amy did at the last meeting is very valuable because it compares what you can do with the property once it is landmarked and what bonuses are available and what is the lot split concept. There are too many loose ends to make a decision on this property tonight. Jake said the survey should have the actual grades on the diagram because when you transpose it onto a site plan you can see where the buildings will go and the setbacks. If you take the 16 properties on the list of modern chalets and rank them I think you will find that this property would be at the very lowest end of the list based on definitive characteristics of the structures. If you redevelop the property so that it crowds the historic resource and impacts the neighbors then you unwind the benefit that you have created by the historic landmark. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2009 David Bentley, Exhibit IV — letter Exhibit V —photographs of what the alley looks like in a snow storm. David said he has lived here for 27 years in the little house off the alley. The real object is the lot split and the vacant lot. This is a dead end alley and the plows have no place to push the snow. Angela Young, neighbor Angela pointed out that David Bentley has had his home hit by the city snow plow due to the illegal parking spaces. There is nowhere for tenants to park. We have had our alley blocked so that we couldn't get out. It is a dead end alley. John Staton, 431 W. Hopkins. I have been the owner of the house since 1993. The applicant said at the last meeting HPC said the modern style was worthy of preservation. In staff s memo page 7, 8 the photographs show balcony treatments and window designs. All of them are rectangular. When you look at the model any similarities between these 7 mountain chalet photographs and what is presented is purely coincidental. None of the photographs have a side building with a roof line that is above the original building line. This building is not rectangular so there are some real differences. Assuming you designate this building historic then it seems to me once you make additions it still has to be historic and should fit the p7 and p8 pictures. The model does not fit those pictures. Carol Bloomquist, member of the Shadow Mountain Neighborhood group. The Midland trail is historic and the integrity needs totally responded too. It seems to be eaten away with cement buildings going up. Cheryl Goldenberg, 430 W. Hopkins I looked at the site and it was beautiful over there. I have a 9,000 square foot lot and a duplex of 4,000 square feet. Each half has 2,000 square feet. Every time I want to expand I am told we can't do anything. When I looked at this they have much more square footage and it doesn't seem fair. Everything should be done within the law. We shouldn't give people things that stretch it. Paul Young, neighbor and owner of 413 W. Hopkins 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2009 The original application was all based on the exchange of a piece of property that was a separate parcel. That has dropped out of the equation. For that reason there should not be all these incentives for additional FAR. Another thing you talk about is no alterations. There is an alternation to 217- 219 Third Street which happens to be the deck. In the application they want to tear the deck off. Part of it was part of the original structure and this is not in keeping with preservation. Exhibit VI — letter from Sally Matkin - opposing the development Exhibit VII — Jennifer Sherwin — opposing the development Paul said he had Ed VanWalraven, the fire marshall come out and look and he will review this at a later time. His concern is the variances that the applicant is asking for. There should be 20 feet between structures and the applicant is requesting ten feet. On the duplex the overhang goes out four feet and the snow would fall on the other property. I have had problems with illegal parking from day one on the duplex. They are parking indeed on the alley right-of-way. At the present time the applicant is asking for window wells to be there and where does the parking go that is part of the duplex. Michael Beherendt, 334 W. Hyman At 315 W. Hyman a gentlemen came in and wanted to build a house and get an exemption on his non -conforming lot for his family. This is a small neighborhood and we do get together and want to welcome the Fosters. The problem is the historic development that is happening which is your purview. I know the intention and staff s intention which is to try and preserve that part of our history. We do not have enough information to form an opinion on modern chalet. The building has been employee housing for over 40 years. Tom Cleary was the owner and built the building cheap so he could have a mountain cabin. He lived elsewhere. The trail itself is about 35 feet from the corner of the proposed structure. With enough screening in the summer it would not have an impact as long as they don't go very high. I think the neighbors are saying you have what you have by right but we really do not see this as a valuable historic structure in the neighborhood. We don't even know what the other structure would look like. Would it be possible that this be delayed until we have a report back from the task force on ordinance #48? Exhibit VIII — 5 letters with signatures opposing 219 S. Third Street development. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2009 Chairperson, Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing. Michael went over the Ordinance #48 negotiation period. #2. 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. Michael said this section doesn't say we have to take any action. Jim True said you don't have to take any action. What we are asking is that you make a recommendation to Council as it proceeds through the remaining steps. #3. The Community Development Director shall confer with the City Council regarding the proposed building permit, the nature of the Potential Historic Resource and the staff and Historic Preservation Commission's assessment of the resource and the effects of the building permit upon the resource. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting with the city council. Jim True said this whole process can be initiated by an applicant seeking a building permit that would totally remodel or demolish an historic resource. This owner is choosing to negotiation the process and we are taking this step by step. We are concurring with the UPC about incentives that she is requesting and the appropriateness of those incentives as it relates to the designation. Michael said what is to be reported to City Council is our assessment of the resource and the effects of the request upon the resource. What do we think of this resource? Ann said there was consensus at the last meeting that we thought the modern chalet was a type of architecture that should be saved in town. This is a good example of modern chalet architecture. It is a representation of the transition of European Swiss chalet into a more modern self confident Aspen style which has its own character. The task force keeps honing in on what the score sheets and criteria will be but in the meantime we have basic historic designation guidelines that are applicable to his and it should be designated. Michael said at the end of the last meeting HPC members agreed that it was worthy of designation. iL ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2009 Brian said from an architectural standpoint this is something worth negotiating. Sarah said she stands by her original decision. Nora said she is having a hard time separating the incentives from designation. Jay and Michael also agreed that the property should be designated. Michael said the next thing we are asked to provide is guidance to the City Council about the effect of the building permit and the benefits that are being sought on the resource. Sarah said she is having a hard time agreeing or recommending incentives without understand the impact to the historic structure. When we are asked to give FAR bonuses it is based on the merit of the project and that is not what we are being presented with tonight. Jay said this is not a conceptual view but it was in the memo, the intent. The applicant has given their intention for the property and therefore it is appropriate to comment on. Sarah said we do not have many of the items for conceptual to do a proper review. Ann said we are here to recommend whether this property should be designated or not. Nora said the intention of ordinance 48 was not to marginalize the resource but to preserve it. The listing of all the incentives are really development dreaming. We are getting more density and loosing resources or marginalizing them; however one sees it. This is about preserving what we have as a town resource. Jim True said HPC could be constrained by what Council grants. Sarah said in order to come up with the incentives it needs to go through the proper review process. Michael said there are potentially some serious health and safety issues here and how do they play out. Ann said how can they approve anything until they know what is going to be done on the site. Some of these incentives can't be set up. Jim said Council has various mechanisms in which it can address incentives for historic designation. The incentives are part of ordinance 448. The concept of ordinance #48 is that HPC accept the property. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2009 Amy clarified that often HPC does not see the development that is proposed for the vacant lot and HPC is often asked to grant a FAR bonus at that point even if you don't see the development with the understanding that the lot split takes pressure off the historic resource. We also need to understand that Ordinance #48 is a completely new process for us and the properties on that list can be demolished. The idea is a deal of a guaranteed development opportunity based on her offering to volunteer. Jay said basically this is a negotiation with City Council and they can go way out beyond their boundaries to save a piece of property with incentives. If we as a commission give them the recommendation to protect this property we are opening City Council up to give whatever they want. Brian said his problem is we either give a red light or a green light to the council with no indication of how strongly we feel about the preservation of this building or the incentives proposed. Jim said HPC can convey their concern to Council. Ann said we can indicate which incentives can protect the property and which incentives diminish the value. Nora said we haven't seen the development. Brian said we have only seen part of the development. Susan Foster said you will have HPC review over the property. Michael said we should summarize how we feel about the historic resource. Michael said he feels the same way Nora does. Brian said our vote will formalize how we feel. Michael said he could support a motion that says this resource is a good example of the modern chalet style and the modern chalet style is worthy of preservation. We encourage council to negotiate in good faith toward the preservation of this resource. Michael said he doesn't have a strong basis to go any further with the motion. Sarah said the determination was made from our modern chalet style paper that we have. 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2009 Jay said he can support the designation of the home. To assume a lot split will happen is premature. Looking at the structure itself and what the applicant is proposing for square footage of the two lots etc. and the size of homes of some of the neighbors this seems quite appropriate. I would stand strongly behind the designation. MOTION: Michael moved to recommend to City Council that this structure be designated as historic and added to the inventory as a good example of the modern chalet style which is a style that the Historic Preservation Commission deems worthy ofpreservation, We recommend that City Council negotiation with the applicant toward the preservation of this structure. Discussion: Sarah said she feels what has been presented tonight is not an acceptable negotiation. Ann said we could add respect the scale and patterns of the neighborhood so we are giving City Council the message that we don't want the density of the site overwhelming and we don't want the massing out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. Jay said this lot is 9,900 square feet lot and they are proposing 5,000 square feet between the two homes. On the assessors site there is a 5,200 square foot home on a 7,500 square foot lot in the neighborhood which is bigger and denser than what is being proposed. We need to define the size, mass and scale. Sarah said the assessor site is square footage not FAR. We purposely did not go through all the incentives because that is not what we are here to talk about. Sarah said she is basing her decision on the land use code Letter C and the modern chalet paper. Council should not think we are on board with all of the incentives. A lot are inappropriate without a proper review. Michael said that sentiment should be forwarded to City Council. Further we urge City Council not to over burden this neighborhood with additional density and we advise council that we are uncomfortable with the package of incentives which has been proposed to the HPC; motion second by Sarah. Discussion: 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2009 Jay said he feels the motion implies that HPC doesn't want a second structure on this property. Michael said he doesn't want to see the site over burdened. Sarah said her concern is the density portion. What does that mean? Jay said someone could argue that one more house is over burdening the neighborhood. Brian said the motion needs to be simple and general. We aren't experts in land use. Our job on this commission is to review historic resources. Sarah recommended that the historic resource should not be over burdened. Amended motion: Michael moved to amend the motion: Further we urge City Council not to over burden the historic resource, We are uncomfortable with the package of incentives proposed. Amy said of the incentives there are only 3 or 4 that are special that the applicant is requesting. The applicant is asking for designation and a lot split which is allowed. The 500 square foot bonus and the 493 square feet is an exception. Perhaps you should add something about the end result. Michael said that is the problem. This has not been analyzed by staff and the board is uncomfortable about making a recommendation as such without the full analysis. Jim said you can express that you are uncomfortable. It is different making a statement that you are uncomfortable with all eight items. Michael said Jim and Amy are asking for specific recommendation regarding each of the incentives. Is the board willing to give that specific direction? Brian said we are not going to come to consensus about that. Arm pointed out that we can't pick and choose, this is a whole package. We need to tell City Council that it needs to be designated and a valuable historic resource for the City and that the incentives should be developed in a way that maximumizes the historic resource and respects the character of the neighborhood. Brian said we are uncomfortable with certain parts of the package of incentives proposed and City Council needs to sift through it. 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2009 MOTION: Michael moved to recommend to City Council that this structure be designated as historic and added to the inventory as a good example of the modern chalet style which is a style that the Historic Preservation Commission deems worthy of preservation. We recommend that City Council negotiation with the applicant toward the preservation of this structure. Further, we urge City Council not to over burden the historic resource and respect the character of neighborhood . HPC is uncomfortable with the package of incentives proposed. Motion and amended motion second by Sarah. Motion carried 5-1. Nora voted no. Nora said she feels the integrity of the historic preservation is really being held hostage to these huge development incentives and for that reason I do not feel comfortable voting. Sarah clarified that she based her decision on the land use code, Letter C on historic designation and the modern chalet paper. 601 W. HALLAM ST. —CONCEPTUAL REVIEW — PUBLIC HEARING Proof of publication — Exhibit I Sara said the property is located on the corner of 5 h and Hallam St. in the West End. This property is unusual. In 1991 HPC adopted a resolution that delisted the property from the historic inventory. This is not a landmark. The reason you are seeing this project with review over mass and scale is because during the delisting hearing the owner voluntarily said that HPC can have purview over mass and scale. Mass and scale was defined in the covenant on the property. There will be no final review. One thing clearly in your purview is that the applicant is requesting four residential design standard variances. We are consolidating this application so that they don't have to go to Planning and Zoning. In terms of mass and scale we find that the proposed residence does meet the mass and scale criteria. It is going to be a 3,200 square foot two-story single family home. Mass: Any new building will be designed so that it is not one big interrupted box structure and will use appropriately pitched roof forms for residential buildings as opposed to flat roofs. Scale: Window and door dimension and building scale shall he consistent with the scale of other buildings on the block. M, ASPEN'S 201h 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 , ,I � 1 5 ', N Lot&# � J v � rJ � J ��.ite��' 9 • � ` �II � l _T '- VYeh and Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers & Scientists April 29, 2009 Ms. Suzanne Foster 7 S. Main Street Yardley, PA 19067 Project 28-211 A Subject: Geological Hazards Evaluation, Cleary Property, 219 S. Third Street, Aspen, Colorado. Dear Ms. Foster: This letter presents the results of Yeh and Associates geological hazards evaluation for the subject property. This evaluation is intended to provide an assessment of the geological hazards which may affect development of the property. This evaluation consisted of field reconnaissance and review of existing literature. Although the site is located within the City of Aspen, our investigation was conducted in accordance with Section 7-20-20 Steep and Potentially Unstable Slopes and Section 7-20-50 Geologic Hazards, Sections (a) through (i) of the Pitkin County Development Standards. This evaluation does not include environmental assessment. INVESTIGATION AND LITERATURE REVIEW Our investigation consisted of a site visit and review of five map sets: • "Geologic Map of the Aspen quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado' prepared by Bruce Bryant, U.S. Geological Survey, 1971 • "Geologic Map of the Roaring Fork and Crystal Valleys", 1974 by F. M. Fox and Associates, Inc. • "Map Showing Areas of Selected Potential Geologic Hazards in the Aspen Quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado' prepared by Bruce Bryant, U.S. Geological Survey, 1972 • "Environmental and Geologic Constraints Map of the Roaring Fork and Crystal Valleys", by F. M. Fox and Associates, Inc. 1974 • "Pitkin County Colorado, Lower Roaring Fork Valley, Potential Geologic Hazards" 1974 by Colorado State University SITE CONDITIONS We conducted a site visit to the property on April 21, 2009. The study area included the northeast -facing slope on the northwestern most extremity of Aspen Mountain (Ajax) that is also known as Shadow Mountain. Two parcels are included in this study. The parcels are located within the City of Aspen and are bounded on the north by an alley and on the east by 3`d Street. There is an existing house on the northeast part of the parcel. An old railroad bed, bike trail, existing earth berm and heavily treed area lay to the south of the parcels. We understand that the planned development will occur to the north side of the old railroad grade. 5700 East Evans Avenue, Denver, CO 80222. (303) 781-9590, Fax (303) 781-9583 170 Mel Ray Road, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601, (970) 384-1500, Fax (970) 384-1501 570 Turner Drive, Suite D, Durango, CO 81303,(970) 382-9590, Fax (970) 382-9583 28-21 IA Cleary Property, 219 South 3rd Street, Aspen, Colorado The topography above the site is relatively steep, mountainous terrain. The elevation of the slope above the study area ranges from about 7900 to 8900 feet. The slope above the site consists of exposed bedrock cliffs with local slope gradients greater than 150% interrupted by talus slopes which have developed due to rocks dislodging from the bedrock cliffs and depositing at the base of the cliffs. This part of the slope is heavily vegetated with conifers as well as low forest undergrowth and grasses. The outcropping bedrock areas consist of very hard, dolomitic sandstone, shale and quartzite bedrock with some shallow rocky talus covered bedrock. Most of the slope, except for the outcropping bedrock, consists of soft, shallow colluvial soil deposits with cobble and boulder sized dolomitic sandstone clasts partially to completely buried in the soil matrix. The bedrock is estimated to have several feet of soil cover and will likely possess rockfall characteristics more like rocky soil than bedrock. This portion of the slope is moderately to heavily vegetated with conifers and light forest undergrowth. The conifers are typically 20 to 30 feet in height and have trunk diameters of 6 to 18 inches. Flat, irregular slope to the south of parcels Mine access and activities above the parcel have resulted in a slope that is softer, flatter and more irregular than the natural slope higher up the mountain. The bike path which runs along the base of the hill to the south of the parcels creates a flat area that is approximately 30 to 50 feet wide. 28-21 IA Cleary Property, 219 South 3rd Street, Aspen, Colorado There is also a five-foot high, man-made earth berm located to the south of the proposed development. The outcropping dolomitic sandstone units show evidence of potential future rockfall. The frequency of rockfall from the cliffs is moderate, with multiple rockfall events greater than one half cubic yard occurring annually. 28-211A Cleary Property, 219 South 3rd Street, Aspen, Colorado RESULTS Section 7-20-20 Steen and Potentially Unstable Slopes The parcels are relatively flat except for the slope formed by the old railroad grade which is well vegetated and stable in its current configuration. The site is not impacted by steep and potentially unstable slopes. Section 7-20-50 (c) Rockfall There is a potential source of rockfall several hundred feet above the site which is unlikely to affect the proposed development due to the characteristics of the slope above the site. The remnants of past mining have created an area, which should stop any rockfall that originates from the northeast facing slope of Shadow Mountain. The slope configuration resulting from the historic mining activity as well as the existing earth berm makes it unlikely that future rockfall will affect the parcels. Section 7-20-50 (d) Alluvial Fan Hazard There is a potential for small, infrequent debris flow and debris flood events to originate from Shadow Mountain during intense precipitation events. These small events are unlikely to affect the proposed development due to the characteristics of the slope above the site where the remnants of past mining have created an area which is less steep in addition to the protection provided by the flat area and berm near the existing bike path. It is unlikely that future debris events will affect the parcels. Section 7-20-50 (e) Talus Slops One of the maps that we reviewed showed the parcel at the boundary of Quaternary talus deposit. Our site visit indicated that the actual boundary was several hundred feet to the south of the mapped boundary and that the site is not impacted by talus slopes. Section 7-20-50 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), W, (h). (i) This site is not impacted by Section 7-20-50 (a) Avalanche; (b) Landslide Hazard; (c) Rockfall Hazards; (d) Alluvial Fan Hazard; (e) Talus Slopes; (f) Mancos Shale; (g) Faults; (h) Expansive Soil and Rock; (i) Ground Subsidence. SUMMARY Our research and evaluation indicates that the site is generally free from potential geological hazards and appears to be suitable for the proposed development. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geological practices in this area for use by the client for preliminary planning purposes. If geological hazard mitigation is included in the site -specific development plan, Yeh and Associates, Inc. should review the 28-211A Cleary Property, 219 South 3`d Street, Aspen, Colorado proposed design and construction procedure. The preliminary conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon data obtained from the observations made in the field. The findings and recommendations given in this report are site -specific, and are only valid for the subject site. Respectfully submitted, Yeh and Associates, Inc. PiN Roger A. Pihl P.G., (WY #PG-3353) Principal Scientist ATTACHMENT 2 - Historic Preservation Land Use PROJECT: THE CRY OF ASPEN Name: Y)- P Ltlett I- L Location: q S . 3,,ti1 S tv e eS giocAz_ 39 Fsc tors OPQ RS .P,,r a 6s k+S (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bound description of property) Parcel ID # (REOUIRED) 1_1 3 6 -1 a y - (A S- O O 5- APPLICANT: Name: `{ L P Luest- 1.lrG Address: _7 5• -Mct;v. S 19Otol Phone #: a 15 493 - (o (Go Fax#::ql S 93 - (a SS `( E-mail: 1. REPRESENTATIVE• Name: 5 u z q ,� r-e- TV s. ka'� Address: 1 S Yf\Pcc IS0m Phone#:').K-353-190-7 Fax#:a1' -`1q1 -(oSS1 E-mail: u nno (11 �--rp ��o (�zuiQl RfS •C6Y�^ TYPE OF APPLICATION: lease check all that apply): [ Historic Designation ❑ Relocation (temporary, on ❑ Certificate of No Negative Effect ❑ otj off -site) ® Certificate of Appropriateness ❑ D molition (total ❑ -Minor Historic Development dTmolition) R -Major Historic Development ® Hstoric Landmark Lot ® -Conceptual Historic Development S lit ❑ -Final Historic Development -Substantial Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of I T):,nI-Qx PROPOSAL: (description of Dronosed htlildinos_ usesmndificafinns etc) ch 1 h eme a nru e u o A pen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requireme s, Updated: May 29, 2007 a i cl' E a S e a e ia Y ?$ Y yp G• ri :e eg as c84 Y y� 4• ' I �, TaS, ' �\ s . a \ �tr3 •i .. \\\ a \ s \ $ . B•a�a. e > \\\\\ 8 k Y .f sMy6i v - � IUUiN aNI U i a z '3ION8i ; .. c@-g� I °f a4 :6a � fdp�Qi Y,iy ®e'@@ia£ ? Ei°a 6 p 3ycaia 7 i£•i'� iq i E yyi'-3 i i $a; Pi. vC Baia I e £3�� dy p i °, • ' .. £ �SP I •(3 " Yio �.° ? gjF rs POIICV of Title Insurnnr-a Issued by Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation LandAmerica Lawyers Title Lawyers Title Insurance CorporatLawyers 7ille Insurance Corporation is a member of the LandAmerica family of title insurance unoerwrders ion 5600 Cox Road Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 File No PCT2214816 Policy No C29-Z102631 Address Reference 219 S 3RD ST , ASPEN, CO 81611 Amount of Insurance $4,050,000 00 Premium $ 6,911 00 Date of Policy. December 2, 2009 @ 10 11 AM 1 Name of Insured YLP WEST, LLC 2 The estate or interest in the Land that is insured by this policy is IN FEE SIMPLE 3 Title is vested in YLP WEST, LLC 4 The Land referred to in this policy is situated in the County of PITKIN, State of Colorado and is described as follows. LOTS O, P, Q, R AND S, BLOCK 39, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Excepting therefrom that portion of Lots O, P and Q that lies south of the northerly boundary of a right of way described as a 17 foot strip of land being 8 5 feet on each side of a centerline of the Colorado Midland Railway right of way and southerly 25 feet of Lot R and S as described and shown in deed and map recorded February 27, 1950 in Book 175 at Page 628 Countersigned Authorized officer or agent ALTA Owner's Policy Schedule A (Rev 6/06) Form 1190-134L TI o / / I I CL r I C Z a PROPOSED LOT 2 I 4,122 s.f. N I I I (PROPOSED F.A.R.= 2,400 sq.ft.) d6" I L PROPOSED BUILDING ENVELOPE J PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE CFYP.) I o 6,-0„ z o acme PROPOSED ADDITION o° a aQ EXIST. CARPORT PROPOSED 4,-6" PATIO d� o �u PROPOSED LIST, EXISTING BUILDING PATIO BECK FOOTPRINT off' o s �u EXIST. PROPOSED LOT 1 CARPORT 5,868 sq.ft. (PROPOSED F.A.R.= 2,625P) — — EXISTING PROPERTY LINE (FYP.) PROPOSED LOT DIVISION/ BUILDING ENVELOPES A-1 FOSTER SCALE 1 n6• = i -o 219 S.3RD STREET, ASPEN CO 81611 DATE 03-01-09 Written description of proposal: Proposed for 219 S. Third Street 1. Complete the historic lot split dividing the property into two separate parcels. 2. Create small addition to existing duplex as per floor plan and elevations included in this packet. 3. Create setback variances for new lot that create an approved building envelop for its future develpment PI p;ect: Applicant: Project Location_ Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Atca: ATTACHMENT 3 - Dimensional Requirements Form (Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.) F 0Sip,k CXtsrr<,� D, pLek� - I S (For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas wilhin the high water mark, easemen(s, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: Proposed Number of residential units: E.uCstiJig:_ Proposed: Number of bedrooms: Existing:Proposed: Proposed % of demolition: O DIMENSIONS: (write n/a where no requirement exists in the Lone disrrict Floor Area: Existing: 05 3 3 11101v We �G 2 S_ Propos'ed: V Heieht Principal Bldg : Existmg:_A9 Allowable 2 5 1 ? nposec( i � I Accessory Bldg.: Existing a Allowable: —�"L--� 16'M Proposed: {-' On -Site parking: Existing: a Re uhed:� 4 � 1'ro�osed l _ 0/0 Site coverage: Existing D c?6Required: /' Proposed:_ % Opcn Space: E.ristin �0.%c g Required: %VI Proposer! - Front Setback: Eaistin g: r Required: - S Proposed_ % i<IAt wcd's Rear Sctbacic ExistingRequired: 1 v Proposed: 0 Combined Front/Rear: Indicate Vi Existing: _ l3 i� Required: 3 J I" oposect. 14 iG Side Setback. Existingh Re aired: — 9 /0' 1 ropoa ed: r� Side Setback: Fxisttn 8:_ o� %_Required: �� Proposed:3 Combined Sides: _ .3 Existing. C� 17eguired: Z.c7 Proposed: n l Distance between buildings: Existing 1 Re9 uocd �0 Proposed: U Existing non -conformities or encroachments and notc if encroachmcnt licenses have been issucd: v ti�rl �y S-oo sf- Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed) C _. d .n - Aspcn Historic Preservation Land Use Applic'moll Reyuir ements, Updated: May 29, 2007 A"-"ACHM>NT3- (Item #10 on the submittal DimensionalRequirementsFmm requirements key. Not )recessa) for all pi ojcct.s.) Projcct. F Applicant Project _ Location 19 S P Q STIJE-7 - N i,� 5 Zone l n(.,L2 T—t�r tL Lot Size ti 7 Sf — Lol Arca > y Z S F (For Urc pwposes of calculating the high water mark, Floor Arca, Lot Arca may he reduced fur areas within easements, and steep slopes. Please tcCer to the definition oh Lot Ai in the Municipal Code ) Commercial net leasable Exastin> 0 y'opnsed_ Number of residential units: EzImllg Number of bedamos --— O Proposed 1 Ex?stirz Sroposed: - Proposed % of dcmolitinn� OIMCIISIONS: (write n/a where no requirement exists in the Zonc d icl) Floor Arca Existirt-: i Alloevable: - - Propnsecl: Hti-ght Principal Bldg, Ea:istm K Allnurahle- 2 5 Propnscc Accessory Oldb Eaesror r: h A11orvable- IUTA Proposed 1A Oo-Site parking Esisluig Re9� uirCdlrnposen:Z : 0/n Sit@ Covet age- Ek?Sfil(R: ,/�� Ll1 )'ed /'�/A ill upoJ ed 'Yo Open Space. Esr,ctir2� .4 �Required: IVIA PropnsCd Front Setback Eaistin g e,quired 2 S Proposed Rcar Setback F> r.rtuig Rec1urred l v 1 rnpnsed /Q Combined Fron(/Rca Indicatc�Ur ExisturI It et1 uirCd — I roposed: l Side Setback Exrvmg o Regltired: /O, Proposed: Side Sctbach W L'xisting:—_--yle mired q '/CD J'rCposed / 0 Combined Sides. Existing: .Ze uired: 2c7 9 _ Prppased Distance hetwecn Existing Required /- Proposed 7 buildings > arsung non-eouformilies rn enwoachments and note if encroachment IlccnSes have been issued Variations requested( (identify the enact variances needed) V Ir I CI V1 LP S rSyt,Vv FvL -� r Ind Usc Application N2 quiicmcnls, Updalcd. May 22 2007 1. 219 S. 3rd Street Development Project. History 219 S. 3rd Street has been unanimously voted as being a potential historic resource within the identified historic context of the Modern Chalet by the members of HPC on its January 28, 2009 meeting. With this HPC endorsement, it is our intention to voluntarily designate the existing duplex historic under Ordinance #48. In our original application package we had the following requests, which, after taking into consideration the comments and concerns of the HPC members have been revised: • Original density —1 duplex with 8 bedrooms and 1 single family with 3 bedrooms. Revised density — 1 single family (Modern Chalet) with 3 bedrooms, 1 single family (new construction) with 3 bedrooms, a change from 12 bedrooms to 6 bedrooms. • Original building height for chalet addition 25'. Revised height-21 • Original variances request for new single family — Front, Rear and both side yards. Revised variance request for new family — Front yard 8'6" to line up with set back of existing chalet, eastern side yard variance of 5' (required— I0"). moe s • Original FAR bonus requested — 500 SF as allowed by HPC plus an additional 1904 SF economic incentive as allowed by HPC divided as follows: 3888 SF for chalet, 2548 SF for new single family. Revised FAR bonus request-500 SF FAR bonus as allowed by HPC plus an additional 493 SF economic incentive as allowed by HPC divided as follows: 2625 FAR for chalet and 2400 SF for the new single family. These FAR amounts are consistent with or less than similar sized lots in the immediate area. In td t ion. sinc_Q the meeting' on Match 1 have also eliminated out requesi to gndsCapc thgpghhe t tghl of way al,cmg S. 1 hirli Street and to a ucr no cxcmpnon from HPC review for the new single family_ In return, we are asking HPC and the City of Aspen Counsel to approve the following project for 219 S. 3`d Street: 1. Approve the Ordinance #48 historic lot split. 2. Approve 2400 SF of FAR for a single family residence on the new lot including the granting of the variances for side and front setbacks that are needed, and exempt this property's requirement for a detached building due to the unique shape of the site. 3. Approve the 2625 SF of FAR, footprint and basic design for the expansion of the duplex including the setback variances that will be needed. 4. Award the 500 SF allowable bonus for maintaining appropriate HPC historic guideline for the duplex and award an additional 493 SF bonus as economic incentive. 5. Exemption from the Growth Management Quota System (employee housing) and a waiver of Park Dedication fees for both the duplex addition and the Single family development as outlined in your draft DTD 11/10/08. 7. Approval of the new North elevation of the existing duplex (faces ally) which includes a new window configuration, full light wells for the submerged level and new windows for the submerged level. 8. Approval to leave the existing duplex as the multi family dwelling, or to convert it to a single family residence at any time in the future with no change in the available FAR and bonus. 9. Approval for a change of roofing material and color change for roofing material. 10. Approval to change the chimney materials. 11. Approval to change the color of the building and trim. 12 Approval to change windows with like design as found necessary due to poor condition and/or poor economy. l.?, 10 year vesting for all approvals granted. I -',_Approval to remove the existing porch and rebuild with materials appropriate to the modern chalet style. f Deleted: I I A Deleted: 12, Approval to landscape an provide screening on the public right of way along Ya Street up to 3 from the road.9 13. The new single family lot does not face a public street and instead will face an alley. There are different requirement for buildings that face alleys versus regular pedestrian and vehicular Ihororghfares_ Therefore, we would like the urite family home to be exempt fron HPC review.9 Deleted: 14 Deleted: 15 I 'R OSED A O O EXIST. CARPOR T PROPOSED UPPER PATIO Lli PROPOSED tlXIST. LOWER PECK 0 W.i.d. PATIO mast r edroo master bath o EXIST. CARPORT I I I PROPOSED LOT 1 UPPER LEVEL PLAN FOSTER 219 S.3RD STREET, ASPEN CO 81611 A-2 SCALE. 3/32" DATE 03-01-09 � I / PROPOSED ADDITION I I I I III bed oom , a Fz 3 I I PROPOSED v — ❑ LOWER v a', ❑ N - PATIO o ; ❑ ❑ a°I bed oom 3 C , I C C C i PROPOSED LOT 1 LOWER LEVEL PLAN A-3 FOSTER SCALE. 3/32" = l'-0 219 S.3RD STREET, ASPEN CO 81611 DATE. 03-01-09 II III I L u-------1--I------------J - I PROPOSED LOT 1 BASIC ELEVATIONS A-4 FOSTER SCALE::3/32 =i'-C 219 S.3RD STREET, ASPEN CO 81611 DATE 03-01-09 Mar 02 09 06:41p Traina Petty (215) 369-0721 p.2 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION L------ J�-------------li--� PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION I PROPOSED LOT 1 BASIC ELEVATIONS I A-5 FOSTER 219 S.3RD STREET, ASPEN CO 81611 WALL 3132' - 1'-C DATF; 03-01-09 Mar 02 09 06:41p Traina Petty (2151 369-0721 p.1 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION I- PROPOSED LOT 1 BASIC ELEVATIONS A-4 FOSTER 219 S3RD STREET, A$PCN CO 81611 SCALc 3;32.. _ 1._0, DATE; 07-01-09 l%1 I w --- Z O O Z m is 6 Qz Q U) Q z 0,!!'S ` f o e This has been an unusual process. The negotiation set up by Ord 48 has no guidelines or stated limitations. The typical score sheets and standards to evaluate whether or not designation is appropriate are not available. Staff has been an advocate for historic preservation and so has the HPC. That is fine, bul when the typical criteria are not available, there is a strong sense that this process has no boundaries and that reliance on the existing land use code is out the window. The code is the mainstay of protection of our community values. Its restrictions and benefits are the result of hard fought political battles. These standards for development should not be cast aside unless there is a clear and overwhelming public benefit and lawful processes are followed. Valuable development rights are being sought in exchange for keeping this house. These involve numerous exemptions, variances and floor area bonuses. We believe they have a value of to the developer of a couple of million dollars. Between the absence of specific designation criteria and the open ended nature of the negotiation process, my clients have been experiencing a very high level of anxiety because the whole process so far has seemed very arbitrary. For example, at the January 28 HPC hearing, another modern chalet, with very similar characteristics was found by the HPC not to be worthy of proceeding through the negotiation process — in other words, they did not find it worthy of protection. The current application was the next matter on the hpc agenda and the hpc found that it was worthy of protection. Since it was so similar to the previous house, it appeared to us that this was not for any particular reason relating to its features, but because the applicant here seeks a voluntary designation and the other applicant did not want its property designated. There should not be two different standards — but this is what happens when there are no standards. The absence of standards extends beyond HPC and into your Ord. 48 negotiation process. For example, the applicant's request for an additional 493 sq. ft. in floor area as an "economic incentive" is not allowed by the land use code or applicable law. While the council has flexibility to grant waivers of fees and other monetary charges, which are real economic incentives, additional floor area that is not provided for in the code is a defacto rezoning which would by pass the required processes for a rezoning. The staffs rationalization for this is that the floor area is allowed for an AH carriage house, and here the applicant is seeking this footage "but without the deed restriction" (see page 9 of the staff memo). You have to wonder about this one. this may help you to appreciate the anxiety generated in the neighborhood by this request. 5�Xt, -,t r�I You should also be aware that the applicant originally proposed to transfer 1900 feet of floor area off of a nearby out parcel that she probably does not own. Once we debunked that situation, the applicant took that off the table. So if you hear that the applicant has greatly reduced the amount of square footage she originally asked for — well she was not entitled to that anyway. And if you hear that the city could get a quit claim deed to the outparcel if things go well for the applicant, please don't take the bait. I'll give you a quit claim for it if you want one. This applicant has also raised the anxiety level by threatening to build the maximum amount of square footage as possible if she does not get what she wants out of this process. Her alternative is to build the maximum free market square footage available plus a 1200 sq It carriage house (a for sale AH unit) and obtain a floor area bonus for that. While this may represent more floor area, at least the community is getting a for sale AH unit. And if that is the outcome, that is fine with us. My client's feeling is that if they are going to have their views blocked and their dead end alley further congested, at least there will be some tangible community benefits. And when you see in staff's memo the statement that the proposed project does not increase development rights beyond what could be achieved through the existing code processes (pg 2 staff memo), keep in mind that this statement seems directed to floor area and density, but is not taking into account that the landmark proposal generates nothing but free market square footage and the non -historic alternative generates a significant amount of AH square footage. It is no wonder that the applicant is choosing the Ord 48 process. There is more money to be made there. So when you hear about her non -historic alternative, please keep in mind that with it the city gets meaningful affordable housing. However, in her historic proposal, there is no affordable housing and she seeks a waiver of the $172,000 housing mitigation fee for the house to be built on the lot split parcel. So there are real trade offs. if you feel that this property is worthy of designation, we will get almost the same amount of square footage, but no affordable housing. Although HPC was an advocate for landmark designation, they were not an advocate for it at any cost. It is important to emphasize HPC's discomfort with proposed incentives — as stated in the HPC reso.Quote it: "WE URGE CITY COUNCIL NOT TO OVER BURDEN THE HISTORIC RESOURCE AND RESPECT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. HPC IS UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE PACKAGE OF INCENTIVES PROPOSED. Due to the lack of clear processes, the lack of typical designation criteria, zealous advocacy by staff and several changes to the original proposal, the process to date with the HPC has been somewhat kafka-esc. We are happy to have arrived at City council - the only body that has the ability to weigh the public interests and decide whether or not the trade offs are worth protecting the structure. We hope and expect that you will restore confidence in the process by being very circumspect in doling out benefits and the detrimental impacts that result from them. Please ask yourselves what sacrifices should the neighbors and the public at large be expected to endure when additional development is allowed to protect an historic building. If you feel this is a marginal property, then please do not agree to its landmark designation. if you feel it is worthy of designation, then please be careful and frugal with the benefits you bestow. f, O"t�� 0 Lisa Purdy Consulting ti n'aicgie. rmni.to", Prescn atlu n. Plaunin R. ('onuuuuira�iunx 121 Pearl Street Denver CO 80203 p6ouc: 303.733.77% email: pw'dylisa��mac.rom March 11, 2009 (Regarding 219 S. Third Street, Aspen, CO) Dear members of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission and staff: Since talking with you on January 28, 2009, 1 received staffs' attachment to their original memo defining "modern chalet" style. I also received the accompanying photos and the list of 16 "modern chalets" in Aspen. I still have a fundamental problem with designating this duplex and approving this proposal. 1 don't believe the category of "modern chalet" is worthy of a style for historic designation. It does not exist as an historic category elsewhere in the state or country, and I don't believe it has enough distinction to justify itself. This is a style that is often called A - frame. (Indeed, some of the buildings you included in the list of 16 Modern Chalets in Aspen, were called A- frames in prior lists.) This style of building is found throughout the mountains, and in vacation areas throughout the United States. In my opinion we don't have enough distance from the style to determine which of these, if any, are worthy of historic designation. There's a difference between liking a certain style versus deciding it's significant enough to merit being called an "historic style". As mentioned in my previous memo (January 28, 2009) 1 strongly believe it is premature to recommend designation of a building for which there is no adopted context paper or scoring sheets. This violates your own ordinance and it is not a good practice. It would be advisable to hold a noticed public hearing and discussion of this style before including modern chalet as an accepted style for historic designation. I also find it hard to understand why 621 W. Francis was deemed not worthy for designation, while 219 S. 3rd is still being considered. 621 W. Francis meets the same number of criteria for qualification under this category. According to staff descriptions, the one on Francis was built in the same year, has glazing in the gable end, has deep overhanging roof eaves, and defined balconies. Staff also said "this type of architecture signifies the progression of Aspen as a tourist destination with modest vacation homes that pay homage to the mountain lifestyle..." So what distinguishes the duplex on 3 ° from 621 W. Francis? The building on Francis certainly has more character defining features on the front of the building than 219 S. Yd , which largely features two non -distinguished windows. I would argue that lack of consistency in applying the standards for designation creates a slippery slope for the future and makes it hard to argue for designation of 219 S. 3.d Additionally, the orientation of 219 S. 3rd largely hides its distinguishing features from public view. The view seen most often (and in your photos) is from the alley. This back side has become the functional front of the building (as confirmed by staff when commenting on the "rear" deck), yet it contains only two windows that staff has said "do not have any distinctive character". When looking at the other 15 Modern Chalets, the dominant public view is of the character -defining features including a long balcony, glazing up to the gabled end of the roof and the other criteria cited. While the balcony side of the duplex can be seen briefly while rounding the corner on 3'd, for the most part the public sees the undistinguished functional front of the duplex on the alley . The requested screening from 3'd street will only aggravate this issue. I would argue that the orientation of the duplex makes the building less distinguished than any of the other buildings in Aspen's "modern chalet" category. 1 find it hard agree with staff that the duplex has a high degree of historic integrity for the following reasons: • There are no photos or drawings of the original building to compare to existing features. • The applicant stated that the long balcony is not original. This is one of the few character -defining aspects of the duplex. Another aspect of this issue is one of preservation policy and the incentives in Aspen's ordinance. I'm almost always in favor of offering incentives for historic designation, because the prospect of retaining and rehabilitating historic buildings can be costly and onerous to the property owner. The preservation of historic buildings is usually beneficial to the community at large, so it makes sense to offer incentives to encourage owners to preserve them. (Indeed, the constitutional basis for allowing government to make decisions about private property is that the action will benefit the community as a whole.) In Aspen, however, there's a twist. The ramifications of historic designation can sometimes impact neighbors in negative ways. This most often occurs with the lot split which can create a number of potential problems: Not all designated properties are configured in a way that would allow the owner to take advantage of the lot split. Since this is by far the most valuable incentive, this creates an issue of inequity for some owners of designated properties. The historic site can become crowded when another home is added, detracting from the historic structure and increasing density within a neighborhood. And, thirdly, there are times when the lot splits can cause specific negative impacts on neighbors. In the case of 219 S. Third, items 2 and 3 apply. The addition of a second structure on this already undersized lot through a lot split would be detrimental to the duplex and the neighborhood. Normally a duplex in this zone district would require a 15,000 square foot minimum lot. In this case the duplex has been ushered in as a legally non -conforming structure on a lot about 1 /3 smaller — 9,942 square feet. • Under the requested proposal, the lot assigned to the duplex shrinks yet again to 5,292 square feet. In addition, bonuses would increase the size of the duplex from 1533 s.f. to 2465 s.f. This is equivalent to cutting the lot almost 2/3 from what would normally be allowed while increasing the size of duplex by almost 2/3. This severely crowds the duplex and its addition on a much smaller -than -normal lot. • In addition, the new house would add an additional 2400 square foot building to this same undersized original lot, which in addition to requiring new waivers for setbacks, increases the density of the entire lot many -fold and overwhelms the duplex substantially. The multiple variance requests point to how difficult it is to fit this second home in. Many of the requested variances and the request for additional FAR is based on the fact that the proposed project is "exemplary". I would ask what makes this project exemplary when (1) the applicant is asking for numerous changes to the duplex (including an overwhelming addition), and, (2) the applicant asks that the project not be subject to design review? Many of the points I make in this letter would portray this project as just the opposite of exemplary. The other issue relates to the negative impacts of these incentives on the neighbors. This duplex fronts on a dead-end alley as there is no street access. In addition, two houses on W. Hopkins Street use the alley for access to their garages and parking. According to the owners of these neighboring houses, the number of parties using this alley has already created numerous problems: • The duplex has been occupied by renters that come and go —so each new tenant has to be trained not to block the entrance to the alley with their cars, allowing neighbors further down the alley access to their homes. • When snow falls, the cars have to be moved and the excess snow is dumped on what would be the site of the new house. Because the alley ends at this site, there is little room to maneuver the plows, let alone if there was some emergency vehicle needing access. If a second house were built on what now is the empty part of the duplex lot, it would front on this same dead-end alley, and the owner/renters would have no other access. In other words, the new house with its additional density, attendant cars, need for access, and parking would make a bad situation even worse. SUMMARY From my perspective, the balance between public benefit (preservation) and private gain (variances and bonuses far exceeding normal development that is damaging to the historic resource) is not in sync here. If the duplex is granted historic designation, the designated duplex will be added onto, altered, and squeezed on a very small lot with another new 4 house that is on a less -than -normal sized lot. The community retains a historic building, but the character defining features are largely hidden from public view on the rear. And, by taking advantage of additional bonuses, FAR, and other incentives —the owner ends up both disrespecting the historic resource, and causing numerous additional headaches and problems for their neighbors. It's not clear how many of the issues the HPC can address, but 1 would hope someone takes into account the big picture, to see if some aspects of the preservation incentive program make sense in this case. Thank you for considering my thoughts on this. Sincerely Lisa Purdy, Lisa Purdy Consulting Representing Angela and Paul Young Lisa A. Purdy 121 Pearl, Denver, CO 80203 phone: (303) 733-7796 purdylisa@mac.com Work History: 1996- present Lisa Purdy Consulting - President Consultant in historic preservation and planning. Projects include historic research, preparation of designation applications, managing certified rehabilitation of historic properties, designing strategies to preserve neighborhood character, and preservation planning for municipalities. 1998 -1999 The Keystone Center -Senior Associate (Part-time) Was responsible for the facilitation and mediation of a variety of public policy and land -use issues around the country for non-profit organizations and federal agencies. 1996-97 Harvard University - Loeb Fellow Awarded a one year research and study fellowship at Harvard. Major studies included community consensus building, political leadership, urban design, and public policy. 1992 -1996 Greenberg Baron Simon & Miller (GBSM) - Principal Consultant in community and government relations, historic preservation, facilitation, strategic communications, and public involvement. 1989.1992 City of Denver, Gateway/Stapleton Development Office - Assistant Director In Gateway/Stapleton Offtce. worked on Master Plan for 4500-acre neighborhood next to Denver International Airport. Also worked on developing planning principles for the redevelopment of Stapleton Airport. Worked in Mayor's Office on revitalization of downtown pertaining to retail, housing, and real estate issues. 1984-1989 Citisape Ltd. - President President of a consulting firm providing consulting services in historic preservation, community and government relations, urban planning, and design. 1982-1983 The Denver Partnership - Project Manager, Development Packaging Was responsible for attracting new retailers into downtown Denver and for assisting developers with numerous historic real estate projects. Was principle writer and editor of The Preservation Handbook - a guide to incentives and regulatory matters pertaining to rehabilitation projects. 1981-1982 Historic Denver Inc. - Historic Specialist Was the lead advocate for historic preservation issues citywide. Major projects • Spearheaded a citywide committee to pass the country's first Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) ordinance for the preservation of historic buildings. • Established a citywide consortium of preservation organizations. • Administered the preservation easement program and low-income rehabilitation program in Curtis Park. 1978-1981 Citiseape Ltd. - President Owner of a real estate development business that renovated several inner-city properties. 1976-1978 Center for Community Development & Design, University of Colorado - Community Development Specialist Worked on the development of a comprehensive plan for a small mountain community. Established an accredited continuing education program for the design and planning professions. 1972-1976 Various jobs in the teaching and construction industry including teaching on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, and general labor and superintendent jobs in construction. Also worked as an Assistant Editor at Harcourt Brace Jovanovich in New York City. Education: • Harvard University, (Cambridge, MA), Loeb Fellow, 1996-1997. • University of Colorado (Boulder, CO), M.A. Educational Administration, 1974. • University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, MI), B.A. Education (with honors), 1971. Additional Studies: • Public Market conference (Seattle). Financing, managing, & designing urban food markets. • Urban Land Institute (New York City). "Co -Development: City Rebuilding by Business & Government". Authored Articles and Books: • "The Making of LoDo", Historic Denver News, Fall 2008 • "The Anatomy of Creating a Local Historic District", URBAN DESIGN & PRESERVATION QUARTERLY, volume 13, Number 2, Spring 1990. • Preservation Forum, Volume 4, Number 2, Summer 1990; Adaptation of speech given at National Trust Preservation Conference on mainstreaming historic preservation into the planning process. • Guide to Denver's Lower Downtown (B-7) Zoning Ordinance" The Denver Partnership, 1985. • "Environmental Management (historic preservation) in the United States" for the Japanese Institute of Urban Planning, 1993. • "An Update on Denver's TDR Ordinances", REAL ESTATE ISSUES, Spring, 1985. Co-authored with Peter Bowes. • Aooraising Easements, a booklet on valuing historic preservation conservation easements, prepared by the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the Land Trust Exchange, 1984. Was on the national Easement Preservation Panel that formulated the guidelines in the book. • The Preservation Handbook - A comprehensive guide to the economic benefits of renovating older buildings with a description of the historic designation and tax credit processes. The Denver Partnership, Funded by United Bank of Cherry Creek, 1983. • "Denver's Transferable Development Rights Story", REAL ESTATE ISSUES, 1982. Co-authored with Peter Bowes. Media references to my work: • "Heart of the Queen", film produced by Havey Productions, funded principally by the Colorado Historical Society, presented at the Colorado Preservation Inc. conference, 2007 and aired on PBS. • America's Downtowns: Growth Politics and Preservation by Richard E. Collins, Elizabeth B. Waters, and A. Bruce Dotson, The Preservation Press, 1991. • Preserving the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains by Elaine Freed, University of New Mexico Press, 1992. • The Economics of Historic Preservation: A Community Leader's Guide by Donovan D. Rypkema, National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1994. • Changing Places: Rebuilding Community in the Age of Sprawl, by Richard Moe (President of the National Trust for Historic Preservation) and Carter Wilkie; Henry Holt and Company,1997. "Reclaiming Neighborhoods by Design", PBS documentary, production of the American Architectural Foundation. Includes section on my work to create the Lower Downtown historic district, 2001. • Smart Communities: How Citizens and Local Leaders Can Use Strategic Thinking to Build a Brighter Future by Suzanne W. Morse, The Pew Partnership for Civic Change, published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2004. • Profiled in Historic Preservation Magazine, September/October 1981. Appointments & Civic Work: Major projects: 1982-88 Led the community -wide effort to enact the Lower Downtown historic district. Created political strategy and lobbied to gain community and city council consensus for the historic district. 1984-86 Mayoral appointee to the Downtown Area Plan Committee creating a new plan for central Denver. Plan has won numerous awards and is the basis of major planning and development decisions for the city. Represented the historic preservation community on the Committee. Other Civic Work: • Invited to participate in 3-day charrette: "Assessing Future Visions of Annapolis', with other Loeb Fellows from Harvard University, June, 2008 • Initiated and worked on City Council Committee to create demolition review ordinance for historic buildings, Denver, 2006 • Mayors Downtown Summit: Planning and Zoning Committee (Denver), 1995 • Advisory Committee to Mayor's Office of Regulatory Reform (Denver), 1994 • Board of Directors, Denver Civic Ventures (Downtown Denver Partnership), 1994-1997 • Board of Directors, Hospice of Metro Denver, 1993-1996 • National Trust for Historic Preservation appointee to a national symposium on the economic and zoning hardship issue (NYC), 1992 • The Downtown Denver Partnership award jury, 1990 • Scenic America Inc. appointee to the "Economics of Aesthetics' panel to oversee a study of the financial implications of aesthetic controls (Washington D.C.), 1989 • Lower Downtown Capital Improvements Committee to allocate city funds for public and private property improvements (Denver),1988 • Appointed to the Speer Boulevard Committee to formulate design guidelines for future development along Speer Boulevard. (Denver) 1987 • Member of the Professional Resource Committee -- a volunteer group of professionals offering expertise to businesses and developers located in Lower Downtown Denver, 1987 • Denver Community Leadership Forum -- a one-year program of seminars and an Outward Bound outing to develop leadership skills, 1986 Awards: • "Honor Award" from The Downtown Denver Partnership for leadership in gaining community -wide consensus for the Lower Downtown historic district. • "Community Achievement Award" from the Denver Chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) for active involvement in bettering the community. • "Award of Honor" from Historic Denver, Inc. • "Honor Award" from the National Trust for Historic Preservation for leadership in the formation of Denver's historic district in Lower Downtown, the top award in the country for historic preservation. • Denver Chapter of the American Planning Association (APA) award for Speer Boulevard design guidelines. • Several awards from APA, AIA and the Downtown Executives Association for the Downtown Area Plan. • "Wagner Award" from the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers in recognition of a contribution to the advancement of appraiser knowledge. • "Inner -City Elegance Award" from the Denver Board of Realtors for the restoration of an old multi- family building into six town homes. Speaking Engagements: Frequent speaker both locally and nationally on historic preservation, mediation, water negotiations, and planning since 1982. Taught a series of workshops for the American Planning Association on the revitalization of cities. Been a guest lecturer at several universities and a speaker at national conferences and events including The National Trust for Historic Preservation, American Planning Association, Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute, Congress for New Urbanism, Preservation Law Conference, NEPA Conference, Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Utah Heritage Foundation, and, The Institute of Real Estate Appraisers. • Lisa Purdy Consulting xl rrrrglc� Inr Hi.1.a i. Pfrerr. f.linu, 1'Inuurnrl. C.nr..uun.. I21 heal{ Sit -eel I)enecr CO 90203 p1anu•: 303.733.7796 cwail: pnrdrliaaGl>mae.00m Memo to: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission From: Lisa Purdy of Lisa Purdy Consulting Date: January 28, 2009 Re: Historic qualification of 219 W. Third St. I've been asked to provide an evaluation of the historic significance of 219 S. Third Street by Angela and Paul Young who live across the alley from the subject property. After receiving photos of the duplex last week I went to the site to see the context of the property and to examine it firsthand. I also reviewed the information contained in the staff memo dated January 28, 2009. 1 was not able to view a context paper or scoring sheet because they are in the process of being developed. 219 S. Third Street is listed as a "potential historic resource" in Aspen's 2007 survey and I understand the applicant, YLP West, LLC, would like to formally designate the property. The applicant has also requested numerous bonuses and incentives should landmark designation occur that would almost double the FAR; obtain what appear to he significant rear, front and side setbacks; eliminate design review on the new house behind the duplex; and limit the design review of the duplex itself. After careful review 1 find it difficult to support historic designation of the duplex for the following reasons. 1 will not comment on the proposed incentives and bonuses. I believe it is premature�designate this orooedy. There are no context papers and no scoring forms that have been adopted by the city to establish a basis for review. Without this, it's hard to have a conversation about the historic significance as currently required in the ordinance. In addition it's possible the public task forces working on refining and characterizing buildings in the post World War era could change or establish criteria that differ from what staff now proposes. Staff finds that the duplex meets designation criteria C, stating "it is part of a collection of buildings that uniquely illustrates cultural and design influences that significantly changed the built environment of Aspen as it developed into a ski resort." In my ol2inion the duplex is not unique. and it is unremarkable as a representative of cultural influences in Aspen. This style of this duplex is ubiquitous in mountain areas and other areas of the country. Even though staff finds the 2 duplex "represents the character of typical vacation homes being built here in the 50s and 60s", it also represents a style of vacation homes all over the country. The question is whether the building is either unique to Aspen or illustrative of a design influence that significantly changed the built environment of Aspen? To me this building is too removed from the time period of the development of Aspen's ski area from the 1930s to 1960 to have been a part of a design influence that changed Aspen. In relation to other chalet buildings in Aspen, this duplex does not come to the top. 3. Staff cites criteria for "Modern Chalet" in its memo even though the criteria have not yet been adopted. I don't know how anyone can determine if a building meets the criteria when criteria don't exist. However, if one ignores this fact and follows the criteria cited by staff or looks at an old staff context paper on Modem Chalet, the building still doesn't measure up. The 1965 duplex is lacking many of the characteristics of chalet design, most particularly its complete lack of decoration in the eaves, fascias and/or balconies. The most visible view of the duplex (shown in the staff memo) lacks almost all of the characteristics. Even though the duplex might deserve scrutiny as part of the historic invents it doesn't have enough artistic cultural. or grchitectural merit to qualify for historic designation. To date, little, if anything, is known about the architect and he did not play a prominent role in Aspen. 4. Lastly, I don't bplieve it is enough for a building to be "part of an era" or " aq rt of a rollectinn of huildings" to nualifv for individual historic designation. Most communities around the country require buildings of individual distinction for that honor. Unlike buildings that are grouped together in an historic district, individual landmarks should achieve or embody something of higher architectural or historic value than merely being part of a class of buildings. Aspen has created a district like this in the downtown area. And, Denver has done this in its LoDo area. Many of the buildings in the LoDo historic district would not hold up to individual designation, but they qualify as a group or collection of buildings as a historic district. Based on my 30+ years of experience in the field of historic preservation, I do not see enough evidence in the staff memo to support historic designation of the duplex. My own analysis, as well, concludes the building does not exhibit historic significance to the point where designated is warranted. I appreciate the opportunity to share my opinions about this property and am happy to answer any questions you may have. MEMORANDUM V11% a. - TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Stephen Kanipe, Chief Building Official nI•'. THROUGH: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director DATE OF MEMO: May 1, 2009 MEETING DATE: May 11, 2009 RE: Second Reading of Ordinance # 11, Series of 2009 Building & Energy Code Amendments: Title 8, Aspen Municipal Code. • Adding Chapter 8.46 — 2009 International Energy Conservation Code • Amending Chapter 8.16.020 (v) "Energy Efficiency" • Amending Chapter 8.20.020 (f) "Energy" • Deleting Chapter 8.54 "Efficient Building Code" REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Council passed Ordinance #11, Series of 2009 on first reading to adopt the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code with amendments for commercial and residential renewable energy mitigation programs and amending or deleting related sections of the "Buildings and Building Regulation" title of the municipal code. Staff requests Council approve this ordinance on second reading. SUMMARY: By adopting this Ordinance, the City of Aspen would be among the first jurisdictions in the state to adopt the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), allowing private sector applicants to obtain federal funds intended to improve energy efficiency. Owners of commercial buildings can apply for these funds, and considering the average age and condition of such buildings in the City of Aspen, the long-term benefits could be significant. The Colorado Governor's Energy Office (GEO) is expecting about $33 million to flow from the federal government through the state, to cities and counties. An energy code users group of developers, architects, mechanical engineers and local energy code experts worked with building department staff to review the new code and REMP amendments. Results and comments from those meetings will be included in the staff presentation at the public hearing. BACKGROUND: Council indicated they are familiar with the progress on developing the Commercial Renewable Energy Mitigation Program (REMP). As mentioned in first reading memo, the commercial version of REMP is ready for adoption. It essentially mirrors the existing residential REMP code, which has been in place since 2000. The overall concept is that when energy is used outside a commercial structure, such as snowmelt, pools and spas, the owner/developer must either install on -site renewable energy systems or exercise the REMP payment option. The commercial REMP code was introduced to a group of architects and developers before last summer's work session and was favorably received. An important change in both the commercial and residential REMP is increasing credits for on - site photovoltaic (PV) systems. The time is right for this as federal, state and local rebates and tax credits reduce the cost of PV systems about 40%. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Ordinance #11 2009 on second reading. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move the adoption of Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2009." owner/developer must either install on -site renewable energy systems or exercise the REMP payment option. The commercial REMP code was introduced to a group of architects and developers before last summer's work session and was favorably received. An important change in both the commercial and residential REMP is increasing credits for on - site photovoltaic (PV) systems. The time is right for this as federal, state and local rebates and tax credits reduce the cost of PV systems about 40%. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Ordinance #11 2009 on second reading. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move the adoption of Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2009." 2 ORDINANCE NO. 11 (SERIES 2009) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING TITLE 8 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW CHAPTER 8.46 TO ADOPT THE 2009 INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE, AMENDING 8.16.020 (v) "Energy Efficiency", AMENDING 8.20.020 (f) "Energy" AND DELETING 8.54 "Efficient Building Code". WHEREAS, the City of Aspen is nationally recognized as a leader in developing, adopting and administrating progressive energy codes; and WHEREAS, in 1995 the City of Aspen was the first jurisdiction in the country to regulate exterior energy use; and WHEREAS, in 2000 the City of Aspen was the first jurisdiction in the country to adopt a mandatory Renewable Energy Mitigation Program; and WHEREAS, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act requires the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code be adopted to qualify for monies designated for energy rebates; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the citizens of and visitors to our community to continue and maintain a leadership role in energy code adoption and administration. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,THAT: Section 1. Title 8 of the Aspen Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new Chapter 8.46, which chapter shall read as follows: Chapter 8.46 International Energy Conservation Code Sec. 8.46.010. Adoption of the 2009 Edition of the International Energy Conservation Code. Pursuant to the powers and authority conferred by the laws of the State and the Charter of the City, there is hereby adopted and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth those regulations contained in the International Energy Conservation Code, 2009 Edition, as published by the International Code Council except as otherwise provided by amendment or deletion as contained in Section 8.46.020 of this Chapter. At least one (1) copy of the International Energy Conservation Code shall be available for inspection during regular business hours in the City Clerk's Office, second floor of City Hall. Ordinance No. 11, Series 2009 Adoption of 2009 IECC Page 1 Sec. 8.46.020. Amendments. The International Energy Conservation Code, 2009 Edition, the addition of Appendix A "Residential Renewable Energy Mitigation Program" and Appendix B "Commercial Renewable Energy Mitigation Program" as adopted by the City at Section 8.46.010, is hereby amended to provide and read as follows: (a) Section 101.1 Insert: "City of Aspen" for [NAME OF JURISDICTION]. (b) Section 107.2 "Schedule of permit fees" is hereby amended and to read as follows: "A permit shall not be valid until the fees prescribed by Section 2.12.100 of this Code are paid in full." (c) Section 109 "Means of appeal" is deleted in its entirety and shall read as follows: "Section 109.1 Appeals shall be in accordance with Chapter 8.08 of this Code." (d) Add Section 110 "Liability" to read as follows: "The Building Official or his or her authorized representative charged with the enforcement of this code, acting in good faith and without malice in the discharge of his or her duties, shall not thereby render himself or herself personally liable for any damage that may accrue to persons or property as a result of any act or omission in the discharge of his or her duties. "This Code shall not be construed to relieve or lessen the responsibility of any person owning, operating or controlling any building or structure for any damage to persons or property caused by defects on or in such premises, nor shall the code enforcement agency, any employee thereof or City be held as assuming any such responsibility or liability by reason of the adoption of this code or by the exercise of inspections authorized and carried out hereunder or by the issuance of any permits or certificates issued pursuant to this code." (e) Section 301 "Climate zones" is deleted in its entirety and shall read as follows: "The City of Aspen, Colorado and Pitkin County, Colorado shall use Climate Zone 7 in determining the applicable requirements from Chapters 4 and 5". (f) Section 402.4.2 "Air sealing and insulation" is hereby amended and to read as follows: "Building envelope air tightness and insulation installation shall be demonstrated to comply with the testing option section 402.4.2.1: 402.4.2.1. Testing option. Building envelope air tightness and insulation installation shall be considered acceptable when tested air leakage is less than 0.35 air changes per hour (ACH) when tested with a blower door at a pressure of 33.5 psf (50 Pa). The remainder of the section remains unchanged. 402.4.2.2 is deleted in its entirety. Add "Appendix A" to read as follows: Ordinance No. 11, Series 2009 Adoption of 2009 IECC Page 2 "Residential Renewable Energy Mitigation Program" SECTION 101 SCOPE AND ADMINISTRATION Section 101.1 Scope. Residential snowmelt, outside pool, or outside spa systems and equipment may be installed only if the supplemental energy meets the requirements of the Residential Renewable Energy Mitigation Program (RREMP) Appendix A. This applies to all installations for which an application for a permit or renewal of an existing permit is filed or is by law required to be filed with or without an associated Building Permit that include systems described in section 101.1. Section 101.2 Residential Renewable Energy Mitigation Program (RREMP) Option — Exterior energy use for residential snowmelt systems, outdoor spas, and outdoor pools are calculated as directed by Section 201. Section 101.3 On -site Renewable Credits Option — Renewable credit options are calculated as directed by Section 301. Section 102 Payment option. The RREMP payment option is the difference in energy use calculated in section 202 and on -site renewable credits calculated in section 302 and shall be paid at the time of issuance of the building permit. The payment, if any, is based on the amount of energy required, expressed as dollars per square foot, to operate the exterior energy use systems. No payment shall be made to an applicant that exceeds the energy use with on -site renewable credits. All monies collected pursuant to this section shall be recorded in a separate fund by the City Finance Director and shall be spent in accordance with a joint resolution by the Aspen City Council and Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners. Section 103 Credits for on -site renewable energy. This RREMP payment option is voluntary. Applicants interested in exterior energy use systems can alternatively choose to produce on -site renewable energy (Section 301) with solar photovoltaics and/or solar hot water. Also the energy efficient technology of ground source heat pumps is permitted for supplemental on -site energy. Section 104 Pre-existing systems. Pre-existing snowmelt, pools or spas which are being overhauled or renovated qualify for exterior energy credit. This credit can only be applied towards an installation of exterior energy on the same parcel. The calculation of the credit shall be based on section 301. SECTION 105 - RESIDENTIAL REPAIRS. Repairs to building components, systems, or equipment which do not increase their pre-existing energy consumption need not comply with RREMP. All replacement mechanical equipment shall be Energy Star© rated. Section 201 Exterior Energy Use Calculations Section 201.1 Snow melt energy consumption shall be calculated as a RREMP payment option at $34.00 per square foot divided the boiler efficiency (AFUE). Section 201.2 Outdoor pool energy use shall be calculated as a RREMP payment option at $136.00 per square foot divided the boiler efficiency (AFUE). Section 201.3 Spa energy use shall be calculated as a RREMP payment option at $176.00 per square foot divided the boiler efficiency (AFUE). Package spas not more than 64 square feet are exempt. Ordinance No. 11, Series 2009 Adoption of 2009 IECC Page 3 Section 202 The total RREMP payment option is the total sum of exterior energy use of sections 201.1, 201.2 and 201.3. Section 301 ON -SITE RENEWABLE CREDITS Section 301.1 Photovoltaic Systems — On -site renewable credit shall be calculated as $6,241.20 per 1 KiloWatt of the system design. Solar electric (photovoltaic) systems tied to the electric grid, are eligible for on -site renewable credit. Systems must be sited, oriented and installed for solar electric panels to supply at least 90% of rated capacity of the installed KW. System designer/installer must be certified by COSEIA (Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association). Section 301.2 Solar Hot Water - On -site renewable credit shall be calculated as $224.65 per 1 square foot of the system design. Section 301.3 Ground Source Heat Pump - On -site renewable credit shall be calculated as $6.84 per 100,000 BTU per year of the system design. In order to use a GSHP for on -site renewable credit the GSHP system must supply at least 20% of the peak load for heating the house and all the exterior energy uses. Section 302 The total RREMP on -site renewable credit is the total sum of sections 301.1, 301.2 and 301.3. PUBLIC DOMAIN SOFTWARE Section 401 A free calculation program known as RREMP 2009 shall be made available to the public. EXAMPLE CALCULATION FOR RESIDENTIAL RENEWABLE ENERGY MITIGATION PROGRAM Snowmelt Example (Snowmelt requested 800 sq. ft.) $34.00*800/ .91 (efficiency rating of boiler) = $29,890.11 RREMP payment option for exterior energy use will be $29,890.11 ON -SITE RENEWABLE CREDITS 96 square feet of solar hot water panels*$224.65 per square foot — $21,566.24 RREMP payment option will be $8,323.87 OR 4.8 KW photovoltaic system *$6,241.20 per kilowatt = $29,957.76 RREMP payment option will be $0 Ordinance No. 11, Series 2009 Adoption of 2009 IECC Page 4 Add "Appendix B" to read as follows: "Commercial Renewable Energy Mitigation Program" SECTION 101 SCOPE AND ADMINISTRATION Section 101.1 Scope. Commercial snowmelt, outside pool, or outside spa systems and equipment may be installed only if the supplemental energy meets the requirements of the Commercial Renewable Energy MitigationProgram (CREMP) Appendix B. This applies to all installations for which an application for a permit or renewal of an existing permit is filed or is by law required to be filed with or without an associated Building Permit that include systems described in section 101.1. Section 101.2 Commercial Renewable Energy Mitigation Program (CREW) Option — Exterior energy use for residential snowmelt systems, outdoor spas, and outdoor pools are calculated as directed by Section 201. Section 101.3 On -site Renewable Credits Option — Renewable credit options are calculated as directed by Section 301. Section 102 Payment option. The CREMP payment option is the difference in energy use calculated in section 202 and on -site renewable credits calculated in section 302 and shall be paid at the time of issuance of the building permit. The payment, if any, is based on the amount of energy required, expressed as dollars per square foot, to operate the exterior energy use systems. No payment shall be made to an applicant that exceeds the energy use with on -site renewable credits. All monies collected pursuant to this section shall be recorded in a separate fund by the City Finance Director and shall be spent in accordance with a joint resolution by the Aspen City Council and Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners. Section 103 Credits for on -site renewable energy. This CREMP payment option is voluntary. Applicants interested in exterior energy use systems can alternatively choose to produce on -site renewable energy (Section 301) with solar photovoltaics and/or solar hot water. Also the energy efficient technology of ground source heat pumps is permitted for supplemental on -site energy. Section 104 Pre-existing systems. Pre-existing snowmelt, pools or spas which are being overhauled or renovated qualify for exterior energy credit. This credit can only be applied towards an installation of exterior energy on the same parcel. The calculation of the credit shall be based on section 301. SECTION 105 - Commercial REPAIRS. Repairs to building components, systems, or equipment which do not increase their pre-existing energy consumption need not comply with CREMP. Section 201 Exterior Energy Use Calculations Section 201.1 Snow melt energy consumption shall be calculated as a CREMP payment option at $60.00 per square foot divided the boiler efficiency (AFUE). Section 201.2 Outdoor pool energy use shall be calculated as a CREMP payment option at $170.00 per square foot divided the boiler efficiency (AFUE). Section 201.3 Spa energy use shall be calculated as a CREMP payment option at $176.00 per square foot divided the boiler efficiency (AFUE). Package spas not more than 64 square feet are exempt. Ordinance No. 11, Series 2009 Adoption of 2009 IECC Page 5 Section 202 The total CREMP payment option is the total sum of exterior energy use of sections 201.1, 201.2 and 201.3. Section 301 ON -SITE RENEWABLE CREDITS Section 301.1 Photovoltaic Systems — On -site renewable credit shall be calculated as $6,241.20 per 1 KiloWatt of the system design. Solar electric (photovoltaic) systems tied to the electric grid, are eligible for on -site renewable credit. Systems must be sited, oriented and installed for solar electric panels to supply at least 90% of rated capacity of the installed KW. System designer/installer must be certified by COSEIA (Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association). Section 301.2 Solar Hot Water - On -site renewable credit shall be calculated as $224.65 per 1 square foot of the system design. Section 301.3 Ground Source Heat Pump - On -site renewable credit shall be calculated as $6.84 per 100,000 BTU per year of the system design. In order to use a GSHP for on -site renewable credit the GSHP system must supply at least 20% of the peak load for heating the building and all the exterior energy uses. Section 302 The total CREMP on -site renewable credit is the total sum of sections 301.1, 301.2 and 301.3. PUBLIC DOMAIN SOFTWARE Section 401 A free calculation program known as CREMP 2009 shall be made available to the public. EXAMPLE CALCULATION FOR RESIDENTIAL RENEWABLE ENERGY MITIGATION PROGRAM Snowmelt area 1200 sq. ft. $60.00* 1,200/.92 (efficiency rating of boiler) = $78,260.87 Pool area 700 sq. ft. $170.00*700/.92(efficiency rating of boiler)= $119000.00 Spa area 80 sq. ft. $176.00*80/.92(efficiency rating of boiler)=$15,304.35 RREMP payment option for exterior energy use will be $222,913.04 ON -SITE RENEWABLE CREDITS 448 square feet of solar hot water panels*$224.65 per square foot = $100,642.44 20 KW photovoltaic system *$6,241.20 per kilowatt = $124,824.00 RREMP payment option will be $0 Ordinance No. 11, Series 2009 Adoption of 2009 IECC Page 6 Section 2. Section 8.16.020 (v) of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado is amended to read as follows: (v) Delete Chapter 11 in its entirety and replace as follows: Chapter 11 Energy Efficiency - The provision of the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code as adopted and amended as Section 8.46 shall apply to all matters governing the design and construction of buildings for energy efficiency. Section 3. Section 8.20.020 (f) of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado is amended to read as follows: (f) Section 101.4.7 "Energy" is hereby amended and to read as follows: Section 101.4.7 The provisions of the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code as adopted and amended as Section 8.46 shall apply to all matters governing the design and construction of buildings for energy efficiency. Section 4. Section 8.54 "Efficient Building Code" is deleted in its entirety. Section 5. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days following passage and publication. Section 6. This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 7. 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. Ordinance No. 11, Series 2009 Adoption of 2009 IECC Page 7 A public hearing on the ordinance was held on the I I1h of May, 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 27th day of April, 2009. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk John P. Worcester, City Attorney FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2009. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Ordinance No. 11, Series 2009 Adoption of 2009 IECC Page 8 MEMORANDUM V111b TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director 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 Hearing (continued from April 13, 2009) MEETING DATE: May 11, 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 & USE Located in the Public (PUB) zone district. Lot C contains 19.1 acres or approximately 832,085 sq. ft. 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 has prepared a draft Resolution which would grant Conceptual approval. Staff recommends an overview of this resolution, discussion of any remaining issues, and then a final vote. Photo of the hospital's Page I of 4 REVIEW SCHEDULE' 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, 2009: On -site affordable housing, Expansion of Whitcomb Terrace. Discussion on transportation. April 27, 2009: Overview of draft resolution. Update from AVH on childcare, detox and senior care. May 11, 2009 Final review of resolution. TONIGHT'S ITEMS' The Applicant provided an update on three remaining issues at the previous hearing — detox facilities, on -site childcare, and senior services. Tonight's hearing will focus on the proposed Resolution granting Conceptual Approval. Staff will provide an overview of the resolution and the attachments that provide a record of the conceptual approval. Staff recommends discussion of any remaining issues and then a final vote on the master plan. Granting Conceptual PUD Approval allows an applicant to proceed to final review. In this case, the final reviews will occur with each individual phase. This emphasizes the importance of a conceptual approval as the one review of the entire scope of the project. Staff feels that the important issues have been discussed and adequately covered in the proposed resolution. Many of the issues require further analysis and final detail design. This can happen during the final review of the phases. The more -significant detail design issues are scheduled for Phase 2. Subsequent phases are less complex in terms of public infrastructure. PROJECT SUMMARY (PROVIDED IN EACH MEMO): 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 Page 2 of 4 the campus includes the Schultz building and Mountain Oaks employee housing. Parcel C contains approximately 19.1 acres or 832,085 square feet. The Applicant would like to redevelop the parcel taking into account a twenty year 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. Table 1. Existing and Proposed Conditions Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Parcel Area 832,085 sq. ft. 832,085 sq. ft. Building Footprint (residence, hospital, bus bam, & phase I) 90,849 sq. ft. 171,164 sq. ft. Open Space 550,536 sq. ft. 471,067 sq. ft. Surface parking 175 110* Notes: * The proposed surface area does not include parking structure spaces, with parking garage spaces the total equals 339 spaces. Table 2: Existing and Proposed Gross Square Feet of Development Existing Facility Proposed 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 Parking Garage 0 76,000 76,000 Total 75,700 214,395 290,095 RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the AVH Facilities Master Plan and is recommending approval. Staff has drafted a resolution that provides Conceptual PUD approval and is recommending adoption at tonight's hearing. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: PROPOSED MOTION: I move to grant conceptual approval of the Aspen Valley Hospital Facilities Master Plan and approve Resolution No. 3, Series of 2009." CURRENT ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Resolution No 3, Series 2009. Reso Exhibit A — Summary of master plan Reso Exhibit B — Staffmg generation expectations and credits Page 3 of 4 PREVIOUS ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A — PUD Review Criteria (provided 1/12/09, 1/26/09, 2/9/09, 4/27/09) EXHIBIT B — Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 23, Series of 2008 (provided 1/12/09) EXHIBIT C — Planning and Zoning Commission minutes: July 151, July 1511, August 51, and August 19, 2008 (provided 1/12/09) EXHIBIT D — Map of hospital district boundaries (provided 1/12/09) EXHIBIT E — Application dated January 2008 (provided 1/12/09) EXHIBIT 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) EXHIBIT I — Draft snow storage/drainage design changes (provided 1/26/09) EXHIBIT J — Pitkin County referral comments dated May 6, 2008 (provided 2/9/09) EXHIBIT K — Transportation Department referral (provided 2/9/09) EXHIBIT L — Public comment from Karen Ryman dated July 2, 2008 (provided 2/9/09) EXHIBIT M — Environmental Initiatives Team referral dated March 30, 2009 (provided 4/13/09) Page 4 of 4 RESOLUTION NO.3 (SERIES OF 2009) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN, LOCATED ON PARCEL C, ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT SUBDISVION, COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 401 CASTLE CREEK ROAD, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2735-121-29-809 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Aspen Valley Hospital District (Applicant), represented by Leslie Lamont of Lamont Planning Services, requesting approval of a Conceptual Development Plan for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the Aspen Valley Hospital District Facilities Master Plan; and, WHEREAS, the application for the Aspen Valley Hospital District, proposed a redeveloped and expanded multi -story hospital building and parking garage on parcel C of the Aspen Valley Hospital Subdivision, as more fully described in Exhibit A of this resolution; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Fire Protection District, Pitkin County Community Development Department, Environmental Initiatives Team, Parks Department, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority, and the Transportation Department as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Conceptual PUD and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, Conceptual PUD approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, Conceptual PUD review by the Planning and Zoning Commission requires a public hearing and this application was reviewed at multiple public hearings where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on July 1, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and continued the public hearing to July 15, 2008 for further discussion. At the July 15, 2008 public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and continued the hearing until August 5, 2008 for further discussion. At the August 5, 2008 public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and continued the project to August 19, 2008 for further discussion. At the August 19, 2008 public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and recommended City Council approve the Conceptual Planned Unit Development application by a six to zero (6-0) vote, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, City Council Resolution No. 3, Series 2009. Page I of 6 WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the Aspen Valley Hospital Facilities Master Plan on January 12, 2009, January 26, 2009, February 9, 2009, April 13, 2009, April 27, 2009, and May 11, 2009, according to the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director and the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the Council finds that the development application meets the review standards for a Conceptual PUD approval as long as certain conditions are implemented; 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 that the City Council approves the Conceptual Planned Unit Development for Aspen Valley Hospital Master Facilities Plan, subject to the conditions listed herein. Section 1: Master Facility Plan The Aspen Valley Hospital Facilities Master Plan is granted Conceptual PUD approval as depicted and described in Exhibit A to this resolution. Section 2: Revisions and Considerations In addition to the elements of the project that the City Council felt met the Code standards for a PUD review, the Applicant shall consider the following revisions and requests for further analysis: A. Overall Building Size, Uses, Architecture, and Site Design. The proposed building size, massing and scale are appropriate for the site and the proposed uses. The parking garage aesthetics should be evaluated and treated to minimize visual impact. The proposed materials and architecture of the building are appropriate for the site. The site plan for the proposed expansion of Whitcomb Terrace and on -site affordable housing shall be reconsidered to enable a less auto -centric living environment. See Exhibit A — Site plan and renderings. B. Green Technologies. The Applicant shall continue to collaborate with the City of Aspen to explore ways to incorporate environmental "green" technologies into the project. The energy conservation plan for AVH shall include program(s) to encourage transit usage by employees and customers. C. Employee Generation & Mitigation. The consideration of volume, support services, decompression and increased efficiency as outlined in the Conceptual Application dated January 2008 is appropriate in determining Employee Generation for the Hospital. On -Site medical office space employee generation should be evaluated by using the Mixed -Use Zone District standards for offices. The APCHA board and City Council recommends that credits be allowed to be used for the employee mitigation requirement. A credit shall be applied recognizing existing employees housed by AVH through efforts prior to the Master Facilities Plan. A detailed inventory of the total number of employees expected to be generated by each phase and applicable credits is attached as Exhibit B. The credit is based on actual FTEs housed in 2009. The credit may be used in future phases as determined by AVH. City Council Resolution No. 3, Series 2009. Page 2 of 6 Applications for each phase shall include an updated actual employee generation from the previous phase of development. Discrepancies between expected and actual employee needs shall be assessed to the phase of development being considered for approval. D. Nordic Trail Location. Any relocation of the Nordic trail will be finalized with the input of neighbors and the City of Aspen Parks Department. E. Drainage & Snow Storage. The Applicant has developed several proposals for snow storage and drainage. The location and design depicted in Exhibit A is one possible solution, but further analysis is needed. The Applicant shall continue to work with the City Engineer and the City Parks Department on acceptable snow storage and drainage locations and designs that minimize operational conflicts with pedestrians, trail users, and vehicular circulation. All drainage and snow storage issues shall be resolved during the review of Phase 2 improvements. F. RFTA Bus Stop Refinement The Applicant shall continue to refine the design of the RFTA bus stop to enable queuing of two busses and ensuring that wheel paths and turning radiuses work appropriately. The Applicant should consider installing the improvements to the bus stop and pedestrian crossing during Phase 2 rather than Phase 4 of the redevelopment. G. Trail Improvements. Related to the Master Facilities Plan improvements the Applicant shall propose improvements to the pedestrian/bicycle trail along Castle Creek Road that address changes to vehicle circulation patterns and minimizes autolbicycle conflicts to the extent possible. The Applicant shall work with the City Parks Department on signage, trail dimensions and design specifications, adjacent grading and drainage, and landscape designs. This shall be part of the Phase 2 review. Pedestrian pathways and crossings within the site (which will change as development occurs in phases) will be reviewed and evaluated for safety and conflicts during construction of that phase and in their final configuration. H. Castle Creek Road T*l Crossing Improvements. The Applicant shall continue to work with the City Engineer and the City Parks Department on possible Castle Creek trail crossing improvements. The Applicant shall financially participate in the construction of improvements made to the Castle Creek crossing in an amount that accounts for the proportionate increase in trail use and auto trips on Castle Creek Road south of the facility and any remaining quality of service deficiency after improvement to the pedestrian/bicycle trail parallel to Castle Creek Road (See item G). The proportionate share for this improvement shall be determined during review of Phase 2. Funds for this improvement shall be either held by the City, in an interest bearing account, or shall be bonded or otherwise secured and payable to the City prior to construction of the improvement. If improvements to the crossing are not commenced by the City within seven years of the issuance of a development order for Phase 2, the proportionate share obligation shall expire. If the capital project does not proceed within seven years of the issuance of a development order for the particular phase, the funds shall be returned to the AVH with accrued interest. I. Highway 82/Roundabout and Cemetery Lane Intersections. The vast majority of existing and projected traffic within the State Highway 82 corridor is not associated with the expansion of facilities at Aspen valley Hospital. However, the AVH facility expansion does have an impact on the roundabout and Cemetery Lane intersections and is expected to financially contribute to capital projects to improve capacity. The total impact associated with the AVH expansion and City Council Resolution No. 3, Series 2009. Page 3 of 6 proportionate financial contribution for capacity improvements to either of these two intersections is .3% (.003) of funds the City of Aspen spends on the project(s). The per -phase proportionate share for capacity improvements shall be determined during the review of each phase. If a capital project has been identified and construction expenses have been determined, the per -phase contribution shall be payable to the City and held in an interest bearing account until the time of construction. If the capital project does not proceed within seven years of the issuance of a development order for the particular phase, the funds shall be returned to the AVH with accrued interest. If no capital project is yet identified for one of these two intersections at the time of final review of a phase, a future financial contribution shall be bonded or otherwise secured and payable to the City prior to construction of the improvement. If improvements to either the roundabout or the Cemetery Lane/Highway 82 intersections are not commenced by the City with seven years of the issuance of a development order for each phase, the proportionate share obligation for that phase shall expire. J. Castle Creek Road Elevation. Based upon the concerns voiced by the City Engineer with regard to raising the height of Castle Creek Road and the associated construction impacts, staff recommends that the Applicant continue evaluating options that that are less impactful and meet the goals of the master plan. The Applicant shall continue to work with staff on the improvements associated with development of the service road. K. Transportation Demand Management Program. The AVH shall be subject to a TDM Program approved by the City of Aspen as part of the Phase 2 approvals. The purpose of this plan is to minimize single -occupant auto trips to or from the hospital campus. The Applicant and City Transportation Department staff shall jointly develop a reliable methodology for measuring the effects of the TDM Program, including baseline data. The TDM Program shall be re-evaluated and adjusted from time to time but not more frequently than once per year or as may be necessary during the review for each phase. Elements of the TDM program should include increased transit service, van pooling, carpooling, preferential HOV parking, paid parking, car sharing, and other strategies. The TDM Program may be amended from time to time as needed and as agreed upon by the AVH and the City Transportation Department as an Insubstantial PUD Amendment. L. Subdivision Platting and PUD Documents. Phase 2 approvals shall include a re -filing of a subdivision plat and recording of PUD Plans for all phases. The affordable housing `parcel' designation shall be vacated as part of the re -platting. The 100-foot trail easement shall be vacated as part of the re -platting and replaced with an easement(s) that coincides with actual trail locations. Section 3: Conceptual Approval Approval of this conceptual development plan does not constitute final approval or permission to proceed with any aspect of the development. Approval of this conceptual development plan authorizes the Applicant to submit an application for a final PUD development plan in accordance with the City Council Resolution granting conceptual PUD approval. The Aspen Valley Hospital Facilities Master Plan contemplates four (4) phases of development over time to enable the hospital to maintain daily operations of the facility as development occurs. The Applicant anticipates as much as a 20-year build -out timeline. Each Phase shall City Council Resolution No. 3, Series 2009. Page 4 of 6 require Final PUD approval and associated land use reviews as applicable. Future phases shall continue to be reviewed as an Essential Public Facility. Components of the Conceptual PUD plan shall be confirmed or amended in conjunction with the final approval of each phase. Development program, components, operational characteristics, or design characteristics of future phases or of the entire facility plan may be amended in conjunction with final approval for each phase. In consideration of the phased aspect of the Facilities Master Plan, City Council hereby exempts the development from the limitations of Conceptual Development Plan approval as specified in Section 26.445.030.D of the Land Use Code. No prescribed limit or timeframe for submitting a final development plan for the project, or phases thereof, shall apply until or unless the Applicant withdraws the conceptual application. Section 4: Final PUD Applications: General Conditions of Approval The Final PUD application for each phase shall reflect and demonstrate compliance with the Conceptual approval, as may be amended. The Final PUD application for each phase shall include: 1. An application for Final PUD and associated land use review approvals pursuant to the Municipal Code. A pre -application conference with a member of the Community Development Department is required prior to submitting an application. 2. Delineation of all dimensional provisions for the phase and any amendments to the overall build -out dimensions. 3. Final PUD Plans showing existing and planned development and remaining future phases. 4. A proposed PUD Agreement. 5. An employee generation summary which includes actual employee generation for the prior phase and number of credits to be assigned to the current phase. 6. An architectural character plan showing the character and materials of proposed buildings. This may be a model, digital model, detailed elevations, or renderings. 7. A proposed Subdivision Plat (Phase 2) highlighting proposed amendments to the plat of record. 8. A drainage report and grading & drainage plan developed using the criteria and specifications of the City Engineer. This analysis must account for all off site basins and must consider downstream facilities and whether these facilities are sized appropriately. The report must also include the analysis of drainage along Castle Creek Road associated with project improvements. 9. A snow storage and snow removal operations plan. 10. A detailed civil plan showing the geometric design for improvements to Castle Creek, vehicle and ped/bike path intersections, and improvements to RFTA bus stops, including bus staging and turning radii. 11. Proposed Transportation Demand Management Program, or amendments thereto as applicable. 12. A detailed landscape plan for all areas affected by that phase. A formal vegetation protection plan shall be required with building permit application. An approved tree City Council Resolution No. 3, Series 2009. Page 5 of 6 permit will be required before any demolition or access infrastructure work takes place. Final layout of the plantings and park designs require Parks Department approval. Section 5: School Lands Dedication and Impact Fees School Land Dedication is not required for the hospital facilities or the medical office space, but shall be required for on -site affordable housing development. TDM/Air Quality Impact Fees for the hospital facilities and medical office space are hereby waived in recognition of the proposed capital improvements to the RFTA bus stop and the proposed TDM Program. TDM/Air Quality Impact Fees shall be assessed on the development of residential units, unless otherwise waived by City Council during the review of that phase. Parks Development Impact Fees shall not be assessed on the hospital facilities. Parks fees shall be assessed on the medical office space and on any residential development, unless otherwise waived by City Council during the review of that phase. The Parks fee may be reduced commensurate with on- and off -site improvements to the trail system. The final approval for each phase shall detail the dedication and impact fees due according to the fee schedule in effect at the time of submission. All dedication and impact fees for the phase shall be paid at building permit issuance. Section 6• 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 7• 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. FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of 2009. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor. Approved as to form: John P. Worcester, City Attorney Exhibit A — Summary oJAVH Master Facility Plan Exhibit B — Employee Generation Expectations and Credits City Council Resolution No. 3, Series 2009. Page 6 of 6 Z2 0, 4 Fro wfO O W=U 0~O OW " w N � W _ WZW j 3 Q ~ Z Zo'oo yU 5oZ ol� � 30 U aP�} }a§§ ill I'll.j., 943R fa 111s3� ia1� IF j ¢re p i ee Fe 73 i g rt¢ F rill loll b� p IFI1 _-..man. _..L E Bpa%Ou � $f@ L- ' jdt^y j4pa id A p $� � B5 I g 6a 1! 4A1lai �E ?�`!g j r� p!1�� ! € 1ai 9• :�I :::�� -- r'—wmw�«a.}xe:s----:---- ` 9 Ito ho, CIA ## a/ Al' 54 ., pgtr/ i gS 4y�yt �`et5gb E !t it '± 5�4 li �'�4 f} ip �j; !a b" ii14 S� c 1 �atA 5:�5 :!A4 �_'� 1 m }t� �!d9 [ggk 9 84� 3y lit IL _ I ��1xlLLN ^• e e �a :3JJ. rerun vin3axisxn smos x�rsso wxo - �xrxx.w Yxawi -anx NVId U31SVW ivnld33N0J 1 V 1 I d S O H A 3 1 1 V A N 3 d S V �e E� � t 1Oa� i 9 0/ a.b mx Y/ l of na.ens j�E Yrl'zg Illg ;1s j p:1gg- W CO 0 d m Ii a #�i f iffla s �7 1 1a ef�� 3a(i e tz a o tJi� ® i l 8 11 � i i 1 O/000 0 z w J 4 Fg LL Y ijaa deg'g � $p ago ll, U 6a�@ ®Ei 5 i a m m $ o II{I i , OR- i °gm I Fo __ _ OF n o O 7 z� a: w Wa Y z= _z wmw I ) J1 y j 9i,BK iAa 3g �E i i i N Z Q j�' P�tet fpepq 3ya C� 7 , '' xy�¢g J_� ,gg� e�I� �rtsggE�i is'��!i i, -j a o lIl i I <= L J fro �z mM� dK I Ohm OO Wp Z K p LL 0., F N ry� F W o �g / a o }1r\f o on a" I Z m OZ E z �Z / WJ aW Z� xOLL wii �a o4p r I I v L z ZKa NJ J FF Q <� OR NO IW IW XO Z aJ aJ LLJ W / C.7 I J I / I I / I / I / I / I / �,_ g • y t D 5g15 1g D fa- € t 1el! fe` ae` 1' zg p �ww j i I _o y LJ p0 LLO t Nn I 8m r =g Zu MLL w W _ p $ O _ O W =` =m oZ�d"W � F � I NO �� XQLL w0 �a wOWa, I a m n Wm a Wm z p¢ NOO ZLLJ RJ LLJ WLL LLJ Ld I I / / I / I \ / I I / -x A N 3 i p �� Z �I ® a o iW / ■ Jp l � s n S � % r « s , I LJ oo<m I �° m �= 0 o oo ;5o r m F I I Q a a a a Z LLI LLJ a a a a I / I G g .X s5 � o mF ' o rc I aal l AN; Ali fie 0 Z J Z Q W Z O Q —j J LL of O Z a�E s i® i a c l wo �!S �1}1 ; o }a4 11tg Jill ie1 .11 111 Is� o o > ii Jill 10If; a..i's,el! S±e'I! l o a w ill C Z O a w w 2 H 0 U) r', L J 0 Q w �• J W I H �, Lu w �Z Feb-09 Area Description Existing DGSF MFP Program DGSF Deficiency (DGSF) Administration 1407 1725 318 Admissions 690 700 10 Business Office 1040 2000 _ 960 _ Cardiac Rehab 635 - 4300� 3665 Cardiology/Physicians Sleep 1890 1050 _ _ -840 _ _ Cardiopulmonary _ 791 _ 2700 _ _ 1909 Central PlanUFaclities 6035 19,500 13465 Central Sterile 1292 2200 908 Community Relations _ _ 313 313 0 Emergency 4440 - 9700 5260 Food Service 3113 6400 3287 Foundation Office 316 316 0 Human Resources 230 850 -- — 620 _ Imaging 4666 6500 Infectious Control 89 100 —33iM 11 _ Intensive Care Unit 930 2370 Laboratory 2440 5250 _ - 2810 M.I. S. 490 2200 1710 Mail/ Copy 140 175 35 Medical Records 790 1100 310 Meeting Rooms 1275 3100 1825 Nuclear Medicine 305 600 295 Obstetrics Unit (existing) _ 1720 9100 _ 7380 Patient Care Unit 11,235 '�- 18,500 - 7265 Pharmacy 865 900 35 Physical Therapy 2635 _ 7200 _ 4565 Same Day Surgery 1965 (in Phase 3 Surgery) - (In Phase 3 Surgery) Surgery 7100 13,500 6400 Volunteer/Gift Shop 865 1200 335 Total Existing DGSF 69702 health Center rtal MFP DGSF 853 - 2900 2440 2325 -- - 2190 22600 308 13798 nglstFIrGSF(70700) Basement GSF (5000) GS GSF_ 36500 214096 0.738433873 B' Q % °� / a '1 f it 1 a / Rgg gy fit g �� '&d� gp �E all 'S; 01, 3I E^y9�iAfAv SB i i $ AVH PHASE 2: DOOLITTLE IMPROVEMENTS w� S OPR6 ENGINEERING, $ CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ¢ a $ DOOITffLE DR. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS E%HISIT ONLY: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION W O O N f0 N O m 0 0 N O 0 0 Yl O 0 Y N O N O O Q O m 0 10 N O N t7 O O O Q c q Wy n m¢ o a a� a W J M Wa Nf00 = W arc a Na Wd N Ci n `ate cm m a c mWy o Em- o _pa O dP YOmmNY� � M" N � QNMnO1�Nm'mNNN nfOmQfO m �T L W O y� WWt f0 m m N N 1� N N N N N 0 N W n 10 m Ylb�N101O l�YpmtOW O LL U O QmmYe,Q,m'�YI'YN'NNNm`mNNOnOWI � Oi Y � � b m � N lV � VI p N b N � � � r• Oi n nt N C U O M o b N m N m UM L m C C V W U a C LL m m O E o 9 o LL N J O. O O O O_ _a IL m LLW LL J LL O N m O `2 a m r w a w U W Q Q U w Z A H ro E O LL (7 ELL m'QC��`NNN�p�NNC•1�l�my� W e-mtOm�Y jN Yl�mIpOYN O N N F g Cc o c_ nW u o cow m W bEvi 40w 2 W V E m ... E m n— Z.W me 0.0_W W a E� ' a W c° m E rn W a a W W W r o c o rc m„ W 1 W rc c aaUUUUwww`a 10 SZU�JJ��22Z ZZOtJOaaaan.rcam`n�U �CV1i hi t7 �147� 1 #15 - Employees Currently Housed in AVH Units Inventory Unit # Bedrooms Employees Mountain Oaks 102 studio 1 104 studio 1 105 1 BR 1 106 2 BR 2 107 2 BR 2 108 2 BR 2 109 2 BR 2 110 1 BR 1 ill studio 1 112 studio 1 201 1 BR 1 202 1 BR 1 203 2 BR 2 204 2 BR 2 205 2 BR 2 206 2 BR 2 207 2 BR 2 208 studio 1 209 studio 1 Beaumont #A 1 BR 1 #B studio 1 #C studio 1 102 studio 1 103 studio 1 104 studio 1 110 studio 1 ill studio 1 122 studio 1 123 studio 1 124 studio 1 125 studio 1 126 studio 1 127 studio 1 Apt 100 2 BR 2 Apt 101 2 BR 2 Apr 102 studio 1 Apt 103 1 BR 1 Apt 104 1 BR 1 Apt 200 2 BR 1 Apt 201 2 BR 1 Apt202 studio 1 ry :3 ff Apt 203 2 BR 2 Apt 204 studio 1 ' 2 CEO House 3 BR 2 Total Employees Housed 57 MEMORANDUM ' J V d To: City Council From: Aspen Valley Hospital and Pitkin County Senior Services Date: April 27, 2009 Re: Report on MFP presentation to the Senior Community Approximately 35 people including Whitcomb Terrace residents, users of the Senior Center, members of the Senior Council and CCRC task force, and staff attended today's meeting with representatives of the AVH MFP project team. The focus of the discussion was the site occupied by the Senior Center and Whitcomb Terrace. Some of the takeaways from the meeting include: • There was general agreement to preserve the original footprint for expansion of the assisted living facility. The construction of the additional units would be funded by a community effort, as was the case with the original assisted living and senior center. • There was support for better access between Whitcomb Terrace and the hospital. • With regard to safety and convenience, there was support for an enhanced public transit plan for the hospital campus. There was agreement on the need to continue bus pick-up and drop-off to the door of the senior center and assisted living. • Interest was expressed for improving the entrance and mitigating some of the impacts of the new service road (i.e., planting dense foliage and other landscaping). • There was support for a site design that will separate some functions of the mixed use of employee housing and assisted living, including traffic flow, access, night use, and orientation of the buildings. • Even with the senior van and public buses, the current parking situation is inadequate. A parking management plan that ensures adequate parking spaces during peak times for senior center uses is desirable. In summary, there was a positive tone and a high level of participation among the meeting attendees, who expressed appreciation to the project team for the presentation and a willingness to include the senior community in the next stages of planning. YL�A Taylor Liebmann f� , 1495 Gateway Road 7 V4 Snowmass, Colorado 81654 Memorandum: To the Aspen City Council My name is Taylor Liebmann. I have been a resident of the Roaring Fork Valley for over 13 years. I have a long standing relationship with Aspen Valley Hospital. I have been a volunteer for approximately 12 years in both Same Day Surgery and the Emergency Room. I have served as President of the volunteer organization and am currently Treasurer. But, more importantly, I have been a patient in the hospital and experienced first hand the professionalism of the staff and the quality of care and service. In every case, those experiences have reenforced my commitment to AVH. I have seen an immense improvement in the Hospital's administration over the years. Presently, David Ressler presides as CEO. He has over 20 years in hospital administration including overseeing a large construction and modernization project at the last hospital he served. Additionally, his steadfast commitment to the constant improvement of patient care has been a driving force. Terry Collins, CFO, keeps his watchful eye on the hospital's finances. He is involved in every aspect of the hospital's well-being and record keeping. As most people know, this team has not only led the hospital back from an inherited grave financial situation, but as most probably don't know, they have protected the hospital's financial assets 100% during these difficult economic times, which have touched almost all of us in a significantly negative way. AVH services not only the people of Pitkin County but all the residents of the Roaring Fork Valley. Many mid -valley residents of Basalt, El Jebel, Carbondale and areas in- between are not in the hospital's immediate service district but do depend on AVH as their primary health care provider. Many of these people have lived in Aspen and contributed to its growth and well-being. Many of their doctors offices are in Aspen and they must seek services at Aspen Valley Hospital. Some of my fellow mid -valley residents actually live closer to AVH then to VVH. We should have the best of services available at the closest location. We work in Aspen, shop and patronize the restaurants and contribute to all of the non-profit organizations in Aspen. World class hospitals reach out to help people. After all, if we want to maintain the level of care we now receive, what really good health professional would not rather work in a world class facility? Aspen Valley hospital's staff is world class and it is reflected in the services that AVH provides. To continue to be a premiere asset in our valley, a show place with world wide exposure, AVH must continue to expand in a contemporary manner and keep pace with state of the art technology. Believe me when I tell you that almost every person in this room will enter through the doors of AVH in need of care. As our population ages, the importance of this community asset will become even greater to our residents. The plans that are being proposed have been carefully crafted by experts in the field of healthcare. They are based on fact not fiction. A thoughtful balance of needs and economics have been applied. Our community as a whole has been considered, It is my opinion that the council should give AVH its unanimous approval and support to complete the plans presented for the hospital to make these necessary improvements to its existing facility. Page 1 of ] Chris Bendon From: Sent: To: Bcspurvis@cs.com (9) YO.te2�G 5l"lP� Sunday, May 10, 2009 7:35 PM Dwayne Romero; Mick Ireland; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Jackie Kasabach Cc: Kathryn Koch; Chris Bendon Subject: AVH Master Facilities Plan Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Mayor and Council Members, I am writing to support Aspen Valley Hospital's Master Facilities Plan Conceptual Review Proposal. As a member of the Hospital's Citizen's Advisory Committee, I have increasingly appreciated the AVH Staff and Board's thorough, thougthful and consultative approach to this project. As a result, I believe the basis for this proposal includes prudent projections of future community needs, comparataive analysis of accepted, current standards for quality patient care and prudent consideration of financial requirements. It is clear that our current faicility, while serving this community well over the years, is stretched beyond its capabilities physically and was not designed to provide today's standards of care as viewed from the patients and their families' perspective. It seems that most agree that our community prefers, and deserves, quality health and human services via failities such as that which AVH is now proposing. Given those as a fundamental, how might otherwise unwelcomed impacts be avoided and/or mitigated? I would not wish to prescribe your answer, but to suggest an approach. You should consider avoiding an incremental analysis of impacts, but take a more strategic, holisitic approach. In the case of the round -about impact, total traffic at peak times including existing traffic as well as that which might come from new development would be considered. Otherwise, one can imagine an outcome where pre-existing traffic, of all kinds and degrees of benefit, is sustained at the expense of future projects such as schools, recreation facilities and/or hospitals. As a former Snowmass Village Council Member and currently the Chair of the Planning Commission, I am keenly aware of the responsibilites which each of you shoulder under the requirements of Land Use Review. While the "public facilities" halo of a health and human services project deserves appreciation, the usual elements of Land Use Review must be addressed. I understand that issues such as compatibility with adjacent development, mitigation and off -site impacts are properly for your consideration. As you know, not all of these issues must be dealt with in final form during the Conceptual Review. In the end, I hope you will agree that the AVH Master Facilities Plan Proposal warrants your Conceptual Reveiw approval and future support. Regards, Bob Purvis 05/06/2003 16:41 9709631588 ALAN NELSON H.D. PAGE 02 225 N Mill Aspen, CO 81611 City Council of Aspen City Hall 130 S Galena St. Aspen CO 81611 FAX 920-5119 Dear Members, .-010� Alan A. Nelson, M..D. Psychiatry Diplomarc American Board of Psychiarry and Neurology Rocky Mountain Psychotherapy of 0 9 1101 Villago Rd. UL5C Carbondale, CO 81623 (970) 963-1588 This is a letter of personal support for the regional detox center concept as proposed by the Aspen Valley Hospital team . As a psychiatrist, I see all to often the sadness and medical consequences caused by excessive use of alcohol. No town or city is immune to this, even a city that has the beauty and creativity of Aspen. Creating a regional detox center allows for a better facility to be prepared as there are more partners. Better funding allows for better care ( actual treatment, within this area, not mere detox) than any one city alone could provide. In this sense, a facility like this truly does "take a village." As a member of the medical staff at AVH, I hope to see these plans come to fruition. I will work to try and make this happen and will encourage others of the medical staff to do the same. Sincerely, %� n,L*„1�.I'IUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director I ' 1 W RE: Aspen Jewish Community Center at the Silver Lining Ranch Consolidated SPA Amendment, Growth Management Review 2Id Reading of Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2009 MEETING DATE: May 11, 2009 APPLICANT /OWNER: The Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen. REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning Services LOCATION: Lot 5, Stillwater Ranch, commonly known as the Silver Lining Ranch —1490 Ute Avenue — Parcel ID # 2737-184-06-805 CURRENT ZONING: Academic (A) zone district with a Specially Planned Area (SPA) overlay, and Conservation (C) with a Specially Planned Area (SPA) overlay SUMMARY: The Applicant requests conversion of the Silver Lining Ranch, a non-profit facility to help kids with cancer and similar afflictions, into a Jewish Community Center. Minor physical changes are needed to accommodate this new use including the addition of an affordable housing cabin. The changes require an SPA Amendment, and Growth Management approvals. V1114C !� 0P Photo: The Silver Lining Ranch — Academic zone district shown at left / Conservation zone district shown at right - separated by the high water line. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Jewish Community Center application, with conditions. REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL: The City Council will be reviewing the following land use actions for the conversion of the Silver Lining Ranch to a Jewish Community Center: • Specially Planned Area (SPA) — Consolidated Review (Section 26.440.040 B) to allow for the conversion to a Jewish Community Center, the affordable housing cabin, parking, and associated landscaping modifications. The application shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council. • Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility (Section 26.470.090.4(a), The Community Development Director has determined the Jewish Community Center to be an Essential Public Facility, according to the adopted definition. The application shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council. A Specially Planned Area (SPA) is a process in which a site specific development plan is created by allowing the variation of the underlying zone district's land uses and dimensional requirements. The parcel currently exists with an SPA overlay. Based upon the new proposal the site specific development must be amended to allow the additional development. The Growth Management Review is to determine the number of employees generated by the use and to asses the appropriate affordable housing mitigation. The City Council may waive or partially waive these requirements. QUESTIONS FROM APRIL 27TH HEARING: WHAT'S A "SPECIAL EVENT?" City Council asked the Applicant to better define the term "Special Event" as it is used in the proposed ordinance. Staff and the Applicant decided to separately define religious events from secular events. Staff does not believe the City should restrict the type, frequency, or style of religious events. Doing so could be interpreted as an attempt to inhibit religious expression. Following is the Applicant's expectations for religious and secular events for 2010: • March 29, 2010 — Passover • June 2010 — 2 Bar Mitzvahs • July 2010 — Lecture • September 2010 — 2 Bar Mitzvahs and 2 weddings • September 9, 2010 — Rosh Hashana • September 18, 2010 — Yom Kippur Totals: 7 religious events (4 Bar Mitzvahs + 3 holidays) 3 secular events (2 weddings + 1 lecture) 2 ANALYSIS FROM CITY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT: City Council asked the City's Transportation Department to provide analysis and opinion of the Applicant's traffic report and to provide commentary on analysis submitted by Fox Higgens on behalf of one of the neighbors. Please see attached memorandum from John Kruger, Director of Transportation (Exhibit J). City Transportation recommended a few conditions of approval. The Applicant used these to structure a TDM Program which bolsters these conditions and reflects the JCC's entire commitment. The Applicant's proposed TDM Program is attached to the ordinance as Exhibit B. ANALYSIS & COMMENTS FROM APPLICANT'S TRAFFIC CONSULTANT: City Council asked the Applicant's traffic consultant (FHU) to provide commentary and response to the Fox Higgens traffic analysis. This is attached as Exhibit K. UTE AVENUE PLOWING AND POLICING: Plowing. Staff asked Jerry Nye, Streets Superintendant, two questions regarding the width of Ute Avenue. Below are the questions and the answers: Question — Is the width of Ute Avenue an issue now and/or in the future will it be an issue if the JCC is approved? Is there any physical substandard condition that would need to be remedied? Answer — Not that I can think of This street needs an asphalt overlay that should happen next year. (Waiting on doing this overlay because of a water line replacement that is scheduled soon by the Water Department.) The street is wide enough for traffic to travel safely on in the summer for sure. uestion — During the winter months there is a narrowing of the width of Ute Avenue due to snow build-up. I understand you're already aware of this and do snow removal as necessary. In your opinion, is there ever a safety issue due to this condition? Is there anything you would need to do differently if the JCC was approved? If your Department was asked to remove snow more often and/or keep a wider lane width, what would you need in order to accomplish that? Answer — I will have the crew step up the pushing back of the snow in the winter and have the CSO's enforce some private snow removal companies plowing procedures, so they aren't pushing snow from private on to the public right of way. As long as we don't have parking along the sides of Ute Ave, we should be fine. Policing. Staff asked Richard Prior, Police Chief, two questions regarding the policing of Ute Avenue. Below are the questions and the answers, as supplemented by Linda Consuegra of the Police Department: 3 uestion — Are speeds along Ute Avenue an issue now more so than speeds along other in -town streets? Answer from Richard — Speed comes up as a complaint regularly, although the reality is that most are not speeding. This area is in the top 5 for complaints, although to put some perspective on it, we have not had many consistent speed complaints anywhere recently. There is a correlation to speeding and aspen club use. I would presume that daycare drop off and pick up could lead to more speeding problems because of time constraints with parents trying to get to work on time/pick up on time. We can probably dig up some old survey numbers for speeds, and if you like we can do some more counts as well. Supplement from Linda — Looking at our records as Richard mentioned to you, Ute Avenue does come up on our top complaints, but our records show that the average speed through there is about 22 to 24 mph taken on four different occasions. There are people speeding through there, but for the most part people are driving the speed limit. Our last data collected was March of '08. If you would like to have something more current we can do that for you. Question — If Council were to ask your Department to enhance speed control along Ute, is there anything you would need to accomplish this? Answer from Richard — This is a difficult area to enforce due to the narrowness of the road and lack of places to put a patrol car or radar trailer. We could do some enforcement, but Cemetery Lane style engineering efforts would probably be more effective. I do not like the idea of overflow parking on the street due to emergency access (narrowness) concerns. If one side of the street were taken up with vehicles, and there were an emergency, one assumes that "fleeing" vehicles would occupy the only possible ingress, and with the club there as well, that would present problems. The PD would not tow cars from the area except for in extreme circumstances. I may be mistaken but there may be a small area at the end of Ute that is still in the county?? Self enforcement may work with a dedicated group of folks, but wouldn't help avoid safety concerns. (Is there a way to do a dummy run with the congregation and the number of cars that would "overflow", to see what this would look like?) Supplement from Linda — Looking at our map it shows that part of Ute by the Ute cemetery (about 50 feet if that) is in the county and the circle as you get to the end of Ute Avenue is in the county. RESTRICTIONS ON OTHER RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS: Staff was asked to summarize the restrictions placed on other religious institutions in the community. "Restrictions" can be either physical, such as height, floor area, parking, etc. or operational limitations such as hours of operation or types and frequency of services. St. Mary's Catholic Church and the Christian Science Society are both located in commercial districts. Both are uses allowed `by right.' Both are subject to physical restrictions of the El zoning code. Both are subject to design review by the City's Historic Preservation Commission. Neither has any operational limitations imposed by the City. The Main Street location of the Jewish Community Center is subject to physical limitations imposed by the City as approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. (The site is within the Main Street Historic District.) The facility is subject to operational restrictions related to transportation impacts of the pre-school and the social hall. Employees are required to be provided with free bus passes. No restrictions were placed on the type, frequency, or style of religious services. Christ Episcopal Church, Aspen Community Church, and Crossroads Church are all located in the West End neighborhood and are considered `conditional uses.' Conditional uses are subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Commission to ensure the use is compatible with the neighborhood. Aspen Community and Crossroads both have conditional use approvals that specify physical characteristics of the facilities. Neither is limited in the type, style, or frequency of services. Christ Episcopal was recently approved for a substantial expansion. The City placed physical limitations on the church regarding floor area, setbacks, and parking. The City also restricted the Church from further expansion for a period of 20 years. No limitations on the type, frequency, or style of religious services were implemented, including any limitation on adjunct functions, such as AA meetings. The Applicant did present their current list of functions, but not as a way of limitation. Operational limitations were brought -up by neighbors during the public hearings, but none were proposed by the Church and none were imposed by the City. The Messiah Lutheran Church is located at the end of Mt. View Drive in the Cemetery Lane neighborhood. This facility is the most similar in physical context as the Jewish Community Center. The facility is at the end of a long dead-end road with limited on -site parking and limited street parking. The use is a `conditional use' in this neighborhood. The City's records on this property are somewhat sparse, but there does not appear to be any limitations set forth — either physical or operational. Substantial changes to the church would be subject to a conditional use review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Three churches are located just beyond the City's boundary — the Aspen Chapel, the Church of Jesus Christ of later Day Saints, and the Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Hall. Being outside the City, none of these facilities are restricted by the City. Pitkin County does regulate the physical aspects of these facilities — parking, height, floor area, etc. — through a special review process. The County has not imposed any operational restrictions on these facilities. The County recently denied an application for Grace Church, located in Emma. The denial was based on physical impacts of the facility and it's location in a rural area of the County. A lawsuit resulted and the County settled with the Applicant. The settlement set forth size restrictions for the facility. No restrictions were placed on the style, type, or frequency of events or the size of the congregation. R BACKGROUND: The Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen recently entered into a contract to purchase Lot 5, Stillwater Ranch, commonly known as the Silver Lining Ranch, located at 1490 Ute Avenue. The Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PUD (Planned Unit Development) was approved by the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to Resolution 94-233. In 1996, the owner of Lot 5, the Little Star Foundation, submitted a petition to annex the property to the City of Aspen. The Aspen City Council adopted Ordinance 10, Series of 1997 annexing the property to the City of Aspen, and Ordinance 11, Series of 1997, zoning Lot 5 Academic/Conservation/SPA, approving the Conceptual/Final SPA plan and granting a GMQS exemption for an essential public facility. The approvals allowed for the operation of a non-profit kids camp for children with cancer, directed by Andrea Jaeger, commonly known as the Silver Lining Ranch. The Little Star Foundation operated programs at the Silver Lining Ranch from 1999, when the building was completed, until 2006. The property has had limited occupancy since that time, and the Foundation has been trying to sell for the last two years so that the proceeds can be used to fund its charitable mission. In 2007, the Foundation applied to the City of Aspen to either "de -annex" (disconnect) or rezone to its former single-family residential use. The City Council denied both requests, viewing the non- profit/institutional use of the property as an important community value, and was not willing to sacrifice the use to convert to a single family residence and miss an opportunity of providing a place for a community facility. 0 APPROVED AND PROPOSED DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS Dimensional Standard Approved SPA Plan Proposed Dimensions Dimension Minimum Lot Size 6 acres no change Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling 2 acres per unit no change Unit Minimum Lot Width 200 feet no change Minimum Front Yard Setback 30 feet no change Minimum Side Yard Setback 20 feet Amend building envelope to accommodate revised parking Minimum Rear Yard Setback 20 feet no change Maximum Height 28 feet (Measured to the mid- no change point of the roof on all sides of the building, except for the east -facing elevation, which was limited to 32.5 to the mid -point of the roof Minimum Distance Between No Requirement no change Principal and Accessory Buildings Percent of Open Space Required As shown on site plan (30%) Add small cabin for Building Site Floor Area Ratio Allowable floor area shall not Add 700 sq. ft. for the exceed 14,000 square feet affordable housing cabin Off -Street Parking 3 garage spaces, 10 outdoor 3 garage spaces, 20 spaces outdoors aces PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing to amend the SPA (in a consolidated review) in order to convert the existing Silver Lining Ranch into a Jewish Community Center. The applicant proposes few changes to the property. The existing building will be remodeled, but only on the interior — no exterior changes are proposed. Minor changes to the site plan are proposed including; the addition of a small affordable housing cabin located northwest of the existing building, adding parking to the west edge (the Aspen Club common lot line), modifying the vehicular entry/exit loop and landscape improvements, and adding a ten (10) foot wide sidewalk connecting the property to Ute Avenue. The applicant is requesting minor changes to the dimensional requirements in the SPA for the property. The building envelope would need to be amended to allow for the new parking along the west edge of the property (as shown on the site plan), and the maximum allowable floor area is 7' proposed to be amended to allow for the addition of a small affordable housing cabin — approximately 700 square feet (please see the chart above). The applicant is proposing to amend the SPA in order to add to the permitted uses for the property in the Academic (A) zone district. The requested uses are: Arts, Cultural, and Civic Uses; and Affordable housing for employees of the Arts, Cultural and Civic Uses. The proposed activities in the Jewish Community Center include; a pre-school, Hebrew school, adult education, religious services, and special events (please see the summary of activities in the chart below). SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES AT THE JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER: Activity Time Period Frequency Attendance Proposed TDM* measures Pre -School 8am to 3pm 5 days per week 35-40 children Pick-up and drop off at Koch Lumber Yard Park Hebrew 3:30pm to 5pm 2 days per week 8-10 children Aspen Club & Cross School Town Shuttle Teen Program 6pm to 8pm 1 night per 20-25 persons Aspen Club & Cross month Town Shuttle Adult 10:30am to 11:30 am 1 day per week 5-10 persons Aspen Club & Cross Education 7:30pm to 9pm 1 night per 15-20 persons Town Shuttle week Religious Friday around sundown every week 10-20 persons No special services Saturday 9am to Noon 10-40 persons measures** Special events Evenings and weekends 5-10 events per more than 50, less Pick-up and drop off year than 200 per at Rio Grande event Parking Garage and Little Nell Hotel Affordable Year round 3 units on -site 5.75 employees Bicycles will be Housing provided. Car sharing with Aspen Club employees? - t ransportatton uemana management (I UM) **A significant percentage of the persons who attend religious services in the congregation are observant Jews and will not drive a car or take a shuttle to services. These persons can be expected to walk to and from the facility. ***Schedule and frequency of activities shown in this table are based on current plans and may vary slightly. Substantial changes to the schedule or frequency of activities, as determined by the Community Development Director, may require an amendment to be submitted to this application. 113 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the application for a consolidated Specially Planned Area (SPA) Amendment and GMQS review for an essential public facility to convert the Silver Lining Ranch into a Jewish Community Center, including the addition of a small affordable housing cabin and associated parking and site planning changes. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFH211IITIVE): "I move to approve Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2009." CURRENT ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit F — Additional Letters from Neighbors Exhibit J — Memo from John Kruger, City Transportation Director Exhibit K — Memo from Jeff Ream, FHU, Applicant's Transportation Consultant PAST ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Specially Planned Area (SPA) - review standards and Staff findings Exhibit B — GMQS — review criteria and Staff findings Exhibit C — DRC Comments — provided at first reading Exhibit D — Application — provided at first reading Exhibit E — Supplemental Drawing — Site Plan — provided at first reading Exhibit F — Letters from neighbors (as submitted through April 27th) Exhibit G — Minutes from May 14, 2007 City Council, de -annexation of Silver Lining Ranch — provided at first reading Exhibit H — Cross Town / Aspen Club shuttle documents — provided at first reading Exhibit I — Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes from the 1/20/09 and 2/17/09 Public Hearings — provided at first reading ORDINANCE NO.8 (SERIES OF 2009) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A CONSOLIDATED SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA (SPA) AMENDMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW AS AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY FOR THE CONVERSION OF THE SILVER LINING RANCH INTO A JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER, LOCATED ON LOT 5 OF THE STILLWATER RANCH SUBDIVISION, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE SILVER LINING RANCH,1490 UTE AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. PARCEL ID: 2735-184-06-805 WHEREAS, The Community Development Department received an application from the Aspen Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen, represented by Alan Richman of Alan Richman Planning Services, for review for Arts, Cultural, and Civic Use in the Academic zone district; Special Review for parking requirements in the Academic zone district; 8040 Greenline Review; Stream Margin Review; and Conceptual/Final Specially Planned Area (SPA) Review for the property commonly known and referred to as the "Silver Lining Ranch" which has previously been designated a specially planned area (SPA) on the City of Aspen Official Zone District Map; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 4, Series of 1997, of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen, granted approval of the Lot 5, Stillwater Ranch Subdivision for Conditional Use Review in the Academic zone district; Special Review for parking requirements in the Academic zone district; 8040 Greenline Review; Stream Margin Review; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1997, of the City Council of the City of Aspen, granted final approval of the Lot 5, Stillwater Ranch Subdivision Specially Planned Area (SPA) final development plan, and granted a GMQS exemption for a non-profit entity qualifying as an essential public facility; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 24, Series of 2006, of the Planning and Zoning Commission approved with conditions, a Growth Management Review to determine employee generation, and Special Review to establish off-street parking requirements; and recommended approval to City Council of a Growth Management Review as an essential public facility for the Jewish Community Center, proposed to be located at 435 West Main Street; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 36, Series of 2006, of the City Council of the City of Aspen, granted approval of the Growth Management Review as an essential public facility for the Jewish Community Center, proposed to be located at 435 West Main Street; and WHEREAS, upon initial review of the subject application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval with conditions of a Specially Planned Area (SPA); and, Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2009 Page 1 WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 20, 2009, continued to February 17, 2009, upon further public testimony, discussion and consideration, the Planning and Zoning Commission adopted Resolution No. 5, Series of 2009 by a five to one (5-1) vote; and, 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 April 27, 2009, the Aspen City Council approved an SPA amendment and Growth Management Review to allow for the Jewish Community Center at the Silver Lining Ranch, as described herein, by a vote of to NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council approves a Consolidated Specially Planned Area (SPA) Amendment and Growth Management Quota System Review for an Essential Public Facility for the Jewish Community Center at the Silver Lining Ranch. Section 2: Engineering Requirements The building permit application shall include a drainage and stormwater study for all impervious area on site. The developer will be required to be granted permission from the Aspen Club to construct the retaining wall on the western side of the property. Impacts of construction outside the site's property boundary must be agreed upon with neighboring properties and addressed in the construction management plan. A construction management plan must be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. The plan must include a planned sequence of construction that minimizes construction impacts to the public. The plan shall describe mitigation for: parking, staging/encroachments, truck traffic, noise, dust, and erosion/sediment pollution. The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21, and all design and construction standards published by the Engineering Department. Section 3: Affordable Housing and Audit The proposal generates nine and one half (9.5) employees. 5.75 employees will be housed on site through the provision of a one -bedroom unit and a two -bedroom unit. This reflects the applicant's commitment to provide housing for a minimum of 60% of the employees generated by the project. The applicant shall submit an employee audit prior to building permit issuance and two years after issuance of C.O. The form and methodology of the audit shall be reviewed by APCHA and be consistent for both audits. It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the audits. Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2009 Page 2 The applicant shall provide mitigation for 60% of employees associated with the operation in excess of 9.5 employees unless otherwise waived by City Council. Section 4: Sanitation District Requirements Oil and Grease interceptors are required for all new and remodeled commercial kitchens and food processing establishments. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways including hard landscaping which will impact public ROW or easements owned by the district. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. On -site utility plans require approval by ACSD. ACSD will not approve service to food processing establishments retrofitted for this use at a later date. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells, elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of an excavation/foundation or access/infrastructure permit. Section 5: Approved Dimensional Standards The dimensional requirements which shall apply to this property are as follows: Dimensional Standard Approved SPA Plan Dimension Minimum Lot Size 6 acres Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit 2 acres per unit Minimum Lot Width 200 feet Minimum Front Yard Setback 30 feet Minimum Side Yard Setback 20 feet, with an amended building envelope to accommodate parking. Minimum Rear Yard Setback 20 feet Maximum Height 28 feet (Measured to the mid -point of the roof on all sides of the building, except for the east -facing elevation, which was limited to 32.5 to the mid -point of the roof Minimum Distance Between Principal and Accessory Buildings No Requirement Percent of Open Space Required for Building Site As shown on site plan, with the addition of an affordable housing cabin. Floor Area Ratio Existing as -built condition plus 700 square feet for the affordable housing cabin. Off -Street Parking 3 garage spaces, 20 outdoor spaces Section 6: Allowed Uses: In addition to the permitted and conditional uses allowed in the Academic and Conservation zone districts, this property is also allowed to be used for Arts, Cultural, and Civic Uses, and Affordable housing for employees of the Arts, Cultural and Civic Uses. Ordinance No. S, Series of 2009 Page 3 Section 7: Proposed Activities: The proposed activities in the Jewish Community Center include: a pre-school, Hebrew school, adult education, religious services, and special events. The proposed scope of activities for this property is as follows: SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES AT THE. JEWISH COMMiiNiTV CFNTFR Activity Time Period Frequency Attendance Pre -School 8am to 3pm 5 days per week 35-40 children Hebrew 3:30pm to 5pm 2 days per week 8-10 children School Teen Program 6pm to 8pm 1 night per 20-25 persons month Adult 10:30am to 11:30 am 1 day per week 5-10 persons Education 7:30pm to 9pm 1 night per 15-20 persons week Religious Friday around sundown every week 10-20 persons services Saturday 9am to Noon 10-40 persons Special events Evenings and weekends 5-10 events per more than 50, less year than 200 per event Affordable Year round 3 units on -site 5.75 employees Housing The schedule and frequency of activities shown in this table are based on current plans and may vary slightly over time. Insubstantial changes to the timing or profile of the above approved uses and activities may be authorized by the Community Development Director. Substantial changes, such as new and significant programming or a dramatic increase in activity, may require a substantial amendment to the SPA Plan. No limitation on the type, frequency, or style of religious services shall be imposed by the City of Aspen. Section $: Parks An approved tree permit is required before submission of the building permit set (decrease the amount of spruce trees, increase in aspen, cottonwood, Douglas fir, and service berry bushes). The new grading and planting will require City seed mixes and approval of the landscaping. All new plantings will need to be irrigated and the landscape plan reviewed by Parks Department. Tree protection fences must be in place and inspected by the city forester or his/her designee before any construction activities are to commence. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, and storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree on site. Hand work only will be approved within the protection zones and for the re -opening of the irrigation ditch. Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2009 Page 4 Section 9: Ute Avenue Trail Improvements The Jewish Community Center shall construct a ten (10) foot wide trail within the JCC property connecting the primary facility to the boundary of the Aspen Club property as depicted on the proposed site plan attached as Exhibit A. The City shall grant the necessary encroachment licenses to accommodate this trail connection. The Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining any necessary trail easements from the neighboring Aspen Club property. The design specifications for the trail connection shall be finalized with the City Parks Department prior to construction. The applicant has offered to contribute a proportionate share to the completion of the Ute Avenue Trail from the proposed construction noted above to the existing concrete trail to the west. The proportionate share is based on 50% of the capital costs of the trail improvement not including costs associated with land or casement acquisition or project management. The total Jewish Community Center obligation shall not exceed $70,000 (2009 dollars). This trail contribution shall be payable to the City of Aspen in one of two ways: 1) Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new facility. In this case the $70,000 shall be held by the City of Aspen in a separate interest bearing account to be used solely for the construction of the Ute Avenue Trail. If the funds are not used within seven (7) years of the issuance of a Development Order, the City shall return the funds to the Applicant, with interest. 2) At the time of trail development, within 30 days written notice from the City to proceed with the construction of the trail. In this case the pending contribution shall be secured through a bond, letter of credit, or other similar means of security acceptable to the City Attorney. The $70,000 shall be adjusted annually starting in 2010 according to an Engineers News Record construction pricing index acceptable to the City Engineer. The security shall be provided prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new facility. This obligation shall be valid for a period of seven (7) years and shall terminate on the seventh anniversary of the issuance of the Development Order. Section 10: Transportation Demand Management Program The Jewish Community Center shall be subject to the Transportation Demand Management Program as outlined in Exhibit B. The purpose of this plan is to minimize single -occupant auto trips to or from the JCC. The Applicant and City Transportation Department staff shall jointly develop a reliable methodology for measuring the effects of the TDM Program. The TDM Program may be amended from time to time as needed and as agreed upon by the JCC and the City Transportation Department as an Insubstantial SPA Amendment. Section 11• All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2009 Page 5 Section 12: 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 13• 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 14: A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 27th day of April, 2009, at a meeting of the City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 23rd day of March, 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 Attached: Exhibit A — Site Plan —10' wide Ute Avenue path, revised driveway and parking, and AH cabin Exhibit B — Transportation Demand Management Program for the JCC. Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2009 Page 6 • Exhibit A, Ordinance No. 8, Series 2009. J 1 Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2009 Page 7 Exhibit B, Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2009 PROPOSED JCC TRAFFIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) PROGRAM 1. The Jewish Community Center (JCC) will operate a free shuttle service for the pre- school. Up to 3 vehicles will circulate, each of which can carry up to 15 children. The shuttles will pick up children prior to pre-school and drop off children after pre- school at Koch Park (or another suitable off -site location to be determined in conjunction with the City's Transportation Department). The JCC establishes as its goal that all of the children attending the pre-school will utilize the JCC shuttle, the cross town shuttle, or personal non -vehicular transportation (a bicycle, walking, etc.). Parents will be charged a daily fee for dropping off or picking up children at the site with their car, unless there is some type of emergency (such as a sick child), in which case the fee would not be applied. 2. The JCC, or any individual who is conducting a special event (that is, any event that will have an attendance of 50 persons or more), will operate a free shuttle service for attendees at the event. The shuttle service will begin prior to the event and operate during and after the event. The shuttles will pick up and drop off attendees at designated locations around Aspen, including but not limited to, the Rio Grande parking garage and specified hotels. The organizer of the event (the JCC or an individual) will be responsible for stating on all materials advertising the event (including the JCC web site) and all invitations to the event that there is NO parking on site for the event and that all attendees must arrive at the site via a JCC shuttle, the cross town shuttle, or via personal non -vehicular transportation. The only parking that will be allowed on -site will be for the event hosts, catering staff, and other persons being employed to serve the special event. 3. The JCC will submit a schedule of that year's planned special events to the Community Development Department at the beginning of each year. Seven to fourteen days prior to each event the applicant will contact the City Transportation, Parking and Police departments to remind staff that there is an upcoming event and that the JCC may be requesting parking enforcement if attendees violate the no parking signs. 4. The JCC shall assign a staff person to each special event to ensure that the only people who gain access to the site are the event hosts, catering staff, and other persons being employed to serve the special event. The staff person shall also be responsible for keeping a count of any attendees who attempt to access the site for parking. If the staff person sees any attendees parking along Ute Avenue he or she will immediately contact the City to request police enforcement via ticketing of illegally parked vehicles. 5. The JCC will conduct internal audits of traffic to the site. The internal audits shall occur at least once every quarter of the year during the first two years of the operation. This audit shall be performed by a JCC staff person or other person Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2009 Page 8 employed by the JCC who will count traffic coming to and going from the site on a typical day (that is, not a day when a special event is occurring). The audit shall last for at least 3 days, and shall include 2 weekdays and a Saturday. The audit shall identify the number of daily trips generated by the pre-school and the number of trips generated by other uses of the site. 6. Once a year the JCC will conduct an independent audit of the traffic to the site. The first such annual audit shall occur within one year after the initial occupancy of the building by the JCC. The annual audit shall consist of a week long traffic count performed by an independent contractor deemed acceptable by the City's Community Development Department. The independent contractor shall prepare a report summarizing the quarterly traffic counts obtained from the internal audits, the traffic counts conducted for the annual audit, and any reports prepared to summarize traffic from special events. The contractor shall determine whether the pre-school and special events have been able to achieve close to 100% usage of shuttles by attendees. The report shall also summarize the actual number of trips generated to and from the site to determine whether traffic has complied with the limits of 125 trips per day during the week and 140 trips per day on Friday stated in the traffic study. If the first three years of audits demonstrate compliance with the commitments made in this TDM program and the stated traffic limits, the applicant may petition to the Community Development Department that the annual audit requirement be waived. 7. If the JCC does not achieve the goals stated above for use of shuttles for pre- school and special events or if it exceeds the 125/140 trip per day limits, then a hearing would be held before the P&Z to review the additional traffic demand management measures the applicant would be required to implement. 8. JCC employees will be discouraged from parking on -site, except for the caretaker, who needs to have a vehicle for his job. Employees will be encouraged to join the ride sharing program that is being planned for the Aspen Club and to use the cross town shuttle. The JCC will purchase several bicycles and keep them on -site for use by employees. 9. The JCC will promote the use of the cross town shuttle or non -vehicular modes of travel (walking, bicycles, etc.) for all other day-to-day uses of the site, such as for attendees of religious classes, adult education, etc. Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2009 Page 9 April 27, 2009 Aspen City Council City Hall 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Application For Stillwater Ranch Zoning Change Dear City Council Members: I have been an Aspen Club (Unit 1439) homeowner for thirty years and a major property owner in Aspen since 1967. I have been skiing in Aspen since 1948. I have been and continue to be very community - minded and want what is best for the town of Aspen, including the proper use of zoning. I believe that there is an appropriate and sensible place for everything in Aspen. The Aspen Jewish Community Center in downtown Aspen, on their Main Street site, is an appropriate location for such a use. The Rubey Park Transportation Center (which is on land I purchased to prevent an unattractive project from being developed and then sold to the City of Aspen at my cost) is another example of a good use in an appropriate place. (The fact is that I gave up the opportunity to make several million dollars developing the site, but felt that this was the right thing to do for the town of Aspen.) On the other hand, the Stillwater Ranch where the new Aspen Jewish Community Center is proposed is in a beautiful, tranquil and rural residential area. The proposed new use for this area would cause congestion, excessive noise and spoil its unique characteristics. What is now approved for three months of low-level summer use will change to year-round intensive activity. The view from my home and that of my Aspen Club neighbors would be transformed from one of a peaceful rural area to one of constant activity, which was never intended at the time Stillwater Ranch was zoned and developed. There is no question in my mind that if this application is approved, the rural/tranquil feeling will disappear and the overall enjoyment of my home and my neighbors' homes will be significantly affected. It will also have a negative impact on our property values. An approval of this project now would open the door for progressively more intensive and inappropriate future uses on this site and on neighboring properties. An approval now could be used as a precedent for future applicants who want to establish other uses which are even less compatible with the rural character of this neighborhood. Also, what is to prevent this applicant from later coming back and asking for further development or uses that increase the impacts? This approval would be the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. I am very much opposed to this application because I believe that the proposed use would not be at all compatible with the unique, unspoiled and rural qualities of this special Aspen residential neighborhood. Respectfully, Thomas H. Wilson Mayor & City Council City of Aspen Re: Silver Lining Ranch Redevelopment April 27, 2009 Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the city Council, My name is Diane Anderson and I live a617 East Cooper. I am writing this letter to express my concerns about the redevelopment and up -zoning of lot 5 Stillwater Ranch, aka Silver Lining Ranch, into the new home for the Aspen Jewish Community Center ("AJCC). The AJCC already owns an appropriate site for heavy institutional use on Main Street, and has all of the necessary City approvals to build their facility at that location. Moving the location of the AJCC to Silver Lining Ranch at the end of the Ute Avenue cul-de-sac will negatively impact the rural character of that neighborhood, encroach on the Stillwater Open Space, increase traffic along Ute Avenue (which is already acknowledged as a problem) and create even more overflow parking problems. For these reasons, 1 respectfully ask you to reject the application. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ,� ) Page 1 of 2 Chris Bendon From: Sally Spaulding Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 9:26 AM To: Chris Bendon; Kathryn Koch Subject: FW: Letters for Packet regarding Silver Lining Lot 5 Public Hearing Held on April 27th Message from Wendy Elkin below. I missed what she is referring to regarding this issue before I attempt a response? Thanks, Sally Spaulding Community Relations Officer City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 voice: 970-920-5082 fax:970-920-5119 web: www.aspenpitkin.com do you have any information for me From: Elkin, Wendy L. [mailto:welkin@ottenjohnson.com] Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 5:11 PM To: Rebecca Hodgson Cc: Sally Spaulding; Malcolm, Cheryl A. Subject: Letters for Packet regarding Silver Lining Lot 5 Public Hearing Held on April 27th Hi, Rebecca - Yesterday I was in your office to speak with you about the letter from John C. Gordon and Jessica Benedict - Gordon being inadvertently omitted from the "master copy" I received from Community Development in the above -referenced matter. You responded that sometimes things are handed directly to council members before a meeting and they do not make them into the package. However, this letter was both e-mailed to you by Cheryl Malcolm, on behalf of the Gordons, and hand delivered to the City Clerk who confirmed it would be included in the packet. At�ep The reason I am contacting you about this is, we are concerned that in the process things are getting heft out that should be included and wanted to bring this to your attention in case there are steps that can be taken in order to insure that the packets contain all submitted letters and supplemental materials. It is important for us to be sure that we have a complete and accurate copy for our file. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Thanks so much for your assistance. WENDY L ELKIN ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT O T T E N D 970 544 4637 F 970 544 4632 WELKIN _ OTTENJOHNSON.COM J O H N S O N 420 EAST MAIN STREET SUITE 210 ASPEN COLORADO Zilell. FY�7J�17y�:7[eI9�I���F.iISf 5/i/7009 April 27, 2009 Dear Mr. Mayor and Aspen City Council I, John C. Gordon, and my wife, Jessica Benedict -Gordon, would like to be heard on the matter of the change in status for the Silver Lining Ranch, Stillwater site. The property was given by the "Benedict Family". Fabi held all the titles, Fritz was never on a title, and in the dedication of the property it was clearly stated that it was from all the Benedict's, the children, grandchildren, and spouses. You still have living donors of the property and we have distinct memories of the provisions and the process. Over the years we have heard many acquaintances of Fritz and Fabi state that they "know what the Benedict's wanted". We have learned to just roll our eyes when we hear that statement, a trick we learned from Fabi. Jessie on the other hand was the constant companion of both Fritz and Fabi. She was with them on a daily basis and no decisions were made that she wasn't privy to. The lot that the Silver Lining sits on was to be hers, but she gave it up so the Cancer Camp could come into being. We're personally disappointed that the Cancer Camp is selling! Speeches were made, trees were planted with Fritz' and Fabi's names on them and promises were made. The idea that the camp would be there forever/perpetuity was clearly stated. The Benedict's created the Stillwater subdivision to provide each of their kids a lot, plus some additional lots to sell to pay for the infrastructure. The underlying concept for the subdivision was that it would be quiet, private and respectful to the surrounding environment. The extra lots were sold with that promise. When the request for the Cancer Camp came along, the gift was intended to be very limited, and those specific limits got dumbed down to the present 20 kids, 14 times a year, with specific maximum traffic impacts. The Benedict's didn't even want to allow that much, but that's the number that was finally agreed upon. Even that usage had to be sold to the City Council and even though it was more than they wanted also, it moved from single family dwelling to it's current status. The Council showed very good planning judgment by understanding the rights of the homeowners the intent of the Benedicts in protecting those rights, the benevolent aspect of the gift to ease cancer stricken kids with some easy moments, and limiting the impact on Ute Avenue with the extra traffic. We would like to see the City stay true to that agreement and not allow a change in usage or any additional usage or to require that the property revert to a single family dwelling. We are not happy that the Cancer Camp no longer exists. We, along with the designers, contractors, and tradesmen that donated are feeling a bit taken. We all thought we were giving a lasting gift. We don't want to see a party other than a "cancer camp" with "limited usage" happen on the site. We would also like the City to stick to the agreement. To allow a change this time means that when the next parry decides to sell, then the charitable nature of the gift could eventually end up as commercial property. If the applicant, or any other institution would like to run the property for 20 terminally ill children, no more, a few times a year......... and the usage was monitored and verifiable, then we would be in favor of it. The site was a gift to Silver Lining, maybe they should consider passing it on as a gift instead of a monetary asset! Can't sell it! Fine! Give it away to an organization that will fund it and use it under the original rules! Imagine that this is your neighborhood or yard. Would you allow an intense commercial use or convention center in your space? Would you allow the increased traffic in your common driveway? Ute is already too crowded and someone will eventually hit one of the horses or carriages which were there first. Please consider our wishes and deny any approvals that are outside of the original vision. Fritz and Fabi were very aware of their leavings and that they should benefit future generations with their gifts. Sadly many of those gifts have already been altered by others who thought they knew better. We think the original gift was correct. John & Jessica Gordon Twin Lakes, CO & Aspen Page 1 of 1 Chris Bendon From: Sally Spaulding Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 9:49 AM To: Chris Bendon Subject: FW: Aspen JCC Don't know if you received this or not Sally Spaulding Community Relations Officer City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 voice: 970-920-5082 fax: 970-920-5119 web: www.aspenpitkin.com From: Steven Gaines [mailto:stevenhgaines@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 9:49 AM To: Sally Spaulding Subject: Aspen JCC Sally, After attending the meeting Monday night, I am confused why we are having this intensive dialogue. As stated by councilman Jack Johnson the city has never attempted to put restrictions of this nature on any congregation in town before. The Aspen JCC has voluntarily devised a variety of tools to mitigate the minor increase in traffic on Ute Ave. with out being asked to do so. We are trying to go above and beyond to satisfy as many concerns as possible. The council should now know that the congregants at the JCC CHabad are observant Jews and are not permitted to drive on the Sabbath or religous Holidays. Additionally the spiritual Lea The neighbors have had the pleasure of the happy sounds of children at the site for years, Perhaps in the interval since The Foundation has moved they forgot haw wonderful it is to hear happy children. Most of the neighbors are so far away they cant legitmitly voice noise concerns. sisnnn4 Page 1 of 2 Chris Bendon From: Sally Spaulding Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 4:32 PM To: Chris Bendon; Kathryn Koch Subject: FW: Silver Lining Ranch Redevelopment Sally Spaulding Community Relations Officer City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 voice: 970-920-5082 fax: 970-920-5119 web: www.aspenpitkin.com From: Eugene Golub [mailto:egolub@goco.com] Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 1:56 PM To: Sally Spaulding Subject: Silver Lining Ranch Redevelopment April 27, 2009 Mayor & City Council City of Aspen Re: Silver Lining Ranch Redevelopment Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council, My name is Eugene Golub and I live at 8 Ute Place, Aspen. I am writing this letter to express my concerns about the redevelopment and up -zoning of Lot 5 Stillwater Ranch, aka Silver Lining Ranch, into the new home for the Aspen Jewish Community Center ("AJCC). The AJCC already owns an appropriate site for heavy institutional use on Main Street, and has all of the necessary City approvals to build their facility at that location. Moving the location of the AJCC to Silver Lining Ranch at the end of the Lite Avenue cul-de-sac will negatively impact the rural character of that neighborhood, encroach on the Stillwater Open Space, increase traffic along Ute Avenue (which is already acknowledged as a problem) and create even more overflow parking problems. For these reasons, I respectfully ask you to reject the application. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Eugene Golub Eugene Golub Golub & Company LLC 625 N. Michigan Avenue, #2000 5/5/2009 Page 1 of 1 Chris Bendon From: Rebecca Hodgson Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 8:00 AM To: Chris Bandon Subject: FW: Rezoning of the Silver Lining Ranch From: kkribs@aol.com [mailto:kkribs@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 6:51 AM To: Sally Spaulding; Rebecca Hodgson Subject: Rezoning of the Silver Lining Ranch Hello Ladies, I would like to take just a moment of your time to add my comments to those of others who are truly worried about the impact of moving the JCC to the Silver Lining Ranch property. The proposed uses of the property are intensely commercial, and if successful, would generate a great deal of additional traffic and could further complicate the parking problems which have a long history in the Ute Ave. area. These issues have a huge negative impact on the residential character of the area. I realize that facility will likely have parking challenges regardless of where they might move in the City, but the present location on Main Street is already better served by public transportation and is within walking distance for a greater number of visitors than the more remote Ute Ave. location. In addition, the area on Main St. is already intensely commercial. While I hope that the JCC would retain a few of the cabins as a charming reminder of the past, they could build in that location virtually lot line to lot line without seriously affecting the character of the neighborhood. I am seriously concerned that upzoning the Silver Lining Ranch would set a precident which might put other residential areas at risk. We struggle to maintain some character in our residential neighborhoods, as older homes are scraped or completely redeveloped, building every square foot of floor space allowed. The possibility of introducing commercial into residential neighborhoods would be even more damaging. Please don't let this practice get started; it could be difficult to put the brakes on later. Sincerely, Karen Kribs 631 South Galena Aspen Can't afford a new spring wardrobe? Go shopping in your closet instead! 5/5/2009 carolyn h manosevitz studio po box 3705 basalt, colorado 81621 phone: 970-704-0447 e-mail: lyr=ano8@carolynmanosevitz.com website: www.carolynmanosevitz.com TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Rabbi Mendel Mintz is a creative and charismatic spiritual leader. He is as inclusive as he is ecumenical (traits not often found in orthodox rabbis). He has built a strong and vibrant congregation from nothing. Therefore, I write this letter in strong support of his desire to create a Jewish Community Center at the Silver Lining Ranch. In 2007, Rabbi Mintz and I co-chaired a major Holocaust symposium: SIXTY YEARS LATER: Spirituality After the Shoah. This three day inter -faith event included Jewish and Christian (many denominations) presenters: Holocaust scholars, theologians, priests and other spiritual leaders both Christian and Jewish. It was held at the St. Regis Resort, Aspen and drew an audience from all over the state of Colorado. The Silver Lining Ranch is a venue that would be perfect for events such as described above. Thus it would be a facility that would benefit and enrich our ENTIRE community. Under Rabbi Mintz's leadership, this facility would be an asset not only to Aspen, but to the entire roaring fork valley. I urge you to grant his request for re -zoning. Sincerely, Carolyn H. Manosevitz, MFA Page 1 of 1 Chris Bendon From: claudia@bookkeepingclerical.com Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 9:27 AM To: Chris Bendon Cc: aspenchabad@aol.com Subject: Silver Lining Ranch - Jewish Community Center Hi Chris. My name is Claudia Krys and I am writing to you about the Jewish Community Center possibly purchasing the Silver Lining Ranch on Ute Avenue. My children attend religious studies at the JCC's current Main Street location and I have been attending Women's Circles and services/events organized by the ]CC for almost six years. As a parent and community member, I would like to express how the JCC enriches my life and that of my three children and to say what a wonderful location the Silver Lining Ranch would make for the center. If you have not had a chance to visit the current Main Street location during religious study hours you should know how organized and orderly the school is. Every age group has dedicated teachers and there are usually volunteers who are present, too. The lessons are creative and thought provoking; I am constantly reminded by my children's projects of how much I appreciate the learning environment and dedication provided by the JCC staff. Regarding the adult programs and general services, I thank the Rabbi and his wife all of the time, for without their presence and dedication to our community I would not have such an enriched and warm Jewish experience as that which they have created for our valley. If you see the JCC's schedule of annual events for the people in this valley you can't help but think how fortunate we are to have the JCC's presence and commitment that contributes to our cultural and spiritual lives here. I have had the great luck of visiting the Silver Lining Ranch and spending time with Andrea and some amazing children there and the layout and space is ideal for a community center is so many ways. Aspen is a very special place and having the JCC at the Silver Lining Ranch would be yet another exceptional aspect of the city, if it were to materialize. I hope you and the City Council will see how fitting and wonderful the JCC-Silver Lining Ranch match would be and that you will help to make it a reality for the community and for the City of Aspen. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Claudia Krys (970)274-3900 5/5/2009 Page 1 of 1 Chris Bendon From: Rebecca Hodgson Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 4:55 PM To: Chris Bendon; Kathryn Koch Subject: FW: From: Tony Welgos [mailto:tonywelgos@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 4:41 PM To: Rebecca Hodgson Subject: I am writing to oppose the redevelopment of the former Silver Lining Ranch at Stillwater. Fist of all, the development was suppose to be a non-profit to benefit very seriously ill children. The land was donated by Fritz Benedict for that purpose and now it is being sold for profit. The use propsed will totally change the nature of what it first was intended and cause a whole new deal in this neighborhood. I have lived at 1295 Riverside Drive the last 20 years. Please do not approve any more large projects here, and protect the quality of our local neithborhoods. Thank you. Tony Welgos 1295 Riverside Dr Aspen,Co 81611 Rediscover Hotmail@: Get quick friend updates right in your inbox. Check it out. 5/5/2009 Mayor & City Council City of Aspen Re: Silver Lining Ranch Redevelopment April 27th 2009 Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the city Council, My name is Jamie Tisch and I live at 1407 Crystal Lake Rd. (the Aspen Club). I am writing this letter to express my concerns about the redevelopment and up - zoning of Lot 5 Stillwater Ranch, aka Silver Lining Ranch, into the new home for the Aspen Jewish Community Center ("AJCC). The AJCC already owns an appropriate site for heavy institutional use on Main Street, and has all of the necessary City approvals to build their facility at that location. Moving the location of the AJCC to Silver Lining Ranch at the end of the Ute Avenue cul-de-sac will negatively impact the rural character of that neighborhood, encroach on the Stillwater Open Space, increase traffic along Ute Avenue (which is already acknowledged as a problem) and create even more overflow parking problems. For these reasons and for the concern and safety of my 3 small children who ride their bicycles in the aspen club area, I respectfully ask you to reject the application. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jamie Tisch MEMORANDUM TO: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: John D. Krueger, Director of Transportation THRU: Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager RE: Aspen Jewish Community Center -Traffic Analysis MEETING DATE: May 11, 2009 �4,444- J' At Council's request, Staff has reviewed the traffic study prepared by FHU and we agree with the basic underlying assumptions. Because of the unique operation of the Community Center, the approach they took in developing expected trips is a reasonable and logical way to assess the situation. And, this method produces similar traffic expectations as a more traditional method of using ITE standards. With respect to the road's capacity, Staff agrees with FHU's statement that the capacity of the road is not a constraining factor. The road has capacity to accommodate this use without any additional demand management measures or physical upgrades. However, staff does believe that the perceived traffic and speeds are legitimate concerns. The proposed demand management strategies by the applicant are strategies that have been useful and successful in reducing traffic in Aspen. Staff recommends the applicant should be held to the demand strategies and promises made in their application and that they be included in the ordinance in a specific manner. These measures include purchase and operation of shuttle service for day care and special events, use and promotion of use of the Cross-town Shuttle, a specific penalty imposed on parents who drive their children to the property and coordination with the Aspen Club if the Aspen Club redevelopment occurs. One assumption that staff does not believe is a reasonable expectation is the 100% transit split for the child-care use is a. Even if the drop-off and van program is successful, a capture rate of 75% or less is a more -reasonable expectation. Staff also feels that the summer/winter camp uses should be clarified and that service vehicles for special events should be identified in the report. If it is Council's desire to establish a finite limitation on the amount of traffic generated by the applicant then a monitoring program and audit as suggested by the applicant are important. Staff recommends that the "traffic audit" proposed by the applicant be expanded to include total daily traffic and parking counts for a two week period in March and again in July. The audit would measure transit use and compare the usage to that contained in the traffic analysis. Staff would also recommend that the if daily traffic counts exceed the projected counts in the FHU study of 125 weekday and 140 weekend that additional TDM measures will be implemented by the Community Center to get traffic back down to these base line levels. The traffic audit will be submitted to the Community Development, Parking, and Transportation Departments for review. With respect to the Fox Higgens analysis, I do believe the project is "under parked." However, minimizing available parking is one of the more successful strategies in reducing single -occupant trips and an appropriate TDM strategy for this area. Enforcement of overflow parking will need to be implemented, especially within the first year or two of operation. We have looked at the road widths on Ute Avenue and do not believe the road itself is undersized. In fact, widening the roadway may have the effect of encouraging higher speeds. Snow conditions can narrow the roadway during the winter months and the City's Streets Department is aware of this condition and performs snow removal as needed. The travel widths are never below two full width lanes. And, again, the slight narrowing during winter months can help reduce vehicle speeds. Staff also recommends amending Ordinance 8, Section 9: Transportation as follows: "The Jewish Community Center shall meet with Transportation and Parking Department staff prior to each summer season to discuss their schedule of events and associated transportation/parking impacts as well as a plan for mitigation such as increased shuttle service, etc. The Jewish Community Center shall be responsible for communicating with event staff, attendees, and service vehicles, about the parking and transportation limitations and options prior to large events." "The Jewish Community Center shall provide a traffic audit for a two week period twice a year, once in March and once in July. The traffic audit will include total daily traffic and parking counts and a measure of the percentage of mass transit use. If total daily traffic counts exceed 125 for weekdays or 140 for weekends, or the percentage of mass transit use is established by the applicant in the FHU report of October 2008, then the applicant shall work with the City of Aspen Transportation and parking Departments to discuss additional TDM measures to reduce traffic and achieve the established transit usage for the Community Center." FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG 25 years of engineering paths to transportation solutimu May 5, 2009 Mr. Alan Richman Alan Richman Planning Services PO Box 3613 Aspen CO 81612 RE: Transportation Engineering Review of the Aspen Jewish Community Center by Fox Higgins Transportation Group FHU Reference # 04-037-01 Dear Mr. Richman: At the request of City Council, Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (FHU) has prepared this letter to respond to the April 17, 2009 transportation engineering review letter on the proposed Aspen Jewish Community Center (JCC), completed by Fox Higgins Transportation Group for the Stillwater Open Space Association. These responses focus on the Suggested Updates to the Traffic Study section at the end of the letter, as it generally summarizes the points raised elsewhere in the letter. (Review Letter content is in italics.) Suggested Updates to the Traffic Study As noted above the FHU study relied on very optimistic automobile trip reduction estimates and did not incorporate any evaluation of parking impacts. Both of these issues are key considerations that should be tested over a range of assumptions in an updated traffic study. Response: The pre-school operation and special events assume a high level of transit usage because both will be specifically targeted by the Travel Demand Management program; shuttles will take students and event guests to and from the site and driving to and parking at the site or along the road will be prohibited. A similar operation has been successfully implemented for the Wildwood school and there is every reason to believe that this operation would be equally successful, because the entire operation will be overseen and enforced by the Rabbi and JCC staff. FHU (as well as City staff) agrees that there is merit in providing a range of traffic forecasts based on lower transit usage. The following table shows the trip forecast with a 75 percent transit usage for the pre-school, which City staff believes is a more reasonable expectation. The trip forecasts are similar to those in the original study because FHU had already assumed up to 20 parent trips per day in the original analysis. 6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600 Centennial, CO 80111 tel 303.721.1440 fax 303.721.0832 www.fhueng.com info@fhueng.com Mr. Alan Richman May 5, 2009 Page 2 Table 1. Site Trip Generation with 75 Percent Transit Usage for Pre School Activity Size Daily Trips AM Peak PM Peak In Out Total In Out Total Em to ee Housing 3 Units 20 0 1 1 1 1 2 Pre-school 40 Children 64 16 16 32 0 0 0 Staff 6 Staff 16 6 0 6 0 6 6 Other Visitation 20 Visitors 36 4 0 4 0 4 4 Total, T ical Da 136 26 17 42 1 11 12 FridayNight Services 20 Attendees 15 0 0 0 8 7 15 Total, Typical Friday 151 1 28 1 17 1 42 1 9 1 18 1 27 Table 2 shows revised trip forecasts for special events. The forecasts assume that up to 18 spaces on the site would be used by catering, service vehicles, event staff, hosts etc and that each parking space would generate 2.5 trips (in recognition that some vehicles may make multiple trips). As assumed previously, all event guests are still anticipated to use the shuttle (since they would have nowhere to park), with up to 10 percent assumed to drive to the site as drop off trips. Shuttle trips, which were omitted previously, are included in the table as well, and account for roughly half of the total event traffic for larger events. As a reminder, only 5-10 special events would occur each year, so the traffic created by them would occur infrequently. Table 2. Revised Trip Generation for Special Events Daily Annual Average Activity Size Tri Tri s' Daily TripS2 Special Events 200 Attendees 1173 1,17043 50 Attendees 65 6503 2 1. Daily trips times 10 events per year. 2. Annual trips divided by 365 days a year. 3. 50-60 of the total trips would be from 15-passenger shuttles moving guests to and from the site throughout the event. The smaller events would generate significantly fewer shuttle trips (5 to 10 total). 4. Represents worst case traffic conditions where all 10 special events are attended by 200 people. 5. Represents best case traffic conditions where all 10 special events are attended by 50 people. In regards to parking, the limited number of spaces on the site are a key component to enforcing the use of shuttles for pre-school and special events. The city's transportation department has reviewed the traffic analysis and supports the concept of under -parking as a means to reduce trip generation. It is anticipated that the on -site supply would accommodate the other parking needs for the site, however. The following table shows the anticipated parking demand for each site activity, and incorporates the revised trip assumptions from above for pre-school and special events: Mr. Alan Richman May 5, 2009 Page 3 Table 3. Parking Estimates for Site Activities Avg. Transit/ Spaces Activity Time Period Frequency Attendance Vehicle Walk Mode ir�ed Type Occupancy Share eq Staff 7 AM - 10 PM 7 days per week 9 staff 1 10% 8 Long Term School 8 AM - 4 PM erdweek 3ays 5 40 children 1 75% 10 Drop-off Hebrew School 3 PM - 5 PM 2 - 3 days per week 8.10 children 1.5 20% 5 Drop-off P oeen graAdult 6 PM - 8 PM 1 night month 20-25 people 1.5 20% 13 2-hour 7:30 PM to 9 PM 1 night per week 15-25 people 15 10% 15 eve. 2-hour Education 10 AM — 11:30 AM 1 day. per week 5-10 people 6 day Religious Fri. after sundown Every 10-20 people 8 Fri. Services Sat. 9 AM to Noon week 10-40 people 2 o 25 /0 15 Sat. 2-hour Special 6 PM - 8 PM 8-10 50-200 people 2 5 90% of 20 Long Term Events peryear guests 16 Dro -off Additional factors that should be considered in an updated study and/or in a revised development application include: • Add the proposed "summer camp and winter camp" uses that were omitted from the study. Response: A winter camp is not proposed for the site; the pre-school would operate all winter, except for the holidays. The summer camp would operate in place of the pre-school when the pre- school is not in session, so they would not add to the total trips from the site. Like the pre-school, they would be limited to 40 children and would be subject to shuttle -only access, so they would generate the same traffic volumes as the pre-school (64 trips per day, 32 in the morning peak hour, 0 in the afternoon peak hour). • Include service vehicle access and parking for special events. Response: Please refer to the revised special event trip generation in Table 2 and parking forecasts in Table 3, above. • Evaluate the traffic implications of full 88 seat occupancy of the facility during religious services and the potential for two seatings of religious services in the future. Response: The JCC does not anticipate the full occupancy of 88 seats for religious services; those would be used for special events. Likewise, the JCC currently does not have plans for two seatings of religious services. If, in the future, religious services attendance increases such that either of the above scenarios are needed, then the City Ordinance is clear that this would constitute a substantial amendment to the application that would require a new submission to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, and the traffic study would be updated to reflect the change in operations. • Incorporate a "future year scenario' (20 year or buildout planning horizon), as is done in most traffic studies, that will identify and evaluate the impacts of this site in the context of additional development in the surrounding area. Mr. Alan Richman May 5, 2009 Page 4 Response: It is the stated goal of the City to maintain future traffic volumes within the City at or below current levels, so to be consistent with this goal, no background traffic growth was assumed for the project. Additionally, it is highly unlikely that any regional traffic from SH 82 would use Ute Avenue, since it is not a through route that presents a reasonable alternative to the highway. Furthermore, since most of the properties along Ute Avenue are fully developed (with the exception of the potential re -development of the Aspen Club), there is limited potential for future growth that originates along that road, and those that may change would be subject to a traffic study that measures their impacts. Finally, as noted in the study, the Aspen Club traffic volumes were not finalized at the time the AJCC traffic study was completed, and so were not included in the analysis. • Incorporate new traffic projections for the expanded Aspen Club. It is my understanding that the Club expansion may include 40 hotel units, 12 employee housing units, and expanded health club facilities. This will impact traffic on Ute Avenue. Response: The Aspen Club traffic volumes have just been finalized and made available to the public. City Council raised similar concerns about the cumulative impacts of both projects on Ute Avenue traffic volumes, and suggested developing a maximum traffic volume threshold for that road. FHU suggests that rather than monitor traffic on Ute Avenue, traffic should be monitored from both the JCC site and the Aspen Club site, since those are the two properties that have redevelopment plans and therefore are the ones the neighbors are most concerned with. To that end, the attached JCC Traffic Demand Management Program outlines the JCC's proposed approach for ensuring that traffic from that site stays at the levels forecast in the traffic study; a similar program could be developed for the Aspen Club site as a part of its approval process. • Incorporate a buildout scenario for the site use (in addition to the 88 seat issue noted above) to identify any planned or potential expansions to the use at the facility. This could be a significant item given that the Chabad Lubavitch website implies a more robust growth potential than has been assumed in the traffic study to date, including uses such as a restaurant and a deli which will increase trip generation. Response: The uses identified above were possible uses at the Main Street site but are currently not under consideration for the Silver Lining Ranch site. If changes to the site are proposed in the future, the application would need to be amended and the traffic study can be updated at that time to incorporate the additional uses, providing an opportunity for the public to comment on those proposals. • Include a discussion about pedestrian access, vehicle conflicts, emergency access issues, etc. Response: Pedestrians will be able to access the site via the sidewalk on the north side of Ute Avenue, which currently runs from Original Street to the Benedict building; from there pedestrians would walk along the road past the Aspen Club to the site (about 550 feet). The JCC has agreed to pay for half of the cost of extending the sidewalk from the Benedict building to the edge of the JCC property and will extend the sidewalk through its own property at its cost; therefore it is anticipated that the entire sidewalk will be completed in the near future. Mr. Alan Richman May 5, 2009 Page 5 In regards to vehicle conflicts and emergency access, the City's transportation department has indicated they have reviewed road widths on Ute Avenue and do not believe the road is undersized, and that while snow conditions can narrow the road during winter months, the City performs snow removal as needed to maintain two full width lanes. They further noted that widening the road may have the adverse effect of encouraging higher speeds, which the neighbors have also indicated is an existing concern. • Indicate how shuttle access requirements will be enforced and the traffic and parking consequences if enforcement is not done or is not successful. Response: Please refer to the Proposed JCC Traffic Demand Management Program for details on traffic enforcement. • Indicate how lack of compliance with anticipated shuttle access may limit the size of the facility or the allowable sizes of attendees or events. Also indicate how this will be enforced by the City. Response: Please refer to the Proposed JCC Traffic Demand Management Program for details on how additional measures would be implemented if the traffic goals for the project are not achieved. I trust the above information is sufficient for City Council to make an informed decision on the traffic impacts for the site. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please give me a call. Sincerely, FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG 6 /V Jeffrey M. Ream Senior Transportation Engineer roll It • fI• 1 � • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor & City Council THRU: Don Taylor, Finance Director FROM: Don Pergande, Budget Officer DATE: May 4th, 2009 RE: Second Reading: Adoption of Budget Supplemental — Ordinance No.9 (Series 2009) this item will be discussed on Monday, May 11th, 2009 Staff is requesting an amendment to the City's 2009 budget that increases the city-wide total expenditure appropriation from $102.3 to $110.3 million, (See Attachment A). Net of inter fund transfers, budget authority increases from $78.8 to $88.6 million. Interfund transfers are required appropriations between City funds that do not reflect the true cost of operations. Attachment E provides a detailed listing of budgeted 2009 interfund transfers. The exhibit below outlines the supplemental request's impact on the City's overall appropriation authority. The reference attachments provide itemized listings of requested supplemental budget authority. CITY OF ASPEN - 2009 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET Description Amount Location 2009 Adopted Budget: $102,280,120 Total New Requests: $1,658,720 Total Central Savings: $149,560 Total Departmental Savings: $1,745,640 Total 100% carry forwards: $12,205,620 Budget Cuts: ($4,356,350) Technical Adjustments: ($3,342,770) Total Budget Requests: $8,060,420 TOTALORDINANCE: $110,340,540 Less Interfund Transfers: $21,771,900 NET APPROPRIATIONS: $88,568,640 See Attachment A See Attachment B See Attachment C See Attachment C See Attachment D See Attachment G See Attachment F See Attachment A See Attachment A See Attachment E See Attachment A i• As noted in the chart above, this supplemental is substantially comprised of annual carry -forward appropriations. These requests are for projects previously appropriated, and for which cash reserves are set aside. Different categories of requests include: • Attachment B: "New Requests" of $1,658,720 include requests for formal appropriation of funding issues previously reviewed by Council during this fiscal year, new requests, and capital requests that have gone beyond the two year automatic re -appropriation time frame provided by the City's Asset Management process. Narrative justification of each new request is provided as part of this memorandum below. • Attachment C: "Manager 10% Carry -forward Savings" of $149,560 which represent 10% of operating budget savings from all departments of the City in previous years. These one-time appropriations are allocated the City Manager's office (See Attachment C) for use in addressing mid -year issues with citywide implications. • Attachment C: "Departmental 50% Carry -forward Savings" of $1,745,640, which represent 50% of previous year operating budget savings for individual departments. Departments are allocated these amounts as a reward to finding efficiencies in their operations that allow them to meet their operating goals while spending less than their total appropriations. These one- time appropriations can be spent on items related to the department's mission (See Attachment C). • Attachment D: "Departmental "100% Carry -forward Requests": These requests are for operating items and capital improvement projects budgeted in 2008 that require completion in 2009. Requests total $12,205,620. This category includes the City's personal computer and workstation replacement programs — which keeps the City's computer technology new and efficient, and re -appropriation of ongoing capital projects. Attachment D details these requests by department. • Attachment E: This attachment details all budgeted interfund transfers of the City for 2009 of $21,771,900 in total. Interfund transfers are required appropriations between City funds that do not reflect the true cost of operations. • Attachment F: This attachment details all of the technical adjustments in 2009 of ($3,342,770) in total. • Attachment G: This attachment is a high level summary of the request in this supplemental ordinance; including the ($4,356,350) of Council's approved budget cuts made in the work sessions held in 2009. New Requests General Fund City Contributions Department- The City Contributions Department is requesting $324,500 in total. $200,000 is for additional marketing for the City of Aspen through ARCA. This request is funded by $170,000 from the General Fund's Departmental savings, $15,000 from the Wheeler Fund and $15,000 from the Parks and Open Space Fund. $124,500 is to fund ACRA at the original forecasted amount of the 1% lodging tax. As the economic conditions have changed so has the forecasted amount the 1% lodging tax for 2009. This additional funding request was calculated by using the 2009 projects presented to Council in the March 24th work session. This request will be funded from the General Fund cash reserves. Planning Department - The Planning Department is requesting $37,330 in total. The funding is for the Aspen Area Community Plan. The City and County have been jointly working on an update to the Aspen Area Community Plan. On March 3, 2009, City Council and the Board of County Commissioners gave their approval to take additional time for adoption of the updated AACP. City and County staff anticipates a revised timeline will take adoption into October of 2009, and will require additional work beyond the original scope of work. See memo for additional details on this request. The County will reimburse the City for $33,333 of this request and the remaining $3,997 will be funded by the General Fund cash reserves. Engineering Department- The Engineering Department is requesting $9,980 in total. The funding is for survey work for the BMC West property annexation and for the North Spring Street ROW. See memo for additional details on this request. This request will be funded by the General Fund cash reserves. Police Department- The Police Department is requesting $25,590 in total. $10,240 is requested for the use of a DUI enforcement grant of $10,240. It is only available for use paying overtime for DUI enforcement shifts, under the terms of the grant. The police department has previously participated in this grant, and council has approved. See memo for additional details on this request. $15,350 is requested for the use of Federal Justice Assistance Grant (The Edward Byrne JAG), which is funded through the FY 2009 Recovery Act Justice Assistance Grant. The grant is to be used to pay for law enforcement programs, including technology improvement programs. $15,350 has been dedicated to the Aspen Police jurisdiction. $5,000 is requested for the use of a CDOT grant to promote share the road activities through a variety of events and related media covered. See memo for additional details on this request. Streets Department- The Streets Department is requesting $4,330. The funding is for formal appropriations of the additional annual operating expenses, including preventative maintenance and additional fuel costs approved on May 12, 2008. These funds are being requested since the construction of flush truck is completed and the vehicle is due to arrive. These funds were to be requested during the 2008 budget process, but were delayed until the completion of the flush truck. This will be an on -going expense. This request will be funded by the General Fund cash reserves. GIS Department- The GIS Department is requesting $11,800. The funding is for additional maintenance costs associated with the enterprise license agreement with ESRI. This acquisition created 4 efficiencies in the City of Aspen and County Departments yearly operating expenses related to the use of information in the GIS data base. This is an ongoing request. See memo for additional details. This request will be 100% offset by the City and County Departments. 50% will be offset by the County reimbursement and 50% by subscription fees paid by the City of Aspen internal Departments. Special Events Department- The Special Events Department is requesting $65,000, in total. $65,000 is requested to expand marketing efforts by the Special Events Department. $50,000 is an ongoing request and $15,000 is a onetime request for 2009. See memo for additional details on these requests. These requests will be funded from the General Fund cash reserves. New Requests All Other Funds Parks and Open Space Fund- The Parks Fund is requesting $15,000 in total. The funding is requested for $15,000 of the $200,000 additional ACRA marketing for the City of Aspen. This request will be funded by the cash reserves in the Parks Fund. Wheeler Fund- The Wheeler Fund is requesting $15,000in total. The funding is requested for $15,000 of the $200,000 additional ACRA marketing for the City of Aspen. This request will be funded by the cash reserves in the Wheeler Fund. Housing Development Fund- The Housing Development Fund is requesting $340,020 in total. $10,000 is requested to fund maintenance at the 312 W. Main St. City owned property. $5,000 is requested for general maintenance on city owned properties. $325,020 is requested to complete work on the Annie Mitchell housing project. See the memos for additional details on these requests. This request will be funded by the cash reserves in the Housing Development Fund. Stormwater Fund- The Stormwater Fund is requesting $35,000 in total. The funding is requested for the Drainage Criteria Manual Project that is estimated to cost $145,000; $110,000 will be funded from the 2008 unspent budget authority and the balance of $35,000 from the unrestricted fund balance in 2009. See memo for additional details on this request. Water Fund- The Water Fund is requesting $26,000 for the Zgreen business outreach program. This request is funded by 2008 REMP funds awarded by CORE. See memo for additional details on this request. Electric Fund- The Electric Fund is requesting $195,490 in total. $170,490 is requested for improving energy efficiency of affordable housing units. This request is funded by 2008 REMP funds awarded by CORE. $10,000 is requested for the 2030 challenge. This request is funded by 2008 REMP funds awarded by CORE. $15,000 is requested for home energy auditing equipment for use by fledgling energy audit contractors. This request is funded by 2008 REMP funds awarded by CORE. See memo for additional details on all of these requests. Truscott Fund- The Truscott Fund is requesting $53,000 in total. $10,000 is requested to upgrade the electrical system, $20,000 is to resolve safety issues related to the roof in 600, 700, and 900 buildings, $15,000 is to purchase video surveillance systems; $8,000 is for energy audit. See memos for additional details on all of these requests. The Finance Department has determined that the Truscott Fund has sufficient prior year cash balances to support this request. Employee Housing Fund- The Employee Housing Fund is requesting $75,000 to complete roof repairs and improvements to the Water Place housing units, improvements were initiated in 2008. This request will be funded by cash reserves. See memo for additional details on this request. Asset Management Capital- The Asset Management Capital fund is requesting $405,680, in total. $160,280 is requested for the purchase of an additional flush truck for the Street's Department. The use of the CDOT Grant funding for the purchase of the flush truck was approved by Council in November of 2007. This is a request for the formal appropriations of the funding. $116,035 will be paid for by a CDOT grant and $44,245 will be paid for from the Street Department's departmental savings. See attached memo for details on this request. $50,000 is requested to complete the city hall roof repairs. See memo for additional details on this request. $35,000 is requested for the formal appropriations of the new aerial photography and related GIs base layer data for the Aspen Area approved by Council in 2008. See memo for additional details on this request. $600 is requested for remaining expenses on the Council Chambers remodel. See memo for additional details on this request. These three requests will be funded from cash reserves in the AMP Fund. $149,800 is requested to purchase the CIP Software package approved by council in March of 2009. 50% of the total will be paid for by the Finance Departmental Savings and 50% of the total will be paid for by capital projects budgeted in 2009. Second Reading Additions or Changes — are highlighted in gray in each attachment Attachment B—New Requests Police Department- The Police Department in conjunction with the Transportation department applied for and has received approval for a grant in the amount of $5,000 from the Colorado Department of Transportation. This grant is to be used to promote "Share the Road" activities through a variety of events and related media coverage. Events include a kids' bike rodeo, and adult bike rodeo, bike to work day, & kids essay competition. This is a onetime appropriation request for use of this grant. Asset Management Department- The Asset Management Department is requesting $15,000 for the appraisal of the City building located at 455 Rio Grande Place, formerly known as the Youth Center Building. See memo for additional details on this request. This request will be funded from the General Fund cash reserves. Attachment D — 100% Carry Forward Requests The City of Aspen has an outstanding employee awards program that is administered by the Human Resources Department. This program had remaining budget authority in the 2008. Due to the timing of the fourth quarter awards for 2008 the awards are booked as 2009 expenses. This budget authority is needed to cover these expenses in 2009. e The remaining funding of the Water Reclamation Project is being requested to be re - appropriated from 2008 to 2009 in the Parks and Open Space Capital Fund in 2009. This is an ongoing project that began in 2005. This is a joint project between the Parks and Open Space Capital Fund, the Water Fund and the Electric Fund. The first reading was shifting the funding and budget authority to the Water Fund. At this time it has been decided to keep the budget authority in the Parks and Open Space Capital Fund until further analysis on the project can be completed. Due to the change in the TABOR projects composition in 2009 the amount of budget authority needed to be re -appropriated from 2008 to 2009 has been reduced. Attachment E — Interfund Transfers Due to the budget reductions in the General Fund through the Council work sessions in the first part of 2009, the overhead charged to City Funds is reduced proportionately. The total reduction overhead payments to the General Fund are $119,420 in 2009. The budget authority for the Water Reclamation Project was moved from the transfers into the capital budget account of the Parks and Open Space Capital Fund. This reduced interfund transfers by $613,170. Attachment F -Technical Adjustment Technical adjustments are accounting adjustments that need to be made to implement approved decisions in the Eden financial system. A proportionate reduction in all Funds was made that pay overhead to the General Fund in total, a reduction of $119,420. In the first supplemental, a review of the 2009 Transportation Fund resulted in a reduction of budget authority in 2009 for the Transportation Fund. This matched the 2009 forecasted expenditures with 2009 budget authority. After further review the budget authority is still being reduced. The reduction is $43,020 less than originally forecasted. This is due to the timing of a 2008 RFTA invoice that will need to be booked in 2009. After further of review of the AMP Fund projects it was determined that some capital purchases could be delayed until future years. In addition, project forecasted expenses are lower than the original estimate. As a result the AMP Fund appropriations are being reduced by $244,000 ORDINANCE NO. { (Series of 2009) AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING AN INCREASE IN THE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN FUND EXPENDITURES OF $2,201,380, A REDUCTION IN THE GENERAL FUND OF $321,920, A REDUCTION IN THE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE FUND OF $1,563,350, AN INCREASE IN THE WHEELER OPERA HOUSE FUND OF $715,080, A REDUCTION IN THE CITY TOURISM PROMOTION FUND OF $214,000, AN INCREASE IN THE TRANSPORTATION FUND OF $192,410 AN INCREASE IN THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND OF $501,730, AN INCREASE IN THE EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION FUND OF $380, AN INCREASE IN THE KIDS FIRST FUND OF $48,390, AN INCREASE IN THE STORMWATER FUND OF $183,100, AN INCREASE IN THE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE CAPITAL FUND OF $218,280, AN INCREASE IN THE WATER FUND OF $2,170,190, AN INCREASE IN THE ELECTRIC FUND OF $795,080, AN INCREASE IN THE RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND OF $2,835,320, AN INCREASE IN THE PARKING FUND OF $37,000, A REDUCTION IN THE GOLF COURSE FUND OF $33,690, AN INCREASE IN THE TRUSCOTT FUND OF $241,750, AN INCREASE IN THE MAROLT FUND OF $1,020, A REDUCTION IN THE EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSUARANCE FUND OF $1,240, AN INCREASE IN THE EMPLOYEE HOUSING FUND OF $76,650, A REDUCTION IN THE HOUSING ADMINASTRITION FUND OF $22,540 AND A REDUCTION IN THE SMUGGLER FUND OF $600. WHEREAS, by virtue of Section 9.12 of the Home Rule Charter, the City Council may make supplemental appropriations; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has certified that the City has unappropriated current year revenues and/or unappropriated prior year fund balance available for appropriations in the following funds: ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN FUND, GENERAL FUND, PARKS AND OPEN SPACE FUND, WHEELER OPERA HOUSE FUND, CITY TOURISM PROMOTION FUND, TRANSPORTATION FUND, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND, EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION FUND, KIDS FIRST FUND, STORMWATER, PARKS AND OPEN SPACE CAPITAL FUND, WATER FUND, ELECTRIC FUND, RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND, PARKING FUND, GOLF COURSE FUND, TRUSCOTT FUND, MAROLT FUND, EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE FUND, EMPLOYEE HOUSING FUND, HOUSING ADMINISTRATION FUND AND THE SMUGGLER FUND. WHEREAS, the City Council is advised that certain expenditures, revenue and transfers must be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 Upon the City Manager's certification that there are current year revenues and/or prior year fund balances available for appropriation in the: ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN FUND, GENERAL FUND, PARKS AND OPEN SPACE FUND, WHEELER OPERA HOUSE FUND, CITY TOURISM PROMOTION FUND, TRANSPORTATION FUND, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND, EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION FUND, KIDS FIRST FUND, STORMWATER, PARKS AND OPEN SPACE CAPITAL FUND, WATER FUND, ELECTRIC FUND, RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND, PARKING FUND, GOLF COURSE FUND, TRUSCOTT FUND, MAROLT FUND, EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE FUND, EMPLOYEE HOUSING FUND, HOUSING ADMINISTRATION FUND AND THE SMUGGLER FUND: the City Council hereby makes supplemental appropriations as itemized in the Attachment A. Section 2 If any section, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason invalid or unconstitutional by any court or competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion thereof. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED AND/OR POSTED ON FIRST READING on the 27th day of April, 2009. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor FINALLY ADOPTED AFTER PUBLIC HEARING on the II th day of May, 2009. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to Form: John Worcester, City Attorney Michael C. Ireland, Mayor a O m w N r O O D7 O C V O Q c'I o w r N N m M (O O Q m N d r r d a U A m Q m N m r m t' Ol Q m Q m O tO r m W d O m N Q N t0 N A fO r Q (O O A m O M I(� C O O p r r O H M M N iR fA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r O m O Q m M O Q m N H m N N N O m N O a m A E N O (O A Q O m M r N n Q m N r O C d d M O] N tf tO A r A O) r ID N M m N M d N C T m M (p O N m Ol r M O N Q m A M A N m O N r N M O r Oi a W N M ! m N O Q Q N m M N m M r N N m m [D N O1 N p n co iri o of v � cri cG N of M Q ai m co co � � m M M r LL7 m w MH H H H H w w Nw H w w w w w w Hi MH H H w O O% N 00 o W � ty ty N �/{ O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 qqq ggqqqqqqq 0 q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 o O O O is 9 m m N m o M m rn m wl w m rn m N o rn N r Q Q � N W O Q M O M O O Q A M d i d Of M f^ N w W Is W O N NM r M w v H N N t0 O n n N en o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 o p p V m m O7 O r l0 (O 47 r M N N N O^ A A r Ol O! A m O Q N N Q O N Q M O m IG O l0 O N Q M Q M !- r m C to N M (D m (O N N Ol Ol O N 'Q m .- N 40 N A O (O m m A N m Q N YI M Q M N VI O N V O a w M A Q < N O N N Q M A m m N N 0 H A M r O Q A N of ~ m of m vi r N of M v r vi co M n V N It N lL N C w N w H w H H w N H w w w w H w w w w H N M 06 H W F N C a O O O O O O N O O N O O O O O fO O O m O O O O O O p 00 O 9 N Of M IO O N O r M O m r O N O M (p O) V N O m m Ol p (0 d J d N Q m O M Q Q M d C Ot N N m' N O N r [p Q Ol N O N M N Q N A M y < 01 N m N N r m m m O m Q O N m m m Q m N M M N m m O Q E d a > W A N Q O m M Q N H sf M Yf m [M M M m N m aJ Yl O O (p 0J m N c0 r � � D✓ � M (O (6 0 N C. N W IA IA y o 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 m 2. o 0 ? 0 0 o c o o Ly A O M V1 V N o q' w w o H o pp w e31 O H N O N O Q m w M M O N O 0 N N w N rn� O Cl m r E r C� m o o rn rn m m N o rn m t+f ri m (V w H H o A y. a J d 6m > w N w w H w w w Cj H H M CO00 A r O rWfl CQ N 19 A Mf O O O C r O f0 O Ol m A IO N 10 M M O N (0 O O m O OI O O O L m m O Q Q N O m o m M N r Q LO 0 r m W A N N t0 if1 J J C OI 0 M M N r r ai v O N N N M N N vi O v V c of ui of N Q t0 O N Q co ri ci dl D f0 m M Q N m Q m r M N N Q Q m (O r (O N O O 1n n O J Ni ai M r [V Oi H C'i t+i M <O r [V C' O M d 7 cc C O m w N w w H H H H m w H w H w H H w N w w w ww H H O N Ol N N A O O A O A O O Q m Q 10 m (O A ^ N J O 01 N N M m N eJ N M Q m W Q m N O O Q m rN OI U J m N W Q O Q (O A OI A OI m 4 N N r M c0 N M M C C Q C d y N Dc a y d N a C LL C D J O 'O D IL D A D LL J LL J J aC 'O aC D LL d C O- LL LL J C O C C O J N LL D U d N J C m d LL J LL p O LL w� C _ LL U a C C D U a LL d E N> d C d d d C 'O IJL D C C C 9 O l0 a d D_ O U y 0 C U y V d LL C "O d C N LL d LL O J Q L N 'O T lL IL C OI N T N C ~ C N E J w d N V N c OI LL E p LL d J C U a dU d a E N U a_ O S LL a U N =_ S d d rd. d d 0 d >i rd. N d ad. U d d y S d M O W T O C U p= U O C O O c n a a a a U O Jo d c D m J a o d o 2 d E E 2 E J m W Q Ud f0 d U F M W Y In y D O N d d N W w a U F U) = W W 0) H S UJ y ¢ J Z City of Aspen Attachment B 2009 Supplemental Budget New Funding Requests All Requests are one-time unless otherwise noted. Department / Fund New Request Description Amount Subtotal by Dept. General Fund City Contributions TBD Council decided to fund ACRA's yearly allocation from the 1% lodging tax at the $124,500 originally forecasted amount of $624,500. Using the 2009 projections presented to Council in the March 24th work session the new forecast for the 1% lodging tax is to yield $1,000,000, half of this, $500,000 is allocated to ACRA. In order to bring ACRA back to the original forecast the General Fund needs to pay ACRA from the General Fund reserves $124,500. TBD This is a request for $200,000 for additional marketing with ACRA. $170,000 is $200,000 funded from the General Fund's departmental savings. The remaining $30,000 is equally from Wheeler and Parks Funds. Subtotal, City Contributions $324,500 Planning 001.13.47501.82900 Additional Funds are requested for the AACP to continue website development, $37,330 fund public outreach, and print the 2009 AACP update. $33,333 of this request will be reimbursed from County. See memo for additional details Subtotal, Planning $37,330 Engineering Department Survey work for the BMC West Property Annexation and for the N. Spring Street $9,980 ROW. See memo for additional details Subtotal, Engineering $9,980 Police 001.31.31700.82900 The Police Department is requesting appropriations to use a DUI enforcement $10,240 grant of $10,240 (grant revenues will match expenses). It is only available for use paying overtime for DUI enforcement shifts, under the terms of the grant. The police department has previously participated in this grant, and council has approved. See memo for additional details. 001.31.31200.83999 The Police Department is requesting appropriations to use a Federal Justice $15,350 Assistance Grant (The Edward Byrne JAG), which is funded through the FY 2009 Recovery Act Justice Assistance Grant. The grant is to be used to pay for law enforcement programs, including technology improvement programs. $15,350 has been dedicated to the Aspen Police jurisdiction. See memo for additional details. 001.31.31000.82999183999 The Police Department is requesting appropriations to use a grant received from $5,000 COOT. The Aspen PD in conjunction with the Transportation department applied for and have received approval for a grant in the amount of $5,000 from the Colorado Department of Transportation. This grant is to be used to promote - "Share the Road" activities through a variety of events and related media coverage. Events include a kids bike rodeo, and adult bike rodeo, bike to work - -- day, & kids essay competition. This is a one time appropriation. Subtotal, Police $30,590 Streets Department 001.41.411000.83700 With the addition of the CMAQflush truck additional annual operating expenses, $4,330 including preventative maintenance and additional fuel costs, estimated at $4,330 will be incurred. The purchase of the CMAQflush truck, along with the additional operating expenses was approved with reso #42 On May 12, 2008. These funds are now being formally requested since the construction of flush truck is completed and the vehicle is due to arrive. These funds were to be requested during the 2008 budget process, but were delayed until the completion of the flush truck. This will be an on -going expense. Subtotal, Streets $4,330 Att B. New Requests Page 1 City of Aspen Attachment B 2009 Supplemental Budget New Funding Requests All Requests are one-time unless otherwise noted. Department / Fund New Request Description Amount Subtotal by Dept. GIS Department 001.60.60000.82999 ELA acquisition in February of 2008. See memo for additional details. This $11,800 request is 100%offset by reimbursements from the County and internal City subscription fees. This is an ongoing request. Subtotal, Streets Department: $11,800 Special Events TBD On going special events - See memo for additional details $50,000 TBD One time special events - See memo for additional details $15,000 Subtotal, Special Events $65,000 Asset Management Department 001.91.05000.82999 455 Rio Grande appraisal - see memo for details $15,000 Subtotal, Asset Management Department $15,000 SUBTOTAL, GENERAL FUND: $498,530 Parks and Open Space Fund TBD This request is to fund $15,000 of the $200,000 of additional ACRA marketing for $15,000 the City of Aspen Subtotal, Park and Open Space Fund $15,000 Wheeler Fund TBD This request is to fund $15,000 of the $200,000 of additional ACRA marketing for $15,000 the City of Aspen _ Subtotal, Wheeler Fund $15,000 Housing Development Fund TBD 312 West Main St. maintenance - See memo for additional details $10,000 150.23.55110.* Property maintenance - See memo for additional details $5,000 150.23.23120.* Annie Mitchell housing project- see memo for additional details $325,020 Subtotal, Housing Development Fund $340,020 Stormwater Fund 160.94.81116.86000 Contract approval was received in December 2008. The Drainage Criteria Manual $35,000 Project is estimated to cost $145,000, $110,000 will be funded from the 2008 unspent budget authority and the balance of $35,000 from the unrestricted fund balance in 2009. See memo for additional details. Subtotal, Stormwater Fund $35,000 Water Fund 421.43.43500.80012 Zgreen business out reach program. This request is funded by 2008 REMP funds $26,000 awarded by CORE. See memo for additional details Subtotal, Water Fund $26,000 Electric Fund 431.94.46409.86000 Improve energy efficiency of affordable housing units. This request is funded by $170,490 2008 REMP funds awarded by CORE. See memo for additional details 431.94.46409.86000 2030 challenge -This request is funded by 2008 REMP funds awarded by CORE. $10,000 See memo for additional details 431.94.46409.86000 Home energy auditing equipment for use by fledgling energy audit contractors. $15,000 This request is funded by 2008 REMP funds awarded by CORE. See memo for additional details. Subtotal, Electric Fund $195,490 Truscott Housing Fund 491.01.45043.82999 The current electrical system can not accommodate the load required to run the $10,000 new heat tape installed on the new roof at the Truscott 100 building. There was also the need to run new heat tape over area above the 600, 700, and 900 buildings where poor design was causing cornices and ice dams that posed a health and safety issue. The new heat tape needed a licensed electrician for completion. See memo for additional details. Art B. New Requests Page 2 City of Aspen Attachment B 2009 Supplemental Budget New Funding Requests All Requests are One-time unless otherwise noted. Department / Fund New Request Description Amount Subtotal by Dept. 491.94.82114,86000 Poor design and lack of heat tape had caused a major safety issue above portions $20,000 of the roof over the 600, 700, and 900 buildings. Cornices and ice dams hung over pedestrian traffic that posed a health and safety issue. See memo for additional details. TBD Truscott would like to purchase a video surveillance system to protect the offices $15,000 and laundry rooms from theft and vandalism. See memo for additional details. TBD Truscott would like to use these monies to pay for weatherization and materials $8,000 to make a greener property. We would also like to purchase more energy efficient bulbs and repair existing solar panels as well as investigate our options on adding more solar arrays to the property. See memo for additional details. Subtotal, Truscott Housing Fund $53,000 Employee Housing Fund 505.94.81022.86000 Staff recommends a 505 Fund budget supplemental in the amount of $75,000 to $75,000 complete roof repairs and improvements to the Water Place Housing units, improvements that were initiated in 2008. The funds will pay for heat tape, snow fencing/clips and other capital improvements plus contingencies. See memo for additional details. Subtotal, Employee Housing Fund $75,000 Asset Management Plan Fund 000.41.83005.86000 Streets Department request to use CDOT Grant for purchase of an additional $160,280 flush truck for the City of Aspen's Fleet was approved by Council in November of 2007. This is a request for the formal appropriations of the funding. The total cost of the flush truck is $160,290. $116,035 will be paid for by a CDOT grant and $44,245 will be paid for from the Street Department's departmental savings. See attached memo for details 000.91.81022.86000 Staff is requesting funding to complete city hall roof repairs and improvements $50,000 that were initiated in 2008. See memo for additional details 000.61.82137.* Council approved a contract on July 28th, 2008 for the GIs to acquire a new aerial $35,000 photography and related GIs base layer for the Aspen Area. This is formal appropriations of the additional funding needed to fund the approved contract in full. See memo for additional details 000.25313D Staff is requesting appropriation of CORE grant funding to purchase a portable $10,000 renewable energy system to be used by for special events in the City. See memo for additional details 000.07.83095.86000 Council Chambers Remodel - See memo for additional details $600 000.11.81199,86000 CIP Software package approved by council in March of 2009. The total cost of the $149,800 software and hardware is $149,900. 50%of the total will be paid for by the Finance Departmental Savings and 50%of the total will be paid for by capital projects budgeted in 2009. Subtotal, Asset Management Plan Fund $405,680 Total New Requests All Funds: $1,658,720 $1,658,720 Total New Requests After Offsetting Funding Source: $890,672 * Italics Indicates offsetting funding source Aft B. New Requests Page 3 G City of Aspen ATTACHMENT C 2009 Supplemental Budget Request 10% and 50% Carryforward Requests Central Savings "10%" Operating Budget 50% Department Carryforward Savings Carryforward Savings Council $0 $0 City Manager $149,560 $48,120 Human Resources/Risk $0 $17,940 City Clerk $0 $77,670 City Attorney $0 $2,560 Finance $0 $142,410 Planning $0 $13,920 Engineering $0 $26,850 Environmental Health $0 $15,050 Police $0 $272,880 Records $0 $7,040 Streets $0 $144,950 Information Technology $0 $64,490 Aspen Recreation Center $0 $1,320 General Fund Subtotal Departmental Savings $149,560 $835,200 Parks and Open Space Fund $0 $87,340 Wheeler Opera House Fund $0 $191,160 Transportation Fund $0 $87,410 Kids First Fund $0 $58,330 Water Utility Fund $0 $211,260 Electric Utility Fund $0 $100,130 Parking Fund $0 $174,810 All Other Funds Subtotal Departmental Savings $0 $910,440 Total Departmental Savings $149,560 $1,745,640 Att.0 - 10% & 50% Savings City of Aspen All Requests are one-time ATTACHMENT D 2009 Supplemental Budget 100%Carry Forward Appropriation Request Subtotal by Department / Fund Description Amount Department General Fund City Manager 001.05.05000.83625 Workstation Replacement $5,150 001.05.05000.83655 PC Replacement $13,260 Subtotal, City Manager $18,410 HR / Risk Management 001.06.06000.83625 Workstation Replacement $9,940 001.06.06000.83655 PC Replacement $8,230 001.06.06500.80002 Outstanding employee awards program $8,680 Subtotal, Human Resources $26,850 City Clerk 001,07.07000,83625 Workstation Replacement $2,030 001,07,07000,83655 PC Replacement $13,990 Subtotal, City Clerk $16,020 City Attorney 001.09.09000.83625 Workstation Replacement $880 001.09.09000.83655 PC Replacement $2,510 Subtotal, City Attorney $3,390 Finance 001.11.11000.83625 Workstation Replacement $16,560 001.11.11000.83655 PC Replacement $2,900 Subtotal, Finance Department $19,460 Planning 001.13.13200.83625 Workstation Replacement $21,880 001.13.13200.83635 Equipment Maintenance and Repair $21,440 001,13,13200.83655 PC Replacement $1,610 001,13.13318,82999 Zupancis to Mill Conceptual Plan - See memo $6,370 001.13.13400.82900 Historic Preservation Task Budget - See memo $33,360 001.13.13410.82999 Aspen Grove Cemetery - See memo $13,630 001.13.47S01.82900 Aspen Area Community Plan - See memo $46,320 Subtotal, Planning $144,610 Engineering 001.15.15000.83625 Workstation Replacement Carry forward $4,210 001.15.15000.83655 PC Replacement Carry forward: $3,110 Subtotal, Engineering $7,320 Building 001.21.21000.83625 Workstation Replacement $2,610 001.21.21000.83655 PC Replacement $6,720 001.21.21000.82900 Harvard Grant awarded in 2008 -see memo $10,000 Subtotal, Building $19,330 Environmental Health 001.25.25500.83625 Workstation Replacement $5,930 001.25.25500.83655 PC Replacement $6,760 Subtotal, Environmental Health $12,690 Police 001.31.31000.83625 Workstation Replacement $22,830 001.31.31000.83635 Equipment Maintenance and Repair $76,590 001.31.31000.83655 PC Replacement $22,340 Subtotal, Police $121,760 Records 001.33.33000.83625 Workstation Replacement $990 001.33.33000.83655 PC Replacement $1,860 Subtotal, Records $2,850 Streets 001.41.43000.83625 Workstation Replacement $7,980 001.41.41000.83635 Equipment Maintenance and Repair $38,030 001.41.41000.93655 PC Replacement $1,890 001.41.41100.83036 EPA Retro Fit Clean Diesel Grant $880 Att D 100% Cfwd City of Aspen All Requests are one-time ATTACHMENT D 2009 Supplemental Budget 100% Carry Forward Appropriation Request Subtotal by Department / Fund Description Amount Department Subtotal, Streets $48,780 Geographic Info System 001.60.60000.83625 Workstation Replacement $2,880 Subtotal, Geographic Information System $2,880 Information Technology 001,61,61000.83625 Workstation Replacement $8,920 001.61.61000.83655 PC Replacement $7,250 Subtotal, Information Technology $16,170 Special Events 001.70.71000.83625 Workstation Replacement $1,440 001.70.71000.83655 PC Replacement $740 Subtotal, Special Events $2,180 Recreation 001.71.71000.83625 Workstation Replacement $4,770 001.71.71000.83655 PC Replacement $130 Subtotal, Recreation $4,900 Aspen Recreation Center 001.72.72000.83625 Workstation Replacement $9,130 001.72.72700.83625 Workstation Replacement $1,840 001.72,72700.83655 PC Replacement $2,250 Subtotal, Aspen Recreation Center $13,220 Ice Garden 001.74.74000.83625 Workstation Replacement $6,180 001.74.74000.83655 PC Replacement $5,450 Subtotal, Aspen Ice Garden $11,630 Asset Management 001.91.05000.83625 Workstation Replacement $5,450 001.91.05000.83655 PC Replacement $10,460 Subtotal, Asset Management $15,910 Subtotal, General Fund $508,360 Parks and Open Space Fund 100.55.55000.83625 Workstation Replacement $4,280 100.55.55000.83655 PC Replacement $250 Subtotal, Parks and Open Space Fund $4,530 Wheeler Opera House Fund 120.93.93000.83625 Workstation Replacement $3,820 120.93.93000,83635 Equipment Maintenance and Repair $47,270 120.93.93000.83655 PC Replacement $26,200 120.93.93200.82140 Advertising Fees for General and Venue Advertising $162,430 120.93.93150.82900 Phase I of the 21st Century Master Plan $260,000 120.94.81023.86000 Stage Lighting Improvement $31,000 120.94.81100.86000 Keyless Entry and Security System $17,680 Subtotal, Wheeler Opera House Fund $548,400 Transportation Fund 141.34.34100.83625 Workstation Replacement $13,090 141.34.34100.83635 Equipment Maintenance and Repair $34,090 141,34.34100.83655 PC Replacement $12,020 141.34.34000.82180 ETA Alternatives and Transit Development Plan $106,000 141.34.34000.83900 ETA Alternatives and Transit Development Plan $24,000 141.94.83055.86000 Ruby Park Facility Improvements $38,0D0 Subtotal, Transportation Fund $227,200 Art D 100% Cfwd I City of Aspen All Requests are one-time ATTACHMENT D 2009 Supplemental Budget 100%Carry Forward Appropriation Request Subtotal by Department / Fund Description Amount Department Housing Development Fund - - 150.23.23140.86000 Housing Development Misc. -See Memo for Details $177,700 150.23.23112.86000 802 West Main St. Maintenance - See Memo for Details $10,000 150.23.23128.86000 Deer Hill Trail- See Memo for Details $48,030 150.23.23120.86000 Annie Mitchell -See Memo for Details $83,610 Subtotal, Housing Development Fund $319,340 Early Childhood Education fund 151.26.26200.82999 Grant Funds Will be Distributed in 2009 $7,500 Subtotal, Kids First Fund $7,500 Kids First Fund 152.24.24000.83625 Workstation Replacement $3,110 152.24.24100.82911 Grant Funds Will be Distributed in 2009 - $11,000 Subtotal, Kids First Fund $14,110 Stormwater Fund 160.94.82051.86000 Mill Street Pipe Extension -Jenny Adair $15,630 160.94.81115.86000 Rio Grande Park Redesign $34,190 160.94,81116.86000 Drainage Criteria Manual $110,000 Subtotal, Stormwater Fund $159,820 Parks and Open Space Capital Fund 340.94.81014.86D00 Cozy Point Ranch $258,170 340.94.81096.86000 Triangle Park $27,620 340.94,81108.86000 Castle Creek Underpass / Cemetery Lane Improvement $506,470 340.94.81111.86000 Buttermilk Intercept Lot Trail Connection $20,000 340.94.82047,86000 Entrance to Aspen $15,890 340.94.82067.86000 Water Reclamation Project $613,170 - 340.94.82086.86000 yellow Brick Picnic Shelter $23,530 340.94.82098.86000 Smuggler Mountain Open Space Management Plan $19,870 340.94.82099.86000 Smuggler Mountain Reclaim and Restoration $197,250 Subtotal, Parks and Open Space Capital Fund $1,681,970 Water Utility 421.43.43000.83625 Workstation Replacement $340 421.43.43000.83635 Equipment Maintenance and Repair $12,580 421.43.43000.83655 PC Replacement $3,430 421.94.43501.86000 Global Warming Remodel/Move $7,540 421.94.44103.86000 East Treatment Plant 51,940 421.94.44104.86000 West Treatment Plant $335,990 421.94.44105.86000 Administrative Building $215,990 421.94.44106.86000 Disinfection Replacement $14,970 421.94.44107.86000 Distribution/Electric Building $10,220 421.94.44108.86000 Backwash Pond Improvements $10,000 421.94.44109.86000 Clearwell $20,000 421,94.44110.86000 Storage Shed $15,000 421.94.44114.86000 Leonard Thomas Reservoir $2,000 421.94.44202,86000 Hunter Creek Plant $20,210 421.94.44401,86000 Water Rights Activities $7,650 421.94.44402.86000 Castle Creek Dam & Headgate $13,840 421.94.44405.86000 Castle Creek Pipeline $6,240 421.94.44407.860D0 Gauging Stations $5,000 421.94.44408.86000 Reclamation Project $25,510 421.94.44409.86000 Whitewater Course Improvements $18,970 421.94,44501.86000 Raw Water Distribution $6,340 421.94.44601.86000 Mainline Replacement Program $114,930 Ad D 100% Cfwd r City of Aspen All Requests are one-time 2009 Supplemental Budget 100% Carry Forward Appropriation Request Department / Fund Description Amount 421.94.44603.86000 Meter Replacement Program $30,000 421.94.44605.86000 IselinlTiehack Waterline Across Maroon $400,000 421.94.44614.86000 Burlingame/Aabc Tie -In $195,000 421.94.44615.86000 Maroon Creek Bridge Highway Crossing $342,680 421.94.44701.86000 Pump Station $29,620 421.94.44702.86000 Pressure Reducing Valves $12,920 421.94.44802.86000 Storage Tanks "B" $4,340 421.94.44907.86000 General Groundwater Facilities $17,500 421,94.45001.86101 I.S. Plan - Scada/System Telemetry $19,050 421.94.45001.86103 I.S. Plan - Utility Billing $12,950 421.94.82057.86000 Network Systems $87,030 421,94.82088.86000 Core Network $15,250 Subtotal, Water Utility Electric Utility 431.45.45000.83625 Workstation Replacement $1,080 431.45.45000.83635 Equipment Maintenance and Repair $4,320 431.45.45000.83655 PC Replacement $2,200 431.94,46101.86000 Electric Administration Building $4,000 431.94.46103.86000 Distribution/Electric Building $19,950 431.94.46203.86000 Golf Course East Distribution System $442,410 431.94.46206.86000 Acsd Distribution System $120,000 431.94.46207.86000 Arc Distribution System $139,900 431.94.46401.86000 Meter Replacement $42,990 431.94.46402.86000 Maroon Creek Bridge Conduit Project $161,000 431.94.46404,86000 Energy Conservation $30,000 431.94.46405.86000 System Telemetry $42,000 431.94.46407.86000 Conservation Program $150,000 431.94.46408.86000 Carbon Offset Program- Canary Tags $15,000 431.94.46410.86000 Insulate And Seal Project $12,000 431.94.46411.86000 Energy Star Homes Project $6,270 431.94.46601.86000 Streets Conduit Program $8,770 431.94.82057.86000 Network Systems $1,500 431.94.92089.86000 Core Network $4,250 Subtotal, Electric Utility Renewable Energy Fund 444.94.43504.86000 Ruedi Maintenance $333,020 444.94.43505.86000 Ruedi Site Improvements $41,460 444.94.43500.86000 Maroon Creek Hydroelectric Facility $70,610 444.94.43570.86000 Castle Creek Hydro Electric Distribution $194,230 444.94.43571.86000 Castle Creek Hydro Penstock 5481,890 444.94.43572,86000 Castle Creek Hydro Engineering $56,180 444.94.43573.86000 Castle Creek Hydro Construction $1,660,610 Subtotal, Renewable Energy Fund Parking fund 451.32.32000.83625 Workstation Replacement $13,090 451.32,32000.83635 Equipment Maintenance and Repair $34,090 451.32.32000.83655 PC Replacement $12,020 451.32.54000.83625 Workstation Replacement $1,240 451.32.54000.83635 Equipment Maintenance and Repair $54,700 451.32.54000.83655 PC Replacement $2,310 451.94,81023.86000 Parking Garage Lights $98,500 451.94.81153.82770 Parking Garage Planning for Garage Repair $97,740 At D 100% Cfwd ATTACHMENT D Subtotal by Department $2,034,830 $1,207,640 $2,838,000 City of Aspen All Requests are one-time ATTACHMENT D c 2009 Supplemental Budget 100% Carry Forward Appropriation Request Department / Fund Description Subtotal, Parking Fund Golf Course Fund 471.73.73000.83625 Workstation Replacement Subtotal, Golf Course Fund Truscott Housing Fund 491.01.45044.83625 Workstation Replacement 491.01.45044.83655 PC Replacement 491.94.81022.86000 Truscott Roof Repairs 491.94.82085.86000 Truscott Metal Stairs Repaint 491.94.82113.86000 Truscott Trash Compactor 491,94.82114.86000 Heat Tape and Gutters - Replacement 491.94.82117.86000 100 Building Door Replacement Subtotal, Truscott Housing Fund Marolt Housing Fund • 492.01.45043.83625 Workstation Replacement 492.01.45043.83655 PC Replacement Subtotal, Marolt Housing Fund Employee Housing Fund 505.94.81022.86000 Water Place Housing Roofing Project Subtotal, Employee Housing Fund Housing Administration Fund _ 620.23.45002.83625 Workstation Replacement Subtotal, Housing Administration Fund Asset Management Plan Fund Subtotal by Amount Department $313,690 $540 $540 $1,880 $4,850 $109,000 $52,000 $14,000 $6,000 $7,000 $1,450 $2,600 $3,190 $6,000 $194,730 $4,050 $3,190 $6,000 000.61.82057.86000 City - IT Network Systems Plan $221,000 000.61.820S7.86000 City- IT Core Systems Plan $73,200 000.61.83060.86000 City- IT Phone Systems Plan $4,500 000.61.81169.86000 County - IT Network Systems Plan - 100% Reimbursed $34,500 000.61.81171.86000 County - Web Development -100%Reimbursed $51,200 000.61.81170.86000 County- IT Core Systems Plan -100%Reimbursed $73,200 000.61.81174.86000 County - IT Phone Systems Plan - 100% Reimbursed $4,500 000,61.82137.86000 CIS areal photography needed to complete update $60,000 000.07,83095.86000 Council Chambers Remodel $9,750 000.91.81107.86000 City Hall Remodel $780 000.72.72106.86000 - Building Controls $39,000 000.72.72613.86000 Pool Lighting $11,720 000.74.81112.86000 Aspen Ice Garden Renovations $8,810 000.72.82062.86000 ARC Mechanical Retro-Fit $78,580 000A1.81022.86000 City Hall Roof Repairs $7,700 000.91.82153.86000 Isis Notch $16,690 000.41.81097.86000 Efficiency Measures $100,000 000.41.82003.86000 Site Improvements $81,200 000.41.82003.86000 Street Improvements $367,980 000,15.83075.86000 Bridge Maintenance and Repair $123,000 000.90.82076.96000 TABOR Projects $573,120 D00.15.82002.86000 Curb and Gutter Projects $44,400 D00.15.81197.86000 Main Street Median Project $96,890 000.15.82022.86000 Survey Monuments $50,000 Subtotal, Asset Management Plan Fund $2,131,720 Total 100 %Carry forward Supplemental Requests $12,205,620 Att D 100% Ctwd Attachment E 2009 INTERFUND TRANSFERS Transfer From Transfer To Transfer Amount Purpose of interfund Transfer 000- Asset Management Plan Fund Wheeler Opera House Fund $186,470 1998 Street Improvements 10 yr IF Loan Wheeler Opera House Fund $85,000 Red Brick West End Project 10 yr IF Loan Kids First Fund $181,690 1998 Street Improvements 10 yr IF Loan Debt Service Fund $93,180 Series 2005-STRR-AMP's Portion Subtotal, Transfers $546,340 001-General Fund Parks and Open Space Fund $96,090 Annual Partial Subsidy of Food Tax Refund Employee Housing Fund $200,000 Employee Affordable Housing Water Utility Fund $74,600 1/3 of the Global Warming Program Housing Development Fund $580,000 Zmancis Property Re -purchase AMP Fund $74,900 Finance Savings to Fund CIP Software Package Transportation Fund $37.620 Employee Commuter Cash and Bus Passes Subtotal, Transfers $1,053,210 100 - Parks and Open Space Fund Parks and Open Space Capital Fund $1,378,040 Capital Projects Debt Service Fund $844,400 Parks 2005 Open Space Bonds Debt Service Fund $858,110 2001 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds Golf Course Fund $135,000 Series 2005 - STRR - Golfs Portion Debt Service Fund $950,700 Series 2005 - STRR - Park's Portion General Fund $15,000 Additional ACRA Marketing General Fund $707,100 Overhead Payment General Fund $3,610 Central Savings Employee Housing Fund $221,190 Employee Affordable Housing Subtotal, Transfers - $5,113,150 120- Wheeler Opera House Fund Employee Housing Fund $77,830 Employee Affordable Housing General Fund $15,000 Additional ACRA Marketing General Fund $12,770 Central Savings General Fund $251.050 Overhead Payment ' Subtotal, Transfers $356,650 141-Transportation Fund Employee Housing Fund $9,150 Employee Affordable Housing Parks and Open Space Fund $366,730 Putney Park Mall Maintenance General Fund $157,500 Use Tax Positions General Fund $15,000 Power Plant Road Study General Fund $144,430 Overhead Payment Subtotal, Transfers $692,810 150- Housing Development Fund Truscott Housing Fund $743,820 Truscott I, 2001 Housing Bonds Subsidy Housing Administration Fund $198,880 Operations Subsidy (50%of total) General Fund - $523,360 Overhead Payment Wheeler Opera House Fund $2,915,680 BMC West- IF Loan Subtotal, Transfers $4,381,740 151- Early Childhood Education fund Kids First Fund $21,270 Administration Services Subtotal, Transfers $21,270 152-Kids . First Fund Employee Housing Fund $31,130 Employee Affordable Housing General Fund $66,760 Overhead Payment Subtotal, Transfers $97,890 160- Stormvrater Fund General Fund $61,000 Overhead Payment Subtotal, Transfers $61,000 340- Parks and Open Space Capital fund Water Fund $0 Water Reclamation Project General Fund $32,770 Overhead Payment Subtotal, Transfers $32,770 Attachment E 11 Transfer From Transfer To 421- Water Utility Fund General Fund Renewable Energy Fund Employee Housing Fund Parks and Open Space Fund General Fund Subtotal, Transfers 431- Electric Utility Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund Employee Housing Fund Renewable Energy Fund Renewable Energy Fund Renewable Energy Fund Renewable Energy Fund Water Utility Fund Water Utility Fund Subtotal, Transfers 444 Renewable Energy Fund General Fund Subtotal, Transfers 451-Parking Fund Employee Housing Fund General Fund General Fund Subtotal, Transfers 471- Golf Course Fund Employee Housing Fund General Fund Subtotal, Transfers 491- Truscott Housing Fund General Fund Employee Housing Fund Housing Administration Fund Subtotal, Transfers 492 - Marolt Housing Fund General Fund Employee Housing Fund Housing Development Fund Housing Administration Fund Subtotal, Transfers 620 - Housing Administration Fund General Fund Subtotal, Transfers 622 - Smuggler Housing Fund General Fund Housing Administration Fund Subtotal, Transfers All City Funds with Health Insurance Expenses Employee Health Insurance Fund Subtotal, Transfers 20091NTERFUND TRANSFERS Transfer Amount Purpose of interfund Transfer $1,000,000 Operations Facilities Land $975,000 Capital Projects Moved $43,440 Employee Affordable Housing $150,000 Water Usage Conservation Programs 650 340 Overhead Payment $2,818,780 $425,350 Franchise Fee $330,750 Overhead Payment $1,980 Central Savings $18,830 Employee Affordable Housing $144,000 Capital Projects Moved $312,000 Carbon Emission Reduction Tags $418,240 Purchase of Hydroelectric Power $132,000 Purchase of Hydroelectric Power $74,600 1/3 of Global Warming Program 289 800 Electric Utility portion of Utility Billing Services $2,147,550 12000 Overhead Payment $12,000 $58,910 Transfer- Employee Housing Fund $3,600 Central Savings 494510 Overhead Payment $557,020 518,830 Transfer- Employee Housing Fund 111 940 Overhead Payment $130,770 $23,560 Overhead Payment $31,130 Employee Affordable Housing 49 750 Overhead Payment $104,440 $18,650 Overhead Payment $24,610 Employee Affordable Housing $417,050 Loan Repayment 58 370 Overhead Payment $518,680 100810 Overhead Payment $100,810 $8,020 Overhead Payment 1 900 Overhead Payment $9,920 3 015 100 Employee Health Insurance Premiums $3,015,100 2009 TOTAL INTERFUND TRANSFERS $21,771,900 City Of Aspen Attachment F 2009 Technical Adjustments Department/Fund Technical Adjustment Description Amount Subtotal General Fund _ 001.95.xxxxx.95000 50% of the funding of the CIP software package is from the $74,900 Finance Department's carry forward departmental savings. This transfer of funds to the AMP Fund accomplishes this. 001.03,03000.88903 Reduced Council contingency to fund a portion of the ($10,000) $200,000 of additional marketing thru ACRA for the City of Aspen 001.02.04322.84060 1 84200 Matching the 2009 contribution budget to the 2009 ($49,560) contributions 001.02.04321.84011 Grassroots TV franchise fee distribution - 2008 franchise $16,110 fee collections were higher than projected during budget development in 2009. 001.02.04321.84039 KJAX franchise fee distribution - 2008 franchise fee $16,110 collections were higher than projected during budget development in 2009. Subtotal, General Fund $47,560 Parks and Open Space Fund 100.95.00000.95340 Reduce Transfer due to reduction in capital projects in ($1,565,840) 2009 100.01.00001.80800 Due to the budget reductions in the General Fund through ($23,870) the Council work sessions in the first part of 2009, the overhead charged to City Funds is reduced proportionately. 100.55.55000.88901 Transfer to Central Savings $3,610 Subtotal, Parks Fund ($1,586,100) Wheeler Opera House Fund 120.93.93000.89901 Transfer to Central Savings $12,770 120.93.00001.80800 Due to the budget reductions in the General Fund through ($8,480) the Council work sessions in the first part of 2009, the overhead charged to City Funds is reduced proportionately. . Subtotal, Wheeler Opera House Fund $4,290 City Tourism Promotion Fund 130.00.19010.82000/19020.82025 Reduction in budget authority to match the lodge tax ($214,000) forecasted revenue with the disbursements for in town transportation and ACRA Subtotal, City Tourism Promotion Fund ($214,000) Transportation Fund TBD Reduction in budget authority to match the 2009 ($68,580) forecasted expenditures in the Transportation Fund 141.34.00001.80800 Due to the budget reductions in the General Fund through ($4,870) the Council work sessions in the first part of 2009, the overhead charged to City Funds is reduced proportionately. Subtotal, Transportation Fund ($73,450) City Of Aspen Attachment F 2009 Technical Adjustments Department/Fund Technical Adjustment Description Amount Subtotal Housing Development Fund 150.23.23150.* Burlingame lot subsidies- adjust budget to match 2009 ($133,500) forecasted expenses 150.01.00001,80800 Due to the budget reductions in the General Fund through ($17,670) the Council work sessions in the first part of 2009, the overhead charged to City Funds is reduced proportionately Subtotal, Housing Development Fund ($151,170) Kids First Fund 152.24.00001.80900 Due to the budget reductions in the General Fund through ($2,250) the Council work sessions in the first part of 2009, the overhead charged to City Funds is reduced proportionately. Subtotal, Stormwater Fund ($2,250) Stormwater Fund 160.42.00001.80800 Due to the budget reductions in the General Fund through ($2,060) the Council work sessions in the first part of 2009, the overhead charged to City Funds is reduced proportionately. Subtotal, Stormwater Fund ($2,060) Parks and Open Space Capital Fund 340.00.00001.80800 Due to the budget reductions in the General Fund through ($1,100) the Council work sessions in the first part of 2009, the overhead charged to City Funds is reduced proportionately. Subtotal, Parks and Open Space Capital Fund ($1,100) Water Fund 421.43.00001.80800 Due to the budget reductions in the General Fund through ($21,960) the Council work sessions in the first part of 2009, the overhead charged to City Funds is reduced proportionately. Subtotal, Water Fund ($21,960) Electric Fund 431.45.45200.92370 This updates the City of Aspen's financial system with the ($575,000) changes to wind purchase power as presented to Council on March 17, 2009 431.95.00000.95444 This updates the City of Aspen's financial system with the ($100,000) changes to wind purchase power as presented to Council on March 17, 2009 431.45,00001.80800 Due to the budget reductions in the General Fund through ($11,170) the Council work sessions in the first part of 2009, the overhead charged to City Funds is reduced proportionately. 431.45,45000.88901 Transfer to Central Savings $1,980 Subtotal, Electric Fund ($684,190) Renewable Energy Fund 444.46.00001.80800 Due. to the budget reductions in the General Fund through ($410) the Council work sessions in the first part of 2009, the overhead charged to City Funds is reduced proportionately. Subtotal, Renewable Energy Fund ($410) City Of Aspen Attachment F 2009 Technical Adjustments Department/Fund Technical Adjustment Description Amount Subtotal Parking Fund TBD Reduced the in car meter refunds to match the liability for ($398,930) deposits 451.32.00001.80800 Due to the budget reductions in the General Fund through ($16,700) the Council work sessions in the first part of 2009, the overhead charged to City Funds is reduced proportionately. 451.32.32000.88901 Transfer to Central Savings $3,600 Subtotal, Parking Fund ($412,030) Golf Course Fund 471.73.00001.80800 Due to the budget reductions in the General Fund through ($3,780) the Council work sessions in the first part of 2009, the overhead charged to City Funds is reduced proportionately. Subtotal, Golf Course Fund ($3,780) Truscott Housing Fund 491.01.000001.80800 Due to the budget reductions in the General Fund through ($800). the Council work sessions in the first part of 2009, the overhead charged to City Funds is reduced proportionately. - Subtotal, Truscott Housing Fund ($800) Marolt Housing Fund 492.01.00001.80800 Due to the budget reductions in the General Fund through ($630) the Council work sessions in the first part of 2009, the - overhead charged to City Funds is reduced proportionately. Subtotal, Marolt Housing Fund ($630) Housing Administration Fund 620.23.00001.80800 Due to the budget reductions in the General Fund through ($3,400) the Council work sessions in the first part of 2009, the overhead charged to City Funds is reduced proportionately. Subtotal, Housing Administration Fund ($3,400) Smuggler Fund. 622.83.00001.80800 Due to the budget reductions in the General Fund through ($270) the Council work sessions in the first part of 2009, the overhead charged to City Funds is reduced proportionately. Subtotal, Smuggler Housing Fund ($270) Asset Management Fund 000.xx.xxxxx.xxxxx Reduction of AMP projects in 2009 - AMP projects were ($244,000) shifted from 2009 into out years and project forecasted expenses are lower than the originally estimated. 000.95.83065.95120 Updating the budget for interfund loan payments to match $6,980 the amortization schedule Subtotal, Asset Management Fund ($237,020) Total Technical Adjustment All Funds: ($3,342,770) ($3,342,770) pN4Q`o1 o 0Q 00o o OO M Ol tirpx po ) oml Wo mM d w ti dryO in Q m w vi vi m a o o o 0 o p 0 0 0 o m m w o p O QNi N J r W �p 'y` m O n N O D] n iD N Vf N ~ J 41 V1 Vl Ll Vt N V v c E M o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v J ti ti r Q Yi Q O or oQ o � � o O o 0 0 m o p m o in M n m M M o .m y 'am O O m 2 m R N N M Ql p W � N H Q lO t0 W Ol I N rl I Q n1 m N O O O O p O O O O O O O O O C V Ol of of n m O O O N O J v O to Q v1 O O N M O Q' O p O O Ol M tO r Q l6 m N O O N N O 1' H Oi Q aJ N Vi N ✓i 'i � r W DJ O tO N M H �n �n O V m .-� t!1 vi M I� n Q Q m QI o� J1 u, vy O •4 m � d U � O O O W O m oao W O V �p W O W pO lM0 E u E � c ++ C J p 1D m �o Q m m O o °� o o O1 0 o Q 0 o a o m o 0 0 0� " H m r n ri y fri +n vi � C � i/Y V} N ti H VY H N VY f-I �? V♦ N 'p J C O O O O O O M O O m N O O O O O O O O O O O OI T y K N N VY N N VY VY ^ T M N O M m a z N N a Q n O O o o O o 0 0 o Om O O O r o 0 0 0 o p� 'y p� O N o O O pp O �p O O p m Q m c a v ¢ o v m r m oo N r ry w io o ri Q n of r o M ,-a .. io '^ o m 40 w Q � Q w �n of m °' Q ai m .-i r O m o v m v m O vi m o n m Lr�m io n+ m m r' L6 ry r a+ `^ Ln c M c m ti m M m m m r o OD VY VY V1 V! N N Vl H 1A 1/1 � c� C d a a H m o E 3 Z T w ° Q Q 5 c c o E E 2 a s o o u a v N 0 m c m O Q .L] U 01 U E a o o c o J o o u u u x "u u - LL d w m w o. rc u S, �_�� a a a u�� v D x 3 ti m v m v J J � N M N n � N n! J n � a a m m N O A A J J N V1 VI W N W 1p lA (n Y 01 tO ]f P O V p W O� W A F+ O (n O Ol A O pwj P N O A 1+ A O V O W m V V tl� O lA Vi N W V O J O �D w O d N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O a � d C O' N N N Z Q N N N N (O Vl NO VI VI A C ,m O OVl 0 0 0 O O O O O N t0 Vf Lf trt V0 in {h to A O Y t/� W V� in o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m 0 o Y N o 0 0 0 o w o 0 o A o Y w D 3 N W m w m A 3 c o 0 0 o O o W C J J d_ c N c OW O N O Y lA O A UI W W O W t/� lO ,A N tYO J N C p m V P f+ O �p O O� m tO N O O A O O O K O N O O O O O O O O O O O O N N a � m N N C L M A N O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O 0 O 0 O O 0 0 O O O 0 O VL O 0 O 0 O 0 O O 0 T O C J 0 O N O Y Y N Jl W W W O D N W tD OI N Y V W 2 N W A N O O YM O A 0 A 0 O 0 0 lPlt V V o0 o a 0 0 W w � w N�� ✓V W Y � m N Y� N N N Vt W N A Vi O N 1n N V L+ A W w m lD F+ F+ m A 4I� O l0 N V to O C w 01 O T N w O Y W W P w 0 A Imn O d O O VVi iD O O W O O O O O O WO o o 3 0 0 o O o p 1 O D - N D p H L1 V1 W 1A Y 1. 1� Y 1.1. O1 m m 40 P w V N a W Ol 1p O Y V m V W N A V m f+ N A N N V O- W m V N W W A W m N W P O V� W O 31 d A W p N P W W 1p M N O Ol W lD N Ol V V V V V Y pl � 3 ry VI N O W O VI J O Y N J m (n lA N Y W J A W O W J m p t0 m O J m N P O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ^ H L Maintenance and Capital Replacement for City of Aspen Employee Housing General: According to the deed restrictions for City of Aspen Employee Housing units, the total allowable appreciation is 3.0% or CPI, whichever is less. Of this appreciation, employees will pay 1.33 percent of the purchase price of their units into the Asset Management Plan for each year they own a unit. This payment will be due upon sale of the unit. The purpose of this payment is to fund replacement of their unit's major capital assets. In other words, the effective allowable appreciation is reduced by 1.33%. For example, if the CPI for a year is 2.8%, the maximum possible appreciation for one of these units is 1.47% (2.8 - 1.33%). At no time will the calculated net appreciation be less than 0.001/o Responsibilities of the Unit Owner: Owners are responsible for keeping the unit and all capital assets well maintained in accordance with operating manuals and standard maintenance procedures. This includes snow removal, carpet cleaning, interior painting, repair of all appliances and lighting fixtures, electrical, plumbing and heating systems, window coverings, sinks and counter tops, cabinets, doors, garage doors, windows, roof, gutters, and landscaping. All landscaping plant materials shall be properly watered, trimmed and otherwise maintained so as to assure their continued health. Such repair and maintenance shall be done at the expense of the unit owner, except for exterior painting, which shall remain the responsibility of the City of Aspen. Unit owners are also responsible for notifying the City whenever damage or an event which could lead to damage has occurred. For example, should a roof leak develop, the owner is responsible for fixing the leak and must also notify the City's Asset Manager of the situation. Unit owners are responsible for ensuring that an annual inspection of all gas appliances is conducted by a qualified technician. Maintenance and Repair Procedures: The unit owner shall conduct or arrange for all maintenance and repairs and shall pay for all related expenses. Capital Project Procedures: The unit owner shall secure at least two written bids from contractors who are acceptable to the Asset Manager. The Asset Manager shall decide which bid is accepted and shall be responsible for contract documents and payments. If so desired by the Asset Manager, the unit owner shall be responsible for contractor scheduling and project management. At the time of sale by the unit owner, the unit owner is responsible for presenting the unit in as good condition, excepting normal wear and tear, as they bought the unit. By purchasing a City of Aspen Employee Housing Unit, owners acknowledge that unexpected events which require cash expenses by the owner may occur. Unit owners are responsible for the full cost of providing homeowners insurance. The minimum level of insurance which shall be maintained at all times is: Type of Insurance Amount of Insurance Coverage Property Insurance: Replacement cost of the unit as defined by the City's insurance carrier Contents Insurance As desired by owner Liability Insurance s300,000 At its sole discretion, the City of Aspen may cooperate with unit owners in the provision of insurance through its insurance carrier. In such cases, the unit owner will pay the City the full cost of such coverage within one week of the policy's start date. Failure to meet the above responsibilities may result, at the sole discretion of the City of Aspen's Asset Manager, in a finding that the unit owner is in breach of the unit's deed restriction. Responsibilities of the City of Aspen: The City of Aspen is responsible for replacement of all capital assets (to be specifically listed for each unit at the time of sale) when they have reached the end of their normal useful life, as determined in the sole discretion of the City's Asset Manager. Capital assets are defined as items costing s100 or more and having a useful life of 5 years or more. This specifically includes carpet, major appliances (including stove and range tops, dishwasher, refrigerator, hot water heaters), kitchen and bath cabinets and counter tops, sinks, plumbing system, electrical system, flooring and sub.flooring, windows, heating system, doors, garage doors, roof, and decking and railings. Specifically excluded are garbage disposals, a4lighting fixtures, automatic garage door openers, and interior painting. The City is also responsible for developing and sharing with the unit owner a multi -year plan which shows the planned time for replacement of each capital asset. The City is responsible for maintaining records on the condition of each unit at the time of sale to a City employee. These records will be compared with the condition of the unit when it is sold by the employee. The unit owner will be charged for the cost of any significant repairs needed to bring the unit in line with its condition, except for normal wear and tear, when it was purchased. The City maintains the right to inspect these properties upon demand, with reasonable notice to unit owners, and repair or replace any capital assets that have deteriorated or failed due to the owner's neglect. Such repairs or replacement shall be done at the owner's expense. Capital Improvements: The unit owner may make certain capital improvements to the property and include those improvements in the resale price for the property only with the .written permission of the City's Asset Manager. The Asset Manager must approve the cost; design, and quality of each.capital improvement. The documented cost of any such improvement shall be added to the resale price of the unit, but shall not be increased by inflation or any other means. Any capital improvement made without the written permission of the Asset Manager shall not be added to the resale price. Allowable Capital Improvements shall only include the following: a Improvements of fixtures erected, installed or attached as permanent, functional, non -decorative improvements to real property, excluding repair, replacement and/or maintenance improvements; b. Improvements for energy and water conservation; c. Improvements for the benefit of seniors and/or handicapped persons; d. Improvements for health and safety protection devices; C. Improvements to add and/or finish permanent/fixed storage space; Improvements to finish unfinished space; and/or g. The cost of adding decks and balconies, and any extension thereto. h. The cost of adding or replacing window coverings. Allowable Capital Improvements shall not include the following: a. Landscaping b. Upgrades of appliances, plumbing and mechanical fixtures, carpets and other similar items included as part of the original construction of the unit. C. Jacuzzis, saunas, steam showers and other similar items; d. Improvements required to repair, replace and maintain existing fixtures, appliances, plumbing and mechanical fixtures, painting, carpeting and other similar items; Procedures at Time of Resale; Unit owners axe responsible for turning over to the City or other purchaser a unit that is completely ready for occupation. This includes all of the following conditions: o The interior shall be thoroughly cleaned, including all carpets, wall surfaces, windows, appliances, floors and countertops. o All personal items and trash shall be removed from the property. o Interior painted or stained surfaces shall be in good condition - defined as largely free of holes and blemishes and exhibiting a clean, neat painted or stained surface. o Landscaping shall be in good condition and substantially free of weeds. o All appliances, doors and cabinet hardware, lighting fixtures, heating, plumbing and electrical systems shall be in good working order. o The unit shall be free of any objectionable odors. The allowable resale price shall be reduced by any expenses the City must make to bring the unit into compliance with the above conditions. unitrant.doc revised 7-7-97 DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR CITY OF ASPEN WATER TREATMENT PLANT AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT SPA AND SUBDIVISION This Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant and Affroldable Housing Project SPA and Subdivision is made this �� day of YAAAc,(_ , 1998, by the City of Aspen, a Colorado home rule municipality, whose address is 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 8 16 11, hereinafter referred to as "Declarant". I. DECLARATION - PURPOSES AND EFFECT 1.1 General Purposes. Declarant is the owner of the First Amended City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant and Affordable. Housing Project SPA and Subdivision recorded at Book Page 5:3 in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office, and hereinafter referred to as "the Property." Declarant desires to submit the Property to this Declaration to provide for the use, operation, administration and maintenance of certain facilities or functions common to the use or benefit -of the Property. The Declaration establishes certain rights and obligations with respect to the Property for the Declarant and all present and future owners of the Property. Declarant intends that such owners, mortgagees and any other person or entity now or hereafter acquiring any interest in the Property shall hold their interests subject to the rights, privileges, obligations, and restrictions established by this Declaration. All such rights, privileges, obligations and restrictions are declared to be in furtherance of a plan to promote and protect the value, desirability and attractiveness of the Property as a City of Aspen employee housing project. 1.2 Declaration. Declarant hereby submits the Property: a. to this Declaration and declares that the Property shall at all times be owned, used or occupied subject to the provisions of this Declaration, which provisions shall constitute covenants running with the land and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of Declarant and any person or legal entity acquiring any interest in the Property; and b. to the provisions of the CIOA. 11. DEFINITIONS The terms listed below, as used in this Declaration, shall have the meanings set forth as follows: 2.1 "Association" means the Water Place Homeowners Association, a Colorado non-profit corporation. 2.2 "CIOA" means the Common Interest Ownership Act, as amended, as set forth in Colorado Revised Statutes 38-33-101, Lt iL , as it may be amended from time to time. 2.3 "Common Elements" means the Parcels when conveyed by the Declarant to the Association, and such other real property acquired by the Association as authorized by the CIOA. 2.4 "Land Use Plan" means the Land Use Plan for First Amended City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant and Affordable Housing Project SPA and Subdivision recorded in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Pidkn County, Colorado, in Plat Book - iW at Page 53 , , or as the same may be hereafter amended. 2.5 "Lot" means each single family residential lot numbered from 18 through 23, inclusive, and each duplex lot numbered 1 through 17, inclusive, as shown on the Plat. For purposes of the CIOA, a Lot shall be considered a unit. 2.6 "Owner" means the person or legal entity holding fee simple title to a Lot. 2.7 "Parcels" means each tract of land numbered 1 through 24 as shown on the Plat. 2.8 "Plat" means the Plat of Subdivision recorded in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado, in Plat Book_ at Page $,3 or as the same maybe hereafter amended. 2.9 "Property" means the real property located in Pitkin County, Colorado, described in Exhibit A hereto and the Plat, filed of office in the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado, in Plat Book at Page ,,3 . 2.10 Undefined Terms. Each capitalized term not otherwise defined in this Declaration, the Land Use Plan or the Plat shall have the meaning specified or used in the CIOA III. PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY Plan. 3.1 LJse._ The use of the Property shall comply with the provisions of the Land Use F1 3.2 Reservation of Rights to Declarant. Declarant reserves the right with respect to the Property, which right shall be reserved to and remain vested in Declarant, notwithstanding the conveyance of the Lots or Parcels by Declarant to any other persons or entities, to grant additional easements, and to relocate existing easements, for utilities, irrigation, drainage, grading, driveway access and similar purposes as may be required by Declarant; provided that no such easements shall be granted or relocated so as to encroach upon the building envelopes of the Lot as shown on the Plat. IV. PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO THE LOTS 4.1 Residential Use. Each Lot shall be used only for single family residential purposes and such accessory uses as may be permitted by the Aspen Municipal Code. 4.2 Compliance with Land Use Plan. All buildings and other improvements constructed upon a Lot, and the use thereof, shall comply with the provisions of the Land Use Plan. All above -grade improvements, except for driveways, parking areas, retaining walls, and landscaping, shall be located within the Building Envelope of the Lot as shown on the Land Use Plan. 4.3 Outdoor Fixtures. Outdoor fixtures, except for chimneys and weather vanes, shall not exceed the height of the highest building on such Lot. 4.4 Reflective Finishes. Reflective finishes and reflective glass shall not be used on exterior surfaces, including, without limitation, walls, roofs, windows, doors, trim, retaining walls and fences; except that the foregoing shall not prohibit skylights. 4.5 Utilities. All water, sewer, gas, electrical, telephone, cable television and other utility pipes or lines shall be buried underground and shall not be carried on overhead poles or above the surface of the ground. Any areas of natural vegetation or terrain disturbed by the burying of utility lines shall be revegetated by and at the expense of the Owner causing the installation of the utilities no later than the next growing season following such installation. 4.6 , Animals. No horses, cows, fowl or other farm animals shall be kept on any Lot. Domestic pets shall be permitted, subject to the rules. and regulations with respect thereto as may be promulgated from time to time by the Association.. All domestic pets, when outdoors, must be leashed at all times or confined within the boundaries of a Lot by a fence or other physical restraint. 4.7 Enclosure of U12slghtiv Facilities and Equipment. All unsightly facilities, equipment and other items including but not limited to those specified below, shall be enclosed within a covered structure. Any motorhome, trailer, boat, truck, tractor, snow removal or garden equipment and any similar items shall be kept at all times, except when in actual use, in an enclosed garage. Any refuse or trash containers, tanks, utility meters or other facilities, service area, or storage pile shall be enclosed within a structure or appropriately screened from view by planting or fencing approved by the Homeowners Association and adequate to conceal the same from neighbors and public and private roads. No lumber, metals, materials, scrap, refuse or trash shall be kept, stored or allowed to accumulate on any Lot, except building materials during the course of construction and only for such reasonable periods of time as is necessary prior to the collection of or disposal thereof. 4.8 No Water Wells. Individual water wells shall not be permitted on any Lot and no Owner shall be permitted to drill for water on a Lot. 4.9 Impairment of Drainage. No Owner shall do anything which shall impair or adversely affect the natural drainage of the Property, or divert drainage water onto another Lot, or deprive any other Lot of its natural drainage course. Each Owner shall install culverts where driveways cross road ditches, irrigation channels and other drainageways. 4.10 No Subdivision. No Lot shall be subdivided into smaller lots or conveyed or encumbered in any less than the full dimensions thereof as shown on the Plat. 4.11 Ownership_Subiect to Occupancy and Resale Deed Restriction Agreement and ve nt. Ownership of all lots shall be subject to and conditional upon certain Occupancy and Resale Deed Restriction, Agreement and Covenant, a copy of which is appended hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 4.12 Enforcement. The provisions of this Article shall be enforceable by the Declarant, the Homeowners Association, or any Owner. V. PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO PARTY WALLS 5.1 Establishment The duplex lots numbered 1 through 11, inclusive, as shown on the Plat, share common walls. Said walls shall be parry walls, and the Owners of the lots which share the party walls shall have a right to use these jointly. The following provisions shall be applicable to those party walls. 5.2 Repairs or Rebuilding. If it becomes necessary or desirable to repair or rebuild the whole or any part of a parry wall, the repairing or rebuilding expense shall be borne equally by the Owners of the adjoining lots that share the parry wall, or by their heirs and assigns. Any repairing or rebuilding of the wall shall be on the same location and of the same size as the original wall or part of the original wall, and. of the same or similar material of the same quality as that used in the original wall or part of the original wall. 0 5.3 Depute Resolution. In the event of a dispute or controversy as to any matter within or arising out of the use, repair or rebuilding of a party wall, the dispute or controversy shall be submitted to the Water Place Homeowners Association, and the arbitration of such matters shall be an express condition precedent to any legal or equitable action or proceeding of any nature whatever. VI. THE ASSOCIATION 6.1 Membership. All Owners shall automatically be Members of the Association. Membership shall be appurtenant to a Lot and shall not be separately conveyed, encumbered or abandoned. Such membership shall automatically cease upon termination of an Owner's ownership interest in a Lot. 6.2 ut . The Board of Directors of the Association, the Executive Board referred to in the CIOA, shall govern and manage the Common Elements and shall enforce the provisions of this Declaration. The operation of the Association shall be governed by its Articles of Incorporation, its Bylaws, this Declaration, the Colorado Nonprofit Corporation Act, and the CIOA. 6.3 Association Powers, The Association shall have all of the powers, authorities and duties permitted pursuant to the CIOA necessary and proper to manage its business and affairs. In addition to its others powers, the Association shall have the following specific powers: a. The right to bring suit in its own name for either legal or equitable relief for any lack of compliance with its Articles of Incorporation, its Bylaws, this Declaration and all rules, regulations and agreements lawfully made by the Association; and . b. The right to levy assessments against the Owners, impose a lien on lots for the nonpayment of assessments, foreclosure of a lien; and C. The right to assign its future income, including its rights to receive common expense assessments, but only upon the affirmative vote of not less than eighteen (18) Owners at a meeting called for that purpose. 6.4 Declarant Contmi. The Declarant shall have the power to appoint and remove officers of the Association and members of the Board of Directors. The period of Declarant control terminates sixty (60) days after the conveyance of seventy-five percent (75 %) of the _ lots that may be conveyed to Owners other than Declarant. The Declarant may voluntarily surrender the right to appoint and remove officers and Directors before termination of the periods of Declarant control, but in that event, the Declarant may require, for the duration of the period of Declarant control, that specified actions of the Association or Board of Directors, 5 as described in a recorded instrument executed by the Declarant, be approved by the Declarant before they become effective. 6.5 Limitation on Declarant Control. Not later than sixty (60) days after conveyance of twenty-five percent (25 0) of the Lots to Owners other than a Declarant, at least one (1) member, and not less than twenty-five percent (25%) of the members of the Board of Directors, shall be elected by Owners other than Declarant. Not later than sixty (60) days after conveyance of fifty percent (50%) of the Lots that may be conveyed to Owners other than Declarant, not less than one-third (1!3) of the members of the Board of Directors must be elected by Owners other than Declarant. VII. COVENANT FOR COWNION ENPENSE ASSESSMENTS 7.1 Creation of Association Lien and Personal Obligation to Pay Common Expense Assessments. Declarant, for each Lot, shall be deemed to covenant and agree, and each Owner, by acceptance of a deed therefor, whether or not it shall be so expressed in any such deed or other convevance, shall be deemed to covenant and agree, to pay to the Association annual Common Expense Assessments. Such assessments, including fees, charges, late charges, attorney fees, fines and interest charged by the Association shall be the personal obligation of the Owner at that time when the assessment or other charges became or fall due. The personal obligation to pay any past due sums due the Association shall not pass to a successor in title unless expressly assumed by them. The Common Expense Assessments of the Association shall also be a continuing lien upon the Lot against which each such assessment is made. A lien under this Section is prior to all other liens and encumbrances on a Lot except: (1) liens and encumbrances recorded before the recordation of the Declaration: (2) the first lien Security Interest on the Lot recorded before the date on which the Common Expense Assessment sought to be enforced became delinquent; and (3) liens for real estate taxes and other governmental assessments or charges against the Lot. This Section does not prohibit an action to recover sums for which this Section creates a lien or prohibit the Association from taking a deed in lieu of foreclosure. Sale or transfer of any Lot shall not affect the Association's lien except that sale or transfer of any Lot pursuant to foreclosure of any first lien Security Interest, or any proceeding in lieu thereof, including deed in lieu of foreclosure, or cancellation or forfeiture shall only extinguish the Association's lien as provided in the Act. No such sale, transfer, foreclosure, or any proceeding in lieu thereof, including deed in lieu of foreclosure, nor cancellation or forfeiture shall relieve any Lot from continuing liability for any Common Expense Assessments thereafter becoming due, or from the lien thereof. VIII. ALLOCATION OF INTERESTS 8.1 Determination of Allocated Interests. The interests allocated to each Lot have been calculated as follows: a. Liability, for Common Expense is one twenty third (1l23); 0 The number of votes in the Association is one (1). LX. TERM, REVOCATION AND AVIENDMENT OF DECLARATION 9.1 Term of Declaration. The term of this Declaration shall be perpetual. 9.2 Revocation of Declaration. This Declaration may be revoked if all of the Owners and the Declarant agree to such revocation by an executed, acknowledged instrument recorded in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado. The prior written approval of each First Mortgagee of Association Property will be required for any such revocation, except in the case of obsolescence, substantial destruction by fire or other casualty, taking by condemnation or eminent domain, or abandonment or termination provided by law. 9..1 Amendment of Declaration. This Declaration may be amended if the Owners holding two-thirds or more of the votes outstanding and entitled to be cast under the Bylaws, and the Declarant, .agree thereto by an executed, acknowledged instrument recorded in the office of the Clerk and Recorder ofPitkin County, Colorado. X. MISCELLANEOUS 10.1 Declarant's Rights Transferable Any right or interest of the Declarant established or reserved in this Declaration may be transferred by Declarant either separately or with one or more of such rights or interests. 10.2 provisions Incorporated in Deed. Each provision contained in this Declaration shall be deemed incorporated in each deed or other instrument by which any right, title or interest in the Property is granted, devised or conveyed, whether or not set forth or referred to in such deed or other instrument. 10.3 Number and Gender. Unless the context shall otherwise provide, a singular number shall include the plural, a plural number shall include the singular, and the use of any gender shall include all genders. 10.4 Construction. The provisions of this Declaration shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose of creating a uniform plan for the development of certain common facilities and functions and for the maintenance of the Parcels. 10.5 Disclaimer. No representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, have been given or made by Declarant or its agents or employees in connection with the ---Property, or any portion thereof, or any improvement thereon, its physical condition, zoning, compliance with the applicable laws, fitness or intended use, or in connection with the subdivision, sale, operation, maintenance, cost of maintenance, taxes or regulations hereof as a planned unit development, except as expressly set forth in this Declaration. 7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Declarant has executed this Declaration the day and year first above written. THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO Jo— Sennett, Mayor STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this \ a day of M CAL 1998, by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. My Commission expires My commission expires: 12IM20M EAA-07J111WgA WP-DECLN.DOC r-.(n1 a � • Asti _� Notary Public 130 S. QaO Address F, a `o d 9 N a N r mp T MM N ti M T a N '� � V m R O O O O C; O O •r N .+ V a° N �V +n w w «t w w ut w vt w vt w N Y y u C w C etl N yew y UOU w h « i C_ A Y a � � O bF O N O Yf O Vi O M O W O W 4011 O O W O W a7y. ut M N A — C N O N 9 N C N pJ N O T 1�11 O 1D °pf O [+1 N Q INl1 �' N c O •S d Q V m h O N 0p ti N {/IN G S Oj .-i 1Oi .°,i O h fil 1�1 P Vml � n I+Nf i7 1� N N O P I� O �p WO-i O P PP O 0:M rl W M Y! U4 M M m c FwF A Lwy' flw !9 17 a N 3 y o A _A 2i N W yay1 yry� m V dOm �A F N T ie a y E C y V_ E m E a '« cm tf o �c a a o,c n3t� a� ac _n;'� L E^ cny�v a "d m -oE c °dn mAa�^� Yamnv p- t 3 ��5 a m ° c o` L �'° Yn o c o 16 m� an �ic m °a or 3>oao 3>°do Rl .ac 'v3mE "Yian oEa n a_ai $ n E $ a no LO «aE a c.°.�a oba am Ev_ c y—$�yv 3 cv a °mE AE .a,Ew roc ^��$a acv $a an e$$ o Eatt E `wq fin.°, 38mmo o' o rn°.l�m Em c n$ n $ o « 0. $_ v E 3 'E $ v E; L 3 c; v 9 a y �c m �$ aEL°'a"yyo aic �m u �v x as nL n� nL dco c au v°Nn!9, v ih y T y fl c c ,. $w � m 0,a,w c$y G € 1�0"v O "iL O1 awE °1 L p y C O1 01 C a E y y '� N L N 'N C y LL C .�.Q U aa+ vC O m $ ,raj q c O o n E x 6i8w c a o 2 t 2 N T r p v rn w d y T c c c g ° o c �n r >fi >rn.o a� a aaN fj a gi c a � u o o c oA > c a c x o 10 ng c�p 3 cryy § m 'Gj$ � me$�a,cm� m c$ Ln 'm Z rno8 P 8 v V V Q F L N rn m = A n & a a m 0 �+ f $ E to E�i ain Z °. c c E 12 mEF �a o c m O1€ �.ac $ $ �aV�a } �n ?!ptom u « n mg r Al r1 b N ui M M a; P rn n7 )1 b-1 a o v a a m C O > �N p O V a w ar .rt v+ w w w w ♦rt Y N p, 10 ate+ 1�1 M .y O ryj N G C M as vl O W N r W N 1+1 O Vf y 8� aai C = N N d n N NMi M NFle u {.i O: O M V N ti M V! W W 1R N •�• N H 6 ' � A _ C N A O OI iF e s o art 0 an 0 m 0 w 0 w 0 yr 0 m 0 w 0 w 0 w 0 w 0 w c a $� 0 N = e0•-a n m o u+ rn p w o U Q p OI N N n a �n I� O' rIL O Oi 1R fH M IN N +R N •yf• N a v O1 N G! � a= CI w 1 YI m= O V m A W F C N = 30= w 30x30 w w Sox rm 7 0 SoxLD3vs' 9 a m' F n v mcca$'� $m wy�a Q c =.= 'oo V E�yE o C O1 = nH n Ev c O1 Eac o u naac c�i a m m Wit«'—°rtcm� T a an �i'm a c rno c m E =o v$ v v m 0 .a, v t E $« d n v 3 x u± my a c= o0o _ u ono E n a 'co 3Ga 0 o`o�na n.3 onnm ycw abo E Nv nscs maa c3a vow M c a a m o m'o to3 o&n�Yai� o 'T' m 0o m niy omt�ao v= v$ a? Z 3 o a $" o E a WW V v O a a N w a O w m$ v° O C U uai d 3 0 0 9 O m V C m N E ari n ryry gi '� n nLo'�$v my� 01nN Yn .c. a �= as in c3 Q,-a N, _ r^ _ u v m a.EN N n n 3 m E 3 a E z$ E n N L E S S v cg a v g C y ry n n c i m O v E c v o a g O E L 'R w o` c v na0` 6aa+y= u oQyy 2 >o c Sm�eii €crn12m we c L a 3vi > xo om' oE 1Q0y� Qy� ' a v oC m 0 �o o o3C y a 0 t c •t "ai m a c m a au 3a� z � �wc �n'o 3i 'L= d3 $ $ E i5nZ mu oa tA'�a van ari a 9m Em a v o wca a°a11'a c � .c. cL 3 .=p v c m E3 O >c s 8 '^ w N v o uni uni vni f O= a xo$ oa _n �, c a .a c R v n� bx 010 "m aac '`1 '^ m= �i! >3 �6 O •" a ci ri pc� a� =V nc ag�n 0V' Vin c O °fm z _on Wx �y y Crn 0 Vc c9 �'a�m jam Oca OEm v� �3L^ C m a 8 ry O qEl'� # ¢ a U O u 3 3 3 3 a 0 a .Ni �i V: r< N G G ti 1 N M C a CO > p O V N to ti Z z Z Z Z V a e Y v 6 q E N N T 3 W N V^ ,n y u c E = w 19 0�. m MM rNMi uU y' A Y y� O p' W U4 VY tl! w M W — C N N O T C a gN O N N a Vm O V `.' Off, N ti o 0 0 0 0 N w M n N 1 m 3 _ ubi. n , 3Ox m to 3t u u F N O 3 c O d c- V d N 'a '� .3 ca d Off"'^ Sm _ Cc O g d N E$ 3 E O£ m 3 E aw u n > v. fi c moc So min �.e.. a o SE> 3 aNi cN E o o5n i o c e, tw oc g`v mEa ao cnwN c0 M=2 "E cn 3a �° a dO w O > a rn !q m'vc c,0, f^ O oa1O no c off, �n c O m'c N 3. 3 >dcdyu 3.� chi v ug o'a u c gc d _ oq 1. Q' ryry d U d K c d d 0 ¢ C co a 0 3 3 s.9 c wo _ d w c o m Y n w d O Vc o'� N '^" cp c `w c d n n'3 0 o w> c v c Y) v d C 'aU c c am 3 3m �L".4 n d Vpy O b in u� d f O C 3 d > N D C u 6 b A _ a & 3 3 m p d o 3 o o u f c a w ID F c E n m > o c rn H �Eo, � � U x a x x ti rl O �1 N P dM. N P ,111y' tiLL O C 00 N ab2 d n .. a d a+ O o ? C $s d pY� W d N d'o 2 rn d V lj d C no n d y d o 0 v § c 0 m O W d A U q O Oo` dv 3E W�c 204- dLLd Oa ,OO m� a gn c o 'pqpq0 O 0 nv m'^d f d d c d ii� Nam$ a a o o m -E w > gEE a O 4 > J 0 C2 vca OQ._ �d3o c ti F N n C d $ C ag O v c,Z cv m C 3M F ; O n u .O o m E 0 & �$ O¢m c c m ddELLm N d ciE�oyr cRaw-6m WN Nd� ii T&Nmn YY,, jd d �+Sdypo�!� O C C p F 4 Y 4 Y M k ii Q�EST��s *- 6-Awtz � 161 Did C13 ty TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Phil Overeynder, Utilities and Environmental Initiatives Director CC: Steve Barwick, City Manager DATE OF MEMO: April 29, 2009 MEETING DATE: May 11, 2009 RE: Request for Information on Carry Forward Appropriation Requests in Water and Electric Funds REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting that $400,000 be carried forward from 2008 to 2009 in the Water Fund for completion of the Iselin/Tiehack water transmission main. Staff further requests that $150,000 in Electric Conservation program funds be carried forward from 2008 to 2009. This memo addresses questions from Council regarding these two items. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: As part of the 2003 Tiehack pedestrian bridge project, Council approved expenditures from the water fund to provide a water transmission line crossing of Maroon Creek to increase the reliability of water service for customers located on the west side of the City's service area. The project was intended to connect the 2 million gallon Tiehack water tank with water transmission facilities located near the school campus. The first phase of this work was completed with a water transmission line completed to the west side of the Tieback pedestrian bridge. However the remaining connection to the tank has not yet been completed. This remaining connection was included in the Asset Management Plan for 2008. Council adopted the inverted block rate system (also known as "conservation rates") for electric consumption for residential and commercial customers in December 2008. As part of this action, funds were programmed for new energy initiatives including additional renewable energy sources as well as for energy conservation efforts. Because of the structure of the inverted block rates, it was anticipated that customer demand for energy conservation measures in homes and businesses would coincide with the introduction of the new rate structure (April 2009). BACKGROUND: The schedule for the water transmission main crossing of Maroon Creek was dictated by the construction of the Tiehack pedestrian bridge. The bridge needed to be Page 1 of 3 designed to carry the weight of the transmission main and this line could not be added at a later date after completion of the bridge. It was the intent at the time to schedule completion of the remaining transmission line connection (Phase II of construction) to the Tiehack Tank to coincide with asphalt replacement on Tiehack Road (a privately maintained road). The need for a second water line crossing of Maroon Creek to increase reliability of service through a connection to the Tieback Tank was identified in the mid 1980's as part of the water management plan. Customer use of energy conservation funds for 2008 was less than budgeted because the program was new and was still getting off the ground. The "Conservation Rates" for Aspen Electric begin in April 2009. The "building performance initiative" was timed to coincide with the changes in electric rates and to increase consumer awareness of opportunities to improve the energy performance of homes and businesses. Because of the concentrated marketing of this program and because of coincident efforts at the state and federal level, we expect the demand for rebates and other services covered under the energy conservation programs to be significantly higher in 2009. DISCUSSION: There are remaining engineering issues that need to be resolved before opening Phase II of Tiehack water transmission line for bids to construct the remaining section of the connection. Funds are required for engineering design in 2009 with construction scheduled either in the fall of 2009 or spring of 2010. Staff is preparing a detailed listing of the use of energy rebates and incentive programs and will provide this information to Council. This will include the expected use of funds by program (e.g. solar pv rebates, appliance rebates, home energy audits, etc.) for the 2009 program. We expect this list to be available prior to the May 11' City Council meeting. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The proposed Iselin/Tiehack water line connection is included in the Supplemental Budget request for 2009 at $400,000. The energy conservation funds are also included in the supplemental budget at $150,000. Both of these requests are to carry forward budgeted projects from 2008 to 2009. Any remaining budgeted funds not expended in 2009 are available to be returned to the respective enterprise fund. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that $400,000 be carried forward for completion of the Iselin/Tiehack water line connection. Staff further recommends that $150,000 be carried forward for the energy conservation program. ALTERNATIVES: An alternative to budgeting for both engineering and construction for the Iselin/Tiehack water line in 2009 is to budget only for completion of engineering design in 2009 and to budget for project construction in 2010. Page 2 of 3 a0C- --s.00 -)0;-- 7 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Blake Fitch, Parking Operations Manager THRU: Tim Ware, Parking Director DATE OF MEMO: April 29, 2009 MEETING DATE: May 05, 2009 RE: Light Fixture Replacement Timeline Information for the Rio Grande Parking Plaza REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting that the remaining balance of $98,500 for the Parking Plaza Interior Light Fixture Replacement to be carried forward from the 2008 budget into the 2009 budget. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: During the first reading of the supplemental ordinance at the City Council meeting held on April 27, 2009, it was requested that further information be provided as to the timeline for the project listed above. DISCUSSION: Staff has installed and tested different types of lighting fixtures at the parking structure. Based on those tests it has been determined that staff would like to replace the current 175W metal halide fixtures with fluorescent type fixtures that are designed to work in the climate conditions experienced in the Aspen area. The schedule for the Parking Plaza Interior Light Fixture Replacement is as follows: May 2009 Final specification for the replacement light fixtures will be developed. June 2009 Lighting replacement project will be put out to bid in accordance with the City of Aspen procurement procedure. September 2009 The actual replacement will be scheduled to occur in mid to late September in order avoid doing the project during the busy summer months. Page 1 of 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the carry forward request be approved in order for this project to proceed in the time frame as listed above. CITY MANAGER ATTACHMENTS: Page 2 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Blake Fitch, Parking Operations Manager THRU: Tim Ware, Parking Director DATE OF MEMO: April 29, 2009 MEETING DATE: May 05, 2009 RE: Plaza Level Planning and Design Timeline Information for the Rio Grande Parking Plaza REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting that the remaining balance of $97,740 for Planning and Design of the Parking Garage Plaza Level be carried forward from the 2008 budget into the 2009 budget. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: During the first reading of the supplemental ordnance at the City Council meeting held on April 27, 2009, it was requested that further information be provided as to the timeline for the project listed above. DISCUSSION: The schedules for the Parking Garage Plaza design and replacement planning are as follows: • RFP was put out August 25, 2008 to run for the required two week period. • Deadline for submitting bid packet was September 8, 2008. • Interviews for submitted bid packets where held October 14, 2008. • Bid was awarded to Carl Walker Inc. on November 19, 2008. • During the months of December thru February, background information and as built drawings of the Rio Grande Parking Plaza and Pitkin County Library have been gathered and submitted to Carl Walker staff. Page 1 of 2 • Carl Walker representatives made a site visit on March 2°d and 3`d, 2009 when the snow had melted enough for them to evaluate the existing condition of the plaza surface. • Draft schematics and initial designs concepts where submitted to the City April 10, 2009. • Review of schematics and initial designs concepts are scheduled to be reviewed by city staff on May 12, 2009. • After the May 121h meeting the schedule is as follows: 4 wks (by approximately June 91h) • Cost estimates will be included • Phasing options will be presented to the City • Dust, noise, and fumes, control concepts will be presented to the City After receiving comments from City officials on the concepts/schematics: 2 wks (by approximately June 30`h) • To refine concept and generate 1 concept. Present refined concept to City. • DD restoration drawing and specification set • Cost estimate of the restoration After receiving comments from City officials on the DD set 4 wks (by approximately August 11`h) • For Bid Documents, Specs and Drawings • Includes a cost estimate. After the above process has been completed, staff will be ready to put the plaza replacement project out for bid. It is estimated that demolition and re -construction of the plaza level could start in the spring of 2010. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the carry forward request be approved in order for this project to proceed in the time frame as listed above. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACIIMENTS: Page 2 of 2 Q�ES"Tssy� � `o MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Scott Miller THRU: Jeff Pendarvis DATE OF MEMO: April 29, 2009 MEETING DATE: RE: Isis Notch Supplemental request for carry forward savings from 2008 to 2009. REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The Asset department requests the funds to be carried forward for the project. The estimated construction cost of this project established by Studio B Architects is $40,000. We have spent approximately $9,000 thus far on design. We believe that the $16K from the 2008 budget and the $30K in the 2009 will give us the budget that is needed to complete the project. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The project was listed in the 2008 and 2009 AMP budget requests and approved by Council. BACKGROUND: This project was a condition of the sale of the Isis Theater between the Krevoy's and the City. The project has been approved by HPC and the Isis HOA. DISCUSSION: The project is set to go out to bid in late April. Once the bid process is complete, staff will know better the budget that will needed to complete the project. Staff does not anticipate the costs of the project being less than $30K. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Staff estimated the cost to complete the project to be approximately $45,000. By combining the balance remaining from 2008 with the 2009 budget should be a sufficient amount to complete the project. The COA is responsible for the ongoing maintenance of this planter and the Asset Department is working Parks to establish those costs. The maintenance costs will be paid from Asset's operating budget for 2009 and will budgeted for in 2010. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Impacts will be limited to construction and maintaining the plantings used in the planter. Normal irrigation and fertilizer will be required. Page 1 of 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council approves the carry forward so that the project can be completed. ALTERNATIVES: If denied, staff will move forward with the request for bid and take appropriate action depending on the $ amount of the bids. Staff will complete the project with approved budget that it has to work with. If the approved budget is not sufficient to complete the project the project will be halted. PROPOSED MOTION: This should be a brief statement for a Council member to read such as "I move to approve Ordinance # . . . " CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Pane 2 of 2 0 W D w Z O W Q > 0 U Q Q V) 0-1 p�^O Z Z - Q O Y a U O - } = Z w d Z wcn w L.0 Q O V 9 a cr W o] 2 W U W Q > O CL Ine Q U a S w S O H V) Z O V) w s r4 m LU o Fg CLIL Q �6�C1 a €e5 0 I uatlsy )o do4S eqj U11, u.d • - - �u�np uop>a�md sy K e�w Z N 2 W 4IN W N z O o c Z W ` W j IL Y IL ❑ ❑z zQ ¢z �0� Z W Z F Z W U) z p w0a- - A,AAAAAA1111111•I��II� o� EL S " W0Z W CO �• �W U U S W W = W U H LL e Q H o M (n m • W ❑ 1 I AAA. 0 W of aoZ �zUg O Q 0 a — U)wO f c9 cr O zm of01 \ ~ J LL W W �O \ — /// \ Ne \� aav�sorm AaiN3 . HOION s191 QQsS-crw) -VF \\ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tyler Christoff, Project Manager, Engineering Dept. THRU: Tricia Aragon, City Engineer DATE OF MEMO: May 1, 2009 MEETING DATE: May , 2009 RE: Main Street Median Project and Public Amenity Fund Carry Forward SUMMARY: Staff recommends to carry forward the amount of $ 96,890.00 for the close out of a master plan for the Main Street Median Project as well as use for alternative pedestrian improvement projects along the Main Street Corridor. BACKGROUND: City Council identified pedestrian improvements along Aspen's Main Street as one of the ten Best Year Yet Goals to be complete by the end of 2009. Staff pursued development of the project in an accelerated time frame based on Council direction to construct a one (1) block "test" section of an enhanced pedestrian crossing area to Main Street as soon as possible. This project attempted to create safer and easier pedestrian crossings of Main Street at the intersections through the use of center planted medians, enhanced pavement materials, street plantings and improved lighting at strategic locations. The Main Street Streetscape project would have a secondary, equally important benefit by enhancing the visual quality of the corridor for both motorists and pedestrians. DISCUSSION: After a public open house and a subsequent City Council work session the Main Street Median Project was tabled. However, funding is still required to close out this project. Remaining funding from the Main Street Median project will be used to design and implement alternative pedestrian improvements along the Main Street Corridor. The Pedestrian and Traffic Safety committee will provide City Council with various alternatives for pedestrian crossings and various safety infrastructure recommendations along Main Street. Staff will request City Council direction on which projects to move forward on during a later Council work session. Staff anticipates $84,000.00 to be available from the 2008 carry forward to be available for these improvements. (see financial implications section below) Page 1 of 2 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Funding Budgeted 2008 Main Street Streetscape Project (000.15.81197.86000) $158,076.00 Total Expenditures 2008 Main Street Streetscape Project (000.15.81197.86000) $ 61,186.00 Carry Forward Request $ 96,890.00 Anticipated 2009 Carry Forward Expenditures Main Street Median Master planning Process Project Closeout $ 8,000.00 Staff Time $ 4,000.00 Pedestrian/Traffic Safety Committee Endorsed Projects $84,000.00 TOTAL $96,000.00 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends to carry forward the amount of $ 96,890.00 for the completion of a master plan for the Main Street Median Project as well as use for potential pedestrian improvement projects along the Main Street Corridor. Page 2 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Adam Trzcinski, Engineering THRU: Tricia Aragon, City Engineer DATE OF MEMO: 4/29/09 MEETING DATE: RE: 2009 Survey Monument project REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Council has requested additional information on the Survey Monument project request for $50,000. BACKGROUND: See 3/12/09 MEMO (attachment 2). DISCUSSION: The current network of survey control monuments in the City was installed in 1999. Since then, the hardware has deteriorated and is in need of immediate maintenance (see attachment 1). Also, staff is requesting to expand the current network of monuments to better cover the City limits (see attachment 1). FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: See 3/12/09 MEMO (attachment 2). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends carrying forward the amount of $50,000.00 for the completion of the Survey Monument Upgrades Project. ALTERNATIVES: If Council chooses to postpone funding for this project then it is likely that further deterioration of the network will occur resulting with increased costs for the required maintenance. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: ATTACHEMENT 1 Page 1 of 8 Pa.-e 2 of 8 Page 3 of 8 Page 4 of 8 ®� .� ° 2 . % 2 � 6� � �!< t y� z � a..«:j � � \ ^ . � � S 2 t� \ % \ � ©w�;\\ .: \�� \ :. .� »�:« a\ � f \ 77' loo "I" 4 v NA (9 ATTACHMENT 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Adam J. Trzeinski, Project Manager, Engineering. THRU: Tricia Aragon, P.E., City Engineer DATE OF MEMO: March 12, 2009 MEETING DATE: RE: City of Aspen Survey Monument Upgrades Supplemental SUMMARY: Staff recommends carrying forward the amount of $50,000.00 for the completion of upgrading the City survey monuments. BACKGROUND: The City survey monuments are an essential resource for surveyors, without which, improvement survey maps and other mapping products would not be possible. The current network of monuments is in need of professional maintenance to assure the appropriate level of accuracy. Furthermore, the network needs to be expanded to better accommodate surveying activity in the outlying areas of the City. DISCUSSION: Maintenance work will include replacing the sleeve and cap protecting each monument with new hardware that will prevent sediment, water, and ice from building up around the monument, and resetting the monument if necessary. All new monuments will be placed in locations consistent with surveying needs and practices. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Funding 2008 Survey Monument Upgrades $50,000.00 Carry Forward Request 2009 Survey Monument Upgrades $50,000.00 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends carrying forward the amount of $50,000.00 for the completion of the Survey Monument Upgrades Project. Page 7 of 8 CITY MANAGER Page 8 of 8 is THE CITY of ASPEN Back Up Documentation For: Second Reading Memos MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Scott Miller THRU: Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager DATE OF MEMO: May 1, 2009 MEETING DATE: May 11, 2009 RE: Supplemental Appropriations REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council approve supplemental appropriation in the amount of $15,000 for the appraisal of the City building located at 455 Rio Grande Place, formerly known as the Youth Center Building. BACKGROUND: In anticipation of negotiations for the sale of the building located at 455 Rio Grande to the Aspen Art Museum, Council instruction staff to obtain an appraisal of the building's value. DISCUSSION: Aspen Appraisal Group completed the appraisal of the building in March and submitted an invoice in the amount of $15,000 for payment. Staff requests a supplemental appropriation in amount of $15,000 to go into the General Fund Asset Management Plan. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: It will impact the Asset Management Plan in the amount of $15,000. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: None RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of supplemental appropriation in the amount of $15,000 for the appraisal of the City building located at 455 Rio Grande Place. ALTERNATIVES: PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve the supplemental request for the appraisal of the City building located at 455 Rio Grande Place." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: None Page 1 of 1 THE CITY OF ASPEN Responses to Council's Questions From Vt Reading of the 2009 Supplemental Ordinance On April 27th of 2009 Questions from April 27th Council Meeting 1 What impact do the supplemental requests have to the General Fund Reserves? See memo for answer. 2 City Employee Housing Fund - Does Water Place Housing have an HOA? Why are City Funds needed to fund this roof repair? See memo for answer. 3 All City Funds - PC and Work stations - statement of need. See below for answer. The PCs are on a 5 year replacement schedule and a yearly allocation of $370 per PC is budgeted for each City Department. At the end of 5 years a total of $1,850 has been reserved to replace a PC. Workstations have a yearly allocation of $180 per workstation that is reserved for workstation changes and replacement. 4 AMP Fund - What is the $100,000 for street efficiency measures going to accomplish? Request for more information on this project - as well as a statement of need. See memo for answer. 5 Water Fund - Maroon Creek Project - request for more information on this project. See memo for answer. 6 Electric Fund - request for more information on the conservation program. See memo for answer. 7 Parking Fund - Request for more information on both of the carry forward requests, the timing for the lighting project and the plaza replacement project . See memo for answer. 8 AMP Fund - Does it make sense to rebid the street overlay projects? If the project is rebid how will it affect the timing of the street overlay projects and the timing of the curb and gutter projects? See memo for answer. 9 AMP Fund - Request for more information on the ARC mechanical retrofit project? Staff will be at the meeting to present this information to Council. 10 AMP Fund - Request for additional information on the ISIS Notch project. See memo for answer 11 AMP Fund - Main Street Streetscape - request for more information on the $96,890 requested to be carry forward from 2008 to 2009. What will these funds be used for in 2009. See memo for answer. 12 AMP Fund - Request for more information on the Survey Monuments project - as well as a statement of need. See memo for answer. 13 General Fund - Status of where we are at on the Zupancis payoff? This is the final year of payment, $580,000 of a four year pay back to the Housing Development Fund for a total of $3,413,698. 14 Housing Development Fund Request for information on lot subsidy reductions. See memo for answer. 15 Housing Development Fund - a quick explanation of the housing table in the memo and how it related to the request for funding $525,000 to $325,000. See below for answer. $325,020 is a new request for Annie Mitchell. As a result of a reduction in request for the Burlingame Lot Subsidies, total new requests including the $325,020 for Annie Mitchell are $206,520. The carry forward budget authority from 2008 total $319,339. The addition of the new request and the carry forward requests total $525,889. See attached table for details. 16 Request for a point of reference of total new requests as a % of total adopted budget budget ? See memo for answer. 17 Employee Housing Fund - a quick explanation of the request for funding of $75,000 for the Water Place Roof Project and the transfer of $200,000 from the General Fund to the City Employee Housing Fund. See below for answer. The $200,000 is one of many transfers from City of Aspen Funds that are being received into the CityEmployee Housing Fund to be used for maintenance, repairs and future construction of for sale and for rent housing units. The $75,000 is requested to fund the roof repairs at Water Place housing. Impact to General Fund Reserves Ending Fund Balance $6,599,032 $222,810 reduction in General Fund reserves and $170,000 reduction in Departmental Savings General Fund Target Balance @ 90 days $5,916,040 Remaining Fund Balance $682,992 $222,810 reduction in General Fund reserves and $170,000 reduction in Departmental Savings Restricted Departmental Savings $984,760 $170,000 reduction in Departmental Savings Unrestricted Ending Balance ($301,768) $222,810 reduction in Unrestricted Ending Balance Description - 2009 Expenses Amount Request to fund the 1% lodging tax shortfall to ACRA $124,500 reduction to the General Fund reserves AACP additional funding request $4,000 reduction to the General Fund reserves BMC West annexation $9,980 reduction to the General Fund reserves Ongoing maintenance on new flush truck $4,330 reduction to the General Fund reserves Special Events - additional and/or expanded events $65,000 reduction to the General Fund reserves Request for appraisal of Rio Grande Building $15,000 reduction to the General Fund reserves Total of General Fund Requests $222,810 Additional Marketing for the City of Aspen through ACRA $200,000 $170,000 reduction in Departmental Savings MEMORANDUM Q ,) -vv- a TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager DATE OF MEMO: April 3, 2009 MEETING DATE: April 13, 2009 RE: 505 Housing Fund Supplemental Requests for 2009 SUMMARY: Staff recommends a 505 Fund budget supplemental in the amount of $75,000 to complete roof repairs and improvements to the Water Place Housing units, improvements that were initiated in 2008. The funds will pay for heat tape, snow fencing/clips and other capital improvements plus contingencies. BACKGROUND: As outlined in "Exhibit F" of the Maintenance and Capital Replacement agreement between the City of Aspen and the Water Place homeowners employee; the agreement states "COA is responsible for replacement of all capital assets, when they have reached the end of their normal useful life, as determined in the sole discretion of the City's Asset Manager. Capital assets are defined as items costing $100 or more and having a useful life of 5 years or more. This specifically includes..., roof... " In the winter of 2007/08 almost all of the houses in Water Place had leaks. Staff reviewed the project in the Spring of 2008 with the Manager's office and was given the go ahead to establish scope and a budget for the repairs. Rooftech Consultants was hired to help find the solution and the COA signed a contract with D and D Roofing for the repairs which was approved by Council. The repairs solved the problem with leaks but there are still problems with ice dams (due to the original design of the residences) and safety issues with pedestrian walk ways. DISCUSSION: There is an HOA for Water Place and the home owners are responsible for maintenance but we are responsible for the capital replacement. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: This expense is not included in the 2009 budget and is requested to be paid from the 505 Housing Fund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council approves the budget increase of $75,000 to complete improvements to Water Place. ALTERNATIVE: If the roof repair is not approved the snow and ice problem will continued to be managed by the Capital Asset Department and the Water Place HOA, but the inherent problems will remain. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. Series of 2009". IUT*uvIII C 3 law TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jerry L. Nye THRU: Randy Ready DATE OF MEMO: April 29, 2009 MEETING DATE: May 11, 2009 RE: Carry forward of Street Department Efficiency Measures funds from 2008 to 2009 REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Carry forward of $100,000 in Street Department efficiency measure funds from 2008 to 2009. BACKGROUND: The City of Aspen Utilities Energy Efficiency Division hired McKinstry Industries to perform technical energy audits and provide a detailed report stating what needs to be improved, the energy savings, and cost of the improvements. They also assisted with grant applications and stimulus money opportunities for the energy improvements. The Street Department deferred maintenance this year until the report could be reviewed and the efficiency projects could be prioritized. Projects identified for Street Department improvements in the McKinstry report include the replacement of the heating systems in the administrative area, the old shop and storage bays; replacement of the snowmelt system for the shop entrance area; and replacement of the windows in the administrative offices. Total cost of all the efficiency projects identified for the Street Department is about $500,000. However, replacement of the office, wash bay, and fleet storage areas' heating systems is dependent on completion of the new hydroelectric plant penstock. The cost for the remaining projects (snowmelt system replacement and windows replacement) is about $120,000, with some portion of that cost eligible to be offset by grant proceeds. DISCUSSION: The heating systems in the old shop and storage bays are used to prevent the water lines in the sweepers from freezing. Heating system failures cause expensive and time consuming repairs to the sweepers. Staff is also concerned about drivers' safety if the existing gas heaters are hit while maneuvering heavy equipment in the same area as the large heaters. The projects that will result in the largest annual CO2 savings are the replacement of the admin area and wash bay heating systems; however completion of those projects is contingent on completion of the hydroelectric penstock in 2010. Page 1 of 2 The snowmelt system has been coaxed along with minor repairs and band aid fixes on the couplers and heat exchangers since 2002. Staff hoped to keep the system working until the installation of a new penstock system in association with the new hydroelectric plant could take place, however the system is failing and should be replaced at a cost of about $66,000 prior to completion of the penstock. The windows in the office area are very inefficient, drafty, no longer work properly and cannot be repaired. To save energy and improve overall warmth in the office area, staff covers the windows with plastic each winter. The cost of new double pane windows with vinyl frames would be about $55,000. FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: The detailed report from McKinstry is attached for your review. The prices listed are the top of range and McKinstry expects actual costs to be lower. McKinstry is applying for grants and stimulus money to help offset the cost of the projects. The money requested to be carried forward is obviously not enough to cover the entire $500,000 expense for all of the projects. We are waiting to hear from McKinstry on the status of our grant and stimulus money applications, but the efficiency projects prioritized for funding with the $100,000 in carry forward funds in 2009 would be the windows replacement and the snowmelt system replacement. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: These are energy consumption reduction projects that meet the goals outlined in the Canary Action Plan. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the carry forward of the $100,000 in efficiency measure funds from 2008 to 2009. ALTERNATIVES: The alternative would be to delay the windows replacement and continue to repair the snowmelt system until the system completely fails. • McKinstry report Page 2 of 2 QuESTso� � MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jerry L. Nye THRU: Randy Ready DATE OF MEMO: April 29, 2009 MEETING DATE: May 11, 2009 RE: Bidding of the 2008 and 2009 Asphalt Overlay Project SUMMARY: In response to council member questions about the use of the funding for the 2008 and 2009 pavement management plan, staff concurs that it makes sense to bid the 2008 and 2009 Street asphalt overlay projects because of prospective lower materials and labor costs. While there is some risk that the new bid prices may be higher than the 2008 bid prices, the dollar volume of both years' asphalt work should provide some economy of scale and should encourage multiple bidders to compete for the job. BACKGROUND: In the spring of 2008, the City followed the competitive bid process and awarded a contract to Elam Construction for asphalt overlays. The work was scheduled to be completed by the fall of 2008. In July, Elam notified the City that they could not complete the work because of an asphalt binder shortage. Companies were not producing asphalt binders due to the high demand for gasoline and diesel. After weighing the pros and cons of changing specifications and using a different blend of asphalt oil, staff decided to wait until 2009 when more of the specified binder blend would be available. Elam Construction agreed to honor the 2008 contract pricing with the exception of the asphalt itself due to price increases over the winter. Elam stated if they were awarded the 2009 asphalt overlay project, they would need to increase the overall cost of both projects by S.90 cents per square yard. DISCUSSION: In 1999, Koch Materials created a special 15 year life cycle asphalt mix designed for our mountain climate. The special mix stays flexible down to -28' F and stays firm and stable up to 70' F of asphalt temperature, lessening the chance of cracks, failures, and potholes. It has proven to be longer lasting than any other mix we have used in the past and well worth the additional cost per square yard over other mixes. Bidding both the 2008 and 2009 asphalt projects will not impede our ability to complete the work this year. Work will begin in September so there is little impact to the downtown core during our busiest season. Page 1 of 2 FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: The City has experienced lower prices on construction projects in the past 3 months and expects to obtain a better price than last year. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: None RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends bidding both the 2008 and 2009 asphalt overlay projects together as one project. ALTERNATIVES: The alternative is to postpone the work until a later date. The streets scheduled for overlays are in need of repair and will show signs of wear if the project is postponed. The overlay will add an additional 1 %" mat on top of the existing mat which adds structural strength and seals the voids and cracks adding another 8 to 15 years of life to the street. Page 2 of 2 Qv�sTsntil �$' l `� Don Pergande From: John Laatsch Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 4:29 PM To: Don Pergande Cc: Scott Miller Subject: Burlingame Ranch SF Subsidy MEMO: BURLINGAME RANCH SINGLE FAMILY LOT SUBSIDY April 30, 2009 FROM: CAPITAL ASSET DEPARTMENT SUBSIDY REDUCTION FOR 2009 The allocation of subsidy for 2009 was reduced following analysis of prior allocations and anticipated allocations for 2009. One allocation for 2009 had in fact been booked in 2008 allowing for the reduction. The entire subsidy program has not been reduced. John Laatsch Project Manager Capital Asset Department John C. Laatsch, ASLA Project Manager Capital Asset Management Department City of Aspen 970 920-5582 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: QVCS��1� '9 Total requested supplemental: $525,859 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the described supplemental funding. Staff also recommends that the Capital Asset department and the Finance department work closely in 2009 to track 150 Fund revenues. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Adopted New Requests in Year Budget Supplemental Ordinance % of Total 2005 $99,187,023 $5,821,646 5.9% 2006 $102,435,689 $2,297,602 2.2% 2007 $91,177,880 $8,080,520 8.9% 2008 $104,744,910 $3,530,300 3.4% 2009 $102,280,120 $1,658,720 1.6% Ville The City of Ospen 10�emOraadum City AnDrney$ Office TO: Mayor and Members of Council FROM: John P. Worcester DATE: May 11, 2009 RE: Ordinance No. C> , Series of 2009, to Disconnect Certain Lands from the Boundary of the City of Aspen — Area Near South End of Aspen/Pitkin County Airport. Attached for your consideration and review is a proposed ordinance that, if approved, would disconnect certain parcels from the boundary of the City of Aspen. Pitkin County has asked that certain parcels of land adjoining, or in the immediate vicinity of, the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport be disconnected (de -annexed) from the boundary of the City of Aspen. As shown in the accompanying application from Pitkin County, the lands proposed to be disconnected from the City limits are owned by the City of Aspen and Pitkin County. The City Manager has agreed to allow the City of Aspen to be a co -applicant to allow the County to proceed with this request, but the consent is not intended to prejudge City Council's decision in this matter. Please note that this petition has been amended since first reading by removing from the area proposed to be disconnected the area comprising portions of Highway 82. City staff asked that the highway be removed as the City wants to continue controlling that area of the highway and the entrance to Burlingame and Harmony Rd. The County has agreed to remove that highway property from the area proposed to be disconnected. The accompanying application contains maps describing the parcels proposed to be disconnected and their locations relative to the airport. State law authorizes City Council to adopt an ordinance to disconnect lands that are within and adjacent to the boundary of the City of Aspen upon the filing of an application by the property owners and a finding of the City Council that the best interests of the City would not be prejudiced by the approval of the disconnection. Thus, the decision to disconnect the various parcels described herein from the boundary of the City of Aspen is entirely discretionary by the City Council. The attached proposed ordinance contains the requisite findings and, if adopted, would disconnect the parcels from the boundary of the City of Aspen. Referral comments were solicited from the City's Engineering, Parks, and Community Development Departments. At first reading there was some concern expressed regarding the future of the trails that currently cross the area proposed to be disconnected. After discussing this concern with the County, they assured the City that they are committed to continuing the trail system in and around the airport, but are reluctant to formally agree to anything for fear that such an agreement may cause them extra bureaucratic aggravation in their efforts to obtain federal approval for airport expansion plans. The Community Development Department comments are appended hereto as they are a little more comprehensive than the comments received from the Engineering or Parks Departments and describe the "pros and cons" as they see them in approving the Petition for Disconnection. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: cc: City Manager 1P W- saved: 5/6/2009-51 S-G:\john\word\memos\airport-disconnect.doc TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council / M� THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director' `QI FROM: Drew Alexander, Planning Technician M �� RE: Petition for Disconnection: Airport Parcels DATE OF MEMO: February 26, 2009 MEETING DATE: May 11, 2009 SUMMARY OF PETITION: The purpose of the requested disconnection is to consolidate certain jurisdictional boundaries surrounding the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport, therefore improving future land use review, Airport Master Planning, streamlining Pitkin County Sheriff and City of Aspen Police responsibilities, and creating a more logical City/County boundary line. The parcels which are subject to this petition are owned by three separate entities; Pitkin County, Colorado Department of Transportation, and the City of Aspen. BACKGROUND: The main parcel to be annexed is the large 58.4 acre City -Owned open -space parcel which was annexed into the City of Aspen as part of the larger Burlingame Ranch annexation. At the time, Owl Creek Road had not yet been realigned. After the said realignment, the County purchased the parcels (N, NAA and N-113) from the City which are now zoned Public -Institutional, primarily for the purpose of the trapezoidal landing buffer which is a requirement of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The City -Owned parcel exists to the southwest of the airport runway. This land is currently zoned Conservation (C) primarily due to the steep slopes on the site that greatly impact the allowed uses and the ability to develop. The site is also encumbered by a conservation easement, which is held by the Aspen Valley Land Trust (AVLT). This deed of conservation easement (DOCE) was granted in June, 2003 and states a purpose to "ensure that the property will remain forever predominantly in its open space, natural habitat and recreational condition." The DOCE clearly states that the property is to be used only for the purposes of recreation, conservation, education, and general conservation purpose and it specifically prohibits the construction placement, reconstruction or replacement of any buildings or structures or the construction of any roadways without the consent of the AVLT. Additionally, the City -Owned parcel does not contain any structures that contribute taxation funds to the city. A city water line does exist that serves the main airport terminal and portions of the Aspen Area Business Center (AABC). There is also an Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) line traversing the disconnect area; however the ACSD is quasi -municipal and independent from the City of Aspen. Furthermore, the Buttermilk Metro District (BMD) maintain a well and pump house in the disconnect area that serve the West Buttermilk Subdivision, but the City receives no revenue for this operation. CDOT also acts as a stakeholder in the petition by owning right-of-way (ROW) on the subject property along Owl Creek Road and Highway 82. CDOT has stated in the petition that, "CDOT [will] neither support nor oppose the proposed deannexation." This statement reflects the condition that CDOT's main priority of maintaining the ability to access and implement necessary utilities along the ROW will not be affected. Therefore, the decision to deannex rests within the judgment of the City of Aspen. PROS AND CONS: Pros for retention in City jurisdiction: • The City would be continuing to assist the implementation of the standards set forth in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). The AACP states a clear goal to "protect and enhance the natural environment." The city would be retaining a large and visible parcel of natural space near the entrance of Aspen along Highway 82 as well as legal review over the property. • The City of Aspen, if the property was retained, would continue having participation in future Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Master Plan implementation. Pros for annexation into Pitkin County: • "To create a more logical City/County Boundary line" (from petition) To increase the enforcement capabilities of the Pitkin County Sheriff's department. The small portions of Owl Creek Road and Highway 82 that transfer between jurisdictions complicates the Sheriff's ability to respond to traffic violations and other matters. • To streamline any future Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Master Plan process by reducing the parties involved. The FAA currently requires all parties that own property surrounding the airport to review master plans. Cons to City for deannexation: • The proposed County zoning (P-I, Public Institutional) may or may not work as well for the parcel as the existing Conservation zoning. • Loss of area under the enforcement of City Police. Cons to County if deannexation is denied: • A continuance of complex review procedures for Airport Master Plans. • A continuance of complicated enforcement areas for Pitkin County Sheriffs and Aspen Police. 0 The permanence of an illogical County/City Boundary. RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that it should not be of great debate to retain this property within city jurisdiction, as long as the conditions pursuant to the DOCE are met. Currently, the DOCE is transparent through jurisdictions and the policies dofined therein would remain valid whether under county or city jurisdiction. According to the petition, the city owned parcel would be zoned P-1 by the county, therefore any land zoned in this district is subject to further planning process, in this case a master plan which the county has stated would honor the DOCE. Pursuant to these declarations, the parcel of open would remain open space and would be immune to future County development. The FAA requires that any jurisdictional body adjacent to the airport must be involved in the master planning process. It would simplify this procedure if Pitkin County had jurisdiction of all surrounding land outright. Also, Staff believes that there is validity in the argument that current alignments of boundaries inadvertently complicate the policing powers of the city and county. Having small portions of Owl Creek Road and Highway 82 under purview of the City's police makes it difficult in some cases for Pitkin County Sheriffs to access and prevent certain trafficking violations. Finally, the City will not lose any money via taxation, being that there are no properties on the site being serviced by city water or other utilities. The ACSD also has no service entities in the City owned parcel. Therefore, Planning Staff is not opposed to the disconnection. ORDINANCE NO. I V (Series of 2009) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING THE DISCONNECTION OF CERTAIN TERRITORIES ADJOINING THE PITKIN COUNTY AIRPORT COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE "AREA NEAR SOUTH END OF ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY AIRPORT." WHEREAS, on February 9, 2009, the owners of the properties proposed to be disconnected from the City of Aspen did file with the City Attorney a "Petition for Disconnection by Ordinance" pursuant to Section 31-12-501, C.R.S; and WHEREAS, Section 31-12-501, C.R.S. sets forth the procedure required to disconnect a tract of land within and adjacent to the boundary of a city. WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby find and determine that approval of the Petition for Disconnection of said territory to be in the City's best interest; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1. That the tract of land described in the Petition for Disconnection, commonly referred to as the "Area Near South End of Aspen/Pitkin County Airport", and as further depicted on the graphical drawings appended hereto as Figures 1 and 2; and, as legally described in Exhibit AA (Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Parcels), Exhibit BB (City of Aspen Open Space), and Exhibit CC (Owl Creek Road), appended hereto and by this reference made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein, is hereby disconnected from the boundary of the City of Aspen in accordance with Section 31-12-501, C. R.S. Section 2. The City Clerk of the City of Aspen is hereby directed as follows: (a) To file one copy of this ordinance in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Aspen. (b) To certify and file two (2) copies of this ordinance with the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. (c) To request the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County to file one certified copy of this ordinance with the Division of Local Government of the Department of Local Affairs, State of Colorado. Section 3. The City Engineer of the City of Aspen is hereby directed to amend the Official Map of the City of Aspen to reflect the boundary changes adopted pursuant to this ordinance. Section 4. The land so disconnected shall not thereby be exempt from the payment of any taxes lawfully assessed against it for the purpose of paying any indebtedness contracted by the City of Aspen while such land was within the limits thereof and which remain unpaid and for the payment of which said land could lawfully be taxed. Section 5. That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 6. That this ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. 2 A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. day of , 2009, in the INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk JPW- saved: 3/31/2009-611-G.\john\word\ords\airport disconnect.doc 2009. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor day of Michael C. Ireland, Mayor 2009. Aspen/Pitkin County Airport City of Aspen Disconnect Petition May 5,2009 Preparedby: TG Malloy Consulting, LLC Preparedfoc Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Administration 402 Park Drive 0233 East Airport Road, Suite A Glenwood Springs, C081601 Aspen, C081611 970-945-0832 Burlingame Ranch PUD City of Aspen MCC Employee Housine NO SCALE Proposed City Boundary Map MEMORANDUM TO: JOHN WORCESTER FROM: DREW ALEXANDER SUBJECT: PETITION FOR DISCONNECTION DATE: 2/27/2009 SUMMARY OF PETITION The purpose ofthe requested disconnection is to consolidate certain jurisdictional boundaries surrounding the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport, therefore improving future land use review, Airport Master Planning, streamlining Pitkin County Sheriff and City of Aspen Police responsibilities, and creating a more logical City/County boundary line. The parcels which are subject to this petition are owned by three separate entities; Pitkin County, Colorado Department of Transportation, and the City of Aspen. BACKGROUND The main parcel to be annexed is the large 58.4 acre City -Owned open -space parcel which was annexed into the City of Aspen as part of the larger Burlingame Ranch annexation. At the time, Owl Creek Road had not yet been realigned. After the said realignment, the County purchased the parcels IN, N-IA and N-113) from the City which are now zoned Public -Institutional, primarily for the purpose of the trapezoidal landing buffer which is a requirement of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The City -Owned parcel exists to the southwest of the airport runway. This land is currently zoned Conservation (C) primarily due to the steep slopes on the site that greatly impact the allowed uses and the ability to develop. The site is also encumbered by a conservation easement, which is held by the Aspen Valley Land Trust (AVLT). This deed of conservation easement (DOCE) was granted in June, 2003 and states a purpose to "ensure that the property will remain forever predominantly in its open space, natural habitat and recreational condition." The DOCE clearly states that the property is to be used only for the purposes of recreation, conservation, education, and general conservation purpose and it specifically prohibits the construction placement, reconstruction or replacement of any buildings or structures or the construction of any roadways without the consent of the AVLT. Additionally, the City -Owned parcel does not contain any structures that contribute taxation funds to the city. A city water line does exist that serves the main airport terminal and portions of the Aspen Area Business Center (AABC). There is also an Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) line traversing the disconnect area; however the ACSD is quasi -municipal and independent from the City of Aspen. Furthermore, the Buttermilk Metro District (BMD) maintain a well and pump house in the disconnect area that serve the West Buttermilk Subdivision, but the City receives no revenue for this operation. CDOT also acts as a stakeholder in the petition property along Owl Creek Road and Highway 82 [will] neither support nor oppose the propose PROS AND CONS d Pros for retention in City jurisdiction: • The City would be continuing to assist the implementation of the standards set forth in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). The AACP states a clear goal to "protect and enhance the natural environment." The city would be retaining a large and visible parcel of natural space near the entrance of Aspen along Highway 82 as well as legal review over the property. • The City of Aspen, if the property was retained, would continue having participation in future Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Master Plan implementation. Pros for annexation into Pitkin County: • "To create a more logical City/County Boundary line" (from petition) • To increase the enforcement capabilities of the Pitkin County Sheriff's department. The small portions of Owl Creek Road and Highway 82 that transfer between jurisdictions complicates the Sheriff's ability to respond to traffic violations and other matters. • To streamline any future Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Master Plan process by reducing the parties involved. The FAA currently requires all parties that own property surrounding the airport to review master plans. Cons to City for deannexation: • Loss of purview ability for any future Airport Master Plan. The proposed County zoning (P-1, Public Institutional) may or may not work as well for the parcel as the existing Conservation zoning. • Loss of area under the enforcement of City Police. Cons to County if deannexation is denied: • A continuance of complex review procedures for Airport Master Plans. • A continuance of complicated enforcement areas for Pitkin County Sheriffs and Aspen Police. 0 The permanence of an illogical County/City Boundary. RECOMMENDATION Staff believes that it should not be of great debate to retain this property within city jurisdiction, as long as the conditions pursuant to the DOCE are met. Currently, the DOCE is transparent through jurisdictions and the policies defined therein would remain valid whether under county or city jurisdiction. According to the petition, the city owned parcel would be zoned P-1 by the county, therefore any land zoned in this district is subject to further planning process, in this case a master plan which the county has stated would honor the DOCE. Pursuant to these declarations, the parcel of open would remain open space and would be immune to future County development. The FAA requires that any jurisdictional body adjacent to the airport must be involved in the master planning process. It would simplify this procedure if Pitkin County had jurisdiction of all surrounding land outright. Also, Staff believes that there is validity in the argument that current alignments of boundaries inadvertently complicate the policing powers of the city and county. Having small portions of Owl Creek Road and Highway 82 under purview of the City's police makes it difficult in some cases for Pitkin County Sheriffs to access and prevent certain trafficking violations. Finally, the City will not lose any money via taxation, being that there are no properties on the site being serviced by city water or other utilities. The ACSD also has no service entities in the City owned parcel. Therefore, Staff recommends the petition for disconnection. 3 EXHIBIT AA Legal Description of Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Parcels �Texel 3 a reil s w. v 4923e7 e3/12/Zees 12r44P ORM MVIS SIWI 3 of 10 N Se.N 0 e.ee N e.ee PITKIN COUNTY CO Ernineen/Sunerers March 23, 2000 Boeldee, Caknook SPHOP, Greeley A Legal Description of the City of Aspen Burlingame Land within the Airport Runway 4840PeMEatComic Protection Zone located in Lot 1 of Burlingame SWo114 Ranch Subdivision and Burlingame Seasonal Housing£, BoeldeeColondo80301-2475 Subdivision/P.U.D. Pitkin County, Colorado for Curtis & Associates. ` 303 442 4338 303 442 4373 Fox PAQCE?. A A tract of land located in Lot 1 of Burlingame Ranch Subdivision and Burlingame Seasonal Housing Subdivision/P.U.D. according to the recorded plat thereof situated in E1/2 of Section 3, T10S, R85W of the 6th P.M., Pitkin County, Colorado described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast Corner of said Section 3 from which the E1/4 Corner of said Section 3 bears S03054'00'W and the N1/4 corner of said Section 3 bears N89'59'45'W, thence S32'56'090W, 3019.61 feet to a Northeasterly Corner of said Lot 1 and the TRUE POINT Qr Exa NN339fi. The following courses and distances are along the Northeasterly line of said Lot 1; Thence S75033'00•E, 78.92 feet; Thence S67.55100•E, 44.38 feet Thence S54'19'000E, 675.92 feet to the Southwesterly Right -of -Way line of Colorado State Highway Number 82 as described in Quit Claim Deed recorded in Book 157 at page 535 of the records of Pitkin County Colorado. Thence leaving said Northeasterly line of said Lot 1 Southeasterly 314.25 feet along the Westerly Right -of. -way line of said Colorado State Highway Number 82 and along the arc of a (S. Palling - 5665-5E - 5193L.SP) 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111M IN 45Y707 03/12/2W1 12s44P ORDER 0018 SILVI 4 e1 10 R 50.55 D 0.00 N 8.00 ►ITKIN cOONTY Co Legal Description (continued) March Z3, Z000 Page 2 curve concave to the Northeast, said arc having a radius of 2352.00 feet, a central angle of 7°39'19" and being subtended by a chord that bears S15026'19"E, 314.01 feet; Thence S69036112"W, 699.27 feet; Thence N11051,57"W, 947.45 feet to a Northwesterly.line of said Lot 1; Thence N63032'00'E, 111.81 feet along said Northwesterly line of said lot 1 to said Northeasterly line'of Lot 1 and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNIM: Excepting therefrom the following described tract of land: ,g at a point on the Northerly line of a parcel of land described in deed recorded November 9, 1979, in Book 379, Page 107, from which the Northeast corner of said Section 3 bears N12043'37"E, 3,761.52 feet; Thence N31°24'37•W, 141.21 feet; x Thence N19°051061W, 576.02 feet; Thence N04042'420E, 129.06 feet to the Centerline of existing Owl Creek Road; Thence along said Centerline of existing Owl Creek Road, S53'281310E, 86.17 feet to a point on the Westerly Right-of- way line of Colorado State Highway 82, Project No. AWP 2012- E November 1937; Thence along said Westerly Right-of-way line and along the arc of a curve to the left, nontangent to the previous course with a radius of 2,342.00 feet, a central angle of 19'27'37•, and arc length of 795.45 feet and a (chord which bears S19°59158"E, 791.64 feet) to the Northerly line of said parcel described in deed recorded in Book 379, Page 107; Thence along said Northerly line, N88-54'350W, 88.68 feet to the POINT or nzaX NINg. A (S. Pulling - 5665-5E - 5193r..SP) 1111111 IL111I I I I I 1111111111111111111111 III 1111111111111 4ma 03/12/2001 12144P ORDER OWZ5 SILYi D o1 10 R 00.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO Legal Description (continued) March Z3, Z000 Page 3 Bearings are based on the North line of the Northeast 2uarter of Section 3, Township 10 South, Range 85 west, of the sixth Principal Meridian as bearing 589°12125'E. Area = 10.40 acres more or less Legal Description Prepared By: Scott A. Pulling, PLS 27936 Drexel Barrell 8 Company 4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite 114 Boulder, Colorado 80301-2475 (303) 442-4338 x (S. Pulling - 5665-5E - 5193L.SP) Eedeeenl5etn7e�a Heeldtr. ceMnde Spdky. Gcuby a* sew 114 DW&L Colocab 1 z+n 303 aa= 4334 303 aa= a373 faa Drexcl B arrell 111111111111 IIIIN 1111 111 IN fillil 1111111111111111 e .ter ie R/ee awe o B." NN =niiii COMM=co EXHIBIT A July 1.1, 1399 A legal deacription of the City of Aspen Burlingame Land within.the Airport Runway protection nlocated l/2 of Section T1oS, R85W ofthe 6thP.MnE ,pitkin County, 30 Colorado A tract of land located iEl/2fdSecrion 3, Tfollow85W o; the 6th P.M., Pitkin Countyp Colorado Commencing at the El/4 Corner of said Section 3 from which the Northeast Corner of said Section 3 bears N03054'0001E, thence s4e"06'S1"W, 956.34 feet to the westerly right-of-waY of Coloradc state Highway Number 82 as described in osedand �heed in sock 15' rRys.�= 4 at Page 535 of the records of pitkin County isozak= •ing courses and distances are along the Northeasterly line of the tract of land as described in Book 107 at Page 321 c the records of Pitkin County Colorado; Thence S69036.120W, 699.27 feet; Thane N119S1'S7"W, 947.45 feet; Thence 363932'00"E, 111.81 feet; thence S15933,00"E, 79.92 feet; Thence S6795S'00"E, 44.38 feet Thence S54.19'000E. 673.92 feet to the westerly right -of-, line of said Westerly right-vf-way of Colorado State Fiighl 2lumber 82; (S.Pulliny .•,--19-90 13.02 FRUH-, "•-- Legal Descriptiva (Continued) July 14, 1999 :age Thence leaving the Northeasterly line of that tract of land25J w line of said colorado State described is said BOOK 187 at Page 321, Southeaster •, fset along the westerly right -of- ay Highway Number 02 and along the arc of a curve concave to the of 2352.00 feet, a central Northeast, said arc having a radius 5 chord that bears angle of 7039'19• and being subtended ubte � porn OP Nc S15.26.19'E, 314.01 feet to the N Area 0 10.978 acres Legal Descriptiod prepared BY: Scott A. pulling. p Drwol Harrell & Company 4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite il! Boulder, Colorado 80301-2475 (303) 442-4338 IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN IIII IIIIII IU IIIII IIIIIIii es if le I!/s M 0 a -es NN a 00 PITKRM IN sir co (S.pulling - 5665-5D - 5069L-Sp) Carter• -Burgess 071056.100.1.1000 May 8, 2003 PROPERTY DESCRII PARCEL N-IA 707 171h Shell, Sub. 2300 Denver, Cclorolo 80202.34D4 Phone: 303.220.5240 Fax 303.820.2402 ..c-h,cara A parcel of land lying in the East Half of Section 3, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6 Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows: QOMMENCING at the East Quarter comer of Said Section 3, (a 3 Y4" brass cap stamped "US Cadastral Survey-BLM 1954'1 WHENCE the Center Quarter Comer of said Section 3 (a 2 W' aluminum cap stamped "D.B.& CO — PLS 27936'7 bears S89"55'55"W a distance of 2551.79 feet, and THENCE S80a48'30"W a distance of 1521.55 feet to a point on the westerly line of a parcel of land described at Reception No. 452307 recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office, being the POINT OF BEGINNING THENCE S69a3842"W a distance of 278.40 feet to a point on the easterly line of Parcel 109-A as described in CDOT Project No. NH 0821-051-051 Unit 1, dated 01-14-00, and recorded at Reception No. 471108 in said Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office; THENCE along said easterly line of Parcel 109-A the following five (5) courses; (1) N17a1213311W a distance of 133.50 feet; (2) N0702432"W a distance of247.72 feet; (3) NO2a59'25"W a distance of 392.93 feet (4) N11 "02'21 "W a distance of 154.45 feet; (5) N15011'12"W a distance of 237.13 feet; THENCE N48a 19'05"E a distance of 17.95 feet to the southwesterly line of a parcel of land described in Book 335 at Page 380, recorded in said Piddn County Clerk and Recorder's Office; THENCE along said southwesterly line the following three (3) courses; (1) S41040'55"E a distance of 52.61 feet; (2) S44"03'55"B a distance of238.86 feet; (3) S31044'55"E'a distance of 215.91 feet to a point of intersection of said soutwesterly line and the extension. of the northwesterly line of a parcel of land described in Book 514 at Page 51, recorded in said Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office; THENCE along said northwesterly line S32"05'29"W a distance of 95.56 feet; TRICE along the westerly line of said Book 514, Page 51 S03"04'31 "E a distance of 220.06 feet to the northwest comer of a parcel described in Book 332 at Page 381 recorded in said Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office; THENCE along the westerly line of said Book 332, Page 381 S03"04'18"E a distance of 123.81 feet; THENCE along the southerly line of said Book 332, Page 381 N63030'29"E a distance of 98.67 feet to the northwest comer of said parcel described at Reception No. 452307; THENCE along the westerly line of said Parcel S I1a56'32"E a distance of 292.59 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 219,351 square feet, (5,036 Acres), more or less. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Page: /05//2005 04:13P SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 0.00 D 0.00 Carta & Burgas, Inc. Carla & Burgen ArchilaWEnginee n, hie Coder & Burgess Coaultorls, Inc C&B Archihch/E glum, Inc CBS Arrhilech/Eagineare, P.C. CBB Newdo, Inc Nixon B Lard Arehilepe/Engineers, P.G =W� r .. Page 2 of 2 Parcel Nl-A The Basis of Bearing for this description is the centerline of Runway 15/33 of the Pitkin County Airport. Said centerline bears South 20a2l'56" East (assumed), a distance of 7004.59 feet. Said centerline is monumented on the south end by a 2.5" aluminum cap at station 80+18.00 and monumented by a 2.5" aluminum cap at Station 10+13.43 on the north. Date: P. Job No. 01 For and on Carter&. B i IIIIII IIIII IIIIII IIIIII III IIIIII IIIIII III IIIII IIII III�O 512051 0Page: 4 of 7 7/0512 050 4:13P Cart 4 Barg"e, Inc C r1w S Burgeu Amkhuk/EnAineen, Lne. Cwter S B.,qm Cmruho , N. C68 ArehA.dr/Enginwrs, 6, Cab Anhlledr/Engin"n, P.G M Nevada, Inc Mum & Laird AmMkek/Erpinan, P.C. Carter, -Burgess 071056.100.1.1000 May 8, 2003 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PARCELN-IB 707 171h Street, Sun" 2300 D.w, C.1=x1s 80202-3404 Phone: 303.020.5240 Fax: 303.520.2,102 A parcel of land lying in the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 0 Principal Meridian, being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the East Quarter corner of Said Section 3, (a 3 We brass cap stamped "US Cadastral Survey-BLM 1954") WHENCE the Center Quarter Corner of said Section 3 (a 2 Y2" aluminum cap stamped "D.B.& CO — PLS 27936'1 bears S89"55'55"W a distance of 2551.79 feet, and THENCE S80a48'30"W a distance of 1521.55 feet tot point on the westerly line of a parcel of land described at Reception No. 452307, recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office, being the POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE along the westerly line of said Parcel, S 1105032"E a distance of 654.78 feet to the southwest comer of said Reception No. 452307; THENCE along the southerly line of said Reception TTo. 452307 N69"31'37"E a distance of 635.69 feet to a point on the westerly tine of Parcel 109 as described in CDOT Project No. NH 0821-051-051 Unit 1, dated 01-14.00 and recorded at Reception No. 471108 in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office; THENCE along said westerly line of Parcel 109 the following two (2) courses; (1) Sl9"57'OS"E a distance of288.06 feet; (2) S32a16'36"E a distance of 141.IS feet to a point of intersection'of said westerly line of Parcel 109 and the northerly line of Parcel 112-C as described in CDOT Project No. NHO821-051 Unit 1, dated 01-01-00 and recorded at Reception No. 471970 in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office; THENCE along said northerly line of Parcel 112-C N89"46'20"W a distance of 858.55 feet to the intersection of said northerly line of Parcel 112-C and the northeasterly line of Parcel 109-A as described in CDOT Project No. NH 0821-051-051 Unit 1, dated 12-02-00 and recorded at Reception No. 471108 in the Firkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office; THENCE the following three (3) courses along said northeasterly line of Parcel 109-A; (1) N22"52'53"W a distance of 465.06 feet; (2) N35"37'15"W a distance of 120.14 feet; (3) N1701233"W a distance of 190.53 feet; THENCE N69"38'42"E a distance of 278.40 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 350,709 square feet, (8.051 Acres), more or less. 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 a / 0.0004:13P Carter G Burgess, Ine. Carter S Burgers Art6heds/fn91neen, Me Career, &Burgess Con"dlanls, Ine, CGS Arehileels/Engineers, lac CGB Ardrilsnr/Engineers, P.C. CGB Newde. Inc Nixon G laird Arthilech/Enginsen, P.C. Page 2 of 2 Parcel NIB The Basis of Bearing for this description is the centerline of Runway 15/33 of the Pitkin County Airport Said centerline bears South 20121'56" Fast (assumed), a distance of 7004.59 feet Said centerline is monumented on the south end by a 2.5" aluminum cap at station 80+18.00 and monumented by a 2.5" aluminum cap at Station 10+13.43 on the north. Date: r*l Job No?9 For and on Carter & B .t i IIIII IIIII IIIII (IIIII ICI II III Illll) III IIIII (III I II 0 /05/ 0 00 4:13P 0 Carter B Burgeu, Inc Carter R Burgett Ba.. Carter B Burgeu Canruhams, Inc. CdB Arrhileda/figinnn, Inc. C&B Archihch/Engli n, P.C. CBB Ne k Inc Nmon a IoW Arrhihd,/Engineers, P.C. EXHIBIT BB Legal Description of City of Aspen Open Space Parcel EXHIBIT "A" LOTS 6 AND 18, SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. LOTS 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 AND 21, SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. fEXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING PARCELS OF LAND AS DESCRIBED IN: BOOK 166 AT PAGE 152, BOOK 176 AT PAGE 611, BOOK 176 AT PAGE 318, BOOK 178 AT PAGE 524, BOOK 181 AT PAGE 320, BOOK 185 AT PAGE 150, BOOK 185 AT PAGE 199, BOOK 195 AT PAGE 517, BOOK 199 AT PAGE 557, BOOK 202 AT PAGE 270, BOOK 213 AT PAGE 113, BOOK 225 AT PAGE 154, BOOK 243 AT PAGE 773, BOOK 243 AT PAGE 777, BOOK 294 AT PAGE 943, BOOK 302 AT PAGE 687, BOOK 322 AT PAGE 976, BOOK 323 AT PAGE 639, BOOK 335 AT PAGE 369, BOOK 335 AT PAGE 380, BOOK 335 AT PAGE 383, BOOK 351 AT PAGE 144, BOOK 742 AT PAGE 450 AND THAT PARCEL EXCEPTED IN THE DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 188 AT PAGE 462. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO 400960 01/16/1997 11:34A PG 3 OF 3 ; EXHIBIT CC Legal Description of Owl Creek Road EXHIBIT "A" PROJECT NUMBER: NH 0821-051 UNIT 1 PARCEL NUMBER: 109 Project Code: 12269 Date: January 14, 2000 DESCRIPTION A net or parcel of land No. 109 of the Department of Transportation, State of Colorado, Project No. NH 0821-051 Unit I containing 1.493 acres more or less, Being a part of Lot 1, Burlingame Ranch Subdivision and Burlingame Seasonal Housing Project and P.U.D., according to the Plat thereof recorded August 9,1999 in Plat Book 50 at Page 88 in the records of Pitkin County, in the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, in Pitkin County, Colorado, said tract or parcel being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the Northerly line of a parcel of land described in deed recorded November 9, 1979, in Book 379, Page 107, from which the Northeast comer of said Section 3 bears North 12' 43' 37" East, a distance of 3,761.52 feet; 1. Thence North 31` 24'37" West, a distance of 141.21 feet; 2. Thence North 19" 05' 06" West, a distance of 576.02 feet; 3. Thence North 04" 42' 42" East, a distance of 129.06 feet to the centerline of existing Owl Creek Road; 4. Thence along said centerline of existing Owl Creek Road, South 53° 28' 31 "East, a distance of 86.17 feet to a point on the Easterly Right of Way line of Colorado State Highway 82, Project No. AWP 2012-13 November 1937; 5. Thence along said Easterly Right of Way line and along the am of a curve to the left, nontangent to the previous course with a radius of 2,342.00 feet, a central angle of 19' 27' 37", an arc length of 795.45 feet and a (chord which bears South 190 59' 58" East, a distance of 791.64 feet) to the Northerly line of said parcel described in deed recorded in gook 379, Page 107; 6. Thence along said Northerly line, North 88° 54' 35" West, a distance of 88.68 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described parcel contains 65,024 square feet (1.493 acres), more or less. BASIS OF BEARING: South 89° 12' 25" East, 2703.97 feet, along the North line of the Northeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 10 South, Range 85 West, of the Sixth Principal Meridian. The North Quarter LS 9 i 84,1994. comer Section 3 being a 2S" G.L O. Brass cap and the Northeast comer of Section 3 being a 2.5" Brass cap, PREPARED BY: Ronald E. Ilk, PLS 24313 MK Centennial 10822 W. Toner Drive Littleton, CO 80127 24315 F1 lA tau riu�wuowuEcusnc. i w.nac Grwlp ]IA 199" EXHIBIT "A" PROJECT NUMBER: NH 0821-051 UNIT 1 PARCEL NUMBER:109-A Project Code: 12269 Date: January 14, 2000 DESCRIPTION A tract or parcel of land No. 109-A of the Department of Transportation, State of Colorado, Project No. NH 0821-051 Unit I containing 6.313 acres more or less, Being a part of Lot 1, Burlingame Ranch subdivision and Burlingame Seasonal Housing Project and P.U.D., according to the Plat thereof recorded August 9, 1999 in Plat Book 50 at Page 88 in the records of Pitkin County, situated in the Fast Half of Section 3, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, in Pitkin County, Colorado, said tract or parcel being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the Center line of existing Owl Creek Road, from which the Northeast !t corner of said Section 3 bears North 50' 11' 37" East, a distance of 2798.31 feet; 1. Thence South 140 19' 27" East, a distance of 237.13 feet; 2. Thence South 10° 10' 36" East, a distance of 154.45 feet; 3. Thence South 02° 07' 40" East, a distance of 392.93 feet; 4. Thence South 06° 32' 47" East, a distance of 247.72 feet; 5. Thence South 161 20'48" East, a distance of 324.03 feet; 6. Thence South 34' 45' 30" East, a distance of 120.14 feet; 7. Thence South 22° 01' 08" East, a distance of 465.06 feet to a point on the Northerly line of a parcel of land described in deed recorded in Book 379, Page 107 in the records of Pitkin County; 8. Thence along said Northerly line, North 88° 54' 35" West, a distance of 139.41 feet; 9. Thence North 24° 14' 28" West, a distance of 683.31 feet; 10. Thence North 10° 27' 05" West, a distance of 331.71 feet; 11. Thence North 011 12'46" West, a distance of 431.46 feet; 12. Thence North 090 34' 59" West, a distance of 493.73 feet. MICC=V0L1%C IDATA1n3Z1YOWV.FCMMU 1-Y WPo Se W,, Im 13. Thence North 220 38' 22" West, a distance of 361.63 feet; 14. Thence North 090 15' 44" West, a distance of 148.05 feet; l5. Thence, North 65° 06' 58" East, a distance of 24.94 feet to a point on the Center Line of existing Owl Creek Road; 16. Thence along said Center Line, South 20° 26'00" East, a distance of 275.45 feet; IT Thence continuing along said Center Line, South 290 17' 00" East, a distance of 215.03 feet; 18. Thence continuing along said Center Line, South 41 ° 41' 00" East, a distance of 71.68 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described parcel contains 274,999 square feet (6.313 acres), more or less. BASIS OF BEARING: South 890 12' 25" East, 2703.97 feet, along the South line of the Southeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 9 South, Range 85 West, of the Sixth Principal Meridian. The South Quarter comer of Section 34 being a 2.5" G.L.O. Brass cap and the Southeast comer of Section 34 being a 2.5" Brass cap, IS 9184, 1994. PREPARED BY: Ronald E. Ilk, PLS 24313 MK Centennial 10822 W. Toller Drive Littleton, CO 80127 NBC RE100 G�`�l•.,� �Ov rapl Fti' F9 LA 14'� „4,,..= 11IN11111111 471108 a °is 2042 l2:44F SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO It 25." o 0.40 14G,CE aVOLACMATTIll72MGVrAAGALMTK-109-A.WPA &aim. roar EXHIBIT "B" PROJECT NUMBER: NH 0821-051 UNIT 1 ACCESS PARCEL NUMBER: log Project Code:12269 Date: September 20,1999 DESC ffMN EACH OR RIGHTS OF ACCESS of the right of waxy f CooloradRIGHT StateHighway No. 82 Highway established rding and from any pan to the laws of the State of Colorado, and from and to any part of the property of the Grantor in the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 10 South, Range 85 West, of the Sixth Principal Meridian, in Pitkin County, Colorado, abutting upon said Highway, along or across the access line or lines described as follows: NH 08 1-01 1 ThU (Project No.) (Parcel No.) (Location ocation of Line) BEGINNING at a point on the Northerly line of a parcel of land described in deed recorded November 9, 1979, in Book 379, Page 12° 43' 37" East 107, from which the Northeast comer of said Section 3 bears North a distance of 3,761.52 feet; 1 Thence North 31 ° 24' 37" West, a distance of 141.21 feet; n 3 2. Thence North 190 05' 06" West, a distance of 576.02 feet; n $ OD 4! 3• Thence North 040 42' 42" East, a distancetD . o of 129.06 feet to a point an the existing centerline n u ° � Of Owl Creek Road, said point also being the point of terminus of this description. ict Me m • N NO ACCESS POINT BASIS OF BEARING: South 89012' 25" East, 2,703.97 feet, along the South line of the S Southeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 9 South, Range 85 West, of the Sixth Principal SMeridian. The South Quarter corner of Section 34 being a 2.5" G.L.O. Brass cap and the outheast corner of Section 34 being a 2.5" brass cap,t LS 9184, 1994. 3Y ,p,nunifor,% PREPARED BY: ° %p00 AfG/S'h., plD �S Ronald E. Ilk, PLS 24313 lF a VO ra MK Centennial teo 91'7 O �r �a 10822 W Toiler Drive C 43 Littleton, CO 80127 LAND ru navuowuEc.LLSuc iorwro s-0--b.a Im Page 2