Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20101122 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA November 22, 2010 5:00 P.M. i. Call to Order II. Roll CaII III. Scheduled Public Appearances IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes) V. Special Orders of the Day a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments b) Agenda Deletions and Additions c) City Manager's Comments d) Board Reports VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion) a) Minutes — November 8, 2010 b) Resolution #93, 2010- IGA Pitkin County for compost grinder c) Resolution #94, 2010 — EOTC 1/2 Transit Sales and Use Tax Budget VII. First Reading of Ordinances a) Ordinance #29, 2010 — 2011 Fees P.H. 12/6 b) Ordinance #30, 2010 — Supplemental Appropriation P.H. 12/6 c) Ordinance #31, 2010 — Lodging Tax P.H. 12/6 VIII. Public Hearings a) Resolution #96, 2010 — Adopting the 2011 Budget b) Resolution #95, 2010 — Adopting the 2011 Mil Levy c) Ordinance #26, 2010 — 630 E. Hyman Ordinance #48 Negotiation d) Ordinance #28, 2010 — Revised Historic Preservation Aspen Modern IX. Action Items X. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting December 6, 2010 COUNCIL'S ADOPTED GUIDELINES ■ Stick to top priorities ✓ Foster a safe, supportive, innovative environment that encourages creativity and acceptable risk - taking ✓ Create structure and allow adequate time & resources for citizen processes. Demonstrate and invite active listening COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. \ 41` MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Lee Cassin, Director of Environmental Health FROM : Ashley Cantrell, Environmental Health Specialist DATE OF MEMO: November 15, 2010 MEETING DATE: November 22, 2010 RE: IGA with Pitkin County for compost grinder REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The Environmental Health Department is requesting Council approve an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between the City of Aspen and Pitkin County regarding the terms of use for the Roto -mix compost grinder (`grinder'). PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council approved a supplemental budget request on August 23, 2010 in the amount of $94,000, a portion of which is to be spent on the purchase of a compost unit. Council approved the purchase of a Roto -mix compost grinder on November 8th from Bill's Volume Trailer Sales. BACKGROUND: In the spring of 2010, Environmental Health and Pitkin County Solid Waste Center applied for a grant from the Pollution Prevention Advisory Board, part of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). In June of 2010, the CDPHE awarded the City of Aspen $94,000 to spend on collecting food and paper waste from local businesses for composting and to purchase a food waste grinder to allow Pitkin County Landfill to compost restaurant food waste. The compost grinder will be delivered to the Pitkin County Landfill in the coming months, where the County will operate and maintain the equipment. The attached IGA describes the specific responsibilities of each party for the duration of the grant cycle, which will be three years. Staff from both the City and County worked together to create the IGA. DISCUSSION: The IGA ensures a continued cooperative partnership with Pitkin County and identifies specific responsibilities in relation to the new compost grinder. Purchase: The City, according to the original CDPHE grant application, has received funding and has signed a contract to purchase the grinder. The grinder will be delivered directly to the Pitkin County landfill, where the County will maintain and operate the grinder to the manufacturer's standards. The City's role is to work with participating businesses and to oversee the grant funds. 1 Ownership: The City owns the grinder from the day of purchase until the designated end of the CDPHE grant cycle (3 years), at which point, the City will transfer ownership of the grinder to the County. Because the City submitted the grant application, the state will not allow for ownership of the grinder by any other party until after the grant is complete. Insurance: During the three year time period, the grinder will be covered by the City of Aspen's insurance policy. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The $56,658 for the grinder will be 100% reimbursed by CDPHE to the City of Aspen. The County will be responsible for maintenance and operation costs of the grinder. The City is responsible for all costs associated with the restaurants, including inside collection bins, signs and training. The City's costs will be 100% reimbursed by the grant or will be considered an in -kind matching contribution to the grant funds. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: According to a waste composition study conducted in 2009, between 60 -75% of Aspen's restaurant waste is compostable material. Thirty percent of all material that is landfilled in Pitkin County is compostable. Food and paper waste is the next category of waste that must be addressed to continue to preserve our landfill life and protect the Aspen environment. The compost grinder is needed in order to process this waste. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council approve the IGA with Pitkin County. ALTERNATIVES: Council can choose to not approve the agreement or can make changes to the agreement. The main concern with not moving forward with this project is the continued practice by businesses to throw away and not properly process food waste. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve resolution # 13 Series of 2010 approving the intergovernmental agreement with Pitkin County concerning the Roto -mix food waste compost unit. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: qe-c--d �+aa C VU d �-- ATTACHMENTS: A. Proposed IGA 2 RESOLUTION # C f (Series of 2010) A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO AND PITKIN COUNTY SOLID WASTE CENTER, SETTING FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING THE USE OF THE ROTO -MIX WASTE PRO COMPOSTER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council an agreement between the City of Aspen, Colorado and Pitkin County, a copy of which agreement is annexed hereto and made a part thereof. WHEREAS, the Aspen Environmental Health Department has received a grant from the Colorado Department of Health and the Environment to fund the full purchase price of the grinder, in order to operate a pilot food waste compost program, and WHEREAS this agreement will ensure a continued partnership and understanding between the two parties, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that agreement between the City of Aspen, and Pitkin County regarding the use of the composter trailer unit, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen. Dated: Michael C. Ireland, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held November 22, 2010. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT CITY OF ASPEN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT & PITKIN COUNTY SOLID WASTE THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ( "Agreement "), is made and entered into this day of , 2010, by and between the City of Aspen Environmental Health Department ( "City ") and the Pitkin County Solid Waste Center ( "County "). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the parties recognize the need for a food waste compost program in Pitkin County to prolong the life of the landfill and for the benefit of restaurants, businesses and citizens in both the County and City; and WHEREAS, the parties agree that a Roto -Mix Waste Pro Composter is necessary at the Solid Waste Center in order to compost food waste; and WHEREAS, the parties worked together in a joint effort to write a grant to the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment ( "CDPHE "); and WHEREAS, the grant was approved to be used towards the purchase of a Roto -Mix Waste Pro Composter that will be used to improve the County's existing compost program and to provide containers for participating businesses; and WHEREAS, the grinder equipment must be purchased by the City, under the regulations of the grant, and used by the County, in conjunction with existing compost operations; and WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement have the authority pursuant to Article XIV, Section 10, of the Colorado Constitution and Section 29 -1 -201, et seq., of the Colorado Revised Statutes to enter into governmental agreements for the purpose of providing any service or performing any function which they can perform individually. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements of the parties, and other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: I. PURPOSE a. This Intergovernmental Agreement is designed and intended to: • Ensure a continued partnership between the City of Aspen Environmental Health Department and Pitkin County Resource Recovery; • Facilitate the purchase, use and maintenance of a new Roto -Mix Waste Pro Composter; • Facilitate the purchase, use and evaluation of containers for pilot food establishments; • Establish and clarify the duties and responsibilities of the separate City and County Departments as they endeavor to work cooperatively in serving their customers; and • Establish and clarify financial responsibilities of the separate City and County Departments in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth below. b. The purpose of this Intergovernmental Agreement is to define roles and responsibilities of both the City and County for the duration of a three year grant program. II. PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT a. The City hereby agrees to purchase a Roto -Mix Waste Pro Composter ( "equipment ") in the year 2010 using money allocated to the City by the CDPHE grant committee. b. The aforementioned piece of equipment will be delivered directly to Pitkin County Resource Recovery. c. The City hereby agrees to work with pilot customers and waste hauler(s) to purchase and place containers to allow for food waste separation at participating businesses. III. MAINTENANCE AND USE OF EQUIPMENT a. The County agrees to operate the equipment pursuant with the guidelines of the CDPHE grant agreement for the duration of the grant. b. The County agrees to maintain the equipment to the standards recommended by the manufacturer. c. The City agrees to work with hauler(s) and businesses participants to ensure that containers are used properly and to help businesses track volumes of trash and food waste, as well as to work with haulers and participants to deal with any issues related to wildlife, odors, or easements. IV. OWNERSHIP OF EQUIPMENT a. The City will be the owner of the equipment for the duration of the grant cycle (three years), after which time the City will transfer ownership of the equipment to the County at no cost to the City or County. V. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS 2 a. As outlined in the original grant application, the City will use grant funding to purchase the grinder and to purchase necessary resources for composting restaurants, including bins. b. The City will also contribute an in -kind donation in the form of soliciting partners, working with hauler(s), locating containers, restaurant trainings, signs and ongoing educational programs. c.. As stated in the original grant application, the County will contribute an in -kind donation in the form of costs associated with the operation and maintenance of the equipment and compost processing. d. The operational costs of the overall program, including the cost to operate equipment and individual costs to the City and County, will be evaluated yearly and discussed by City and County staff VI. Insurance a. The equipment will be covered and included on the City of Aspen's insurance policy with a deductible of $10,000. Should the equipment be damaged due to a negligent act(s), errors or omissions of a Pitkin County employee or contractor selected by Pitkin County, the County will be responsible for paying the deductible. 3 CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO By: ATTEST: Approved as to Form: City Manager BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR THE COUNTY OF PITKIN By: ATTEST: Approved as to Form: Pitkin County Solid Waste Manager EAA- 11/15/ 2010 -G: \contract \agr \IGA - environmental health dept.doc 4 MEMORANDUM V I G TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager FROM: John D. Krueger, Director of Transportation DATE OF MEMO: November 12, 2010 MEETING DATE: November 22, 2010 RE: EOTC 2011 1/2% Transit Sales and Use Tax Budget REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Attached for your review and approval is a resolution and budget which, if approved, would authorize the initial 2011 budget for the EOTC 1/2 cent transit sales and use tax. This resolution and the corresponding budgets reflect decisions made by the Elected Officials Transportation Committee ( "EOTC ") at its November 4, 2010 meeting. EOTC Budget Summary -- See the attached 2011 Proposed Budget and Multi year Plan for details. Total 2011 Revenues $ 4,621,287 Total 2011 Expenditures 3,923,170 Annual Surplus (Deficit) $ 689,117 Cumulative Surplus (Deficit) 10,689,325 Surplus designated for Entrance -to -Aspen $4,259,160 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council as a member of the EOTC approves the EOTC annual budget each year and any additional funding requests as they are presented. City Council as a member of the EOTC approved the 2011 budget at the November 4 EOTC meeting. BACKGROUND: The City of Aspen as a member of the EOTC is required to approve the budget by resolution. Each other member of the EOTC is also required to approve the budget by resolution or ordinance before the budget can be considered adopted. DISCUSSION: The mission of the EOTC is to "work collectively to reduce and/or manage the volume of vehicles on the road system and develop a comprehensive, long -range strategy that will insure a convenient and efficient transportation system for the Roaring Fork Valley." The 2011 budget provides for a use of the funds in a manner consistent with the EOTC mission. C:\ Users \kathrynk\AppData \Local\Microsoft\Windows \Temporary Internet Files \Content.Outlook \YPI3WCKO \I IEOTC Aspen a (2).docx FINANCIALBUDGET IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications to the City as these are EOTC funds and not City funds. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: By encouraging mass transit and working to manage or reduce the number of vehicles on the road system, the EOTC is having positive impacts on the environment. RECCOMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council approve the attached resolution to approve the EOTC budget. ALTERNATIVES: Council can decide not to approve the 2011 EOTC budget and send it back to the EOTC for further discussion and approval. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution # to approve the 2011 EOTC Budget." CITY M AG ER COMMENTS: 're ATTACHMENTS: 2011 Proposed EOTC Budget and Multi -Year Plan C:\ Users \kathrynk\AppData \Local \Microsoft\Windows \Temporary Internet Files \Content.Outlook \YPI3 WCKO \I I EOTC Aspen a (2).docx RESOLUTION NO.git SERIES OF 2010 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING THE INITIAL 2011 BUDGET FOR THE PITKIN COUNTY 1/2 CENT TRANSIT SALES AND USE TAX WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners and the Town Council of Snowmass Village (the "Parties") have previously identified general elements of their Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan (the "Plan") which are eligible for funding from the Pitkin County one -half cent transit sales and use tax; and WHEREAS, by intergovemmental agreement dated September 14, 1993, the Parties agreed: a. to conduct regular public meetings as the Elected Officials Transit Committee ( "EOTC ") to continue to refine and agree upon proposed projects and transportation elements consistent with or complimentary to the Plan; and b. that all expenditures and projects to be funded from the County -wide one- half cent transit sales and use tax shall be agreed upon by the Parties and evidenced by a resolution adopted by the governing body of each party; and WHEREAS, at the EOTC meeting held on November 4, 2010, the Parties considered and approved the attached initial 2011 budget for the Pitkin County one -half cent transit sales and use tax; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen wishes to ratify the approvals given at the EOTC meeting by adoption of this resolution. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, that the attached initial 2011 budget for the one -half cent transit sales and use tax is hereby approved as summarized below: Total 2011 Revenues $4,621,287 Total 2011 Expenditures $3,923,170 RESOLVED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 22 day of November, 2010, by the City Council for the City of Aspen, Colorado. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk, do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held November 22, 2010. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk • C:\ Users \Icathrynk\AppData \Local\Microsoft \Windows \Temporary Internet Files\ Content Outlook \YPI3WCKO \l 1 EOTC Aspen a (2).docx Proposed 2011 Budget and Multi -year Plan EOTC Transit Project Funding Revised Proposed Plan Plan Plan Budget Budget 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 te a) Pitkin County 1/2 %sales tax 3,523,000 3,523,000 3,565,000 3,608,000 3,651,000 b) Pitkin County 1/2% use tax 934,000 981,000 1,030,000 1,082,000 1,136,000 c) Investment income & misc. 88,000 101,687 187,000 293,000 432,000 d) Brush Creek Lot rentals 13,800 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 Total Fundin• Sources 4,558,800 4,621,287 4,797,600 4,998,600 5,234,600 I •.. , d n, � , t 1X, , • • i. 1 li l ` !ry , • ,� 'r +1 " 1 ... m i •i i f t ry " ' tl Q , ,:fP b 1," J i ii N i t A 1 ( L i i , d p P I 1 ; i a e-.- FY�r L: �y�n ,-.1.4, rv ; 4 � • o 5 , � nn� i it! -t t' � t I ) raf t ' -tslr em, 1} 'IV ro, & . - " S " " ', 6 ) R 1 ^ .. Atli!! .. .. A:., ales tax ,a, ,. ,i 1 { Ji.u,u , ,. i, M e '1 i " 1 i i� a'I+ � �, 2 855, r ° � �,`�i'. ' ' ., . ! 7 ` s,• ;;- e 7) Snowmass Village transit improvements ($6.5 million total) 6,430,165 8) Buttermilk to Roundabout bus lanes, construction r x.': 396,020 carryover from '09 9) No -fare Aspen - Snowmass bus service (10 /1/09- 4/15/13) 578,760 578,760 601,910 248,625 10) No -fare Woody Creek bus service, winter and summer - 4/15/13 4,030 2,765 2,876 2,936 11 SH82 & AABC •edestrian crossin• desi•n & en• ineerin• 250,000 Total Uses 4,081,090 3,932,170 3,748,592 3,439,772 s 5' 9,663 - c r . 1 ,= ..yl "' n 1 # a � 1> THEi y A EOTC CUMULATIVE SURPLUS/ DEFICIT FUND BALANCE 10,000,208 10,689,325 11,738 333 13,297,161 8,868,524 Revenue projections: a) sales tax 4.5% 0.0% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% b) use tax -4.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% c) investment earnings rate 1.00% 1.10% 1.75% 2.50% 3.25% Calculation of amount allocated to Entrance -to -Aspen and to discretionary funding Pitkin County 1/2% sales tax 3,523,000 3,523,000 3,565,000 3,608,000 3,651,000 Pitkin ass'sCounty 1/2% use tax 934,000 981,000 1,030,000 1,082,000 1,136,000 . , . r-,. r, r , iFi 1s;�l; ipetiIIIII � bo I ., F Y , lassRFT ri• 0 4% ,% ' 3 'EIa•s,, . ,t'i e.s: s.'•. iilt...•nf' .+ rw: s ;' ,,':) Net revenue to be allocated 1,354,720 1,403,355 1,451,194 1,501,789 1,553,928 Annual 2/3's allocation to Entrance -to -Aspen 903,147 935,570 967,463 1,001,193 1,035,952 EOTC iA UALS SW. RPLUSr( after.funding operations). " ;I' ,1 Iffi;! III €I4lil161 ai i669,11ufi +<C..al?I(ll ' fi:t.. ' li'';°;�.r�' plus use of designated fund balance ' 1'i'ai 9 ,020 6,430,165. less Annual 2/3's allocation to Entrance-to-Aspen 5903,147 935,570 967,463 1,001,193 1,035,952 R4. alnii •l('. t : ',r < 1 a ' ' i ' 1 1 7 i ll'it!.3 i„sa,u ' +:' III•:. N., . .fir. . - - a . FUND BALANCE DESIGNATIONS Fund balance designated for Snowmass Village transit improvements 6,430,165 6,430,165 6,430,165 6,430,165 - Beginning fund balance designated for Entrance -to -Aspen 2,696,313 3,570,043 4,259,160 5,308,168 6,866,996 Annual allocation to Entrance -to -Aspen 903,147 935,570 967,463 1,001,193 1,035,952 plus /minus remaining annual discretionary funding (29,417) 246,453) 81,545 557,635 965,576 Year -end! fund, balance designated,fortntrance -to -Aspen 3,570,04T ' 4.$9 4i!iifl 4,08;1 «'.v 6,866 896'i ` ' 6;868;524' • 11/15/2010 11EOTC.xlsx v' MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Taylor, Director of Finance THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager DATE OF MEMO: November 15, 2011 MEETING DATE: November 22, 2010 RE: Proposed 2011 Fee Schedule REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This is for the City Council to consider adoption of an ordinance that makes changes to the various fee schedules that the City establishes for services rendered to the public. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Each year the City council adopts a new fee structure that brings the fees up to date. BACKGROUND: The City has a wide variety of fees that it charges for services that it provides. In some cases the fee represents 100% cost recovery. In other cases the fee represents only a partial cost recovery with the balance if the costs viewed as general public benefit. These fees are reviewed each year to insure that they are appropriately set. DISCUSSION: There are memos from the various departments attached to this memo outlining the proposed changes to the existing fee schedule. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Increased revenues are expected from the proposed fee changes. The actual amount raised will depend on the volume of sales or services rendered. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of the ordinance amending the fee schedule as shown. ALTERNATIVES: Any fee can be amended in any manner that the council may desire. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance #G," CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENTS: A) Memo from Tim Anderson on proposed Recreation fees. B) Memo from Gram Slayton on proposed Wheeler Opera House fees C) Memo from Kathy Tolle on proposed Police department fees. D) Memo from Trish Aragon on proposed Engineering department fees E) Memo from Jannette Whitcomb and Ashley Cantrell on Environmental Health fees. F) Memo from Mary Lackner on proposed GIS fees. G) Memo from John Krueger on proposed Car to Go fees. H) Memo from Steve Aiken on proposed Golf Course fees Page 2 of 2 ORDINANCE NO. u? Series of 2010 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO INCREASE CERTAIN MUNICIPAL FEES WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a policy of requiring consumers and users of the miscellaneous City of Aspen programs and services to pay fees that fairly approximate the costs of providing such programs and services; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that certain fees currently in effect do not raise revenues sufficient to pay for the attendant costs of providing said programs and services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1. That Section 2.12.014 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth Aspen Recreation Department FUN pass fees, is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.12.014 Recreation Department Fun Pass The Recreation Department shall issue Fun Passes that provides access to the holder of such a pass to the following facilities and activities: use of the James E. Moore Pool, public or open skating at the Lewis Ice Arena or Aspen Ice Garden, use of the climbing wall at the Red Brick Recreation Center, fitness classes held at the Red Brick Recreation Center, aquatic fitness classes at the Aspen Recreation Center, tennis court rental and usage at the Aspen Tennis Center. Usage, participation and access to the above activities may be limited to certain times and dates as indicated on the pass. Daily Admission Youth - Resident $7.60 Youth - Guest $15.20 Adult - Resident $9.65 Adult - Guest $17.20 Senior $7.60 Twilight $5.60 Guest 10 Visit Card $124.50 Monthly Pass Youth Resident $46.00 Adult Resident $84.00 Family Resident $166.00 Each Additional $15.70 20 Visit Card Youth Resident $109.50 Adult Resident $164.00 6 Month Pass Youth Resident $221.00 Adult Resident $275.00 Family Resident $600.00 Each Additional $55.00 Annual Pass Youth Resident $399.00 Adult Resident $494.00 Family Resident $1,078.00 Each Additional $108.50 Section 2. That Section 2.12.015 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth Aspen Recreation Center fees, is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.12.015 Aspen Recreation Center ARC Meeting Room Rental Non Profit $56.00 Corporate $80.00 Pavilion/BBQ Rental $30.00 Section 3. That Section 2.12.020 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth certain user fees for the Aspen Ice Garden and Lewis Ice Arena, is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2.12.020 Aspen Ice Garden and Lewis Ice Arena ICE RENTAL & USAGE RATES 1 Rent Entire Facility Aspen Ice Garden $3,500.00 Lewis Ice Arena $3,500.00 General Rental and Camps AIG $240.00 LIA $240.00 Adult Non - Profit Prime AIG $198.00 LIA $198.00 Adult Non - Profit Non - Prime AIG $198.00 LIA $198.00 Youth Non - Profit Prime AIG $198.00 LIA $198.00 Youth Non Profit Non Prime AIG $198.00 LIA $198.00 Skate Sharpening $7.00 Skate Sharpening - Same day $10.00 Pick -up Hockey, One time $13.00 Pick -up Hockey, 10 Punch $114.00 Freestyle 20 Punch Pass $180.00 Skating Classes $12.50 Locker Rental Annually $250.00 Six months $150.00 Monthly $25.00 Section 4. That Section 2.12.030 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth leisure and recreation user fees, is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.12.030 James E. Moore Pool Youth Swim Lessons: Pass holder $60.00 Non Pass holder $80.00 2 Private Swim Lessons: Pass holder $31.00 Non Pass holder $41.00 Lifeguard Training $220.00 Kayak Roll Sessions $5.50 Water Polo Drop in $3.50 Masters Swim Drop In: $3.50 Rentals: Entire Aquatic Facility for Profit $223.00 Entire Aquatic Facility Non Profit -Adult $180.00 Entire Aquatic Facility Non Profit -Youth $157.00 Single Pool Rate For Profit $84.00 Single Pool Rate Non Profit $74.00 Single Lane Rental in Lap Pool - Non Profit $15.50 Single Lane Rental in Lap Pool - Profit $17.50 Section 5. That Section 2.12.040 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth leisure and recreation user fees, is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.12.040 Miscellaneous leisure and recreation fees Adult Programs Adult Basketball -Drop in $5.00 Adult Basketball -Drop in - Non Pass holder $0.00 Adult Volleyball -Drop in $5.00 Adult Volleyball -Drop in - Non Pass holder $0.00 Mens Rec Basketball $730.00 Adult Soccer $795.00 Adult Softball -Mens League $920.00 Adult Softball -Coed League $780.00 Adult Flag Football $410.00 Youth Programs Youth Baseball $113.00 Youth Baseball - Non Pass holder $0.00 T -Ball $63.00 T -Ball - Non Pass holder $0.00 Girls Softball $113.00 Girls Softball - Non Pass holder $0.00 Day Camp $33.00 3 Day Camp - Non Pass holder $0.00 One Time Activity Fee $33.00 Guest Fee $60.00 Sailing $580.00 Sailing - Non Pass holder $0.00 Youth Tennis Lessons $16.00 Tennis Team $580.00 Tennis Clinics $16.00 Tennis Clinics - Non Pass holder $0.00 Tennis Court Rental Fees $11.00 Tennis Court Rental Fees - Non Pass holder $0.00 Youth Athletic $46.50 Youth Athletic - Non Pass holder $0.00 Kickball 1st/2nd Grade $42.00 Kickball 1st/2nd Grade - Non Member $0.00 Kickball 3rd/4th Grade $42.00 Kickball 3rd/4th Grade - Non Members $0.00 Floor Hockey l st/2nd Grade $34.00 Floor Hockey l st/2nd Grade - Non Members Floor Hockey 3rd/4th Grade $34.00 Floor Hockey 3rd/4th Grade - Non Members $0.00 Gym Olympics $34.00 Gym Olympics - Non Members $0.00 Youth Soccer $91.00 Youth Soccer - Non Members $0.00 Youth Soccer - Kindergarten $50.00 Youth Soccer - Kindergarten - Non Members $0.00 Youth Basketball - Kindergarten $48.00 Youth Basketball - Kindergarten - Non Members $0.00 Youth Basketball - lst -8th grade $90.00 Youth Basketball - 1st -8th grade - Non Members $0.00 Climbing Wall Beg Rock Rats $76.00 Beg Rock Rats - Non Members $0.00 Boulder Rats $50.00 Boulder Rats - Non Members $0.00 Int/Adv Climbing $86.00 Int/Adv Climbing - Non Members $0.00 Beg Ages 10+ $75.00 Beg Ages 10+ - Non Members $0.00 Jr Rats $48.00 Jr Rats - Non Members $0.00 Gymnasium Rental -1 hour $62.00 4 Section 6. That Section 2.12.045 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth Wheeler Opera House fees, is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.12.045 Wheeler Opera House. The City of Wheeler Opera House shall charge the following fees for services rendered: k ____ __ _ _____ For - Profit Rentors Not - For - Profit Rentors REGULAR PERFORMANCE RATE $450 per day $250 per day (Also includes rehearsal days) 40% additional per added performance, same day; 60% additional per each additional day. Three -day maximum in- season, four off- season. PRIVATE EVENTS/Non- Corporate $750 per day $750 per day PRIVATE EVENTS/Non- Corporate/ $750 per day, $750 per day, Christmas - New Year's Week only plus $1,000 contribution plus $1,000 contribution to to Wheeler Endowment Wheeler Endowment Fund Fund PRIVATE EVENTS /Corporate $1,150 per day or N/A per performance PRIVATE EVENTS /Corporate/ $1,150 per day or N/A Christmas - New Year's Week only per performance plus $1,000 contribution to Wheeler Endowment Fund PRIVATE MOVIE SCREENINGS $750 all- inclusive (200 $750 all- inclusive (200 patrons or less); patrons or less); $750 plus expenses (over $750 plus expenses (over 200 200 patrons) patrons) BOX OFFICE ROYALTY 5% of all sales 5% of all sales CREDIT CARD BILLBACK 3% Visa/Mastercard; 3% Visa/Mastercard; 4% American Express 4% American Express 5 r BOX OFFICE TICKET SELLERS $16.50/hour; $16.50/hour; (Time beyond 6pm M -Sat; beyond half -hour increments half -hour increments 5pm Sun) BOX OFFICE SETUP $25 standard fee with five $25 standard fee with five or or more business days more business days notice notice $35 fee with three to four $35 fee with three to four business days' notice business days' notice $50 fee with notice of two or $50 fee with notice of two fewer business days or fewer business days TICKET PRINTING $.085 per ticket $.050 per ticket THEATRE TECHNICIAN RATES $25.50/hour; $24.00/hour; half -hour increments half -hour increments PRODUCTION CO- MANAGER $32.50/hour; $30.50/hour; RATES half -hour increments half -hour increments TECH MATERIALS AND BACKLINE SUPPLIES AND PIANO TUNINGS At Cost At Cost 1999 STEINWAY D (CNA) PIANO $300 /performance $200 /performance RENTAL KURZWEIL PC2X 88 -KEY $150 /performance $100 /performance KEYBOARD RENTAL $250 /performance $200 /performance 2008 DW 8 -PIECE DRUM KIT $75 /performance $50 /performance RENTAL 1965 REISSUE FENDER AMP $75 /performance $50 /performance RENTAL 1965 REISSUE FENDER TWIN $75 /performance $50 /performance AMP RENTAL $75 /performance $50 /performance FENDER TWIN (NEW MODEL) AMP RENTAL AMPEG SVT3 -PRO BASS AMP RENTAL CUSTODIAL CHARGE $70 /day; $50 /day; may be more if need may be more if need demands demands 1 MARKETING No charge for inclusion in No charge for inclusion in 6 Wheeler website and Wheeler website and passive passive print materials print materials RENTAL DEPOSITS Required for first -time or fair -risk rentors only Section 7. That Section 2.12.050 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth certain user fees for the Aspen Police Department, is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.12.050 Aspen Police Department Fees The City of Aspen Police Department shall charge the following fees for services rendered: LAW ENFORCEMENT RECORDS Accident Reports, Paper Report $7.00 Case reports per search $7.00 Plus per copied page $0.25 Arrest history and background checks, per search $7.00 Microfilm search per page $10.00 Plus per copied page $0.25 Communications logging, search per hour $25.00 Per Audio CD $15.00 Case Report/Accident Photos, per photo CD $15.00 ASPEN POLICE DEPARTMENT Alarm user permit fee $114.00 First false alarm per year $118.00 Second false alarm per year $237.00 Third and fourth false alarm per year $358.00 All bank alarms $380.00 Late fees $ 12.00 Central alarm license fee $314.00 Vehicle inspection $ 20.00 Certified VIN inspection $20.00 Off -duty security, per officer, per hour $95.00 Notary fees, per acknowledgement $2.00 DOG VACCINATION AND LICENSE FEES: Annual dog tag fees $17.00 Transfer fee $17.00 Replacement tag $4.00 7 Section 8. That Section 2.12.051 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth certain user fees for the Engineering, is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2.12.051 Engineering Department Fees The City of Aspen Engineering Department shall charge the following fees for services rendered: Encroachment License application and processing fee $363.00 Vacation application and processing fee $363.00 Right -of -way permit application and processing fee $363.00 (waived for sidewalk replacement work) Temporary occupation of ROW under encroachments $2.50 per sq. ft/month by commercial operations not associated with construction, including contractors and vendors Permanent Encroachment Fee $1,000.00 per permit Permanent Encroachment Recording Fee $50.00 Temporary occupation of ROW under encroachments within the $5.44/ sq. ft / month core by commercial operations associated with construction, including contractors and vendors Temporary occupation of ROW under encroachments outside of $2.72/ sq. ft / month the core by commercial operations associated with construction , including contractors and vendors Permanent encroachment for earth retention $1.32 /cu. ft. per month Map and plan printing $5.00 per copy Engineering Plan review fees may be waived or reduced at the discretion of the City Engineer for projects serving a public purpose, proposed by a nonprofit organization or in which the fee may be excessive for the work proposed. Section 9. That Section 2.12.052 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth certain user fees for the Environmental Health Department, is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2.12.052 Environmental Health Department Fees The City of Aspen Environmental Health Department shall charge the following fees for services rendered: Special or Temporary Event Plan Review fee $47.00 Special or Temporary Event Inspection fee (if needed) $47.00 8 Swimming Pool Plan Review Fee $79.00 Restaurant Site Inspection Fee $82.00 Food Safety Training $82.00 Food Service License $154 - $343 Childcare Inspection Fee Not to Exceed $100 Small Childcare (0 -4 classrooms) $50 Large Childcare (5 or more classrooms) $100 Food Service License No fee License (School, Charitable Organization, $0.00 Penal Institution, Church, Other) Mobile Unit $225.00 Mobile Unit (Pre - packaged) $115.00 Temporary /Special Event Establishment $255.00 Temporary/Special Events (Pre - packaged) $115.00 Restaurant 0 -100 Seats $255.00 Restaurant 101 -200 Seats $285.00 Restaurant Over 200 Seats $310.00 Grocery Store 0 -3,500 Sq Ft $115.00 Grocery Store 3,501- 15,000 Sq Ft $180.00 Grocery Store 15,001- 25,000 Sq Ft $200.00 Grocery Store 25,001- 45,000 Sq Ft $235.00 Grocery Store 45,001- 65,000 Sq Ft $290.00 Grocery Store 65,001- 85,000 Sq Ft $415.00 Grocery Store Over 85,000 Sq Ft $500.00 Grocery w/Deli 0 -3,500 Sq Ft $207.00 Grocery w /Deli 3,501- 15,000 Sq Ft $338.00 Grocery w/Deli 15,001- 25,000 Sq Ft $360.00 Grocery w/Deli 25,001- 45,000 Sq Ft $395.00 Grocery w/Deli 45,001- 65,000 Sq Ft $450.00 Grocery w/Deli 65,001- 85,000 Sq Ft $575.00 Grocery w/Deli Over 85,000 Sq Ft $690.00 Oil & Gas Temp. 0 -50 (Initial License) $750.00 Oil & Gas Temp. 0 -50 (Renewal License) $275.00 Oil & Gas Temp. Over 50 (Initial License) $1,250.00 Oil & Gas Temp. Over 50 (Renewal License) $500.00 Plan Review Application Fees $100.00 Plan Review & Pre - opening Inspection (Not to exceed) $580.00 Equipment Review Application Fee $100.00 Equipment Review Fee (Not to exceed) $500.00 HACCP Plan (Written) (Not to exceed) $100.00 HACCP Plan (On -site Eval.)(Not to exceed) $400.00 Real Estate Review of Property (Not to exceed) $75.00 Other Services for which fees have been established Established Fee Zgreen Certification $25.00 9 Section 10. That Section 2.12.053 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth certain user fees for the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Department, is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.12.053 Geographic Information System (GIS) Department Fees. The City of Aspen GIS division shall charge the following fees: Printed Maps Large format (greater thanl l" x 17 ") $29.82 each Small format (11" x 17" or less) $11.12 each Large format plotting $16.69 Custom Mapping & Analysis $148.84 hour Minimum charge $74.41 Mailing Lists $118.45 per search Plus $1.14 /per sheet of labels Digital Data Services $148.84 hour Minimum charge — conversion $74.41 Minimum charge per data layer* $33.16 * geographic extents vary per data layer Data Subscription $1,200.00 All layers excluding imagery and topography Section 11. That Section 2.12.030 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth certain user fees for the Car To Go Carshare Program, is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.12.130. Car To Go Carshare Program Fees. The City of Aspen Transportation Department's carshare program known as the "Car To Go" Program shall charge the following fees: ITEM FEE Application $25.00 Monthly Membership $10.00 Hourly Usage $4.00 -$6.00 Per Mile Usage $0.25- $0.60/MILE Fixed daily Rate $70.00 - $90.00 No Reservation Fee $50.00 10 Emergency Cleaning $50.00/HR + Cleaning costs Missing/Incorrect Trip Ticket/Reservation $25.00 NSF Check $30.00 Lost Key Fee $50.00 Inconvenience (late return) $25.00- $50.00 + applicable taxi fees Low Fuel $25.00 ITEM CREDIT Inconvenience $25.00 + applicable taxi fees Referral $25.00 Refuel /Wash $2.00/$4.00 Section 12. That Section 2.12.010 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth certain user fees for the aspen Municipal Golf Course, is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2.12.010. Aspen Municipal Golf Course. The Aspen Municipal Golf Course user fees shall be as follows: 2010 Type of Pass/Price 2011 Proposed Rate Platinum Golf Pass $1,899.00 Gold Pass $1,275.00 Silver Pass _ $725.00 20 Punch Pass $575.00 Bronze Pass $299.00 Junior Pass $175.00 Senior Greens Fee $57.50 Section 13. That Section 2.12.100 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth certain user fees for Building Inspection Services, is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 2.12.100 BUILDING PERMIT FEES This fee structure shall apply to applications submitted on or after January 1, 2011. Hourly Building Review Fee $250.00 per hour 11 Building Permit Fee Permit Valuation Base Fee + Fee based on Valuation $0 - $5,000 $62.50 + $50 per $1,000 of permit $5,001 to $10,000 $125.00 valuation + $45 per $1,000 of permit $10,001 to $25,000 $250.00 valuation + $35 per $1,000 of permit $25,001 to $50,000 $500.00 valuation + $30 per $1,000 of permit $50,001 to $100,000 $1,000.00 valuation + $25 per $1,000 of permit $100,001 to $500,000 $2,000.00 valuation + $20 per $1,000 of permit $500,001 to $1,000,000 $4,000.00 valuation + $18 per $1,000 of permit $1,000,001 to $2,000,000 $8,000.00 valuation + $16 per $1,000 of permit $2,000,001 to $5,000,000 $16,000.00 valuation + $14 per $1,000 of permit Above $5,000,000 $32,000.00 valuation Fees Due Upon Permit Acceptance: Plan Check Fee 65% of the Building Permit Fee. Energy Code Review Fee 10% of the Building Permit Fee. REMP / CREMP Administration Fee 5% of the Building Permit Fee Fire Plan Check 65% of the Building Permit Fee Engineering Permit Review Fee Affected Area Fee 0 - 500 sq.ft. $270.00 501 - 1000 sq.ft. $810.00 1001 - 2000 sq.ft. $1,620.00 Above 2000 sq.ft. $1,620.00 + $2 per square foot over 2,000 Construction Mitigation Plan Review Fee $.50 x gross square footage of project. Fees Dues Upon Permit Issuance: 12 Building Inspections Fee 35% of the Building Permit Fee. Fire Sprinkler Inspections Fees 35% of Building Permit Fee REMP Fees - as applicable See Residential Renewable Energy Mitigation Program or Commercial Renewable Energy Mitigation Program, as applicable. Construction Mitigation Inspections Fee $.50 x gross square footage of project. Use Tax Deposit - City of Aspen 2.1% of value of materials over $100,000 [(Project Valuation - $100,000.00) X .50] X 2.1% Use Tax Deposit - Pitkin County 0.5% of value of materials (Project Valuation X .5) X .5% Geographic Information Systems Fee - Interior work is exempt $200.00 Fees Dues Upon Certificate of Occupancy or Final Inspection Fee Reconciliation Payment and reconciliation of all plans review, change order, inspection fees as applicable Use Tax Adjustment - City of Aspen Final Use Tax calculation - Original Use Tax calculation Use Tax Adjustment - Pitkin County Final Use Tax calculation - Original Use Tax calculation Change Order Fees Applications for change orders shall cause a new project valuation. The change order fees shall be based on this revised permit valuation. Fees for the previously submitted permit application shall not be refunded or credited toward change order fees. Not all change orders will require additional fees in each fee category. Change Order Fee - Plans Examination Minor Change Order - 15% of Revised Building Permit Fee Major Change Order - 35% of Revised Building Permit Fee Change Order Fee - Energy Code 5% of Revised Building Permit Fee Change Order Fee - REMP / CREMP Administration Fee 13 2% of the Revised Building Permit Fee Change Order Fee - Fire Plan Check Minor Change Order - 15% of Revised Building Permit Fee Major Change Order - 35% of Revised Building Permit Fee Change Order Fee - Construction Mitigation Plan Fee Minor Change Order - $.15 x gross square footage of project. Major Change Order - $.35 x gross square footage of project. Special Services Fees Expedited/Phased Permit Fee - applies to the issuance of an Excavation/Foundation only 35% of the Building Permit Fee. Fee is in addition to fees due upon issuance of a full building permit. Outsourced Services - Plans Review, Energy Code Review, As necessary, the Chief Building Official may elect to provide building permitting services through a third party consultant. In these cases, the applicant shall pay a portion of the required fee to the City and the remaining portion directly to the contracted service provider. Of the required fees established above, the City shall collect 50% of the fee and the applicant shall pay the remaining 50% of the fee directly to the designated contractor. Reinspection Fee - Applies to inspection required after a failed inspection $250.00 per reinspection After Hours Inspection Fee $250.00 per hour, a minimum of two hours for any one inspection. Special Inspection Fee - Applies when no permit is required or no fee is otherwise established $250.00 per hour, a minimum of one hour for any one inspection. Building Permit Extension Fee 10% of Building Permit Fee for each 6 - month extension. Certificate of Occupancy Fee No charge Conditional Certificate of Occupancy - Valid for a limited period 10% of Building Permit Fee - for first CCO Issued 25% of Building Permit Fee - for subsequent CCOs issued Enforcement Fees and Penalties No Certificate of Occupancy or Conditional CO shall be issued until all fees have been paid in full. Violations of this policy are subject to fines, penalties, or assessments as assigned by the Municipal Court Judge Stop Work Order "Red Tag" Fee - Assessment for non permitted work: 14 1st Red Tag Double Building Permit Fee 2nd Red Tag Four times the Building Permit Fee 3rd Red Tag Contractor License subject to suspension or revocation plus eight times the Building Permit Fee Enforcement Penalties and Fees Fees, fines, and penalties for violations of the Building Code shall be established by the Municipal Court Judge according to the scope and duration of the offense. Penalties may include: revocation of Contractor License(s); prohibition of any work on the property for a period of time; recovery of costs to the public for any required remediation of the site; additional Building Permit Review Fees; fees to recover administrative costs required by City staff to address the violation; and, other fees, fines, and penalties or assessments as assigned by the Municipal Court Judge. Renewable Energy Mitigation Fees RREMP (Residential) Exterior Energy Use Calculations Snowmelt: $34.00 per square foot divided by boiler efficiency (AFUE) Outdoor Pool: $136.00 per square foot divided by boiler efficiency (AFUE) Spa: $176.00 per square foot divided by boiler efficiency (AFUE) Package spas not more than 64 square feet are exempt On -Site Renewable Credits Photovoltaic Systems: $6,241.20 per 1 KiloWatt of the system design (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) Solar Hot Water: $231.00 per 1 square foot of the system design Ground Source Heat Pump: $7.00 per 100,000 BTU per year of the system design (In order to use GSHP for on -site renewable credit the GSHP system must supply at least 20% of the peak load for heating the house and all exterior energy uses) CREMP (Commercial) Exterior Energy Use Calculations Snowmelt: $60.00 per square foot divided by boiler efficiency (AFUE) Outdoor Pool: $170.00 per square foot divided by boiler efficiency (AFUE) Spa: $176.00 per square foot divided by boiler efficiency (AFUE) Package spas not more than 64 square feet are exempt On -Site Renewable Credits Photovoltaic Systems: $6,241.20 per 1 KiloWatt of the system design (Photovoltaic systems tied to 15 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) Solar Hot Water: $224.65 per 1 square foot of the system design Ground Source Heat Pump: $6.84 per 100,000 BTU per year of the system design (In order to use GSHP for on -site renewable credit the GSHP system must supply at least 20% of the peak load for heating the house and all exterior energy uses) ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES Section A: Residential Fees This fee, based on the enclosed living area only, includes construction of, or remodeling or addition to a: single family home, duplex, condominium, or townhouse If you are ONLY changing or providing a service and not wiring any portion of the above, see section B below for correct permit fee. LIVING AREA Not more than 1,000 s.f. $115.00 1,001 to 1,500 s.f $172.50 1,501 to 2,000 s.f $230.00 More than 2,000 s.f Base fee of $230.00 plus $11.50 per 100 s.f. over 2,000 Example: The home is 2,235 s.f. The base fee for 2,000 s.f. (of the 2,235 s.f. total) is $230 $230.00 The remaining 235 s.f. is rounded up to 300 s.f. (3 x $11.50 = $34.50) $34.50 Total fee is: $264.50 Section B: All Other Fees Including some residential installations that are not based on square footage (not in a living area, i.e. garage, shop, and photovoltaic, etc.). Fees in this section are calculated from the total cost to customer, including electrical materials, items and labor - whether provided by the contractor or the property owner. Use this chart for a service connection, a temporary meter, and all commercial installations. Such fees shall be computed as follows: (See 'C' below for the permit fees for mobile /modular home and travel trailer parks). Valuation of Installation: (based on cost to customer of labor, materials, and items): Not more than $2,000.00 $115.00 $2,001.00 and above $11.50 per thousand OR FRACTION thereof PLUS $115.00 Example: The cost of installation is $5,150 (round up to $6,000) The base fee is calculated as: 6 x $11.50 = $69 PLUS $115 Total fee is: $184.00 16 Section C: Mobile Homes and Travel parks, per space $115.00 Section D: Reinspections $57.50 Section E: Extra Inspections $57.50 Section F: Temporary Heat Release $57.50 MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES Permit Issuance and Heaters 1 For the issuance of each mechanical permit $62.50 2 For issuing each supplemental permit for which the original has not expired, been $25.00 canceled or had a final inspection Unit Fee Schedule (Note: the following does not include permit issuing fee) 1 Furnaces For the installation or relocation of each forced -air or gravity -type furnace or burner, $31.25 including ducts and vents attached to each appliance up to and including 100,000 Btu/h (29.3 kW) For the installation or relocation of each forced -air or gravity -type furnace or burner, $31.25 including ducts and vents attached to such appliance over 100,000 Btu/ h (29.3 kW) For the installation or relocation of floor furnace, including vent $31.25 For the installation or relocation of each suspended heater, recessed well heater or floor- $31.25 mounted unit heater 2 Appliance Vents $25.00 For the installation, relocation or replacement of each appliance vent installed and not included unit heater 3 Repairs and Additions $31.25 For the repair of, or addition of each heating appliance, refrigeration unit, cooling unit, absorption unit, or each heating, cooling, absorption or evaporative cooling system, including installation of controls regulated by the Mechanical code 4 Boilers, Compressors and Absorption Systems For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor to and including 3 $31.25 horsepower (10.6 kW), or each absorption system to and including 100,000 Btu/h (29.3 kW) For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 3 horsepower (10.6 $62.50 kW) to and including 15 horsepower (52.7 kW), or each absorption system over 100,000 Btu/h (29.3 kW) to and including 500,000 Btu/h (293.1 kW) 17 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 15 horsepower (52.7 $125.00 kW) to and including 30 horsepower (105.5 kW) Or each absorption system over 500,000 Btu/h (146.6 kW) to and Including 1,000,000 Btu/h (293.1 kW) For installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 30 horsepower (105.5 $166.67 kW) to and including 50 horsepower (176 kW), or each absorption system over 1,000,000 Btu/h (293.1 kW) to and including 1,750,000 Btu/h (512.9 kW) For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 50 horsepower (176 $250.00 kW) or each absorption system over 1,750,000 Btu/h (512.9 kW) 5 Air Handlers For each air - handling unit to and including 10,000 cubic feet per minute (cfm) (4719 $31.25 L /s), including ducts attached thereto Note: This fee does not apply to an air- handling unit which is a portion of a factory- assembled appliance, cooling unit, evaporative cooler, or absorption unit for which a permit is required elsewhere in the Mechanical Code. For each air - handling unit over 10,000 efm (4719 L /s) $62.50 6 Evaporative Coolers For each evaporative cooler other than portable type $31.25 7 Ventilation and Exhaust For each ventilation fan connected to a single duct $25.00 For each ventilation system which is a portion of any heating or air cooling system $31.25 authorized by a permit For the installation of each hood which is served by the mechanical exhaust, including $31.25 the ducts for such hood 8 Miscellaneous For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by the Mechanical Code but is not $31.25 classed in the other appliance categories, or for which no other fee is listed in the table Other Fees - Mechanical Reinspection Fee - Applies to inspection required after a failed inspection $250.00 per reinspection After Hours Inspection Fee $250.00 per hour, a minimum of two hours for any one inspection. Special Inspection Fee - Applies when no fee is otherwise established $250.00 per hour, a minimum of one hour for any one inspection. Change Orders - Mechanical $250.00 per hour for any additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to previously submitted plans. Minimum of one hour. 18 PLUMBING PERMIT FEES Permit Issuance 1 For the issuance of each plumbing permit $62.50 2 For issuing each supplemental permit for which the original has not expired, been $25.00 cancelled or finaled Unit Fee Schedule (does not include permit - issuing fee) 1 Fixtures and Vents For Each plumbing fixture or trap or set of fixtures on one trap (including water, drainage $25.00 piping and backflow protection thereof) For repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping, each fixture $12.50 2 Sewers, Disposal Systems and Interceptors For each building sewer and each trailer park sewer $250.00 For each cesspool $500.00 For each private sewage disposal system $1500.00 For each industrial waste pretreatment interceptor, including its trap and vent, excepting $62.50 kitchen -type grease interceptors functioning as traps Rainwater systems, per drain (inside buildings) $31.25 3 Water Piping and Water Heaters For installation, alteration, or repair of water piping or water treating equipment, or both. $12.50 Fee for each. For each water heater including vent $31.25 4 Gas Piping Systems For each gas piping system of one to five outlets $12.50 For each additional outlet over five, each $6.25 5 Lawn Sprinklers, Vacuum Breakers and Backflow Protection Devices For each lawn sprinkler system on any one meter, including Back -flow protection devices $25.00 thereof For atmospheric -type vacuum breakers or backflow protection devices not included in Item 1: 1 to 5 devices $25.00 Over 5 devices, each $6.25 For each backflow - protection device other than atmospheric -type vacuum breakers: 2 inches (50.88 mm) and smaller $31.25 Over 2 inches (50.88 min) $50.00 19 6 Swimming Pools For each swimming pool or spa: Public pool $1500.00 Public spa $750.00 Private pool $500.00 Private spa $250.00 7 Miscellaneous For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by the Plumbing Code but not classed $31.25 in the other appliance categories, or for which no other fee is listed in this code Other Fees - Plumbing Reinspection Fee - Applies to inspection required after a failed inspection $250.00 per reinspection After Hours Inspection Fee $250.00 per hour, a minimum of two hours for any one inspection. Special Inspection Fee - Applies when no fee is otherwise established $250.00 per hour, a minimum of one hour for any one inspection. Change Orders - Plumbing $250.00 per hour for any additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to previously submitted plans. Minimum of one hour. Section 14. That Section 26.104.070 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth certain user fees for Land Use Applications, is hereby amended to read as follows: PLANNING & HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW FEES Hourly Review Fee $350 per hour No Charge Planning and Historic Preservation Services Applies to: $0 Pre - application Conferences Call -in, Walk -in development questions Historic Designation Hist. Pres. - Exempt Development Administrative Review - Minor Applies to: Flat Fee 1 $88 Development Order Recordation Fee Hist. Pres. - Amendment, HPO Review 20 Flat Fee 2 $175 Code Interpretation, formal write -up Hist. Pres. - Cert of No Negative Effect Hist. Pres. - Amendment, Monitor Review Flat Fee 3 $350 Temporary Use, admin. GMQS Exemption from MF Housing Replacement. Flat Fee 4 $875 Residential Design Variance, admin. PUD or SPA project amendments prior to a C.O. Unlimited sheets. Does not include Condo Plats $525 recordation fees. Sub Plats / PUD Per sheet. Includes City Engineer and City Plans $350 Attorney review time. Does not include recordation fees. SIA, Dev. Per page. Not including signature pages. Agreements $88 Includes City Engineer and City Attorney review time. Does not include recordation fees. Administrative Review - Major Deposit Hours Deposit Applies to: 6 $2,100 Admin. Growth Management Admin. Cond. Use, Special Review, ESA Admin. Subdivision - Lot Line Adjustment Admin. PUD or SPA Amendments Historic Pres. - Minor Development Historic Pres. - Major Development up to 1,000 s.f. Historic Pres. - Substantial Amendment Plus $350 per hour for staff review time in excess of 6 hours, billed monthly. If case takes less time than deposit, the applicant will be refunded. Referal Agency Fees - Admin. reviews, as applicable hourly City Engineering Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, flat $700 fee $700 City Parks Department, flat fee 21 City Environmental Health Department, flat $700 fee Planning Review - One -Step Review Deposit Hours Deposit Applies to: 16 $5,600 Conditional Use Special Review ESA Review Growth Management - Minor P &Z, Major P &Z, or City Council PUD Amendment - P &Z only SPA Amendment - P &Z only Board of Adjustment variance Temporary Use, City Council Vested Rights Extension Subdivision - Lot Split Historic Pres. - Major Development over 1,000 s.f. Historic Pres. - Demolitions and Off -Site Relocations Appeals of Administrative or Board Decisions. Plus $350 per hour for staff review time in excess of 16 hours, billed monthly. If case takes less time than deposit, the applicant will be refunded. Referal Agency Fees - one -step reviews, as applicable hourly City Engineering Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, flat $1,050 fee $1,050 City Parks Department, flat fee City Environmental Health Department, flat $1,050 fee Planning Review - Two -Step Review Deposit Hours Deposit Applies to: 24 $8,400 Subdivision Land Use Code Amendment Rezoning or Initial Zoning (Annexations) Plus $350 per hour for staff review time in excess of 24 hours, billed monthly. If case takes less time than deposit, the applicant will be refunded. 22 Referal Agency Fees - two -step reviews, as applicable hourly City Engineering Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, flat $1,400 fee $1,400 City Parks Department, flat fee City Environmental Health Department, flat $1,400 fee Planning Review - PUD and SPA Deposit Hours Deposit Applies to: PUD and SPA projects Planned Unit Development or PUD Substantial 32 $11,200 Amend. Specially Planned Area or SPA Substantial Amend. Plus $350 per hour for staff review time in excess of 32 hours, billed monthly. If case takes less time than deposit, the applicant will be refunded. Referral Agency Fees - PUD & SPA reviews, as applicable hourly City Engineering Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, flat $2,100 fee $2,100 City Parks Department, flat fee City Environmental Health Department, flat $2,100 fee Planning Review - COWOP Review or Joint Applicant Applications for the City's COWOP process - Convenience or Welfare of the Public - shall be assessed land use review fees and a portion of joint planning costs as determined appropriate by City Council. If no such determination is made, the application shall be billed as a PUD. Special Services - Planning. Applies when no fee is otherwise established per hour, a minimum of one hour for any one special $350 project. Planning Review Deposit and Billing Administration The Community Development Department staff shall keep an accurate record of the actual time required for the processing of each land use application and additional billings shall be made commensurate with the additional costs incurred by the city when the processing of an application by the Community Development Department takes more time than is covered by the deposit. In the event the processing of an application by the Community Development Department takes 23 less time than provided for by the deposit, the department shall refund the unused portion of the deposited fee. As necessary, the Community Development Director may elect to provide planning or historic preservation review services through a third party consultant. In these cases, the applicant shall pay a portion of the required fee to the City and the remaining portion directly to the contracted service provider. Of the required fees established above, the City shall collect 50% of the fee and the applicant shall pay the remaining 50% of the fee directly to the designated contractor. The Community Development Director shall establish appropriate guidelines for the regular issuance of invoices and collection of amounts due. The Community Development Director shall establish appropriate guidelines for the collection of past due invoices, as required, which may include any of the following: 1) Assessment of additional late fees for accounts at least 90 days past due in an amount not to exceed 1.75% per month. 2) Cessation of application processing. 3) Review of past -due applications and applicants to City Council. 4) Withholding the issuance of a Development Order. 5) Withholding the recordation of development documents. 6) Prohibition of the acceptance of building permits for the subject property. 7) Cessation of building permit processing. 8) Revocation of an issued building permit. 9) Other penalties, assessments, fines, or actions as may be assigned by the Municipal Court Judge. Fees for the processing of applications which fall into more than one category shall be cumulative; except that if any one individual fee requires submission of a deposit and subsequent hourly billing, the amount required for submission shall be the largest deposit. The Community Development Director shall bill applicants for any incidental costs of reviewing an application at direct costs, with no administrative or processing charge. Land use review fee deposits may be reduced if, in the opinion of the Community Development Director, the project is expected to take significantly less time to process than the deposit indicates. Hourly billing shall still apply. Notwithstanding the above fee schedule, the Community Development Director shall waive planning review fees for General Fund Departments of the City of Aspen consistent with City policy. Notwithstanding the above fee schedule, City Council may authorize a reduction or waiver of zoning review fees as deemed necessary. This fee structure shall apply to applications submitted on or after January 1, 2011. Section 15. 24 That Section 26.104.072 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth certain user fees for Land Use Applications, is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26.104.072. Zoning fees. Zoning shall be charged the following fees for the services listed: ZONING FEES General and Applicability Zoning review fees shall apply to all development requiring a building permit and all development not requiring a building permit but which requires review by the Community Development Department. A permit, amendment to a permit, or change order which requires a Floor Area, Height, net leasable, or net livable measurement by the Zoning Officer shall be considered a Major permit. All other permits are considered Minor permits. For the purposes of this section, the square footage used to calculate the fee shall be the greater of the gross square footage affected by the permit or the gross square footage which must to be measured to review the permit. All change orders and amendments to a permit require additional fees. A change order or amendment to an un- issued permit shall require payment of both fees (initial and change order). Official confirmation of existing conditions of a property which requires measurement of Floor Area, Height, net leasable area, or net livable area of a structure, prior to demolition or for other purposes, shall be considered a Major permit. For projects with multiple uses, the zoning review fee for each individual use shall be calculated based on the gross square footage of the use and added to determine the total project fee. Zoning review fees for major permits for properties within a Planned Unit Development shall be 125% of the fee schedule. This additional charge does not apply to demolition permits. Zoning Inspection fees shall apply to all development requiring either a final inspection or a Certificate of Occupancy. The fee shall be based on the gross square footage of the permit. This fee is for the zoning inspection; other final inspection fees may apply. This fee shall apply to temporary and conditional certificates of occupancy and an additional zoning inspection fee shall apply upon a final certificate of occupancy. This fee structure shall apply to applications submitted on or after January 1, 2011. 50% of Zoning Review Deposit Required For any Zoning fee of $350 or more, 50% of the Zoning Fee is due at permit submittal. 25 This deposit is non - refundable. The applicant shall pay the remaining 50% at permit issuance, which shall include any reconciliation of fees due. Special Services - Zoninz Review Hourly Zoning Review Fee $350 per hour Zone District Confirmation Letter $350 Confirms parcel's zone district only. Does not confirm legality of existing improvements or uses. Existing Conditions Confirmation Service subject to authorization by Community Development Director and may not be available. Fee based on a Major permit review for the type(s) of land uses. Requires submission dimensioned drawings. Expedited Zoning Review Double Applicable Fee. Prioritizes project's zoning review over all other projects. Subject to authorization by Community Development Director considering workload, staffing, and effects on other projects. Outsourced Services - Zoning Review As necessary, the Community Development Director may elect to provide zoning review services through a third party consultant. In these cases, the applicant shall pay a portion of the required fee to the City and the remaining portion directly to the contracted service provider. Of the required fees established above, the City shall collect 50% of the fee and the applicant shall pay the remaining 50% of the fee directly to the designated contractor. Change Order Fees - Zoning Review Applications for change orders shall require an additional Zoning Review Fee. A change order which does not require a new measurement of floor area, height, net leasable, or net livable shall be considered a Minor change order and assessed the minor fee. A change order which requires a new measurement of floor area, height, net leasable area, or net livable area shall be assessed the Major zoning fee. Fees for the previously submitted permit application shall not be refunded or credited toward change order fees. Bear - Proof Trash Container $88 Single - Family and Duplex Residential. Building and Zoning Review fee $175 All other uses. Building and Zoning Review fee Certificate of Occupancy or Final Inspection Fee - Zoning No charge Conditional Certificate of Occupancy or Final Inspection - Zoning $.10 x project square footage - for first CCO Issued $.25 x project square footage - for subsequent CCOs issued Special Review or Inspection Fee - Zoning. Applies when no fee is otherwise established 26 $350 per hour, a minimum of one hour for any one review or inspection. Demolition Zoning Review Fees Minor Zoning Fee - Does not require measurement or confirmation of existing conditions Square footage of Project Fee Up to 500 sq. ft. $88 501 to 2,500 sq. ft. $175 2,501 to 5,000 sq. ft. $263 Above 5,000 sq. ft. $350 Major Zoning Fee - If demolition requires measurement of the structure or confirmation of existing conditions, the fee will be the major fee according to the land use. Exterior Repair Zoning Review Fees Applies to Residential, Commercial, Lodging, Arts /Cultural /Civic/Institutional exterior repair work requiring a building permit or review by the Historic Preservation Officer. * Does not apply to interior work. * * Does not apply to alteration. Square footage of Repair Fee Up to 500 sq. ft. $35 501 to 1,000 sq. ft. $88 1,001 to 2,500 sq. ft. $175 Above 2,500 sq. ft. $350 Residential Zoning Review Fees Applies to single - family, duplex, accessory dwelling units, carriage houses, multi - family and residential units in a mixed -use building Minor Zoning Fee - Existing Development, Minor Remodel or Minor Change Order Square footage of Project Fee Up to 500 sq. ft. $350 501 to 2,500 sq. ft. $700 2,501 to 5,000 sq. ft. $1,050 Above 5,000 sq. ft. $1,400 Major Zoning Fee - New Development, Major Remodel, Demolition w/ Confirmation, Major Change Order Square footage of Project Base Fee + Fee based on project size Up to 500 sq. ft. $350 + $.50 per sq. ft. of project 501 to 2,500 sq. ft. $700 + $.75 per sq. ft. of project 27 2,501 to 5,000 sq. ft. $1,050 + $1.00 per sq. ft. of project Above 5,000 sq. ft. $1,400 + $1.25 per sq. ft. of project Major Residential permits within a PUD shall be 125% of the above fee schedule. (Does not apply to demo.) Commercial Zoning Review Fees Applies to commercial projects and commercial portions of a mixed -use project. Minor Zoning Fee - Existing Development, Minor Remodel or Minor Change Order Square footage of Project Fee Up to 500 sq. ft. $350 501 to 2,500 sq. ft. $700 2,501 to 5,000 sq. ft. $1,050 Above 5,000 sq. ft. $1,400 Major Zoning Fee - New Development, Major Remodel, Demolition w/ Confirmation, Major Change Order Square footage of Project Base Fee + Fee based on project size Up to 500 sq. ft. $350 + $.50 per sq. ft. of project 501 to 2,500 sq. ft. $700 + $.75 per sq. ft. of project 2,501 to 5,000 sq. ft. $1,050 + $1.00 per sq. ft. of project Above 5,000 sq. ft. $1,400 + $1.25 per sq. ft. of project Major Commercial permits within a PUD shall be 125% of the above fee schedule. (Does not apply to demo.) Lodging Zoning Review Fees Applies to lodging projects and lodging portions of a mixed -use project. All fractional interest, timeshare, and exempt timeshare projects are considered Lodging for the purposes of this review fee. Minor Zoning Fee Existing Development, Minor Remodel or Minor Change Order Square footage of Project Fee Up to 1,000 sq. ft. $350 1,001 to 5,000 sq. ft. $700 5,001 to 10,000 sq. ft. $1,050 Above 10,000 sq. ft. $1,400 Major Zoning Fee - New Development, Major Remodel, Demolition w/ Confirmation, 28 Major Change Order Square footage of Project Base Fee + Fee based on project size Up to 1,000 sq. ft. $350 + $.35 per sq. ft. of project 1,001 to 5,000 sq. ft. $700 + $.40 per sq. ft. of project 5,001 to 10,000 sq. ft. $1,050 + $.45 per sq. ft. of project Above 10,000 sq. ft. $1,400 + $.50 per sq. ft. of project Major Lodging permits within a PUD shall be 125% of the above fee schedule. (Does not apply to demo.) Arts /Cultural/Civic/Institutional Zoning Review Fees Applies to Arts, Cultural, Civic and Institutional uses or portions of a mixed -use project with these uses. Minor Zoning Fee - Existing Development, Minor Remodel or Minor Change Order Square footage of Project Fee Up to 1,000 sq. ft. $350 1,001 to 5,000 sq. ft. $700 5,001 to 10,000 sq. ft. $1,050 Above 10,000 sq. ft. $1,400 Major Zoning Fee - New Development, Major Remodel, Demolition w/ Confirmation, Major Change Order Square footage of Project Base Fee + Fee based on project size Up to 1,000 sq. ft. $350 + $.35 per sq. ft. of project 1,001 to 5,000 sq. ft. $700 + $.40 per sq. ft. of project 5,001 to 10,000 sq. ft. $1,050 + $.45 per sq. ft. of project Above 10,000 sq. ft. $1,400 + $.50 per sq. ft. of project Major Arts /Cultural /Civic /Institutional permits within a PUD shall be 125% of the above fee schedule. (Does not apply to demo.) Signs and Awnings - Zoning Review Fees per Individual Sign Permit Fee $175 sign Multiple Sign Permit Fee $350 per business Permanent Sandwich Board Sign $175 per sign * Must be in an approved sandwich board location Temporary Sandwich Board Sign $35 per one -week permit $175 for 8 one -week permits 29 Awning Permit Fee $175 per awning * Includes signage Multiple Awning Permit Fee $350 per business review fee. Banner Installation Fee $88 Single banner * Banner fees $140 Double banner collected by the City Manager's Office Fence - Zoning Review Fee Fence Permit Fee $175 Enforcement Fees and Penalties No Certificate of Occupancy or Conditional CO shall be issued until all fees have been paid in full. Violations of this policy are subject to fines, penalties, or assessments as assigned by the Municipal Court Judge Stop Work Order "Red Tag" Fee - Assessment for non permitted work: 1st Red Tag Double Zoning Review Fee 2nd Red Tag Four times the Zoning Review Fee 3rd Red Tag Eight times the Zoning Review Fee. Subject to additional penalties as assigned by the Municipal Judge. Enforcement Fees - Zoning Fees, fines, and penalties for violations of the Land Use Code shall be established by the Municipal Court Judge according to the scope and duration of the offense. Zoning Enforcement Fee may include an assessment for administrative time required by the Zoning Officer to address the violation. Fee Reductions and Waivers (Policy discussion with Council) Affordable Housing, 50% of above fees Zoning review fees for affordable housing shall be half of the above fee schedule. To qualify for this reduction, 100% of the units affected by the permit must be deed restricted affordable housing according to the APCHA guidelines. Accessory dwelling units shall not qualify unless deed restricted and sold through the APCHA system. Mixed -use projects and projects where not all the units are affordable housing shall not be eligible for this reduction. Residential Historic Properties, 50% of above fees Zoning review fees for residential historic properties which contain a historic resource shall be half of the above fee schedule. To qualify for this reduction, the improvements must be approved pursuant to Chapter 26.415 of the Land Use Code and the reduction shall be limited to improvements on the parcel containing the historic resource. Development of a parcel subject to historic review which does not contain a historic resource shall not be eligible for the reduction. Mixed -use and non - residential properties shall not be eligible for this reduction. Projects shall only be eligible for one of the above reductions. Projects which are both historic and affordable housing shall only be eligible for a 50% reduction of zoning fees. 30 Community Development Director Reduction or Waiver Notwithstanding the above fee schedule, the Community Development Director shall waive zoning review fees for General Fund Departments of the City of Aspen consistent with City policy. City Council Reduction or Waiver Notwithstanding the above fee schedule, City Council may authorize a reduction or waiver of zoning review fees as deemed necessary. A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of , 2010, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 2010. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of December, 2010. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 31 MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL FROM: TIM ANDERSON, RECREATION DIRECTOR THRU: JEFF WOODS, MANAGER OF PARKS & RECREATION DON TAYLOR, FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE OF MEMO: NOVEMBER 9, 2010 MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 22, 2010 RE: 2011 FEE ORDINANCE REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is seeking approval of recommended 2011 recreational program and facility fees as identified in the attached document. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: While most fees were not allowed to be increased in 2010, some recreation fees did rise due to the cost of doing business. There was a $60,000 annual cost associated with the on -line and credit card fees assessed to recreational programs and facilities that was distributed amongst those programs and facilities at a rate of about 3% for 2010. Programs which were assessed a 1 3% +/- increase in 2010 to cover credit card and online fees associated with FUN passes„ youth and adult sports, and classes such as swimming and tennis. DISCUSSION: Staff completed a comprehensive cost analysis of programs and facilities in 2010. Staff also completed a comparison of 2010 recreation program and facilities fees for the various mountain towns. We are seeking increases in fees only in areas of programming where staff found the cost recovery to be lower than most other programs in the department and/or found our fees to be less than the mountain town average. Program increases greater than the 1.5% in the 2011 fee ordinance are: Program Reason • Pavilion Rental Fee was far below similar facilities in other towns. • Youth non -profit ice users: *Cost recovery low and current fees below mountain town average • Other ice fees other hourly rates for ice was equally adjusted by $10.00/hr. • Swim Lessons to improve cost recovery and set fee more in line with other mountain towns • Day Camp Day Camp and associated fees are slightly increased to get more in line with other mountain towns. • Youth Kindergarten Soccer improve cost recovery • Youth Kindergarten Basketball improve cost recovery • Boulder Rats improve cost recovery *Note: staff met with youth ice user groups (junior hockey, figure skating clubs) to review the cost analysis findings and fee comparison of mountain towns before recommending the fee increases. Each group understood and agreed to an increase of $10.00/hr. * 15% discount is offered on FUN passes to ACRA members, SkiCo employees, Aspen School District Employees, RFTA employees, AVH employees, and Veterans /Active military. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Staff has estimated increased costs in 2011 to be approximately $91,000. In order to offset those costs and maintain the subsidy level which fits the general fund and at the same time maintains service levels to our users, the recommended fee increases are necessary. The breakdown of the fees and associated revenues related to the $91,000 are as follows: • Additional dry floor events (2) $50,000 • Increase in ice fees $20,000 • Increase in Climbing, tennis, day camp, swimming lessons and other recreational programs $10,000 • 1.5% increase to other programs /facility fees $11,000 Total $91,000 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff is recommending the attached fees for 2011 as they provide for one or more of several actions: • It brings the program more in line with an effective cost recovery • It brings the program in line with the average price of other mountain towns while bringing the program more in line with the cost to operate • The increase (1.5 %) allows the dept. to maintain the subsidy level and service level while implementing reasonable cost increases for doing business. MANAGER'S COMMENTS: ATTACHMENT: Current fees and 2011 recommended fees. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Council FROM: Gram Slaton, Wheeler Opera House DATE: November 9, 2010 RE: 2011 YEAR FEES FOR WHEELER OPERA HOUSE SUMMARY: The following slate of rental charges for clients of the Wheeler Opera House is proposed for areas of the rental structure that have not changed since 2007. All other charges are to remain at current levels (last adjusted in 2009), except for the below adjustment to box office fees based on recent experience. DISCUSSION: The Wheeler's slate of fees was radically changed in 2007 from its prior structure, in order to more accurately reflect the cost of doing business at the venue. Since January 1, 2007, no changes have been requested on these lines despite increased costs of doing business. • For Profit Rental Rate — adjust from $450 currently to $500 • Not - For -Profit Rental Rate — adjust from $250 currently to $300 Additionally, the Wheeler would request the following box office fee adjustments: • Box Office Ticket Sellers — adjust from $15.50 currently to $16.50. Actual Wheeler cost averages $19.50 per hour and this would get us closer to parity. • Box Office Setup Fee — adjust from $25 flat rate to the following: o $25 standard fee with five or more business days' notice o $35 fee with four to three business days' notice o $50 fee with notice of two or fewer business days This last is due to significant stresses put on the box office staff during the 2010 summer period that could have been avoided by rentors supplying documentation in a timely manner. These are the only adjustments that the Wheeler would suggest for the coming year. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the fee increases for the 2011 calendar year. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: MEMORANDUM Date: November 11, 2010 To: Mayor & Council Through: John Worcester, Don Taylor Through: Richard Pryor From: Kathy Tolle Subject: Revenue Increases for 2011 The anticipated revenue increases for the Police Department are at the recommended 3% inflationary increases in the following areas: Non -Court Doq Licenses, Municipal Code 5 -28 The rate for 2011 for dog tags will be $17.00 with a replacement fee of $4.00. Vehicle Inspection Fees We charge for vehicle inspections performed by employees of the Police Department. The fee for VIN's in 2011 will be $20.00. Certified Vin Inspection Fees The State of Colorado regulates the fee for these inspections at $20.00 per inspection. This is a state mandated fee. Refund of Expenditure We have been charging an hourly rate for off-duty security by agreement. The fee has been per officer /per hour. The fee for 2011 will be $95.00/per hour per officer. Notary Public Fees Due to the large number of requests we get for notary public services, we began charging $2.00 per acknowledgment. We will continue to collect this amount per State of Colorado Code 12 -55 -121. Central Alarm License Fees, Municipal Ordinance 8.5 -2 This is the fee charged to the alarm companies who provide alarm security to Aspen residences and businesses. With the increase in 2011 the rate would be $314.00 per company. 11/11/2010 MEMORANDUM 2 Annual Alarm Permit Fees, Municipal Ordinance 8.5 Fees charged for new alarm permits within the city limits and for renewal of those permits annually. The 2011 rate will be $114.00 /permit. False Alarm Fines, Municipal Ordinance 8.5 Fines charged for false alarm response. The new fine structure for 2011 will be as follows: $118.00 for the first false alarm, $237.00 for the second, $358.00 for each additional false alarm response each calendar year. The banks will be charged at $380.00 for each false alarm responded to. • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM : Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer DATE OF MEMO: November 12, 2010 MEETING DATE: November 22, 2010 RE: Proposed Permit Review and Encroachment Fees for 2011 SUMMARY: This memo lists the proposed changes in the Engineering Department fees for the year 2011. DISCUSSION: There is a new recording fee for permanent encroachments. In the past applicants have not been consistent with recording their encroachments with the county clerk and recorder office; instead the Engineering dept has been recording the encroachments on the applicant's behalf. This fee is to cover those costs with recording. A waiver has also been added to the fee schedule, this waiver is to allow projects that serve a public benefit or for those projects which the fee may be excessive as related to the project value. Lastly the department is proposing a 3% across the board increase with the exception of large format copies which shows $1 increase per sheet from last year. Refer to the Community Development Fee schedule for the Engineering fees associated with land use and building permits. Below is a summary of the Engineering fees. The fees that are new are bold and highlighted in green. Existing fees which have been increased are highlighted in yellow: Sec. 2.12.051 Engineering Department Fees Encroachment License application and processing fee 363.00 Vacation application and processing fee 363.00 Right -of -way permit application and processing fee (waived for sidewalk replacement work) 363.00 Temporary occupation of ROW under encroachments by commercial operations not associated with construction, including contractors and vendors $2.50 per sq. ft/month Permanent Encroachment Fee $1,000.00 per permit Permanent Encroachment Recording Fee $50.00 Temporary occupation of ROW under encroachments within the core by commercial operations associated with construction, including contractors and vendors $5.44/ sq. ft / month Temporary occupation of ROW under encroachments outside of the core by commercial operations associated with construction , including contractors and vendors $2.72/ sq. ft / month Permanent encroachment for earth retention $1.32 /cu. ft. per month Map and plan printing $5.00 per copy Engineering fees may be waived or reduced in the discretion of the City Engineer for projects serving a public purpose, proposed by a nonprofit organization or in which the fee may be excessive for the work proposed. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The 3% increase in fees will result in an increase in revenues for the department. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a review fees. ALTERNATIVES: Council could approve larger or smaller fees. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jannette Whitcomb, Environmental Health Program Coordinator THRU: Lee Cassin, Environmental Health Director DATE OF MEMO: November 11, 2010 MEETING DATE: November 22, 2010 RE: Addition to Fee Ordinance for Childcare Inspection Fees DISCUSSION: Historically, the City of Aspen Environmental Health Department inspects childcare facilities, located within city limits, at no charge. We do not receive any part of their license fee paid to the State of Colorado, unlike restaurant licenses. Currently there are three licensed childcare facilities and one childcare camp (summer only). In an effort to cover some of the cost of these inspections, staff requests the addition to the fee ordinance of the following childcare inspection fees. Childcare Inspection Fee Not to Exceed $100 Small Childcares (0 -4 classrooms) $50 1 Large Childcares (5 or more classrooms) 11 $100 In recognition that this is a new fee, the amount was set below cost recovery. Normally small childcare facilities take around an hour to an hour and a half and large facilities take up to three hours. Currently our department's hourly rate is $82. FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: The increase in fees will generate approximately $250 in additional funds. There will be no increase in the City's costs to administer the program. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council approve the change to the Fee Ordinance. Page 1 of 2 ALTERNATIVES: City Council may choose to continue not charging for childcare inspections. PROPOSED MOTION: ATTACHMENTS: Page 2 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Lee Cassin, Director of Environmental Health FROM : Ashley Cantrell, Environmental Health Specialist DATE OF MEMO: November 15, 2010 MEETING DATE: November 22, 2010 RE: New fee for ZGreen events REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The Environmental Health Department is requesting Council approve a fee of $25 for all events that apply for ZGreen certification through a special event permit or voluntarily. This fee will cover a small portion of the cost of this program, as the City continues to provide many resources to events through ZGreen in the coming years. The proposed fee will be collected by ZGreen staff from the event planner or hosting organization at the same time that the ZGreen checklist is submitted to staff. Checklists are due at least one month prior to the start of an event. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Since January of 2009, all events requesting a special event permit in the City of Aspen have been required to meet the ZGreen standards. Council approved these requirements in August of 2008. BACKGROUND: ZGreen staff has been working with Aspen's events for over four years to encourage event planners to host environmentally responsible events, making Aspen a leader in green events. Organizations have been required to meet ZGreen standards for two years, and staff has seen improvement year after year. To help events meet the standards, ZGreen provides many valuable resources for events including: - Free recycling and compost bins with signage - Free staff /volunteer training - Free assistance with vendor /sponsor communication - Free Spanish language training and signage - Free purchasing consulting services - Free use of Sunny the Solar Roller, ZGreen's portable solar generator In addition to these free services, organizers for each event are encouraged to meet with ZGreen staff prior to the event to review the plans and details of the event. Lastly, at least one City staff member attends every event to ensure compliance with the ZGreen standards and provides feedback in the form of an event report card, available on the ZGreen website. Waste and energy 1 numbers are tracked and kept on file for each event as well. Event planners value these services and staff recognizes the importance of continuing to offer resources and assistance to events to ensure that Aspen's events continue to reduce their environmental impacts. DISCUSSION: ZGreen staff would like to continue offering assistance to events and expand the list of resources available to events, however, the costs associated with these resources is currently covered by a small budget that is shared by the Canary Initiative and Environmental Health and is used to run the ZGreen Business, Events and Citizen programs. By collecting a small fee of $25 per event, ZGreen can begin to cover a portion of the total program costs and continue to grow the list of available resources. This fee will be small enough that it will not overburden event hosting organizations but will enhance the ZGreen Program's ability to provide important services and resources. The City of Aspen provides extensive help and support to events, all at no cost to events. In comparison, EcoCycle, a non - profit in Boulder charges $25 for each recycle and compost bin that they rent to events. Aspen events will receive many more services and resources for $25 and the revenue could help the City of Aspen cover the cost of replacement bins and other supplies associated with the program. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: ZGreen works with approximately 40 events each year. This fee will generate approximately $1,000 for the general fund yearly. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Over the last two years, 120 events have used the recycle and compost bins from Environmental Health, free of charge. These bins have helped 82 events recycle a total of 138 tons of waste, and 34 events have collected food and paper products for composting. In addition, 28 events have used Sunny the Solar Roller to power portions of their events. Aspen's many events represent a large waste and energy footprint and the ZGreen Program is actively helping reduce these impacts by providing resources such as Sunny and the recycle bins. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council approve a $25 fee for all events working toward ZGreen certification. ALTERNATIVES: Council could choose to not approve the fee, or to reduce or increase the fee. Without this fee, the ZGreen program will continue to lend out supplies and provide resources to events, but may not be able to help events to the fullest extent in future years. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve resolution # Series of 2010 approving a fee of $25 for events for services and resources provided by the ZGreen Program." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: 2 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council THRU: Don Taylor, Finance Director FROM: Mary Lackner, GIS Manager RE: GIS Services & Products 2011 Fees DATE: November 11, 2010 The GIS Department GIS provides customer mapping services for the City of Aspen and Pitkin County. The fees are established through the City of Aspen Municipal Code and collected by the City. In 2009, the GIS Department generated $57,034 in revenue. GIS is requesting an increase of 3% to our fee schedule. The proposed fees listed below reflect a 3% increase. 2.12.053 Geographic Information System (GIS) Department fees. Printed Maps Large format (greater thanl l" x 17 ") $ 29.82 each Small format (11" x 17" or Tess) $ 11.12 each Large format plotting $ 16.69 Custom Mapping & Analysis $ 148.84 hour Minimum charge $ 74.41 Mailing Lists $ 118.45 per search Plus $1.14 /per sheet of labels Digital Data Services $148.84 hour Minimum charge — conversion $ 74.41 Minimum charge per data layer* $ 33.16 * geographic extents vary per data layer Data Subscription $1200.00 All layers excluding imagery and topography • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John D. Krueger, Transportation DATE OF MEMO: November 11, 2010 MEETING DATE: November 22, 2010/December 6, 2010 RE: Car to Go- Carshare Program Fee Increases REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The Transportation Department staff is requesting Council approval of the Go carshare program fee schedule for 2011. The fee schedule is attached for review and approval. The three fees are the inconvenience /late fee, the no reservation fee, and the cleaning fee. BACKGROUND: The Car to Go carshare program has had a fee schedule in place for several years. The members of the program are charged the fees as part of the operation of the program. The revenue fees offset the operating expenses of the program. DISCUSSION: The fee schedule proposed for 2011 is attached. The fees being changed are highlighted in yellow and represent an increase to the penalties associated with the late return of a vehicle, cleaning of a vehicle, and a fee for using the vehicle without a reservation. The proposed fee schedule provides a more consistent fee schedule for the program users. FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: The point of increasing the fees is not to generate increased revenue but, to bring these fees up to a more consistent level with the rest of the fees for the program. The increase in these fees will have a minimal impact on the car share program's revenues. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The increase in fees will not have any environment impacts. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Transportation staff recommends that Council approve the Car to Go car share fees as outlined. Page 1 of 2 ALTERNATIVES: Council could decide not to approve the proposed fee schedule for 2011 for the Car to Go carshare program and the program would continue to operate with the existing fee schedule in place. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve the 2011 proposed Car to Go carshare program fee schedule as shown in the Fee Ordinance # ..." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: A. Car to Go Carshare Program 2011 Fee Schedule Page 2 of 2 TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT CAR TO GO CARSHARE PROGRAM 2011 FEE SCHEDULE ITEM FEE Application $25.00 Monthly Membership $10.00 Hourly Usage $4.00 -$6.00 Per Mile Usage $0.25- $0.60 /MILE Fixed daily Rate $70.00- $90.00 No Reservation Fee $50.00 Emergency Cleaning $50.00/HR + Cleaning costs Missing/Incorrect Trip Ticket /Reservation $25.00 NSF Check $30.00 Lost Key Fee $50.00 Inconvenience (late return) $25.00- $50.00 + applicable taxi fees Low Fuel $25.00 ITEM CREDIT Inconvenience $25.00 + applicable taxi fees Referral $25.00 Refuel /Wash $2.00/$4.00 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager THRU: Don Taylor, Finance Director THRU: Jeff Woods, Parks and Recreation Manager FROM: Steve Aitken, Director of Golf DATE: November 8, 2010 RE: Aspen Golf Club Fee Changes SUMMARY: The Aspen Golf Club strives to provide a quality affordable golf facility for locals and guests. Its continued goal will be to operate annually with fiscal sustainability. Commensurate with that end is a recommended modification of the fees /rates schedule per Attachment "A" for 2011 as submitted by the Golf Department and its Advisory Board. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council approved the Golf Fund fees /rates for the 2008 season in December 2007. DISCUSSION: In the past two years the Aspen Golf Club has continued to improve. The following accomplishments attest to this: • Nationally Ranked Golf Facility: In 2009 The Aspen Golf Club was ranked the number 1 municipal golf course in the state of Colorado and 17 overall in the country. • Golf Course Improvements: elements include- water feature enhancements, wild flower plantings, native grassing, tee additions /renovations and bunker improvements. • Golf Shop Operations: The Golf Department took on the responsibility of managing the golf shop. Profitability of the operation increased. Satisfaction with regards to friendly, customer service has improved tremendously. Staff believes that there will be additional profits in golf shop retail and operations in future years. • New Types of Golf Passes: In 2010 two new passes were introduced that allowed greater flexibility for the customer and profitability for the Golf Fund. The Silver Pass had great success selling 224 passes providing overall additional income for the Golf Fund. The Platinum Pass although not a huge seller provided convenience and a feel of being a part of the Aspen Golf Club and community. Success in sales of these passes along our other passes has increased the overall profitability of the Golf Fund. For 2011 improvements we are working on include: • Golf Course Renovations/Enhancements - Tees, Bunkers, Water Features • Self check in for local pass holders • Day of play tee time booking • Promotion of special retail orders Our Marketing Department continues to maintain and improve our competitive ability to attract golfers. Before the season begins, local passes are actively marketed to establish our base of local golfers. Hotel Concierges are contacted regularly, and a program is in place to reward them for bringing guests to our golf course. ACRA and SAS provide stay and play golf packages. The standard forms of marketing are also employed where needed through newspaper, radio, Grassroots TV, interne and e-mail. The intent of the Golf Fund is to break even from an operating standpoint and in good years to have a little left over to invest back into the golf course. Breaking even from an operating standpoint means that we have enough to purchase maintenance equipment and capital replacements for the golf course and clubhouse. The biggest challenge of the Aspen Golf Club is to remain competitive with other area courses and to maintain a good experience for local and visiting players alike. Revenue needs to be realized from every golfer who plays the Aspen Golf Club. Additionally, we need to continually emphasize marketing efforts to increase play from visitors and groups. Physical improvements and new customer service efforts will greatly assist in that emphasis. 2 Rates have remained the same for the past two years and recommended increases are needed to remain competitive in the golf market. The request for an increase in rates /fees is consistent with our financial goals. Local passes are still affordable and competitive to area courses. The following is a list of passes and proposed associated fee adjustments: • Platinum Pass ($1,899 Unlimited Golf, Range, Golf Cart and Tennis ) No change in price. • Gold Season Pass ($1,275 Unlimited Golf) $75 increase from 2008 price. • Silver Pass ($725 unlimited golf until June 15 and after Sept 14, June 16 to September 14 before 8 AM and after 1 PM only) $75 increase from 2009 price. • Bronze Pass ($299 unlimited golf September 15 to close ) No change in pricing. • The 20 - Punch Pass ($575 20 18 Hole Rounds) $50 increase from 2008 price. • The Senior Green Fee ( $57.50/ 18 Hole Round) $5 increase from 2008 price. • The Jr. Pass ($175 unlimited golf for juniors) $25 increase from 2008 price. The Golf Fund needs to generate revenue of approximately $1,680,000 due to expenses of approximately the same amount. The goal for the Golf Fund is to generate $475,000 annually from passes and $500,000 from visitor play. Golf shop and lease revenues comprise the other main source of income. The Aspen Golf Club's philosophy has been and continues to be that visitor revenues to our facility support affordable local rates. It is our belief that these projected numbers are achievable if Council approves the 2011 fee proposal. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Proposed 2011 rates will not go into effect until the early season pass deadline of May 15. The recommended rate increases for golf passes should yield the following additional income based on 2010 pass sales after May 15. Gold Pass Sales 2010 (80 x $75 increase)= $6,000 Silver Pass Sales 2010 (56x $75 increase)= $4,200 20 Punch Pass Sales 2010 (97x$50 increase)= $4,850 Senior Green Fees 2010 ( 881x$5 increase= $4,405 Jr. Pass Sales 2010 (49x$25 increase)= $1,225 Total Projected Additional Revenues $20,680 3 RECOMMENDATION: Golf Staff and the Golf Advisory Board recommend the attached increases to rates /fees per Attachment "A ". PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Ordinance # CITY MANAGER COMMENTS 4 Attachment A 2011 Proposed Golf Fee Increases 2010 Type of Pass/Price 2011 Proposed Rate Platinum Golf Pass $1899 2011 Proposed Rate- No Change Gold Pass $1200 2011 Proposed Rate- $1275 Silver Pass $650 2011 Proposed Rate- $725 20 Punch Pass $525 2011 Proposed Rate- $575 Bronze Pass $299 2011 Proposed Rate- No Change Junior Pass $150 2011 Proposed Rate- $175 Senior Green Fee $52.50 2011 Proposed Rate- $57.50 • VI b fI• %a• 1 • ' MEMORANDUM TO: City Council THRU: Don Taylor, Finance Director FROM: Don Pergande, Budget Officer DATE: November 15 2010 RE: First Reading: Adoption of Budget Supplemental — Ordinance No. (Series 2010) this item will be discussed on Monday, November 22 2010 Staff is requesting an amendment to the City's 2010 budget that increases the city -wide total expenditure appropriation from $114.5 to $115.2 million, (See Attachment A). Net of inter fund transfers, budget authority increases from $89.6 to $90.2 million. Interfund transfers are required appropriations between City funds that do not reflect the true cost of operations. Attachment C provides a detailed listing of budgeted 2010 interfund transfers. The exhibit below outlines the supplemental requests impact on the City's overall appropriation authority. The reference attachments provide itemized listings of requested supplemental budget authority. GI.TY ©r ASPEN {2O10 SUPPLEMEN7ALBUDGET ; Description Amount Location 2010 Amended Budget: $114,549,270 See Attachment A Total New Requests: $634,590 See Attachment B Total Budget Requests: $634,590 See Attachment A TOTAL ORDINANCE: $115,183,860 See Attachment A Less Interfund Transfers $24,996,110 See Attachment C NET APPROPRIATIONS: $90,187,750 See Attachment A • Attachment B: "New Requests" of $634,590 include requests for formal appropriation of funding issues previously reviewed by Council during this fiscal year and new requests. The majority of the requests have offsetting funding sources; such as grant funding, resale of housing inventory and funding from outside entities. The new requests net of funding sources are $11,720. Narrative justification of each new request is provided as part of this memorandum below as well as in the memorandums at the end of this packet provided by departmental staff. • Attachment C: This attachment details all budgeted interfund transfers for 2010, totaling $24,996,110. Interfund transfers are required appropriations that do not reflect the true cost of operations. New Requests General Fund Special Events- The Special Events Department is requesting $13,000 in total. Due to staffing at ACRA in 2010; ACRA asked the Special Events Department to administer the 12 Days of Aspen for 2010. ACRA intends on resuming its role in 2011. This appropriation request is 100% funded by ACRA. New Requests All Other Funds Early Childhood Fund- The Early Childhood Fund is completely funded by outside grant funding. The total request is for $33,000 in appropriation funding. This request is needed to distribute grant funding in 2010. Electric Utility Fund- The Electric Utility Fund is requesting $59,200. This is a request to develop an Aspen Energy Assurance Plan (AEAP) to restore power systems in the event of natural or other disasters. Through the AEAP, the City and collaborating partners are expecting to enhance the efficiency and reliability of Aspen electric service to its customers, increase power security to critical load customers, and provide Communications department and emergency responders with increased electric reliability and a list of critical load customers for enhanced communication. This request is 100% offset by a grant from the Department of Energy. See the memo at the end of this packet for additional information on this request. Employee Housing Fund- The Employee Housing Fund is requesting $529,390. This request is for the sale of units held in inventory for resale. These units need to be appropriated when sold. The units' expense recognition is offset partially or in whole with the sale proceeds depending on the buyers housing category. ORDINANCE NO. (Series of 2010) AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING AN INCREASE IN THE GENERAL FUND OF $13,000, AN INCREASE IN THE EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION FUND OF $33,000, AN INCREASE IN THE ELECTRIC UTILITY FUND OF $59,200 AND AN INCREASE IN THE EMPLOYEE HOUSING FUND OF $529,390. 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: GENERAL FUND, EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION FUND, ELECTRIC UTILITY FUND AND EMPLOYEE HOUSING 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: GENERAL FUND, EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION FUND, ELECTRIC UTILITY FUND AND EMPLOYEE HOUSING 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 22nd day of November, 2010. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor FINALLY ADOPTED AFTER PUBLIC HEARING on the 6th day of December, 2010. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Approved as to Form: John Worcester, City Attorney Q c d E .0 0 Q C p W N O O V M q m O p O m O CO co m ti C b ry N O b ID ch d 1� f IN`1 CO m n O1 O1 C N M :O O O q V1 N N V1_ V1 .o b a C :O ' .j OS N O vi N DS 10` :O Q :G T C W O O O ryj V V q` b $ O W C O] 10 N n N m N ti. O 0 O p O V N CO O N 0 N V N 111 1Y 10 p q ^ ni N 44 ' b N N w N :G 'A • N N N ` n: r: O O N N y1 N N N N N N q N VL N N 0 y1 N N T. N N N N N R O Q p 0 O O O O O n , 1 O O Q p N N $ b O O O N O O N p O V N O et e W 4-1 0 9 d N g N W n t0 b O- p _ n N :D R. I� V OO n O F, el C m q b y ` co ' :O 0 01 1 H N ` N b :O N O N M M M C p N gy p ` N m om ' m` T O V 1 ' el < 1 E a 9 O O q W e N ry b 0 W m 1 m M m N q In CO In q I� �D n q n 10 q q N m N W q co O b el" O H N } q N w v b i m q N m q N , H ry O p 6 N N N N N N II^ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N el 0 W N O o 0 0 0 § N O N N N N N O N N Y N N N N 0000000 O N N N N N Q N m m . CI 0 ... 1 N N N N m G g N C H Oj M °1 O` N O' ° m ° m y d N N N N N N ID 10 X N y1 N N W d 6 an p � pO 8 8 R d O O H W O ID 1 0 N o l O N w " A b 01 C N O O N yj O O n O 0- O N N e C ai Iri ni m IO a of vi r-: m 16 Ie N 0 ry m m m N m ti ro 01 I0 re; C n m 1D 01 0 m b n In 8 sr p N S b b N m v 01 q V V N 0 % co N ID m m IO q CO W V1 OI I� 1O N n ti 1y N N 0 01 O 0 b N O N N N N N N N N q N in N '4 N N N q N u N N M N W ::. ▪ O fG N N N M N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 N N O O O 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ipp e O O p O p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L 3 ti M 0 N O ID (0 1- V N N e ti H M M n N O N O N nn N u . , N W N N N„ N 'I - N C I/1 p.,:. O 01 O 01 IO LA. O 8 M 0 4 n t at h O tO L c O m Di O I N O ' .4 0 0 IG 0 0 a t at cc E CD 33 d N O II M V N M N µ Q m 'q 0 n, en M 00 CD N N O] 1 m N Ln M co ID M N Q mµ 01 b 0 O C N N N N N N ni N N N N N N N y N N N N N N N N 4 N N h N N 4.3 N N C > a' N N N N d N d o: z c it. a o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 N o p o p o p N O N o 0 0 0 O o O p o o p 0 0 0 Q N N 0 0 4 N N N N N N N N N N N O N N N N O 0 I N N N .tn. M N W • ti q . N a; f o W ' N E '� N N N N N an Let Ln d n IL n o 0 O O O O Q O O O O 0000 0 p O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 r. - ' d J : M N p N m n V N N a O N m O O O H C N 01 N VI N q t0 V 01 O Ol IO yt O N m m l0 O V tO 1 V 14 I 0 N IO , 10 N • ▪ L y R F ' > O d 0 La O m V01 01 m N N.0 b M M M M I O N W 1 W N I I1 N N N. 0 . f11 N Q q q q d a b o q o of 6 p 'J VI N N VL N N N N N N N N y I N N N N N N N N N { 0 n N N co N N O N N 44 N O Q LO O O n b 01 q v1 N N In O 00 0 m q N n Q p n n N nQ,1 III t p N O 00 r h O N q IYI N p Q N O W y1 N p O O 0 b 10 O n f n CO N O • V 0 V1 m 0 . (0 b m m b n . 0 0 0 m q ` M h 10 Oi l0 „m .ti 1� lc n M t0 m Oi In ' V I ' Oi y N N r n 10 b` O0 Ol' Q m O ea n I0 m O 0 00 CO 10 m N N b O q Ln N CO 14 q O ] O O W 1D O e 0 N q V1 y1 Ol N O O q N 10 N ° N IC p O O -0 8 N N q N N N N N rei 14 N p N N (4 y1 N N N V N N N e,': N 44 N yI N y N N a a ,o a a a a = e T. u 00 ° c y 00 a o c a LL W a n v W ° c V b . I` . == LL 0 o d ' a LL LL Ii Ii - 0 10 u a 00 a a d ° > a 1 §° c 1 v u 1 d + a LL c % y 0 LL Z c c ° c q $ 2 N E ° p W 0 '° v t 0 c ° °c d ° c d 0 n u Q c 0 u L = 00 ¢ c iii ` u i v c 0 i is o c a o >_ 0 w . o. LL c c m u a 00 c E w e " v m ° > e d o g ° c v rz d v a y n n LL Z' we a LL c ' a v m E o' a '; Q o E U' c? l7 d 9 0 E C o o LL °' N d .z � O v u c 0 d a ' . u N I 0 Iu I 0 0' a¢ i I ' C r y _ F m .°. n v o m 3 .d. m A. - 00 0 ' c u _ m o t s E — °' °' E n m v o 2 V. p ' v w« `w $ ; v b n c ,. LL E 8 D 1 8 « 8 P P w s 0 o o . ° . E°° . ° . « N SS g J e Q v c LL d 10 w 0 [L �' I° O 1 ` d y a . ] g W] 6 d d w d ° 0 0 E E a l 2 0 N j cr W U' Q V' N N u 3 V F- 2 Y v1 N O 8 N U n N 3 w 0 n V' 1= N N F 2 N Q Z 0 c C y al 0 O pi C) 3 ▪ 6. H m m y) O C in- 1 p 0 O 0 0 0 0 N. c 3 ▪ 3 a) 0 O N (.0 W E m ai r.-:' of 1-1 In ti 0 CC 0 CO Y O 0 0 01 01 Ni 0 O N M 1A c 0 - M 141 N M 41 V! N N .o. t an E a t u ea 0 Y V Q .0 ' 3 ,n O "6 O O ;A }' 3 r Y O L c V v : 01 3 ma U a) C V LL _ N Y Y Y C vi LL = u. 3 3 O L C j C a] `) r e 3 _ C LL > 1a N V I U a) N ' U p. c— -c a) E fa O a) C 0 :: L "O Y o Q Of N O CL -C U al O Q E .15 V y 0 S G _O , ti L vi > U a Y O ` -0 O , m 3 — cu as aJ -0 d > U v, - 0 ul 3 •" >_ C . .-- Y u m W m i ' L N N � u N - LI it 0„, . 0 y O C G1 c ru. ao 1 3> >. - 0 -0 L N v a ti u— o L ea m 0 to E yh� O 0 e y O , N a) .3 i E v L of 0 O_ a) C a 'O W a ? a) 3 c. O O Y U a) O O . c Q t o ''' v t a > y T O to i m .§ 0 O yl . , , S c O 7 a0 N 2 'C 3 E .0 < Q 6 N z K N y 0 , t C C O Q N O a) a1 y0 m E 3 Q Vl •L 0 c o a m ' w a) >> "° E = ^ : o. 0 E a) d u Q v 3 : Y E ., w a L u Y y o m . 0. m a, 3 co _ E Y N N K - O W L u o 3 - O N • C O' CV cc 3 - - to c : c y y a 3 U a a' ul a) a ! =0 L E c 0 - c m( 0 ` o o Y m gal w Y N a . O O_ u I- o 0 a) V - O : c ' Y U - Cij 0 C a C ° m C ry w 0 C in U a E = ° s_ ea as c o > o - o W ai c ul ) ' � a a c o N N _ O� w O c ' >- - f0 7 1 ro Y ' v l ti L 2 off .n -0 � a) a to N c `1 o O 2_..) N 0 Y a) : Y U Y Q - O 0 C Y O L ' L 4-+ a) d C a) ` _: 01 > L O N= 0 s . O O t" to 0- N Q O C O a) Y as a) . Es, 0 a) OL c 3 C . ' F , 3° O w O Y E Y a, t Y a u _ c u - ro , c o K O a) < O w ` o y O O O C> N a) i_' r • ry h O , '. 'n C '! H U, E 0 = E O E 6' c Q 'n a 0 — `tin Y Q m E ,n E m ` c $ o O cc 4 a) N a) N C co 4 U . 0 V -0 4.3 c n.Q v 7' v O o v a - mo o `L c c C .:.: L Y E C N � TD u d . L � Y �= O yl O Q i: N Y a1 C � U O E , Uf a H o N ¢ 1- -0 u H v v Q o1 0. v o v - o W m N C X CO ■ i+ N X C E t 1! d LL.: N N 'ft.' .>0-; W 00 • O 3 c y, '0 . C N ;rt.O: 0 ` '�+. 0 '� X K CL in c a:LL > , } x 3 Q 10 3 E ., W n . N � i.4.): d X N Q LL LL t la O IV: to 'L' In O' ~ Z 0 3 10 :c . ^ ,,+>'. N ,+ CT {a. 00 m ul U N 2 O 'W v O " W ti ? w v 5 u H • Memos for Council From Departmental Staff f Reading of Fall Supplemental Ordinance MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Lee Ledesma, Utilities Operations Manager and Department of Energy Grant Project Director THRU: Phil Overeynder, Utilities & Environmental Initiatives Director THRU: Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager DATE OF MEMO: October 18, 2010 MEETING DATE: October 25, 2010 RE: Contract Award to Navigant Consulting - Aspen Energy Assurance Plan — Department of Energy Grant REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests award of a contract to Navigant Consulting for the creation of the City of Aspen Energy Assurance Plan. The total of contract award is for $42,400.00 and encompasses four separate tasks. This contract will be 100 percent funded by a Department of Energy grant. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council approved the 2003 Emergency Management Plan, which will be modified as part of this contract to include a section called the Aspen Energy Assurance Plan (AEAP). Navigant Consulting will be presenting a draft AEAP to City Council in 2011 for eventual adoption within the existing Emergency Management Plan. The current City of Aspen Emergency Management Plan explains the roles and responsibilities of City employees, City departments, and other organizations in an emergency occurring in Aspen. It describes the series of events that should happen before, during, and after an emergency. The plan is designed to deal with any type of emergency and uses the Incident Command System. During an emergency, all City employees will be members of the City emergency management team, and many will be assigned tasks outside their normal jobs. Communications and utility restoration are paramount to this plan working. BACKGROUND: In October 2009 staff submitted a grant application to DOE as part of the Recovery Act Federal funding, specifically the Local Energy Assurance Plan (LEAP) funds. In February of 2010 DOE awarded $8 million in federal stimulus money to help 43 communities across the country make emergency plans to restore power systems in the event of natural or other disasters. The cities include six in Colorado— Aspen, Aurora, Denver, Durango, Lakewood and Wheat Ridge. The City of Aspen received a grant in the amount of $59,193.00 Page 1 of 2 DISCUSSION: Through the AEAP, the City and collaborating partners are expecting to enhance the efficiency and reliability of Aspen electric service to its customers, increase power security to critical load customers, and provide Communications department and emergency responders with increased electric reliability and a list of critical load customers for enhanced communication. The AEAP grant team -- consisting of Lee Ledesma, Lee Cassin, Lauren McDonald, Mary Frances Griffin and Linda Manning- -will be partnering with city facilities managers, emergency responders, and Pitkin County communications center to optimize the usefulness of the AEAP. The remaining $16,793 balance of the DEO grant, if the Navigant Consulting contract is awarded, will be utilized to conduct electric customer surveys concerning critical load customers, as well as to perform table top exercises with the grant team and its community partners. The $16,793 additional grant funds will be allocated to existing city AEAP grant team staff, both as payroll and training dollars. City staff plans to facilitate the creation of an Energy Assurance Plan by revising those sections of the Emergency Management Plan that address energy. This plan will closely tie in to the Aspen Emergency Plan and the Aspen Clean Energy Plan, which outlines the strategy for Aspen Electric to become carbon - neutral by 2015. City staff will be involved with drafting, finalizing, and implementing this plan from beginning to completion. FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: A 2010 budget appropriation will need to be created in the amount of $59,193 to align with the DOE grant in the amount of $59,193. The proposed contract award of $42,400 is within the amount set out in the requested budget appropriation and grant award. This contract award will be 100 percent funding by federal stimulus monies. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: By creating an AEAP that ties into Smart Grid technology and the use of renewables at City facilities in case of an extended energy outage, the creation of this federally funded Local Energy Assurance Plan fully ties in with Councils goal relating to utilities efficiencies and increased use of renewable energy within the community. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends award of contract in the amount of $42,400 to Navigant Consulting for the creation of Aspen Energy Assurance Plan. ALTERNATIVES: The creation of the AEAP could be done utilizing existing City staff and/or additional temporary staff with the guidance of Department of Energy staff and other LEAP participants. A revised project justification form would need to be submitted to DOE for their approval to use this alternative. A second option would be to decline the federal grant award so that another city could utilize these funds. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Resolution # CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: A — Professional Services contract with Navigant Consultants B -- Resolution # Page 2 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jeff Pendarvis, Property Manager, Capital Asset Department THRU: Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director DATE: November 12, 2010 MEETING DATE: November 22, 2010 RE: 505 Employee Housing Fund transaction shortfall. REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff recommends that Council approve this request for appropriation of funds in the amount of $529,390. This request is for the sale of units held in inventory for resale. These units need to be appropriated when sold. The units' expense recognition is offset partially or in whole with the sale proceeds. BACKGROUND: The 505 Employee Housing Fund provides housing for City of Aspen employees. DISCUSSION: During 2010 three sales transactions have taken place. There is a potential fourth sales transaction that might take place in 2010 ( #5 Water Place). Revenue Expense From Unit Employee From Sale Purchase Difference # 21 Water PI Crowley $236,164 $407,356 (5171,192) 455 Doolittle Ryerson $244,201 $348,639 ($104,438) #9 Water PI Slattery $84,293 $127,549 ($43,256) #5 Water PI Hornbacher 5258,000 $122,027 5135,973 Totals $822,658 51,005,571 (5182,913) Current Appropriation $476,190 Appropriation Needed 5529,381 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: These funds will come from the 505 Employee Housing Fund balance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council approve the appropriation for $529,390. ALTERNATIVE: Deny the appropriation, resulting in a negative fund balance. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2010 ". CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: V1 ORDINANCE NO. 31 Series of 2010 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING CHAPTER 23.50 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO IMPOSE AN ADDITIONAL 1.0% VISITOR BENEFIT AND PROMOTIONS TAX. WHEREAS, the City of Aspen is a world renowned tourist destination; and WHEREAS, the continuation of a healthy tourism industry is essential for the economic well -being of the City of Aspen and the general welfare of its citizens and such an industry requires a continuing investment in the planning, promotion, and development of the City of Aspen as a world renowned travel destination; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it should be the policy of the City to guide a sustainable and coordinated tourism industry in the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that such an effort should be financed, in part, by a one percent addition to the Visitor Benefit and Promotion Tax upon the leasing or renting of rooms or other accommodations in commercial lodging accommodations by short term visitors and guests; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that tourists and guests of the City of Aspen should be required to help defray the costs of transportation services offered within the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that 25% of all revenues generated by the Visitor Benefit and Promotion Tax shall be used to enable the City to meet its financial obligations to the Roaring Fork Regional Transportation Authority or other similar transportation services provider, and 75% of all revenues generated shall be used for marketing and promotional efforts for the City's tourism industry; and WHEREAS, Article X, Section 20, of the Colorado Constitution, and Section 12.1 of the Aspen Home Rule Charter, require the City Council to obtain voter approval in advance of the imposition of any new taxes; and, WHEREAS the voters of the City of Aspen approved an increase in the Visitor Benefit and Promotion Tax of one percent at the November 2, 2010, municipal election. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1. That the title to Chapter 23.50 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code be amended to read as follows: Chapter 23.50 VISITOR BENEFIT TAX & PROMOTION TAX Section 2. That Section 23.50.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code be amended to read as follows: Sec. 23.50.010. Legislative intent. The City Council declares that the enactment of a two percent (2.0 %) visitor benefit tax and the expenditure of the receipts of such a tax for the promotion of tourism and transportation services within the Roaring Fork Valley will serve a public purpose, will promote the health, safety, prosperity, security and general welfare of the inhabitants and visitors of the City. It is the intent of the City Council to impose a tax upon the leasing or renting of rooms or other accommodations in commercial lodging accommodations by transient persons. The person to whom the accommodations are rented shall pay the tax and the person from whom the accommodations are rented shall be required to collect the tax. Section 3. That Section 23.50.030 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code be amended to read as follows: Sec. 23.50.030. Imposition of tax. 2 There is hereby imposed a visitor benefit and promotion tax of two percent (2.0 %) upon the rent paid or charged for accommodations provided by a vendor to a purchaser at a taxable premises. Section 4. That Section 23.50.050 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code be amended to read as follows: Sec. 23.50.050. Tourism promotion fund. (a) There is hereby created a special separate fund to be known as the City Tourism Promotion Fund. Said fund shall be separate and distinct from any other funds or accounts used or maintained by the City for any other purposes. The monies of said fund shall be expended only for the purposes set forth herein and no others. (b) The fund shall consist of: (1) All monies deposited or transferred thereto in accordance with Section 23.50.040 above of this Chapter; (2) Contributions of money, property or services received for use in carrying out the purposes of the fund from any person, corporation or association; and (3) All monies otherwise made available to the fund from whatever source. (c) Any monies not appropriated shall remain in the fund and shall not be transferred to or revert to the general fund of the City at the end of any fiscal year. Any interest earned on the investment or deposit of monies of the fund shall remain in the fund and shall not be credited to the general fund of the City. (d) Twenty -five percent (25 %) of all monies in the fund shall be dedicated to transportation services as described below and seventy -five percent (75 %) of all monies in the fund shall be dedicated for tourism promotion activities as described below. All appropriations of monies from the fund shall be made by the City Council and only in accordance with the above - described dedication of those funds. (e) Funds dedicated to transportation service in accordance with this Section shall be appropriated by the City Council only for the following purposes: (1) To pay for regional transportation services as provided by the Roaring Fork Regional Transportation Authority or the Roaring Fork Transportation Agency; (2) To contribute to local public transportation services within the City and its immediate environs; or (3) To defray administrative and clerical costs of collecting and administering the tax, provided such expenditures do not exceed the actual costs of such administrative and clerical costs. 3 (f) Funds dedicated to tourism promotion in accordance with this Section shall be appropriated by the City Council to a professional marketing entity such as the Aspen Chamber Resort Association upon the submission and approval of a budget prepared by the Aspen Chamber Resort Association, or other similar organization, only for the following purposes: (1) Planning and implementing the advertisement, promotion and development of tourism and special events in the City; (2) Tourism advertising, written and graphic materials and cooperative and matching promotional materials: (3) Gathering and disseminating information on the tourist industries and attractions of the City; (4) Purchasing such equipment, materials and supplies as shall be necessary, to be used solely for tourist promotion; (5) Contracting for those services and materials as may be incidental, necessary and appropriate to the accomplishment of the purposes of the fund, including but not limited to, administrative, secretarial, clerical or professional services deemed necessary; (6) Attracting conferences, conventions and meetings of a commercial, cultural, educational or social nature to the City; (7) Attracting sporting events and social and cultural events sponsored by nonprofit organizations; (8) Defraying administrative and clerical costs of collecting and administering the tax, provided such expenses do not exceed the actual costs of such administrative and clerical costs. Section 5. The effective date of this ordinance and the imposition of the additional tax referenced herein shall be January 1, 2011. 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 amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. 4 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 hereof. A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of , 2010, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 2010. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2010. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Taylor, Director of Finance THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager DATE OF MEMO: November 15, 2010 MEETING DATE: November 22, 2010 RE: Adoption of the Proposed 2011 Budget REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This is for the City Council to consider adoption of the proposed 2011 budget. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council and staff completed 4 budget work sessions reviewing the proposed 2011 budget and 2011 -2020 Asset Management Plan. Numerous changes were made and incorporated into the budget that is proposed for adoption. BACKGROUND: City Council has reviewed a proposed budget that seeks to maintain service levels for 2011. No new taxes are proposed for the 2011 budget, with the exception of the voter approved lodging tax dedicated to additional marketing. For the most part city revenues recovered modestly in 2010 after a very tough year in 2009. Sales tax is up modestly after the precipitous drop in 2009. However all construction related revenues continue to be weak. The budget proposal includes a partial restoration of employee benefits that were cut to balance the budget in 2009. On average, $1,340 per employee was cut in benefits in 2008 -2009. This budget proposal restores approximately $475 per employee in a combination of benefits. This represents about 0.75% of total salary costs. Staff had originally proposed a 3% increase in the pay plan, so the difference has been removed from the budget proposal. This removed approximately $135,000 across all of the funds. Other major changes from the Council review included removal of the Burlingame development funding, ($44,800,000) and the Wheeler 21 Century Master Plan funding ($21,400,000). Council may consider these projects at a later date. DISCUSSION: The proposed 2011 budget, for the most part, maintains service levels at previous year's levels. The proposed budget for 2011, net of interfund transfers is $84,837,680 which is down 8% from 2010. Page 1 of 2 The budget assumes that the sales tax in 2011 will grow by 3.0% from 2010. It will be important to continue to monitor how the City's major revenues track against projections in 2011. The budget assumes that a property tax mil levy will be assessed for the General Fund /AMP in the amount of 3.286 mils and a mil levy for the Stormwater fund in the amount of 0.527 mils. City of Aspen 2011 Recommended Budget 2010 2011 Original Recommended % Budget Budget Variance Change Revenues $85,656,840 $86,943,310 $1,286,470 ' 2% Operating $46,681,610 $47,469,970 $788,360 2% Capital Outlay $15,345,920 $13,809,990 ($1,535,930) (10 %) Debt Service $5,004,940 $4,954,570 ($50,370) (1 %) Net Appropriations $67,032,470 $66,234,530 ($797,940) (1 %) Interfund Transfers $24,700,220 $18,603,150 ($6,097,070) (25 %) Total Appropriations $91,732,690 $84,837,680 ($6,895,010) (8 %) Ending Fund Balance $56,631,805 $66,296,633 $9,664,828 17% 2011 Revenues and Expenses include $980,000 for the newly approved 1% Lodging Tax 2011 Recommended Budget rounded to the nearest $10 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff proposes that the 2011 budget be adopted. ALTERNATIVES: The proposed budget may be amended as the City Council may deem necessary. PROPOSED MOTION: Move adoption of the resolution attached which approves the 2011 budget and makes appropriations to the various funds as proposed. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. J (SERIES OF 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ADOPTING THE 2011 MUNICIPAL BUDGET AND AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS PURSUANT THERE TO WHEREAS, the City Manager, designated by Charter to prepare the budget, has prepared and submitted to the Mayor and City Council the Annual Budget for the City of Aspen, Colorado for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2011 and ending December 31, 2011; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 9.8 of the Home Rule Charter, the Council shall adopt the budget by Resolution on or before the final day established by law as December 15 for certification of the ensuing year's tax levy to the county; and WHEREAS, Article 9 of the Aspen Home Rule Charter requires the adoption of an annual budget with the opportunity for the public to participate at a public hearing at least 15 days prior to the statutory deadline for certification of the ensuing year's tax levy to the county, it is the intent of the Council by adoption of this budget to follow the requirements of City Charter; and WHEREAS, the budget as submitted in Exhibit A sets forth the estimated fiscal data of appropriated expenditures and estimated revenues for the calendar year of 2011. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: SECTION 1 That the budget for the City of Aspen, Colorado for the fiscal year 2011 as submitted in attachment hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference, be and is hereby adopted, which option all constituted appropriations of the amounts specified therein as expenditures amounting to $84,837,680, and the estimated budget revenue requirements of $86,943,310 both in Exhibit A, is hereby declared to be the amount of revenue necessary to be raised by the tax levy and income from all other sources not inclusive of fund balance at the beginning of the year of $64,191,003 for total revenues of $151,134,313 to pay the expenses and certain indebtedness, and provide a reasonable fund balance at the close of the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2011 and ending December 31, 2011. SECTION 2 That the City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager to enter into such contracts and execute such documents on behalf of the City as may be necessary and customary to expend the funds appropriated for all capital acquisitions within its budget, and that Council further directs the City Manager to inform it of such contracts and documents promptly at its regularly scheduled Council meetings. Adopted this 22, day of November 2010 Michael C. Ireland, Mayor I, KATHRYN KOCH, duly appointed and acting City Clerk of the City of Aspen, Colorado, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of the Resolution adopted by the City Council at its meeting held on the 22 day of November, 2010. Kathryn Koch, City Clerk Exhibit A TOTAL FrY.OFASPEN 2011APPROPRATIONS BY FUND' Forecasted Total Current Total Current 2011 Ending Fund Name Fund Balance Revenue Budget Expenditure Budget Balance General Government Funds Asset Management Plan Fund $2,337,105 53,243,880 53,582,040 51,998,944 General Fund 57,595,855 520,610,880 520,533,730 57,673,005 Subtotal General Gov't Funds $9,932,960 $23,854,760 $24,115,770 $9,671,950 Special Revenue Funds Parks and Open Space Fund $1,967,227 $7,952,120 58,203,050 $1,716,297 Wheeler Opera House Fund * $27,829,801 53,759,730 55,813,540 $25,775,991 City Tourism Promotion Fund $0 51,961,960 51,915,980 $45,980 Transportation Fund 52,526,820 52,348,140 51,963,750 $2,911,210 Housing Development Fund $1,801,236 56,429,060 $2,096,340 56,133,957 Kids First Fund 53,662,528 $1,779,480 51,981,750 $3,460,258 Stormwater Fund 52,011,049 $1,383,530 51,585,290 51,809,289 Subtotal Special Revenue Funds $39,798,661 $25,614,020 $23,559,700 $41,852,981 Debt Service Fund Debt Service Fund 5185,089 53,304,450 53,308,880 $180,659 Subtotal Debt Service Fund $185,089 $3,304,450 $3,308,880 $180,659 Capital Fund Parks and Open Space Capital Fund 5288,280 51,515,360 51,803,640 $0 Subtotal Capital Fund $288,280 $1,515,360 $1,803,640 $0 Enterprise Funds Water Utility Fund $6,436,193 $7,935,530 56,501,660 57,870,063 Electric Utility Fund $798,517 $7,291,040 56,748,120 51,341,437 Renewable Energy Fund 5590,859 $562,550 $966,500 $186,909 Parking Fund 51,615,742 52,683,560 53,088,310 51,210,991 Golf Course Fund $255,399 $1,683,300 51,674,890 5263,810 Truscott Housing Fund 51,192,097 $1,741,820 $1,791,690 51,142,228 Marolt Housing Fund $817,244 $710,530 $1,106,800 $420,975 Subtotal Enterprise Funds $11,706,051 $22,608,330 $21,877,970 $12,436,411 Internal Service Funds Employee Health Insurance Fund 5259,814 54,316,150 $4,540,050 535,914 Employee Housing Fund $444,421 $776,280 5559,490 5661,211 Information Technology Fund $0 53,392,970 53,392,560 5410 Subtotal Internal Service Funds $704,235 $8,485,400 $8,492,100 $697,535 Trust and Agency Funds Housing Administration Fund 51,348,274 $1,509,800 51,614,890 51,243,184 Smuggler Housing Fund $227,453 $51,190 $64,730 $213,913 Subtotal Trust and Agency Funds $1,575,727 $1,560,990 $1,679,620 $1,457,097 ALL FUNDS 564,191,003 586,943,310 584,837,680 566,296,633 Less lnterfund Transfers $18,603,150 518,603,150 NET APPROPRIATIONS 564,191,003 568,340,160 566,234,530 566,296,633 * Wheeler Balances shown GAPP basis adjusted V�� r b MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Taylor, Director of Finance THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager DATE OF, MEMO: November 15, 2010 MEETING DATE: November 22, 2010 RE: Adoption of the Proposed 2011 Mil Levies REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This is for the City Council to consider adoption of the proposed mil levies for the 2011 budget. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council and staff completed 4 budget work sessions reviewing the proposed 2011 budget and 2011 -2020 Asset Management Plan. BACKGROUND: The proposed 2011 budget assumes that the city would levy property taxes for the benefit of the General Fund, Asset Management Fund, and Stormwater Fund. The General Fund and Asset Management mil levy are by law subject to the TABOR restrictions and the storm water mil levy is calculated under the provisions of TABOR by City Council direction. TABOR provides that the amount of revenue from property taxes cannot grow by more than the amount attributable to inflation plus new construction. This keeps property taxes from increasing as assessed valuations rise. As assessed valuations rose in prior years the city reduced its tax yield to the TABOR limits by implementing a temporary mil levy credit. As property assessed valuations decline the City will be able to reduce the amount of the credit in order to collect up to the TABOR limitation. Page 1 of 2 DISCUSSION: The proposed mil levies and their respective tax yield is shown in the table below. 2011 Temporary 2011 Mil 2011 Tax Rate Credit Levy Rate General Property Tax 5.410 2.124 3.286 Stormwater Fund 0.650 0.123 0.527 Total 6.060 2.247 3.813 2010 Assessed Updated Mil Levy 2011 Valuation Rate Property Tax General Fund $1,686,481,340 1.808 $3,049,158 Asset Management Fund $1,686,481,340 1.478 $2,492,619 Total General Mil Levy 3.286 $5,541,778 Total Stormwater Mil Levy $1,686,481,340 0.527 $888,776 Refund /Abatements $1,686,481,340 0.041 $69,146 Total 2011 Property Tax 3.854 $6,499,699 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff proposes that the 2011 mil levies be adopted. ALTERNATIVES: The proposed mil levies may be amended as the City Council may deem necessary. PROPOSED MOTION: Move adoption of the resolution attached which approves the 2011 mil levies as proposed. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTON NO. 6 75 -- (SERIES OF 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO SETTING THE 2011 MUNICIPAL MIL LEVY RATES AND CERTIFYING SAME TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR PITHIN COUNTY. WHEREAS, the City Manager, designated by Charter to prepare the budget, has prepared and submitted to the Mayor and City Council the Annual Budget for the City of Aspen, Colorado for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2011 and ending December 31, 2011; and WHEREAS, the net assessed valuation of the taxable property for the year 2010 in the City of Aspen returned by the County Assessor of Pitkin County was updated on November 15th, 2010, is the sum of $1,686,481,340; and WHEREAS, said mil levy is calculated to produce gross ad valorem tax proceeds in the amount of $9,123,864 for collection year 2011; based upon the assessed valuation as determined by the County Assessor, and WHEREAS, voter approval on November 6, 2007 established the City's Stormwater Fund mil levy rate at an amount not to exceed 0.650 mils upon each dollar of assessed valuation on all taxable property within the city annually with no date of expiration, permitting collection of property tax revenues in excess of the mil levy limitation provided in Article X, Section 20 or the Colorado Constitution for property tax collection in all future years beginning in 2008; and WHEREAS, said mil levy rate is calculated to produce gross ad valorem tax proceeds in the amount of $1,096,213 for collection year 2011; based upon the net assessed valuation of the City of Aspen as determined by the County Assessor, and WHEREAS, the net assessed valuation of taxable property in Aspen decreased approximately 0.1% between 2009 and 2010 assessment years, and WHEREAS, a temporary reduction in property tax collections is desired by the City Council in order to reduce the tax burden on owners of taxable property within the City of Aspen while preserving the City's ability to increase property taxes to levels previously authorized by City of Aspen voters as described above, and WHEREAS, C.R.S. section 39 -1 -111.5 authorizes a local government to certify a refund in the form of a temporary property tax credit or a temporary mil levy rate reduction, provided that the certification includes the gross mil levy, the temporary property tax credit or temporary mil levy rate reduction expressed in mil levy equivalents, and the net mil levy and under C.R.S. section 39 -1- 111.5(4), the Assessor shall, concurrent with delivery of tax warrants to the Treasurer, itemize duly certified temporary property tax credits or temporary mil levy rate reductions in the manner set forth in C.R.S. section 39 -1- 111.5(2), and under C.R.S. section 39- 1- 111.5(5) the tax statements shall indicate by footnote which local government mil levies reflect a temporary property tax credit or temporary mil levy rate reduction for the purpose of effecting a refund. SECTION 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, Colorado for the purpose of balancing the 2011 budget, and providing a reasonable closing fund balance for said fiscal year, levies the following taxes upon each dollar of the total valuation for assessment of all taxable property within the City of Aspen for the year 2010; that a temporary mil levy rate reduction is authorized; and that the individual mil levies are expressed in terms of the gross mil levy, the temporary mil levy rate reduction shown in mil levy equivalents, and the net mil levy as shown below, which includes a temporary credit of 2.124 for the General Property Tax mil levy and a temporary credit of 0.123 for the Stormwater Fund mil levy: 2011 Temporary 2011 Mill 2011 Tax Rate Credit Levy Rate General Property Tax 5.410 2.124 3.286 Stormwater Fund 0.650 0.123 0.527 Total 6.060 2.247 3.813 2010 Assessed Updated Mill Levy 2011 Valuation Rate Property Tax General Fund $1,686,481,340 1.808 $3,049,158 Asset Management Fund $1,686,481,340 1.478 $2,492,619 Total General Mill Levy 3.286 55,541,778 Total Stormwater Mill Levy $1,686,481,340 0.527 $888,776 Refund /Abatements $1,686,481,340 0.041 569,146 Total 2011 Property Tax 3.854 $6,499,699 SECTION 2 The City Clerk is hereby directed to certify and deliver this Resolution to the Board of County Commissioners for Pitkin County on or before December 15, 2010. ADOPTED THIS 22, day of November 2010 Michael C. Ireland, Mayor I, KATHRYN KOCH, duly appointed and acting City Clerk of the City of Aspen, Colorado, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Resolution adopted by the City Council at its meeting held on November 22, 2010, which Resolution was adopted subsequent to public hearings on the City of Aspen's 2011 Proposed Municipal Budget and prior to the final day established by law for the certification of the tax levy to Pitkin County, all was required by the Sections 9.8 and 9.9 of the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Kathryn Koch, City Clerk V/ c MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Second Reading of Ordinance #26, Series of 2010, an Amendment to Ordinance #26, Series of 2009, 630 E. Hyman Avenue Historic Landmark Negotiation DATE: November 22, 2010 SUMMARY: 630 E. Hyman x Avenue, the Crandall Building, is a �* modern commercial building r . Aspen Mountain view window constructed beginning in 1969. It was identified on Ordinance #48, Series of t - " 2007 as a "potential historic t resource." The property owners, Greg . _ and Jane Hills, volunteered for " -, _ landmark designation in 2009 and m n ni M r -- . �► � �_ '. negotiated specific incentives with t r HPC and City Council. Y s The Hills plan a refurbishment of the - building, including repair and refinishing of exterior woodwork, replacing all windows, and reconfiguring the primary staircase. A third floor residential unit has been approved, which will result in the interior courtyard becoming an enclosed area. Public access will remain and will be enhanced with the addition of artwork and seating. In addition, the commercial units are to be condominiumized so that several long -term tenants may purchase their spaces. As the project has moved into building permit, the owners have found that one aspect of the plan needs to be revisited. It has become important for them to assign a portion of the public seating area/gallery space that was to be created on the second floor of the building to commercial tenant space instead. The area is identified in the application as Unit 207. The reason this specific public area was initially included in the project had to do with the historic layout of the building, and a significant south facing view window that awaits those who climb the front stair to the second floor. This window seems to have been very intentionally placed by architect Tom Benton to offer a view of Aspen Mountain. Normally Council would not review a revision to the floor plans of this approved project, however eliminating the public seating area and converting to tenant space causes the project to exceed the allowable commercial FAR by 342 square feet. A Council variance would be needed. Council previously granted a 60 square foot variance for this same issue. Changing the area at Unit 207 into net leasable space is important to the owners because the costs of the project, as they have become more finalized, have made it challenging to keep purchase prices low for the tenants who wish to stay in the building. Since First Reading, the Hills have informed staff that they intend to sell the commercial spaces to the long term tenants at the originally intended price, whether this amendment is approved or not. They feel strongly about honoring that commitment to the City and businesses. However, they request the assistance that would be provided through more leasable space. Aside from the economic considerations, the Hills feel that the public area in question is arguably excessive in light of the amount of gathering space being created throughout the building. While this particular location in the building has had a lot of appeal due to the view towards Aspen Mountain, that view will be affected by the more recently approved Art Museum. HPC discussed the amendment on October 13` The change in use of the interior is not within HPC's purview, however the board played a role in the landmark negotiation process and the approval of the alterations to the Crandall building. HPC was split in their opinion of this revision by a vote of 2 -2. Some felt that the public seating area that is to be eliminated is an amenity that should not be sacrificed. Others felt that the conversion to tenant space won't detract from the historic significance of the building. At First Reading, City Council requested the following information, which has been added to this packet. • Council minutes from the original negotiation for landmark designation, in late 2009. • Floor plans and calculations showing all the public space in the building, before and after this proposed amendment. • Information about the purchase price being offered to the long -time tenants who plan to stay at the Crandall building. • Information about which current tenants are staying, where they will be located, and the size of their unit space. • A graphic study showing how the Art Museum will affect the view from the public area that is proposed to be converted to net leasable space, and an assessment as to whether any development that would have been allowed by code across the street would have impacted the view in the same way. • A response to whether or not there are any other places in the building to increase commercial space, other than the area by the round window. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council approve the interior plan change and commercial floor area variance as requested, with the condition that the property owner provide evidence that the current tenants are offered a contract to purchase their spaces at the rates attached as Exhibit A to the ordinance. This will ensure the community benefit that has been represented in the project is honored. APPLICANT: 630 E. Hyman LLC, represented by Haas Land Planning, LLC and Rowland + Broughton Architects. PARCEL ID: 2737 - 182 -12 -007. ADDRESS: 630 E. Hyman Avenue, Lots R and S, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: C -1, Commercial. ORDINANCE #48 NEGOTIATION The application proposes an amendment to the benefits awarded to incentivize voluntary designation of the property. Council Ordinance #26, Series of 2009 is attached and lists all of the agreements made between the City and property owner. The existing building is less than the maximum allowable FAR, but exceeds the amount of space that can be dedicated to commercial use by 3,306 square feet. (9,000 square feet is allowed and 12,306 exists.) The fact that the courtyard is becoming enclosed will reduce the FAR calculation significantly. Even so, the approved project exceeded the commercial cap and Council granted a 60 square foot variance in 2009 to allow the commercial FAR to be 9,060 square feet. This proposed revision will increase the commercial space on site to 9,402 square feet, requiring a new variance of 342 square feet. The revision cannot go forward unless the applicant finds a way to reduce FAR to the approved limit, or Council grants a variance. The variance is slightly less than expressed at First Reading as the architects have revisited their calculations for the building. If the request is approved, the project will remain below the maximum FAR that could be allowed for commercial and residential space combined on this site. The project also amounts to less net leasable tenant space than currently exists because reconfigured entries, installation of an elevator, and other changes will eliminate some existing commercial area. This is important because, even with the new office area that is proposed, the variance does not generate space that has never existed before which would require affordable housing mitigation. With regard to HPC's recommendation, HPC felt that the community should continue to enjoy access to the "round window" feature. The applicant has argued that the view will be blocked by the new art museum. Staff believes that the perspective towards the museum may be just as interesting and is not in and of itself a reason to abandon the intent of the approved plan. Graphics illustrating the impact on the view are attached. We support the requested amendment because it does not increase net leasable commercial space or commercial FAR beyond what has historically existed in the building. The public view window is potentially a lost amenity, but approval has been granted to enclose the interior courtyard and reconfigure the main staircase, and these actions will fundamentally change the nature of the central space. The applicant plans a significant gallery and common area that will be comfortable year round and will likely be used more than the existing courtyard. This building was constructed before the City began requiring open space, now known as public amenity. If public amenity were required on this site, 25% of the 6,000 square foot lot, or 1,500 square feet would have to be dedicated to the creation of a "pleasant downtown Public environment." While the interior common area proposed at the Crandall building does not meet the definition of public amenity, the property owner is, even in the revised plan, providing over 2,500 square feet of gallery, seating and meeting space to be used in common by tenants of the building and the public that chooses to visit. In reviewing the floor plans, there appears to be little opportunity to create additional net leasable space other than what is proposed. The existing building footprint, building code requirements for corridors and exiting, and other factors define the gross area that can be leased. The applicant does have a Community Development Director GMQS exemption that allows them to use Unit 204 as either commercial space (currently proposed) or a voluntary R.O. unit. If the R.O. unit was constructed, enough commercial FAR would be freed up to create the desired commercial tenant space at the round window without a variance. Council and the applicant should discuss the pro's and con's of this option. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council approve the interior plan change as requested by allowing the commercial FAR for the Crandall project to be 1.57:1, or 9,402 square feet. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to apopt Ordinance #26, Series of 2010, which amends Ordinance #26, Series of 2009, on First Reading." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Exhibits: Ordinance #26, Series of 2010 A. Ordinance #26, Series of 2009 B. Previous Council minutes C. Application ORDINANCE #26 (Series of 2010) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO AMENDING ORDINANCE #26, SERIES OF 2009, A NEGOTIATION FOR THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 630 E. HYMAN AVENUE, LOTS R AND S, BLOCK 99, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN PARCEL ID: 2737 - 182 -12 -007 WHEREAS, the applicant, 630 E. Hyman LLC, represented by Haas Land Planning, LLC and Rowland + Broughton Architects, has requested an amendment to Ordinance #26, Series of 2009, which approved a package of incentives for the landmark designation of the property located at 630 E. Hyman Avenue, Lots R and S, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado under the provisions of Section 26.415.025 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 13, 2010, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the proposed amendment and made a motion to recommend approval to City Council which resulted in a tie vote of 2 -2; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer, in her staff report to City Council dated November 22, 2010, performed an analysis of the proposed amendment and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the 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, 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: 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 entitlement, an amendment to Ordinance #26, Series of 2009, which resulted in the voluntary landmark designation of 630 E. Hyman Avenue, Lots R and S, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. All provisions of Ordinance #26, Series of 2009 shall remain in full force and effect, except: 1. Council hereby grants a variance to the allowable FAR for Commercial Uses, from 1.5:1 to 1.57:1. 630 E. Hyman Avenue Ordinance #48 Negotiation Page 1 of 2 Section 2: 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 3: 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 4: Public Hearing A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 22nd day of November, 2010, 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 , 2010. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2010. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney 630 E. Hyman Avenue Ordinance #48 Negotiation Page 2 of 2 hato t(v4� f-"0 I i zeoi Regular Meeting Aspen Citv Council November 23, 2009 adjustment. John Worcester, city attorney, stated that language will be added before the agreement is signed. Mayor Ireland moved to approve the consent calendar indicating that in Resolution #98, to specify 5% is an annual limitation; seconded by Councilman Romero. The consent calendar is: • Appointment to Kids' First Board - Richard Nedlin • Resolution #98, 2009 - Gymnastics Agreement • Resolution #99, 2009 - Amendments to Burlingame Covenants • Minutes - November 9, 2009 All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Torre asked about the board openings listed in a memorandum. City Clerk Kathryn Koch told Council these openings have been advertised for and the deadline is closed. Council scheduled interviews with these applicants November 30` Mayor Ireland asked if any boards have only one application. Ms. Koch said P &Z has only one applicant, Jasmine Tygre. Mayor Ireland asked if Council wanted to interview Ms. Tygre. Councilman Skadron moved to appoint Jasmine Tygre to P &Z; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Johnson left the room due to conflict of interest. Councilman Romero moved to reconsider Resolution #96, Series of 2009, extension of vested rights; seconded by Councilman Tone- All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Ireland moved to continue Resolution #96, Series of 2009, to December 7 seconded by Councilman Romero. All in favor, motion carried. ...9t ORDINANCE #26, Series of 2009 - 630 E. Hyman Landmark Ordinance 48 Negotiation Amy Guthrie, community development department, told Council this is a commercial building built in 1969 by Jack Crandall. The building was designed by Tom Benton, a local artist. The new owners are interested in refurbishing the building. The new owners have plans to sell units to existing tenants and to add a residential unit. The owners are offering an Ordinance #48 negotiation on the size of a residential unit and some city fees. Councilman Skadron asked if this is being brought forward as a historic designation in order to secure benefits. Ms. Guthrie said there are standard benefits for historic designation for which the applicants will be eligible. They are also aware of benefits that 4 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 23, 2009 may be negotiated through Ordinance #48. Greg Hills, applicant, told Council he does not like to tear buildings down but to rehabilitate them and bring life to the buildings. Hills said this is an important structure for the community. Councilman Skadron asked to what degree the rooftop addition diminishes the building's historic integrity. Ms. Guthrie said there will be an architectural presentation at second reading. There were 3 meetings with HPC, who discussed the rooftop addition and how to design it in a way that is appropriate to the building. Ms. Guthrie told Council there is a scoring system to evaluate the integrity of the building and this building has scored 99 out of 100 because it is unaltered. Staff has thought about the impact of an addition because they do not want to destroy the integrity of a building. Ms. Guthrie said the building does need to be rehabilitated. Hills said they have worked to minimize the addition to the building but it will have an impact. Councilman Skadron asked how the building might be altered if historic designation is not received. Hills said there will have to be significant alternation in order to continue this is a commercial and office building. Councilman Romero moved to read Ordinance #26, Series of 2009; seconded by Councilman Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #26 (Series of 2009) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO APPROVING LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND A 500 SQUARE FOOT INCREASE IN THE CAP FOR RESIDENTIAL UNIT SIZE FOR THE SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 630 E. HYMAN AVENUE, LOTS R AND S, BLOCK 99, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO Councilman Romero moved to adopt Ordinance #26, Series of 2009, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Skadron. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Torre, yes; Romero, yes; Skadron, yes; Johnson, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion carried. ELECTION COMMISSION Mayor Ireland said he would like Council to add to the agenda consideration to solicit members for the election commission whose terms expired under the Charter. Councilman Skadron moved to add election commission members to the agenda; seconded by Councilman Romero. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Ireland moved to put out advertisement for persons interested in serving on the election commission through July 2011; seconded by Councilman Torre. Mayor Ireland said this is necessary because according to the Charter the terms of the Election Commission expired in July 2009. 5 Sao 09-od 1 u. 2-4097 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 7, 2009 2 units. Ms. Adams said two affordable housing units are proposed at 600 square feet and category 2. A free market studio is proposed at 600 square feet. Ms. Adams said she will go over the design at second reading as well as present comparisons to the last project. Councilman Skadron said his primary concerns will revolve with the Aspen Area Community plan and the threshold question if this application goes far enough to satisfy the first standard of subdivision review, that a proposed subdivision be consistent with the AACP. Councilman Skadron said he would like to know more about the architecture evolution of the project as it relates to the concept of western vernacular, including covered wooden walkways. Councilman Johnson said the construction management plan and community outreach will be important and there needs to be a lot of detail. Councilman Johnson requested for information on the park development fee. Councilman Romero requested information on operations and operational considerations these improvements have on immediate neighbors including the alley and alley access. Mayor Ireland said he would like information on restoring the site and protecting the city from consequences of an economic failure. Mayor Ireland said the CMP needs to address the impact of construction on this corner and the tourist season. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Torre, yes; Johnson, yes; Romero, yes; Skadron, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion carried. Councilman Torre moved to adopt Ordinance #29, Series of 2009, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Johnson. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Romero, yes; Johnson; yes; Torre, yes; Skadron, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion carried. t ORDINANCE #26, SERIES OF 2009 — 630 E. Hyman Landmark Ordinance 48 negotiation Mitch Haas, representing the applicant, pointed out that under Ordinance 48, Council's direction is to negotiate and reach a "mutually acceptable agreement for the preservation of the resource" and as part of the agreement, Council will require the property be historically designated. Haas said Ordinance 48 explains that preserving and protecting historic resources promotes the public welfare by making Aspen a more attractive and desirable place in which to live and visit. Haas stated the city has determined there is a positive benefit gained by designating historic resources as historic landmarks. Haas noted that historic designation also forwards the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Haas said in order to achieve the benefit of historic designation, the code allows the city to offer variations from the dimensional requirements in the land use code; make recommendations to grant exemptions from the International Building Code; and authorize economic or development benefits to designated properties. Haas pointed out the code in Section 26.415.025(b) establishes the procedures for the 90 day negotiation period. Haas told Council staff reviewed this proposal and requested incentives and found the property satisfies all 3 standards to meet historic designation; only 1 standard needs to be met. HPC has several discussions about the appropriateness of a 3 floor on 7 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 7, 2009 this building; its impact on the original design and on the historic significance of the building. HPC agreed all 3 standards were satisfied and also found that the proposed remodel and addition is consistent with the historic preservation design guidelines and the city's commercial/lodging and historic district design guidelines. Haas requested Council find significant public benefit is achieved with this proposal and agree on the incentives that will allow the Crandall building to be voluntarily added to the list of historic structures. John Rowland, architect, told Council this has been a commercial building since it was built in the 1970's. Rowland said any addition should be sympathetic and contextual. Rowland showed a vicinity map, the existing building, an overlay of the C -1 zone district. Rowland said the net leasable is currently 9,961 square feet. Rowland noted the existing internal courtyard has walkways that are icy and make circulation difficult, There is no handicap accessibility in this building. There is loss of energy due to the courtyard configuration. The existing windows do not function properly for natural ventilation. Rowland noted in modem architecture there is an emphasis on horizontal lines; this building has horizontal siding and the flat roof with vertical columns. Rowland pointed out this building has a simple mass without a lot of details or windows. Rowland told Council the proposed building will retain the historic character with an addition of a unit on top. The net livable on the roof is around 2500 square feet. Rowland said the proposed building will be energy efficient; it is a mixed use building with the addition of the residential unit. The new residential unit will compliment the existing building. Rowland showed a key plan denoting 1, 2, 3 and 4 story buildings in the surrounding area. Rowland brought up community goals, adherence to the AACP, which the proposed building does. The proposal is to sell the spaces back to the existing tenants at affordable prices. The Benton art gallery is proposed to be in the enclosed reconditioned courtyard, which will be an asset to the community. The plan is to retain the round windows. The concrete masonry columns and redwood siding will be expressed throughout. Rowland said the existing staircases are not to code and there is no elevator so the proposed building will increase accessibility. The insulation values and mechanical equipment will be updated; solar energy will be added to the roof. Rowland said the number one green thing is that this building will not be demolished. Rowland showed the site plan; the roof plan, which was lowered by 2' as a result of the HPC meeting. Rowland showed the basement floor plan and relocation of the existing staircase and adding another egress in order to be compliant with the code. The loading dock will be re- arranged in order to add a parking space. New windows will be added on the alley side. The skylights on the roof will be removed in order to build the residential unit. The residential level is setback 25' from the sidewalk. Rowland showed renderings of the pedestrian perspective from different sides of the building, showed the changed loading dock and addition of windows 8 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 7, 2009 Rowland told Council the applicants held a public meeting in October attending by 21 interested persons. Rowland said the design has worked with the rhythm of the building and the vertical elements of the building. Haas told Council the applicants had two separate work sessions with HPC, several meetings with staff and the public open house and a public hearing before HPC. Haas noted little opposition has been voiced against this proposal. There has been support from staff, neighbors and the HPC. Haas said the applicants have requested modest incentives. The first incentive has to do with FAR limits. Haas reminded Council in the C -1 district, there is an overall FAR limit and uses are broken down to limits within that. The remodel will reduce the commercial FAR by 3,000 square feet because of a technical requirement that exposed space be counted as FAR. By putting a roof over the courtyard, that space is no longer counted. The commercial net leasable is not being reduced but even with the reduction, the commercial FAR is over the code allowance at 9,000 square. The building has 12,300 square feet. Haas said 340 square feet will be lost in net leasable. Haas noted the applicants are asking this be approved to allow the final commercial FAR and not be non - conforming. The intention is to allow the existing tenants to purchase their space and non - conformity can make financing difficult. Haas said the next incentive deals with the free market residential FAR on the project. The allowed FAR in C -1 is .5:1, which would be 3000 square feet. This proposal has 3524 square feet of residential floor area. Of that 3524, 832 square feet are non -unit square feet, a pro rated share of the hallways, stairs, circulation in the building. This proposal is exceeding the free market FAR limit by 524 square feet and 832 square feet is non -unit space. Haas said rather than asking for a 500 square foot bonus from the HPC for an exemplary preservation project, they have requested this as an ordinance 48 negotiation. Haas noted the entire project is 2700 square feet less than the square area allow for the property cumulatively. Haas requested the maximum residential unit size be increased. The code allows 2000 square feet of net livable space, which can be increased to 2500 square feet by buying a TDR and landing it on the property. Haas said they would like to achieve that without purchasing a TDR. This is not a variance request as a 2500 square foot unit is allowed. The 3` request has to do with the right -of -way. Haas noted the columns on Spring street and the stair exiting the loading dock on the alley encroach into the city's right -of -way. There are revocable encroachment agreements. Haas said once the building is designated historic, nothing will be removed. Haas said the columns have been deemed to contribute to the historic character of the building. Haas noted the applicants have worked out details for a 39+ year encroachment license, which agreement has been reviewed by the city attorney. Haas pointed out the part of the loading dock furthest in on the alley will be converted into a garage and the loading dock for the commercial space will remain. Haas requested 5 year vesting rather then the standard 3 years vesting. Haas noted this project is subject to school land dedication fee requirement. Haas said this property will not dedicate land when the historic resource takes up all 6,000 square feet of the property. 9 Regular Meeting Aspen Citv Council December 7, 2009 Haas said as the regulations are written, a property with a higher property value will have a higher fee than a property located on the edge of the city. The school fee -in -lieu is based on the value of the property, not on the impact to the school. Mayor Ireland pointed out that is not a fee created by the city. Haas agreed the city is not authorized to waive those fees and they propose to pay the school fee and ask the city to waive other fees to offset that amount. Haas said the city will make up those fees when the units are sold and the real estate transfer taxes are paid. Haas said granting these incentives should be balanced against the community benefit of landmark designation but also the applicants have agreed to give up valuable space to have a publicly accessible art gallery. The applicants have agreed to maintain the historic integrity of the building by not installing more windows on the south side of the building. The applicant has agreed to maintain the courtyard spaces and to forego the remodel and redevelopment flexibility by not designating the building. Haas pointed out there is no requested height variance for this building to keep it in character with the neighborhood. Haas said this is a low two -story building and a minimal 3rd floor is being added. The 3 story perception is reduced by setbacks and a flat roof and pushing the structure to the back of the building. Haas noted the heights of adjacent buildings and this proposed height is not out of scale. Haas noted the C -1 zone is a transition district which has slight reduction in floor area compared to the commercial core. The C -1 zone has a separate chapter in the commercial design guidelines. Haas pointed out the number one design guideline for this is to strengthen the sense of relatedness with the commercial core historic district, not with the adjacent residential district. Variety of design is encouraged, as is greater street vitality and an enriched definition of the street frontage. Haas said the applicants did hear some concems about precedent if the Council allows a 3rd floor on this building. Haas said each and every ordinance 48 negotiation is discretionary and case specific so there is no precedence. Haas said if this would create a precedent, it would be that a 3 floor can be built within 33', below the established height limit of 36' in the C -1 zone. The Wienerstube building across the street proposed a height limit of 48'. This building is 10' shorter than the Hannah Dustin building across the street. Haas pointed out all these plans except the 524 square feet can be achieved under existing land use code without any ordinance 48 incentives. Haas reiterated this is a modest proposal that will preserve a significant building. Haas told Council there are two Benton buildings in town and this one is totally in tact. The applicants feel this addition maintains the historic integrity of this building and it will read almost exactly the same. Amy Guthrie, community development department, told Council there are 3 criteria for historic designation and one has to be met; staff and HPC recommend all 3 criteria are met. Ms. Guthrie pointed out this building scored 99 out of 100. HPC and staff feel it could lose up to 15 points with this proposed remodel; however, it will still be above the threshold. This is a prominent location. Staff and HPC support these negotiations and do not object to any of the negotiations requested by the applicant. 10 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 7, 2009 Councilman Torre asked about the growth management 90 day requirement. Haas told Council the community development director does the growth management review and if this landmark designation is approved, the director is authorized to approve growth management. Haas said there is a code interpretation about subdivision review and when one is adding only 1 unit, subdivision review is not required. Both those requests have been dealt with. Councilman Johnson asked how many spaces will be offered to tenants. Greg Hills, applicant, told Council there are 11 tenants in the buildings all of whom have been offered the ability to buy their space. Hills said the majority have expressed an interest in doing that; two tenants will not be buying their space and there is a list of locals who would be interested in buying a space. Hills said he has sat down with all the tenants to explain the cost of the space, the cost of the mortgage, the financing program. Councilman Skadron asked what the threshold number of points for historic designation is. Ms. Guthrie said for post WWII buildings, the threshold is 75; this building with the addition would score 84. Councilman Skadron asked why subdivision is not required if the tenants are going to buy their spaces. Bendon said subdivision review is required for multi - family development and not required for the addition of one residential unit. Councilman Skadron asked about the issue of approving non - conformities. Bendon said the policy on non - conformities in uses and in non - conformities is that they may continue for the life of the building. There is a review to get a variance on non - conformities when there is little flexibility on the lot. Bendon said there is concern from lenders about non - conformities. Herb Klein, representing the applicant, pointed out under city codes, this non - conformity would be allowed to continue. Klein requested Council declare this is conforming so that when the businesses are sold, that will not be an issue with lenders. Haas said conforming FAR for this parcel would be 1.5:1; the request for this project is 1.505:1, a small amount more than is allowed. Councilman Skadron said the applicants have said this is a modest development proposal and that the addition should be sympathetic. Councilman Skadron asked why a 2500 square foot addition is being requested when only 2000 square foot unit is allowed and at what point is the square footage no longer sympathetic. Haas pointed out the code does allow 2500 square feet by purchasing a TDR and landing on the property. Haas reiterated other than the request for 524 square feet, all other requests are allowed for in the code. The applicants are not requesting additional net leasable area and are requesting only one free market residence. Councilman Romero asked about plans for tenant relocation during reconstruction. Hills said the plans include relocating the tenants within the building during construction. Hills told Council every business owner indicating interest in buying their space will be able to stay during reconstruction. Councilman Romero asked about performance and completion financial sureties and restoration sureties. Councilman Romero said Council has tried to include those type of sureties to protect the community as well as the site. Hills told Council when he does a project, he includes completion guarantees which in this case will be his personal guarantee. 11 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 7, 2009 Mayor Ireland suggested a way to allow 2500 square feet is to issue a TDR to the applicant and then allow the TDR to be landed on the site. The city can hold the TDR as security against completion of the structure. Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing. Junee Kirk said any trades given to the applicant have included that the spaces be affordable to the present tenants and that any unsold space should go to local businesses. Ms. Kirk questioned when they are resold, is the price going to be controlled and how can that be enforced. Ms. Kirk said with the addition of a third story, the city will not be preserving a historic structure; the addition changes the relationship of the whole block. Bill Mitchell, tenant for 24 years, told Council he has been trying to buy his space for the past 20 years. The roof has leaked for the past 24 years. Mitchell said this building is a community asset and he hopes the project goes forward. Graeme Means told Council he has been a business person in Aspen and it is sometimes a struggle to meet rent. People have had to give up their business practices during economic downturns. Means asked Council not to underestimate the value of small businesses to the community. These developers are locals with a track record in Aspen. David Elston stated he support this project because he likes keeping local people in Aspen. Businesses have been moving downvalley. Elston said he would like to see tenants be able to buy their spaces. Elston said he likes this architecture and it seems like it will look like the same building. Bob Langely said the original owners will appreciate this proposal keeping the operation and composition of the building. Scott Lumby said he supports this development; it is a great opportunity to preserve a unique building while allowing locally serving business to own their own spaces. Mike Yates said restoring the building, making it historic and part of the town will be an asset to Aspen. Wiley Manering said it is difficult to purchase a property from long time owners. Manering said these owners got the property because they have the same vision as the previous owners. Toni Kronberg said this is discussing a landmark historic resource and how can this be a landmark historic resource with all the proposed changes. Ms. Kronberg noted the Aspen Area community Plan states any new development has to be in the scale of the existing neighborhood. Ms. Kronberg questioned why this has not gone through subdivision review because of the proposed separate ownership. This proposal puts a top hat on the building and changes the roofline. Ms. Kronberg said for landmark designation, there are 5 criteria to be looked at, not 3. The 2 criteria left out are the neighborhood and community character. Much of this neighborhood is two stories and this is an inappropriate application for landmark designation. Macky Morris, business owner in Aspen, said keeping businesses like office supply and pediatricians is one way to keep community. Eric Kolberg told Council he worked with the applicants on the Connor project. The applicants have energy toward preserving projects in Aspen. This project is a good mix of old and new. Kevin McClure said told Council he shops at businesses in this building and sees no downside and every upside. 12 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 7, 2009 Tom Hineline said he supports the Crandall proposal; demolishing this building will take assets away from Aspen. Zack Feas stated one of the major reasons to support the proposal is to keep the pediatrician in Aspen. Feas said the applicant should be commended for trying to keep local commercial tenants in Aspen. Barbara Husalak, Sandy's owner, said the office supply store has been in the building for 28 years. Businesses are moving out of Aspen because of affordability. These applicants understand that and are giving businesses the opportunity to buy their spaces at reasonable prices. Ms. Husalak said the addition of a penthouse will help offset some of the restoration costs. Karen Mitchell told Council she had has a jewelry studio in this building for the past 9 years and has been able to keep her business in Aspen because of the affordable rents there. Ms. Mitchell said she feels the applicants will do a great job on the building. This building is in desperate need of care. Ms. Mitchell supports this renovation as it will revitalize the building. Kayla Ruchella said she has had an accounting service in this building for the past 20 years. Ms. Ruchella supports this project and hopes to be able to purchase her space if it is approved. Ross Thompson, owner of Barber Shop, said there is no elevator in this building and access like that would be a wonderful addition. Thompson said the plans for an enhanced courtyard would be great. Thompson said the only way a lot of these businesses can continue is with approval of this project. John Olson said this is not about subdivision or historic designation; the real issue is retaining commercial spaces in town. Olson said this business model is in the best interests of this community. Olson said this proposal is the result of many hours of meetings and a lot of good input. The applicants care about doing historic preservation right. Ward Page said this vision will give commercial spaces a way to maintain their business and keep the historic value of the building. Robert Croenenberg said this is a project whose time has come. It is difficult to afford real estate in Aspen. Croenenberg said the applicants should be applauded for giving businesses an opportunity to stay in Aspen.; Croenenberg said this building will always be unique. The penthouse is set back for enough so that one will not see very much of it. John Miller, contractor, said this proposal gives the Crandall building a face lift as well as maintaining the historic value. Miller said it also makes spaces affordable to local businesses with which he does business, Terry Murray told Council she has owned two small businesses and would have jumped at the chance to buy a space in Aspen from the landlord. This building is decrepit. Ms. Murray said she feels the trades offs are worth it to get this project. Mayor Ireland closed the public hearing. Amy Guthrie entered correspondence into the record on this project; in support ; a letter from Justine, Jack and Kristina Crandall the original owners of the building; Elena 13 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 7, 2009 Eckhart a tenant in support, Scan Gooding building owner in the vicinity in support; Colder Hawk -Smith in support, Robert Tumor in support; Jean Trousdale is opposed to the height variance, which is a misunderstanding. Mayor Ireland moved to adopt Ordinance #26, Series of 2009, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Romero. Mayor Ireland stated his only qualm about the project is the 2 units not spoken for and he hopes that the applicant offers to sell those to local businesses as a condition. Hills said this is his plan. Mayor Ireland said he generally does not favor additional luxury residences in Aspen as that does not create vitality in the community in general. To some extent luxury development has driven out affordable tourists accommodations. Mayor Ireland said the trade off being offered is attractive because it does preserve local businesses and it does preserve this building. Mayor Ireland said he does not feel the addition will intrude on most view planes. The requested addition is under the height allowance with no height variance requested. Mayor Ireland noted the altemative of demolition and reconstruction may entail more luxury space and less locally serving buildings. Mayor Ireland stated reusing buildings is preferable to demolition and hauling things to the landfill. Mayor Ireland said Ordinance 48 should be revised to create more specific criteria for evaluation of how many benefits should be granted. This is a special Aspen building, and this proposal could preserve that structure and empower the tenants to purchase their spaces. Mayor Ireland said this is the direction the community prefers, local serving infill versus giant luxury buildings. Councilman Torre said this is a project that is within the spirit of Ordinance #48, which the community has not seen a lot of. Councilman Torre said he feels this building is worthy of historic designation. Councilman Torre said he has an issue with the residential floor area and the TDR allocation. Ms. Guthrie pointed out in the commercial zones, one TDR allows an additional 500 square feet rather than 250. Councilman Torre said he would like to see greater setbacks on the east and north sides. Councilman Torre said the treatment of the south side of the building is exceptional and he would like to see that on the east and north sides. Councilman Torre stated he has no problems with continued maintenance of the encroachment into the right -of -way. Councilman Torre stated he would like to stay with 3 years vested rights rather than 5 years. Councilman Torre stated he does not support subsidizing the $31,000 fees. Councilman Torre asked about the appropriateness of materials for the 3`d floor. Ms. Guthrie said the materials will be addressed at final review by HPC. Councilman Torre said he would like the 3` floor set off from the remainder of the building. Hills stated he is dropping the fee waiver request. Councilman Johnson said the community preservation, accessibility and sustainability and adaptive reuse are commendable. Councilman Johnson stated this is an appropriate Ordinance 48 negotiation. Councilman Johnson asked if there is a way to handle resales 14 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 7, 2009 to insure these spaces are preserved for locally serving business. Councilman Johnson said he is comfortable with the TDR concept for the additional square feet of 524 and the encroachments as well as the 5 years vested rights. Councilman Romero said preserving the building is important and also important is providing a pathway for locally serving businesses. Councilman Romero noted the Obermeyer project had the same aim to allow local businesses to purchase their space. Councilman Romero noted owning one's own space aligns one with the community and character of Aspen. Councilman Romero noted there was erosion in that goal at Obermeyer and even though the purchase price was low, they were not able to retain as many business as they wanted. Councilman Romero said there are trade offs to get to this objective; effective compromise means giving up something to get benefits. Councilman Romero stated the net net is worth those trade offs. Councilman Romero stated he can support the increase in square footage. Councilman Romero said he likes the mechanism of using the TDR to get to 2500 square feet and to hold that TDR in surety for the project. Councilman Romero said to make the compromise work for both sides, he could agree to the 5 year vesting. Councilman Skadron asked about cap the resale price. Hill said he cannot do this. Hill said the people who buy their units should be able to enjoy whatever profits there are. Hills said that condition would be a deal breaker. Hill told Council he is pricing these spaces to be in line with the rents tenants are currently paying. Mayor Ireland said he does not feel the location of this building is conducive to high -end types of businesses. Mayor Ireland suggested there are other ways to restrict the speculative development. Mayor Ireland pointed out these spaces are small and are not right downtown. Councilman Johnson noted this is an open market lease situation today. This building does need improvements. Councilman Skadron asked if the size of the residential unit at 2500 square feet is financial gain. Hills said there are things he is trying to do with this project that he thinks are good, like trying to have affordable commercial; one is historic designation of the building. Hills said not adding windows to the south side of the building will lower the value of those offices. Councilman Skadron stated he has difficulty with historic landmark with all the modifications. Councilman Skadron stated he does not believe Aspen is better served by scrape and replace with a modern building where a building with character once stood and that modern building replaces locally serving businesses with ones that do not. A project like that would return nothing to the type of businesses and people who have supported Aspen. Councilman Skadron said these facts persuade him to favor this project. Councilman Torre asked for a review of the square footage and any variance requests. Haas told Council there are two different measurements; net livable under city code is measured from interior wall to interior wall of the unit. Net livable area for this unit is 2500 square feet. Bendon noted net livable is capped at 2000 square feet in the C -1 zone; however, it can be increased to 2500 square feet with a TDR. Haas said the proposal for the entire building is about 2700 square feet below the total allowable FAR for the 15 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 7, 2009 property. Haas said this would allow taking a 500 square foot TDR off the property and using it to secure the project and extinguishing it when construction is complete. Haas said taking the 2500 net livable, adding the wall thicknesses comes to 2692 square feet. Because this will then become a mixed use building, the circulation and non -unit space in the building like hallways, stairs, etc., needs to be prorated back to each specific use, like commercial and residential. The pro- rating is done on a percentage basis calculation and adding to 2692 added 832 square feet for a total of 3524 square feet, which is 524 more than the C -1 allowed. Bendon told Council staff looks at two numbers, the net livable at 2000 or 2500 square feet with a TDR and an FAR allocated to that use. On this property, one can have a .5 for residential which has to include the allocated space like stairs and hallways. This project is .59:1. Bendon said the existing building is inefficient, the courtyard, the hallways, the stairways. Mayor Ireland amended his motion that the applicant has offered to restrict sale of the unsold units to local business and agreed not to ask for a fee waiver; the TDR will be issued and held by the city and upon completion of the project it will be extinguished; seconded by Councilman Romero. All in favor, motion carried. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Skadron, yes; Johnson, yes; Romero, yes; Torre, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #96, SERIS OF 2009 — Extension of Vested Right — South Aspen Street Councilman Johnson left the room due to a conflict of interest. Chris Bendon, community development department, reminded Council this was approved November 9 after which there was some confusion about the language. At the November 23` meeting, reconsideration was requested by the applicant and approved by Council. Bendon noted the original language granted a two year extension of the subdivision approvals if the lodge application is not approved. If the lodge application is approved, vested rights for the townhomes would terminate with the lodge approval. The amended language provides a 2 year extension of the vested rights independent of what happens to the lodge. Bendon said staff is reluctant to see dual approvals for one property and have modified the land use code to make sure there are not two approvals on one property. Bendon said when the Lodge at Aspen Mountain application comes forward, the ordinance should either prohibit two approvals for one property or to have a minimal overlap of two projects. Bendon said that discussion should occur with the ordinance approving the Lodge application. John Sarpa, applicant, told Council at the original hearing, he thought the discussion focused on 3 years versus 2 years. It was his understanding of the agreement was that upon cessation of the lodge application, 2 years would be granted. Sarpa said his understanding was the cessation meant any end of the lodge process. This is critical because they cannot shorten the timeframe of the townhouse approvals. Sarpa said the 16 f,tes cc • Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 25, 2610 2/6 10 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO APPROVING LANDMARK DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTY LCOATED AT 220 AND 230 E. MAIN STREET, LOTS P AND Q BLOCK 73, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO Councilman Torre moved to adopt Ordinance #25, Series of 2010, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Romero. Roll call vote; Johnson, yes; Romero, yes; Skadron, yes; Torre, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion carried. *ORDINANCE #26, SERIES OF 2010 — 630 E. Hyman Amendment to Ordinance #48 Negotiation Councilman Torre moved to read Ordinance #26, Series of 2010; seconded by Councilman Skadron. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #26 (Series of 2010) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO AMENDING ORDINANCE #26, SERIES OF 2009, A NEGOTIATION FOR THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 630 E. HYMAN AVENUE, LOTS R AND S, BLOCK 99, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Councilman Torre moved to adopt Ordinance #26, Series of 2019, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Romero. Mayor Ireland asked what is happening to the public space and why is it disappearing from the agreement. Greg Hills, applicant, told Council in the original negotiations, the reason to preserve the round window was for views of Aspen Mountain. With the Art Museum going across the street, the HPC agreed the view will be lost. Hills reminded Council another goal was to keep the commercial space as affordable as possible. Some of his tenants requested him to look at getting a better price. Hills said if he can sell this as an office space, he can give a better purchase price to the existing tenants. Mayor Ireland said in applications, Council makes agreements to get public benefits and then those disappear. Mayor Ireland said this may be reasonable and necessary. Mayor Ireland said he would like to see the impact on the view that is allegedly impaired by the Art Museum. Councilman Romero requested the Council minutes from the original approval. Councilman Romero said he would also like to see an architectural plan view of the second floor and what is being proposed. Councilman Johnson said he would like to see a matrix of the tenants, who is buying. Mayor Ireland stated he appreciates the efforts on behalf of the tenants. Mayor Ireland said he would like the views not just of the Art Museum but of the proposed Wienerstube development and what building could be built across the street. 5 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 25, 2010 Councilman Skadron said he would like to know to what degree the original approval relied on the gallery space. Councilman Torre asked if there are other ways to increase the rental space 427 square feet. Hills reiterated he is trying to honor his commitment to the tenants who need help purchasing their space. Roll call vote; Romero, yes; Torre, yes; Skadron, yes; Johnson, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #27, SERIES OF 2010 — Code Amendment Calculations & Measurements Councilman Johnson moved to read ordinance #27, Series of 2010; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 27 (SERIES OF 2010) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE: 26.575.020 — CALCULATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS 26.104.100 — DEFINITIONS Councilman Johnson moved to adopt Ordinance #27, Series of 2010, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Romero. Councilman Torre said he would like to have P &Z comments for second reading. Councilman Johnson said he would like a synopsis of the public outreach on these code amendments. Roll call vote; Torre, yes; Skadron, yes; Johnson, yes; Romero, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #22, SERIES OF 2010 — Rezoning Given institute Councilman Torre moved to continue Ordinance #22, Series of 2010, to November 8, 2010; seconded by Councilman Skadron. Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Ireland closed the public hearing. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #17, SERIES OF 2010 — Code Amendment — Signs 6 HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC October 6, 2010 Ms. Amy Guthrie City of Aspen Historic Preservation Officer 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Amendment to Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2009 for the Historic Crandall Building Dear Amy: Please consider this letter and the attached exhibits to represent a formal request for an approval of an amendment to the Commercial FAR allowed in Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2009 for the Crandall Building, a designated Historic Landmark located at 630 E. Hyman Ave, Aspen. The subject property is legally described as Lot R and S, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen. This 6,000 square foot lot on the northwest corner of E. Hyman Avenue and S. Spring Street is home to the Crandall Building, which was built in 1969 and designed by Tom Benton, a local architect/artist. The two -story plus basement structure is located in the Commercial (C -1) Zone District, one block east of the Commercial Core (CC). Pursuant to Resolution No. 19, Series of 2009, the HPC unanimously determined that the necessary criteria for listing this property on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures had been met and recommended City Council approval of Historic Landmark Designation and Ordinance #48 negotiation, and granted HPC Major Development (Conceptual) and Commercial Design Review (Conceptual). On December 7, 2009, the Aspen City Council unanimously passed Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2009 approving the Historic Designation of the property. One of the conditions of approval established a Commercial FAR limit of 1.51:1, or 9,060sf of Commercial Floor Area. Finally, on March 24, 2010, the HPC granted Major Development (Final) and Commercial Design Review (Final) for the property. During the HPC meetings, there were discussions concerning the circular opening on the second floor of the south facade of the building. There had been a request for a removable window to be installed, which was shown to be, and accepted by the HPC as, impractical. In the end, an operable • 201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 108 • ASPEN, COLORADO • 81611 • • PHONE: (970) 925 -7819 • FAX: (970) 925 -7395 • window was agreed to with a horizontal element to approximate what was depicted in Tom Benton's original elevation drawings. The space inside this window was to become a common area conference room. During the HPC review, the publicly accessible views of Aspen Mountain from this window were thought to be an important element to retain. However, since these approvals were granted, the City has approved the approximately 47' tall Aspen Art Museum directly across the street, which will completely eliminate any views of Aspen Mountain from this vantage point. Given that Aspen Mountain views will no longer be available (to the public or anyone else) through this window, the applicant is now seeking to convert this space on the second floor into a commercial unit. The conversion of this area into a commercial space will not change the overall FAR of the development, nor will it change the appearance of the building from the outside. However, conversion of this area to a commercial space is extremely important to the viability of this entire project. There are very few commercial spaces available with windows. Due to current economic conditions, the ability to sell this space is now crucial to the applicant. The conversion of this area into a commercial space will result in total commercial FAR of 9,472 square feet, thereby exceeding the 9,060 square feet of allowable commercial FAR by a total of 412 square feet. The applicant therefore requests an amendment to Condition #1 of Section 2 of Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2009 which limits the Commercial FAR to 1.51:1. Said condition would need to be revised to instead allow for a Commercial FAR of 1.58:1. In the HPC minutes from October 28, 2009, it was stated by Staff that the enclosure of the courtyard would eliminate HPC purview of the interior. Furthermore, it seems as though the main issue to the HPC members when considering Landmark Designation was the roof -top addition, and not the retention of this space for the public's benefit. ,Even if staff considers this to have been an important factor in the negotiations, the fact remains that there will no longer be any view of Aspen Mountain once the Aspen Art Museum is built, and that the proposed change involves only interior spaces. It is hoped that the provided information proves helpful in the review of this application. If you should have any questions or desire any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Truly yours, Haas Land Planning, LLC fti OppP Mitc aas Owner/Manager Crandall Amendment Page 2 ATTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: Crcuida,tl 150 (din g Location: • 1 u /♦ :. A61 D ' tr.� B ocLl 9' (Indicate street ad ess, lot & blo . number, legal description where appz'opriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) A -73-7 _ la- (XS) APPLICANT: Name: 430 6 marj LG C / Address: 53 0 7 E . ! f L fly 44, .1 l2 ¶1hl/ / Phone #: (/ 7-0) REPRESENTATIVE: Name: HO 0 c L P/giv vn i t LC / /� / Address: O/ AI . / li�/ fi4 oeJ (/ c) 4 (00 ) 4S'° (. (� K/�i// Phone #: l / -?e) g25 - 75/ 9 TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Temporary Use ❑ GMQS Allotment ❑ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Text/Map Amendment ❑ Special Review ❑ Subdivision ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ ESA — 8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes ❑ Final SPA (& SPA Margin, Hallam Lake BluiZ condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane ❑ Commercial Design Review ❑ Lot Split ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion ❑ Residential Design Variance ❑ Lot Line Adjustment C Other: m&. ?ddm&n7 �D ❑ Conditional Use Ordttartc¢ gay d EXISTING CONDMONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) • PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) 6p vas -4r oda 1/2,-;10,7 C_9n1n2c-/' I ate/ l-R RRave you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ D Pre-Application Conference Summary ❑ Attachment #I, Signed Fee Agreement ❑ Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form ❑ Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards ❑ 3 -D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8.5" X 11" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3 -1) modeL Your pre - application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3 -D modeL vttt MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Senior Planner RE: Second Reading of Ordinance #28, Series of 2010, Land Use Code Amendments, Historic Preservation DATE: November 22, 2010 APPLICANT: SUMMARY: The City of Aspen City Council adopted Ordinance #48, Series of 2007, nearly three years ago. The purpose of the ordinance was to identify postwar era properties in Aspen that may be considered "potential historic resources" and to create a system to encourage their preservation. Ordinance #48 was intended to be replaced or improved upon. Council appointed the Historic Preservation Task Force to examine alternatives and make policy recommendations. Their work was '114N :. , completed in October 2009. Council has directed staff to bring forward code amendments proposing a long term approach for postwar preservation by the end of A SPEiu this year. In this memo, and in the attached ordinance, staff has HISTORIC highlighted changes since first reading, to help Council PRESERVATION pinpoint the updates. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This memo identifies several threshold issues that require Council direction. An additional public hearing is scheduled for December 6, 2010. Land Use Code Amendments, Historic Preservation First Reading, Ordinance #28, Series of 2010 Page - 1 - of 9 BACKGROUND: In the sununer of 2007, City Council adopted an emergency ordinance that required all properties at least 30 years old to be reviewed for historic significance before undertaking significant alterations or demolition. At the end of 2007, Council adopted Ordinance #48, which had a similar effect, but its applicability was limited to a defined group of 53 properties that were determined by Community Development staff as potential historic resources. Ordinance #48 called for the creation of a Historic Preservation Task Force which was appointed with 21 citizens who met with dedication for 19 months, and delivered a report with numerous recommendations to City Council in October 2009. Since the adoption of Ordinance #48, 19 property owners have pursued some type of review or building permit, while 34 remain in status quo. Only one voluntary designation has been completed, while four are pending. Two properties have been demolished. OUTREACH: Over the last three years, in addition to providing staff support to the Task Force, and checking in frequently with Council, the Community Development Department has greatly increased public outreach and education efforts around postwar preservation. Throughout the process letters have been sent out to involved property owners; most recently a letter was sent to property owners about the upcoming amendments. In 2008, the City produced a professional documentary which was screened in several locations. In January 2010, a documentary about well known architect John Lautner, who designed a house near the roundabout, was presented to a large crowd at the Wheeler Opera House. This past spring, with funding from City Council and the National Trust for Historic Preservation, professional architectural historians developed two new historic context papers on Pan Abodes and Modernism. Community Development recently released a video that was developed "in- house" to present the new research on Aspen's 20 century architectural history. In July 2010, the City was selected by the National Trust for Historic Preservation to host one of four Modem Modules held across the country to showcase postwar preservation. Aspen was the smallest community selected for this National Endowment for the Arts sponsored program. The City is awaiting receipt of a "coffee table" booklet called AspenModern being prepared by the National Trust for Historic Preservation as part of a series that will also include the cities of Los Angeles, Minneapolis and Boston. The AspenModern event, which was attended by a full house at the Mountain Chalet, is highlighted in the current issue of Aspen Magazine (see Exhibit C). Staff has suggested the use of the name AspenModern for the local preservation efforts from this point forward. In August 2010, staff presented Council with a proposed action plan for a new preservation ordinance. Council directed staff to bring an ordinance to public hearing by the end of this year. Council also indicated that, given numerous concepts for how the ordinance might be structured relative to postwar properties, their strong preference is that designations be voluntary only. Land Use Code Amendments, Historic Preservation First Reading, Ordinance #28, Series of 2010 Page - 2 - of 9 In preparation for Second Reading, staff has notified the owners of all properties discussed during the Ordinance #30 and #48 adoption processes. We invited them to submit comments and to meet with staff about the proposed changes. Approximately 560 letters were mailed. Twenty were returned to the City, meaning that the Assessor's address is out of date. Three property owners contacted staff via email, but none asked to meet to discuss the ordinance. Staff does intend additional personal outreach efforts this winter. PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS: Completion of code amendments is important from several perspectives. The topic of postwar preservation has been significant in the community for at least 10 years. Several City Councils have given direction, but have also struggled with uncertain community sentiment. The current City Council has identified policy changes to the preservation program as a top goal for the last two years. The overarching goal of the amendments is to create a program for Aspen's 20 century resources that is understandable, predictable and defendable, an objective adopted by the Criteria Committee of the Task Force. Staff has met with HPC and P &Z and has received preliminary comments from the City Attorney's office and some members of the Task Force. Proposed amendments to the existing historic preservation regulations are summarized below. During Second Reading Council will be asked to give direction on the following options: Section 26.415.025.C: AspenModern Properties (pg. 6 of draft ordinance) Ordinance #48 included a list of 53 properties subject to certain protections and opportunities. The new ordinance proposes to use a map, rather than a list, to the same effect. Similar to Ordinance #48, the amendments propose to monitor major changes to potentially important properties and to provide an opportunity for the City to incentivize preservation and open a dialogue with property owners. There are pros and cons to identifying the properties eligible for AspenModern. On one hand, recognizing which properties are included offers predictability to property owners and encourages a dialogue between the property owner and the City to negotiate for preservation. The alternative is to allow property owners to opt in to the AspenModern program if interested and to pursue exterior changes and demolition without a delay period to discuss alternatives. Options for which properties are included in AspenModern: 1. Only the properties already listed on Ordinance #48 (a total of 53 properties). 2. The properties identified during Ordinance #30 review (a total of 87 properties): this includes Ordinance #48, plus the areas outside the rivers and mountain boundary and multi - family that were removed by Council prior to the adoption of Ordinance #48. 3. Re- survey Aspen (by staff and /or consultants) and create a new AspenModern Map using the newly adopted context papers and criteria. 4. No map. Property owners eligible and willing to participate in AspenModern will opt in to the program. Land Use Code Amendments, Historic Preservation First Reading, Ordinance #28, Series of 2010 4 Page -3 -of 9 Task Force Recommendation: The Task Force did not specifically vote on this question; however the Criteria committee of the Task Force reported, "One aspect of Ordinance #48 that the group felt is not valid is the exclusion of multi - family properties. The committee recommends that the ownership structure should have no bearing on historical significance. (vote 7 yes, 1 no, 2 abstained.) The committee also recommends that all properties within the Aspen city limits be eligible for consideration." Staff Recommendation: Staff supports option #2. Architectural 5t■ les On October 12 City Council reviewed the new historic context papers and a video about Aspen's postwar architecture. Council was asked to determine which properties might be eligible for designation under the new program. A decision was delayed until Council could see the full ordinance proposal. Minutes, which are attached, indicate that the majority were in favor of including Modern (International/Bauhaus and Wrightian/Organic), Chalet, Rustic, and Pan Abode in the voluntary program. Direction will be needed as part of the discussion of the AspenModern map. Aspen Meadow -s Campus Properties owned by the Aspen Institute and Aspen Center for Physics are included on Ordinance #48. The Music Festival property was omitted because the site contains only contemporary (though very significant) structures; the Benedict Music Tent, constructed in 2000, and Harris Hall, constructed in 1993. The three non - profit organizations have responded to the AspenModern proposal by drafting amendments to the Specially Planned Area (SPA) that has been in place for the properties since 1993. The amendments will aim to perfect the 17 year old agreement, simplifying the review process for future improvements and suggesting a COWOP review be used for larger projects. Portions of the campus that were designated historic in 1995 would remain fully under HPC's purview. The Meadows campus would perhaps be excluded from the AspenModern map, at least in terms of the designation and negotiation process. The proposed SPA amendment requires hearings at the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, which would occur in the new year. At that time, staff is confident that a workable solution can be created to improve the SPA and achieve historic preservation of this centerpiece of Aspen's mid - century history. Land Use Code Amendments, Historic Preservation First Reading, Ordinance #28, Series of 2010 Page - 4 - of 9 Classification Svstern Council previously reviewed a classification system that ranks properties by importance and offers specific benefits dependant on that ranking. It identifies the most significant 20` century properties in Aspen so that they can receive the highest priority for preservation, and it provides predictability and clarity to AspenModern property owners. This concept was developed during the Task Force process (also referred to as "the matrix "). It has not been included in the draft ordinance yet. We anticipate having preliminary scoring completed prior to Nov. 8 to illustrate property ranking to Council and to discuss with property owners if they wish. Options for classification system: 1. Include a classification system in the AspenModern program. 2. Do not incorporate a classification system in the AspenModern program. Task Force Recommendation: The Task Force recommended (by a vote of 13 to 7) in favor of a tiered matrix system that would define restrictions and benefits available to properties depending on their integrity and significance. They stated that "the matrix is intended to identify historic resources that are of the highest quality and the most important to the community, as well as to encourage the preservation of other resources that contribute to the overall historic fabric." Staff believes this is represented by Option #1. Staff Recommendation: Staff supports Option #1. Section 26.415.025.C'.1: Negotiation of Preservation Benefits (pig,. 6 S of draIt ordinance Aspen has had a laudable group of preservation benefits in place since the 1980s. Ordinance #48 introduced the concept of negotiating a package of incentives customized to a particular property. This occurred partly to address some unique circumstances faced by postwar property owners that differ from Victorian era properties. In addition, there is a codependency between beneficial incentives and a voluntary preservation program — as evidenced by the Ordinance #48 negotiations to date. Better incentives mean a more successful voluntary AspenModern program. Experience with past Ordinance #48 negotiations raises the question as to whether standards should be established for the negotiation process and/or limitations be placed on the number and type of benefits that a property may negotiate for depending on the importance of the property. On one hand, linking the number and type of benefits to the importance of the property provides some clarity to the negotiation process; however it may deter property owners of buildings with less importance from negotiating for preservation. The proposed ordinance retains the negotiation process that exists in Ordinance #48, with modifications such as clearer definition of the types of incentives that are allowable, and the establishment of review standards. Land Use Code Amendments, Historic Preservation First Reading, Ordinance #28, Series of 2010 Page - 5 - of 9 Options for negotiation process: 1. Keep the Ordinance #48 negotiation process as is. 2. Keep the framework of the Ordinance #48 negotiation and establish review standards. Allow all properties equal opportunity to receive any available incentives. 3. Keep the framework of Ordinance #48 negotiations, establish review standards and limit the number and type benefits that can applied for depending on the importance of the property. 4. No negotiation process. The current benefits apply after a property is landmark designated. Task Force Recommendation: The Task Force did not specifically vote on this question, however the matrix that was discussed by the group, which was considered to be a draft, included the concept that some or all designations would require negotiation, and that additional incentives might be needed. It also included a delay period for the City to conduct negotiations with property owners. Staff Recommendation: Staff supports Option #3. Section 26.415.025.0 2 — 3: Benefits for Aon- Designated Properties (processing advantages and TDR%) ( pg. S The proposed ordinance introduces the concept of offering some benefits to properties that are identified on the AspenModern Map, even if they do not landmark. This would encourage property owners to partner with the City in the stewardship of their property by volunteering for a review of proposed changes without committing to the negotiation process or landmark designation. Some of the ideas to encourage this type of partnership include: fee waivers, expedited permits and eligibility to establish and sell TDRs on the property. Restrictions could be created to recoup waived fees if the property is not preserved for a set time period, such as five to ten years. Options regarding benefits for non - designated properties: 1. Offer processing advantages to non - designated AspenModern properties that voluntarily go through the review process. 2. Offer processing advantages and eligibility to create and sell TDRs to non - designated AspenModern properties that voluntarily go through the review process. 3. Do not offer any benefits to non - designated AspenModern properties. Task Force Recommendation: The Task Force did not specifically vote on this question, however, as stated above, there was interest in identifying incentives that could make a voluntary program successful. Staff Recommendation: Staff supports Option #2. Land Use Code Amendments, Historic Preservation First Reading, Ordinance #28, Series of 2010 Page - 6 - of 9 Section 26.415.02 ±.('. -l: Remov from . kspenAlodern \la1 0l Tract ordinance) Currently there is no way to be removed from Ordinance #48 except to change character - defining features of the property, which occurs after the negotiation process and a building permit/land use approval is issued. The proposed ordinance offers property owners the opportunity to demonstrate that their building does not meet the designation criteria (Section 26.415.030.C.1, pg. 15 of draft ordinance) and should be removed from the program. Options for removal from AspenModern Map: 1. Demonstrate that the property does not meet designation criteria. The HPC is the review authority, with an appeal to City Council. 2. Demonstrate that the property does not meet designation criteria. City Council is the review authority with a recommendation from the HPC. 3. Property owner provides a written request to be removed from AspenModern. Removal is administrative after a meeting with Staff "e IIPC to discuss benefits of preservation. 4. Property owner provides a written request to be removed from AspenModern. Removal is administrative and no meeting is required. Task Force Recommendation: The Task Force did not specifically vote on this question; however the lack of a process to be removed from Ordinance #48 was a frequently mentioned fault. Staff Recommendation: Staff supports Option #1. Council direction at First Reading was to simplify this process, therefore the Ordinance has been changed to implement Option #3. If a property owner has no interest in participating in AspenModern, the site can be removed from the map administratively after submitting a written request and meeting once with Staff. This has called into question whether the penalties for unapproved work on an AspenModern property should be eliminated. Council direction is needed. 10 year assurance The Task Force and interested citizens have stressed the importance of finalizing a system that works for the community and providing assurance and predictability around the permanence of the new program. Council cannot bind future elected officials from changing any laws; therefore, Staff inserted a "Whereas" statement in the ordinance that asks future Councils to honor this commitment and not alter the program for at least 10 years. The alternative is to issue vested demolition permits for properties included in AspenModern. Issuing demolition permits provides a concrete assurance to property owners, but it will probably result in the loss of some of Aspen's important 20 century heritage and it inhibits any future negotiations for preservation. Options to provide assurance to community: Land Use Code Amendments, Historic Preservation First Reading, Ordinance #28, Series of 2010 Page - 7 - of 9 1. Include a strong "Whereas" statement in the ordinance to inform future Council about the ten year commitment. 2. Issue a 10 year vested demolition permit for all properties included in AspenModern if the demolition permit is requested within a specified time period (i.e. within 4 months of adoption of the new Ordinance) 3. Issue 10 year vested demolition permits for all properties included in AspenModern without a written request from the property owner. Task Force Recommendation: The Task Force did not specifically vote on this question; however their proposed criteria for landmark designation (12 votes in favor, 4 opposed and 4 abstained) included a provision that the City would not create new context papers and therefore make additional properties eligible for designation, more often than every 10 years. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Option #1. Additional topics: There are Task Force recommendations, and recent Council comments, which have not been directly addressed in the proposed Ordinance. Staff requests Council direction on: Will the finalization of the integrity scoring sheets for Aspen Modern styles be accomplished by staff, HPC, a committee of interested citizens or experts, etc? Should the AspenModern map be reviewed by HPC to determine if they agree with the properties that have been identified as eligible? Does Council wish to see applications for eligible City owned properties prepared and submitted for review? Does Council wish to see additional research on possible new incentives? Does Council have specific outreach and education efforts they would like to see accomplished? REVIEW PROCEDURE: Text Amendment. At a duly noticed public hearing, the Commission shall recommend by Resolution the City Council to approve, approve with conditions or deny the application. City Council is the final review authority. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends discussion and continuance of the hearing to December 6, 2010. Land Use Code Amendments, Historic Preservation First Reading, Ordinance #28, Series of 2010 Page -8 -of 9 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to continue Ordinance #28, Series of 2010, to December 6, 2010." ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance #28, Series of 2010 Exhibit A — Section 26.310.040 Standards of Review Exhibit B — Proposed amendments to Chapters 26.415, 26.420, and 26.530 of the Municipal Code showing track changes text Exhibit C — Aspen Modern: Recognizing New Layers of History, Aspen Magazine, Fall 2010 Exhibit D — Staff analysis of how AspenModern addresses the Historic Preservation Task Force's October 2009 Recommendations Exhibit E- Letter to property owners Exhibit F- Council minutes from October 12, 2010, discussion of AspenModem styles Land Use Code Amendments, Historic Preservation First Reading, Ordinance #28, Series of 2010 Page - 9 - of 9 Ordinance #28 (SERIES OF 2010) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO AMENDING THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE: SECTION 26.415, DEVELOPMENT INVOLVING THE ASPEN INVENTORY OF HISTORIC LANDMARK SITES AND STRUCTURES OR DEVELOPMENT IN AN "H," HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT, SECTION 26.420, BENEFITS FOR PROPERTIES LISTED ON THE ASPEN INVENTORY OF HISTORIC LANDMARK SITES AND STRUCTURES AND SECTION 26.535, TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) WHEREAS, the Community Development Department, at the direction of City Council, prepared amendments to Chapters 26.415, 26.420, and 26.535 of the Aspen Municipal code, pertaining to historic preservation; and, WHEREAS, the proposed amendments address the preservation of postwar era properties in Aspen, particularly regulations which have been in place since the adoption of an emergency ordinance, Ordinance #48, since December 2007; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments have been brought forward after the conclusion of a Historic Preservation Task Force of citizens who worked to propose process improvements for 19 months; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Community Development Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Director recommended approval of amendments to the above listed Sections as further described herein; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments were presented to the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) on October 13, 2010 for referral comments to be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Aspen City Council. The Historic Preservation Commission recommended that City Council adopt amendments to the Municipal Code after consideration of the following comments: 1) the AspenModern Map should include all eligible properties within the City limits, 2) some incentives should be offered to AspenModern properties even without designation, and 3) any negotiated benefits should be required to meet high standards in terms of both preservation and green building; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed amendments to the above noted Chapters and Sections on October 19, 2010, took and considered public testimony and the recommendations of the Community Development Director and Historic Preservation Commission and recommended, by a 4 to 1 vote, City Council adopt amendments to the land use code after consideration of the following comments: 1) Section 26.415.025, Identification of Historic Properties should be revised to clarify the regulations that affect AspenModem properties which are proposed for landmark designation vs. AspenModern properties which are listed on the AspenModem Map but not proposed for landmark designation, 2) Council should consider establishing a separate review board that will conduct the negotiation process. As proposed, there are a lot of steps and participants involved. Council could take the role of ratifying the recommendation of this new review board, 3) Council should consider whether there is a way to ensure equity in the negotiated benefits that are awarded to comparable properties, 4) The Planning and Zoning Commission heard public comment from the properties which comprise The Aspen Meadows and understands that these owners may wish to amend their SPA to address historic preservation rather than be included in AspenModern, 5) Council should consider the proposed language of Section 26.415.025, Penalities for work done on AspenModern properties without approvals. The penalties apply to any unapproved "alteration," which may be too broad a term, and 6) Council should consider allowing the owners of properties that are not addressed in context papers to volunteer for designation review. This would allow for voluntary designation of buildings from any period, even new construction; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the recommended changes to the Municipal Code under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendations of the Community Development Director, Historic Preservation Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed text amendments to the Municipal Code meet or exceed all applicable standards and that the approval of the proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and WHEREAS, by the passage of this Ordinance the City Council intend that no further amendments to the process for identifying and preserving any properties related to Aspen's 20 Century development be undertaken by any City Council before January 1, 2011. It is this Council's intent to provide a period of assurance and predictability that the community can rely on. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Section 1: Chapter 26.415, Development Involving the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures or Development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, which section describes the process and criteria through which the city designates properties of historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering and cultural importance, is hereby amended to read as follows: 2 Chapter 26.415 HISTORIC PRESERVATION Sections: 26.415.010 Purpose and intent 26.415.020 Definitions 26.415.025 Identification of historic properties 26.415.030 Designation of historic properties 26.415.040 Recordation of designation 26.415.050 Rescinding designation 26.415.060 Effect of designation 26.415.070 Development involving designated historic properties 26.415.080 Demolition of designated properties 26.415.090 Relocation of designated historic properties 26.415.100 Demolition by neglect 26.415.110 Benefits 26.415.120 Appeals, Council notice and call up 26.415.130 Variances by other City review bodies 26.415.140 Penalties 26.415.010. Purpose and intent. The purpose of this Chapter is to promote the public health, safety and welfare through the protection, enhancement and preservation of those properties, areas and sites, which represent the distinctive elements of Aspen's cultural, educational, social, economic, political and architectural history. Under the authority provided by the Home Rule Charter of the City and Section 29- 20- 104(c), C.R.S., to regulate land use and preserve areas of historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering and cultural importance, this Chapter sets forth the procedures to: A. Recognize, protect and promote the retention and continued utility of the historic buildings and districts in the City; B. Promote awareness and appreciation of Aspen's unique heritage; C. Ensure the preservation of Aspen's character as an historic mining town, early ski resort and cultural center; D. Retain the historic, architectural and cultural resource attractions that support tourism and the economic welfare of the community; and E. Encourage productive, economical and attractive reuse of historic structures. (Ord. No. 1 -2002, §7 [part]) The City does not intend by the historic preservation program to preserve every old building, but instead to draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the City's cultural, historic, and architectural heritage. This should be accomplished by ensuring that demolition of buildings and structures important to that heritage are carefully weighed with other alternatives. Alterations to historically significant buildings and new 3 construction in historic areas shall respect the character of each such setting, not by imitating surrounding structures, but by being compatible with them as defined in historic preservation guidelines. 26.415.020. Definitions. The following definitions are specific to the terms as used in this Chapter and in the field of historic preservation: Alteration. A change to an existing building, structure or feature that modifies its original appearance or construction. Certificate of appropriateness. An official form issued by the City stating that the proposed work on a designated historic property is compatible with its historic and architectural character and, therefore, the work may be completed as specified in the certificate and the City may issue any permits needed to do the work specified in the certificate. Certificate of demolition approval. An official form issued by the City authorizing the issuance of a demolition permit for a designated historic property or for a building or structure located in a designated historic district. Certificate of economic hardship. An official form issued by the City, in connection with a certificate of demolition approval, that allows the demolition of a designated historic property as the owner has demonstrated that maintaining it will impose an economic hardship. Certificate of no negative effect. An official form issued by the City stating that the proposed work will have no detrimental effect on the character - defining features of a designated property and, therefore, the work may proceed as specified in the certificate without obtaining further approvals under this Chapter and the City may issue any permits needed to do the work in the specified certificate. Contributing resource. A building, site, structure or object that adds to the historic associations, historic architectural qualities or archaeological values for which a property or district is considered significant. Designated property. A property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Historic District A collection, concentration, linkage or continuity of buildings, structures, sites or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. Historic context paper. Research papers that define Aspen's architectural and cultural patterns in the context of local and national history. Historic context papers are used to guide staff, the Historic Preservation Commission and City Council in determining the historic significance of structures and properties in the City of Aspen. Integrity. The ability of a property to convey its significance relative to the aspects of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association. 4 Monitoring committee. A subcommittee appointed by the Historic Preservation Commission of up to two (2) Commission members and the Historic Preservation Officer to provide oversight in the implementation of rehabilitation. Noncontributing resource. A building, structure, site or object that does not add to the historic architectural qualities or historic associations for which a property or district is significant because it was not present during the period of significance or does not relate to the documented significance; or due to alterations, additions, disturbances or other changes, it no longer possesses historic integrity. Object. A term used to distinguish buildings and structures from those constructions that are primarily artistic in nature or small in scale and simply constructed. It may be by nature or design movable, but it is associated with a specific setting and environment. Rehabilitation. Making a building or structure sound and usable without attempting to restore it to a particular period appearance, while retaining the character - defining features. Relocation. Moving a building or structure from its original, historically significant or existing location to another location. Repair. To restore to a sound or good state after decay, dilapidation or partial destruction. Restore. The repair or recreation of the original architectural elements or features of an historic property so that it resembles an appearance it had at some previous point in time. Significance. The documented importance of a property for its contribution to or representation of broad patterns of national, regional or local history, architecture, engineering, archaeology and culture. Site. The location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined or vanished, where the location itself possesses historic, cultural or archaeological value regardless of the value of any existing structure. Structure. A term used to distinguish from buildings those functional constructions made for purposes other than creating human shelter. (Ord. 1 -2002, §7 [part]) 26.415.025 Identification of historic properties A. Surveys, Maps and Historic Context Papers. The Community Development Director shall conduct or cause to be conducted such preliminary surveys, studies or investigations as deemed necessary or advisable to adequately inform City Council and the Historic Preservation Commission of those properties located within the City which represent Aspen's 19 and 20 century history. The Community Development Director shall memorialize the results of surveys, studies and investigations in a series of historic inventory forms, maps and historic context papers. Said inventory forms, maps, and context papers shall be maintained by the Community Development Department and shall be made available for public inspection at all reasonable times. New inventory forms, maps and historic context papers shall not be adopted by City Council except for every tenth year, starting in January 2011. 5 These resources shall be referenced by the Historic Preservation Commission and City Council when reviewing applications for designation. B. Aspen Victorian Properties. Properties associated with Aspen's 19 century history shall be called Aspen Victorian. The City of Aspen has comprehensively identified examples of Victorian era properties in Aspen since the 1970s. All such properties have been designated by ordinance to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Such properties are subject to the terms of this Chapter. Additional 19 century properties may be identified and designated in the future if they are determined to meet the criteria of Section 26.415.030.B.1. C. AspenModern Properties. Properties associated with Aspen's 20 century history shall be called AspenModern. Properties added to the AspenModern Map shall be subject to a delay on the issuance of land use approvals and building permits which could destroy their historic significance. Properties added to the AspenModern Map shall be eligible for certain preservation benefits without being designated by City Council and may be awarded preservation incentives above and beyond those identified at Section 26.415.110, as follows. Property owners are encouraged to meet proactively with the historic preservation commission before undertaking development plans to receive preliminary feedback on appropriate development and benefits. 1. Ninety Negotiation Period. In the case that the owner of a property added to the AspenModern Map submits a land use application or building permit proposing work that the Community Development Director determines to meet the definition of Major Development, Demolition or Relocation, as defined in this Chapter, issuance of the land use approval or building permit shall be placed on a temporary ninety-day hold. Work undertaken in conformance with the International Building Code provisions for emergency repairs shall be exempt from this Section provided that the proposed repairs match the surrounding exterior materials and character to the extent practicable. Also exempt from this Section are alterations, land use applications, and building permits limited to interior remodeling, paint color selection, exterior repainting or replastering similar to the existing finish or routine maintenance such as caulking, replacement of fasteners, or repair of window glazing and other such exterior alterations which are determined by the Community Development Director to be minimally intrusive or reversible work that does not diminish the historic character of the property. A property owner may also enter into the ninety -day negotiation period by submitting a voluntary application for designation to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Only complete land use applications or building permits, as determined by the Community Development Director, shall be accepted. Nothing herein shall prevent the City from reviewing the land use application or building permit during the ninety -day negotiation period. A letter from the property owner indicating an understanding of this ninety -day negotiation period shall accompany the land use application or building permit. The ninety -day 6 negotiation period may be extended an additional thirty (30) days upon a resolution adopted by the Council, or longer if mutually acceptable to both the Council and the property owner. Within the ninety -day negotiation period, the following shall occur: a. The Community Development Director shall offer to meet with the property owner to discuss the City's Historic Preservation Program and benefits that the property may be eligible to receive upon designation as a Historic Landmark. b. The Community Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation Commission, at a public meeting, regarding the proposed land use application or building permit and the nature of the property. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting. The Historic Preservation Commission, using context papers and integrity scoring sheets for the property under consideration, shall provide Council with an assessment of the property's conformance with the designation criteria of Section 26.415.030.C.1. When any benefits that are not included in Section 26.415.110 are requested by the property owner, HPC shall also evaluate how the designation, and any development that is concurrently proposed, meets the policy objectives for the historic preservation program, as stated at Section 26.415.010, Purpose and Intent. As an additional measure of the appropriateness of designation and benefits, HPC shall determine whether the subject property is a "good, better, or best" example of Aspen's 20 century historic resources. c. The Community Development Director shall confer with the City Council regarding the proposed land use application or building permit, the nature of the property, and the staff and Historic Preservation Commission's assessment of its historic significance and the effects of the application or building permit. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting. d. The City Council may negotiate directly with the property owner or may choose to direct the Community Development Director, or other City staff as necessary, to negotiate with the property owner to reach a mutually acceptable agreement for the designation of the property. The City Council may choose to provide this direction in Executive Session, pursuant to State Statute. As part of the mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council may, at its sole discretion, approve any land use entitlement or fee waiver permitted by the Municipal Code and may award any approval that is assigned to another Board or Commission, including variations. Council shall consider the appropriateness of benefits in light of whether the property is identified as a "good, better, or best" example of Aspen's 20 century history and shall also seek to be equitable in the benefits awarded through the negotiation process. Council shall seek compatibility with the neighborhood surrounding the subject property. When benefits are awarded as part of the negotiation, Council shall require that the property be designated as a Historic Landmark, pursuant to the standards and limitations of Section 26.415.030, Designation of Historic Properties. As part of the mutually 7 acceptable agreement, the City Council may choose to require the land use application or building permit that initiated the negotiation to be withdrawn by the property owner if said application or permit would have negatively affected the historic significance of the property. Once a property identified on the AspenModern Map is designated to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, additional negotiation under this section is not allowed. e. If, upon the passage of 90 days or any extension thereof, the City and the property owner have failed to reach a mutually acceptable agreement, affected land use applications shall be issued a Development Order upon compliance with all applicable provisions of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. Affected building permits shall be reviewed and shall be issued upon compliance with all applicable building codes. The City Council, at its sole discretion, may choose to terminate negotiations at any time and allow the land use application or building permit to be processed. 2. Voluntary review /Processing Advantages. Owners of properties included on the AspenModern Map who voluntarily comply with the provisions of this Chapter may proceed with approved work without making application for designation. The Community Development Director shall consider waiver or reduction of permit fees for the subject work. If this is not achievable within the City budget, the Community Development Director shall ensure that the land use application and building permit review proceed ahead of all other applications except those associated with affordable housing and Essential Public Facilities. 3. Transferable Development Rights. Properties which are included on the AspenModern Map shall be eligible to create and sell transferable development rights according to the provisions of Chapter 26.535 of this Code, even if they are not designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. 4. Removal from AspenModern Map. If, in the opinion of the Community Development Director after execution of a building permit issued pursuant to this Section, the property included on the AspenModern Map has been demolished or so altered that it would no longer meet the criteria for designation to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, the Community Development Director shall remove the property from the AspenModern Map and it shall no longer be subject to the terms of this Chapter. In addition, if the primary structure(s) on any property identified on the AspenModern Map have been destroyed by an act of God or are otherwise declared unsafe and ordered demolished by the Chief Building Official, the property shall be removed from the AspenModern Map. Owners of properties included on the AspenModern Map may apply to the Community Development Director to be removed from the AspenModern Map. If the property owner indicates in writing that they have no interest in designation or negotiation, the property shall be removed from the AspenModern Map. The same property can be placed back on the AspenModern map if the owner submits a letter requesting this action. 5. Penalties. TO BE REMOVED? Any owner who takes unapproved or unpermitted action to alter or demolish a property included on the AspenModern Map, including purposeful 8 removal, change or damage to any exterior materials, features, portions of a building, or structural members of a building shall be subject to the penalties established in Section 26A15.140, Penalties. Before any penalties are assessed pursuant to this Chapter, the Community Development Department must demonstrate to City Council, using date stamped photographs, that the exterior of the building has been altered after the adoption date of this ordinance. Properties included on the AspenModern Map shall receive reasonable care, maintenance and upkeep as described in Section 26.415.100, Demolition by Neglect. 26.415.030. Designation of historic properties. The designation of properties to an official list, that is known as the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures which is maintained by the City, is intended to provide a systematic public process to determine what buildings, areas and features of the historic built environment are of value to the community. Designation provides a means of deciding and communicating, in advance of specific issues or conflicts, what properties are in the public interest to protect. A. Establishment of the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures. The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures has been established by City Council to formally recognize those districts, buildings, structures, sites and objects located in Aspen that have special significance to the United States, Colorado or Aspen history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture. The location of properties listed on the inventory shall be indicated on maps on file in the Community Development Department. B. Aspen Victorian 1. Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures as an example of Aspen Victorian, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The quality of significance of properties shall be evaluated according to the criteria described below. When designating a historic district, the majority of the contributing resources in the district shall meet the criteria described below: a. The property or district is deemed significant for its antiquity, in that it contains structures which can be documented as built during the 19 century, and b. The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City Council shall adopt and make available to the public score sheets and other devices which shall be used by the Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply this criterion. 2. Application. Property owners, the Community Development Director, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) or the City Council may file an application for designation of an Aspen Victorian building, district, site, structure or object on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. The application for the designation of a property or collection of properties shall include the following: 9 a. The applicable information required in subsections 26.304.030.B.1., 2., 3. and 4. b. Site or historic district boundary map. c. Property or district description, including narrative text, photographs and/or other graphic materials that document its physical characteristics. d. Written description of how the property meets the criteria for designation. C.AspenModern 1. Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures as an example of AspenModern, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The quality of significance of properties shall be evaluated according to criteria described below. When designating a historic district, the majority of the contributing resources in the district must meet at least two of the criteria a -d, and criterion e described below: a. The property is related to an event, pattern, or trend that has made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific event, pattern or trend is identified and documented in an adopted context paper; b. The property is related to people who have made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific people are identified and documented in an adopted context paper; c. The property represents 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 and the specific physical design, designer, or philosophy is documented in an adopted context paper; d. The property possesses such singular significance to the City, as documented by the opinions of persons educated or experienced in the fields of history, architecture, landscape architecture, archaeology or a related field, that the property's potential demolition or major alteration would substantially diminish the character and sense of place in the city as perceived by members of the community, and e. The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City Council shall adopt and make available to the public score sheets and other devices which shall be used by the Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply this criterion. 2. Application. Only the property owner(s) may file an application for designation of an AspenModem building, district, site, structure or object on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. The application for the designation of a property or collection of properties shall include the following: 10 a. The applicable information required in subsections 26.304.030.8.1., 2., 3., and 4. b. Site or historic district boundary map. c. Property or district description, including narrative text, photographs and/or other graphic materials that document its physical characteristics. d. Written description of how the property meets the criteria for designation. e. Written description of historic preservation benefits which the property owner requests be awarded at the time of designation and relationship to Section 26.415.010, Purpose and Intent of the historic preservation program. D. Review, public hearings and notice. 1. An application for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall be transmitted to the Community Development Director to determine if the application is complete. For applications filed with sufficient information, a report will be prepared by City staff for transmittal to the HPC with the relevant information on the proposed historic property or district with a recommendation to approve or disapprove and the reasons for the recommendation. 2. A date for a public hearing on a complete application will be scheduled before the HPC. Notice of the hearing shall be provided according to the provisions of Subsections 26.304.060.E.3.a., b. and c., except when the Community Development Director., HPC or City Council is the applicant. When the Community Development Director, HPC or City Council is the applicant, notice of the hearing shall be mailed to the property owner(s) within three hundred (300) feet of the property and posted on the subject property for at least thirty (30) days prior to the hearing. Notice to the property owner shall be by registered mail. In the event that there is no evidence that the property owner received actual notice, the HPC may specify that additional measures be taken. 3. The HPC shall evaluate the application to determine if the property or district meets the criteria for designation. At the public hearing, the property owner, parties of interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to provide information about the property or district's eligibility for designation. The HPC may recommend approval, disapproval or continuance of the application to request additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Their recommendation shall be forwarded to City Council. 4. Upon receipt of the decision, report and recommendations of the HPC, the City Council shall schedule a hearing on the application in accordance with the notice requirements for adopting an ordinance. The City Council shall evaluate the application to determine if the property or district meets the criteria for designation. At the public hearing, the property owner, parties of interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to provide information about the property or district's eligibility for designation. The City Council may approve, disapprove or continue the application to request additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. 5. If an application is denied, the Community Development Director, HPC or City Council may not file a reapplication for designation of the same historic rcrourco, property or 11 district on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures for five (5) years from the date of the City Council disapproval. (Ord. No. 1 -2002, §7 [part]; Ord. No. 30, 2007, §1) 26.415.040. Recordation of designation. Upon the effective date of an ordinance by City Council designating a property on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, the City Clerk shall record with the real estate records of the Clerk and Recorder of the County, a certified copy of the ordinance including a legal description of the property. The location of properties designated by ordinance also shall be indicated on the official maps of the City that are maintained by the Community Development Department. (Ord. No. 1 -2002, §7 [part]) 26.415.050. Rescinding designation. A. Application and review. An application for the removal of a property from the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall follow the same submission requirements and review procedures as for designation described in this Chapter except that with respect to Subsection 26.415.030.C.4 an explanation shall be provided describing why the property no longer meets the criteria for designation. The HPC and City Council shall determine if sufficient evidence exists that the property no longer meets the criteria for designation and, if so, shall remove the property from the inventory. A parcel created through an historic Landmark lot split cannot be de- listed unless there is a finding that the resource which originally caused the site to be landmarked meets the criteria for removal from the historic inventory. B. Reapplication. If a request for rescinding designation is denied, an application cannot be filed again for a period of two (2) years from the date of the denial by the City Council. The time limitation of this Subsection may be waived by a majority vote of the City Council when such action is deemed necessary to prevent injustice or to facilitate the proper development of the City. (Ord. No. 1 -2002, §7 [part]; Ord. No. 43, 2004, §1) 26.415.060. Effect of designation. A. Approvals required. Any development involving properties designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, as an individual building or located in an historic district, unless determined exempt, requires the approval of a development order and either a certificate of no negative effect or a certificate of appropriateness before a building permit or any other work authorization will be issued by the City. 13. Design guidelines. 1. The HPC has adopted design guidelines, hereinafter referred to as the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, in accordance with the procedures for notice and public hearings set forth in Section 26.304.06(E)(3) Paragraph (a). These guidelines set forth the standards necessary to preserve and maintain the historic and architectural character of designated properties and districts. The standards apply to the exterior features and/or notable streetscape and landscape elements of the designated historic property and/or district. These guidelines are intended to offer assistance to property 12 owners undertaking construction, rehabilitation, alterations, changes in exterior appearance or any other development involving designated historic properties or districts. The guidelines will be periodically reviewed by the HPC and amended at a public hearing, as needed. 2. The "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines," as amended, which are on file with the Community Development Department, will be used in the review of requests of certificates of no negative effect or certificates of appropriateness. Conformance with the applicable guidelines and the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304 will be necessary for the approval of any proposed work. C. Special consideration. 1. To preserve and maintain the historic and architectural character of designated properties, the HPC or City Council may approve variations from the dimensional requirements set forth in the Land Use Code and may make recommendations to the Chief Building Official who has the authority to grant certain exceptions from the International Building Code (UBC) through the provisions of the International Existing Building Code (IEBC). These modifications may not change the applicable safety and permit requirements and must also follow the procedures provided for modifications set forth in the IEBC. 2. Designated historic properties are eligible for and have priority to participate in City programs related to financial, developmental or technical assistance that will serve to preserve, maintain or enhance their historic and architectural character. 3. All City authorities, including City Council, are authorized to grant economic and developmental benefits to designated historic properties or grant these benefits conditional upon the subsequent designation of the property. (Ord. No. 1 -2002, § 7 [part]; Ord. No. 43, 2004, § 2) 26.415.070. Development involving designated historic property. 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. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a development order. A. Exempt development. 1. Selected activities are exempted from the development review procedures including interior remodeling, paint color selection, exterior repainting or replastering similar to the existing finish or routine maintenance such as caulking, replacement of fasteners, repair of window glazing or other such minimally intrusive work. 2. If there is any question if a work activity qualifies as exempt, the Community Development Director shall make the determination as to its eligibility. 13 B. Certificate of no negative effect. 1. An application for a certificate of no negative effect may be made to the Community Development Director for approval of work that has no adverse effect on the physical appearance or character - defining features of a designated property. An application for a certificate of no effect may be approved by the Community Development Director with no further review if it meets the requirements set forth in the following Subsection 26.415.070.B.2: 2. The Community Development Director shall issue a development order based upon a certificate of no negative effect within fourteen (14) days after receipt of a complete application if: a. It is determined that the activity is an eligible work item and meets the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and b. Any modifications to the proposed work requested by the Community Development Director are agreed to by the owner /applicant and c. The proposed work will not diminish, eliminate or adversely affect the significant historic and/or architectural character of the subject property or Historic District in which it is located. 3. An application for a certificate of no negative effect shall include the following: a. The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. b. Elevations or drawings of the proposed work. c. Photographs, building material samples and other exhibits, as needed, to accurately depict location, extent and design of proposed work. d. Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, Residential design standards. 4. The following work shall be considered for a Certificate of No Negative Effect: a. Replacement or repair of architectural features which creates no change to the exterior physical appearance of the building or structure. b. Replacement or repair of architectural features that restores the building or structure to its historic appearance. c. Installation of awnings or similar attachments provided no significant feature is damaged, removed or obscured by the installation. d. Fencing that has no adverse effect on the historic or architectural character of the property. 14 e. Mechanical equipment or accessory features that have no impact on the character- defining features of the building or structure. f. Signs which have no effect on the character - defining features of the historic property. g. Alterations to noncontributing buildings within historic districts that have no adverse effect on its historic or architectural character. h. Alterations to no more than two (2) elements of nonprimary facades of a designated building. i. Installation of site improvements, such as walkways, patios, pools or hot tubs, or similar significant features. 5. The development order and associated certificate of no negative effect shall expire and become null and void after three (3) years from the date of issuance by the Community Development Director unless a building permit is issued within that time. 6. In the event that the Community Development Director determines that the issuance of a certificate of no negative effect is not appropriate, the owner may apply for a certificate of appropriateness from the HPC. C. Certificate of appropriateness for a minor development. 1. The review and decision on the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness for minor development shall begin with a determination by the Community Development Director that the proposed project constitutes a minor development. Minor development work includes: a. Expansion or erection of a structure wherein the increase of the floor area of the structure is two hundred and fifty (250) square feet or less or b. Alterations to a building facade, windows, doors, roof planes or material, exterior wall materials, dormer porch, exterior staircase, balcony or ornamental trim when three (3) or fewer elements are affected and the work does not qualify for a certificate of no negative effect or c. Erection or installation of a combination or multiples of awning, canopies, mechanical equipment, fencing, signs, accessory features and other attachments to designated properties such that the cumulative impact does not allow for the issuance of a certificate of no negative effect or d. Alterations that are made to nonhistoric portions of a designated historic property that do not qualify for a certificate of no negative effect or e. The erection of street furniture, signs, public art and other visible improvements within designated historic districts of a magnitude or in numbers such that the 15 cumulative impact does not allow for the issuance of a certificate of no negative effect. The Community Development Director may determine that an application for work on a designated historic property involving multiple categories of minor development may result in the cumulative impact such that it is considered a major development. In such cases, the applicant shall apply for a major development review in accordance with Subsection 26.415.07.D. 2. An application for minor development shall include the following: a. The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. b. Scaled elevations and/or drawings of the proposed work and its relationship to the designated historic buildings, structures, sites and features within its vicinity. c. An accurate representation of all building materials and finishes to be used in the development. d. Photographs and other exhibits, as needed, to accurately depict location, extent and design of proposed work. e. Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, Residential design standards or a written request for a variance from any standard that is not being met. 3. The procedures for the review of minor development projects are as follows: a. The Community Development Director will review the application materials and if they are determined to be complete, schedule a public hearing before the HPC. The subject property shall be posted pursuant to Paragraph 26.304.060.E.3.b. b. Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. c. The HPC shall approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a certificate of appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a development order. 16 d. The HPC decision shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316. D. Certificate of appropriateness for major development. 1. The review and decision on the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness for major development shall begin with a determination by the Community Development Director that the proposed project constitutes a major development. A major development includes one or more of the following activities: a. The construction of a new structure within a historic district; and/or b. Alterations to more than three (3) elements of a building facade including its windows, doors, roof planes or materials, exterior wall material, dormers, porches, exterior staircase, balcony or ornamental trim; and/or c. The expansion of a building increasing the floor area by more than two hundred and fifty (250) square feet; and/or d. Any new development that has not been determined to be minor development. 2. The procedures for the review of major development projects include a two -step process requiring approval by the HPC of a conceptual development plan and then a final development plan. If a major development project involves additional City Land Use approvals, the Community Development Director may consolidate or modify the review process accordingly, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B. 3. Conceptual development plan review. a. An application for a conceptual development plan shall include the following: (1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. (2) A site plan and survey showing property boundaries, the location and orientation of existing and proposed improvements and predominant site characteristics. (3) Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form, including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary features of all elevations. (4) Preliminary selection of primary building materials to be used in construction represented by samples and/or photographs. (5) Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated historic property or historic district including at least one (1) of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models or streetscape elevations. 17 (6) Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, Residential design standards or a written request for a variance from any standard that is not being met. b. The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major development projects are as follows: (1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. (2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. (3) 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. c. The effect of approval of a conceptual development plan is as follows: (1) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall not constitute final approval of a major development project or permission to proceed with the development. Such authorization shall only constitute authorization to proceed with the preparation of an application for a final development plan. (2) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and /or addition(s) as depicted in the conceptual plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the final development plan unless agreed to by the applicant. If the applicant chooses to makes substantial amendments to the conceptual design after it has been approved, a new conceptual development plan hearing shall be required. (3) Unless otherwise specified in the resolution granting conceptual development plan approval, a development application for a final development plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a conceptual development plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the conceptual development plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, 18 grant a one -time extension of the expiration date for a conceptual development plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. 4. Final development plan review. a. An application for a final development plan shall include: (1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. (2) Final drawings of all proposed structures(s) and/or addition(s) included as part of the development at 1/4" = 1.0' scale. (3) An accurate representation of all major building materials to be used in the development, depicted through samples or photographs. (4) A statement, including narrative text or graphics, indicating how the final development plan conforms to representations made or stipulations placed as a condition of the approval of the conceptual development plan. b. The procedures for the review of final development plans for major development projects are as follows: (1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for final development plan approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Paragraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c. (2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. (3) 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. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a certificate of appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a development order. (4) A resolution of the HPC action will be forwarded to the City Council in accordance with Section 26.415.130 and no permit will be issued for construction of the project until the thirty (30) day "call up" period by City Council has expired. 19 (5) Before an application for a building permit can be submitted, a final set of plans reflecting any or all required changes by the HPC or City Council must be on file with the City. Any conditions of approval or outstanding issues which must be addressed in the field or at a later time shall be noted on the plans. E. Amendments, insubstantial and substantial. There are two processes for amending plans approved pursuant to a development order and an associated certificate of appropriateness. All requests for amendments, insubstantial or substantial, must be in writing and accompanied by drawing(s) and elevations as specified below. 1. Insubstantial amendments. a. Insubstantial amendments are minor modifications to HPC approved plans that: (1) Address circumstances discovered in the course of construction that could not have been reasonably anticipated during the approval process or (2) Are necessary for conformance with building safety or accessibility codes and do not materially change the approved plans or (3) Approve specific building materials, finishes, design of ornamental trim and other such detail not provided in the HPC approved plans or (4) Change the shape, location or material of a building element or feature but maintains the same quality and approximate appearance of that found in the approved plans. b. The Community Development Director may authorize insubstantial amendments to approved plans. c. Monitoring committees established by the HPC, composed of up to two (2) members of the Commission and the Historic Preservation Officer or assign, may also authorize insubstantial amendments. d. Decisions of the Community Development Director or monitoring committee are binding. The Community Development Director or monitoring committee may determine that the proposed changes qualify as a substantial amendment and remand the matter to the HPC. e. Disapproval of a request for an insubstantial amendment may be appealed to the HPC to be considered in accordance with the procedures for substantial amendments. f. Approval of insubstantial amendments of plans will be reported to the HPC at their regularly scheduled meetings. 2. Substantial amendments. a. All changes to approved plans that materially modify the location, size, shape, materials, design, detailing or appearance of the building elements as originally depicted must be approved by the HPC as a substantial amendment. 20 b. An application for a substantial amendment shall include the following materials, as determined appropriate by the Community Development Director: (1) A revised site plan. (2) Revised scaled elevations and drawings. (3) Representations of building materials and finishes. (4) Photographs and other exhibits to illustrate the proposed changes. c. The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for approval of a substantial amendment and waive any submittals not considered necessary for consideration. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. d. Notice for the review of an application for a substantial amendment will include publication, posting and mailing pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. e. Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the extent of the changes relative to the approved plans and how the proposed revisions affect the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Codes. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed revisions and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. f. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. 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. (Ord. No. 1 -2002, § 7 [part]; Ord. 43, 2004, § 3) 26.415.080. Demolition of designated historic properties. It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have demonstrated, significance to the community. Consequently no demolition of properties designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures will be allowed unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section. A. Procedures for considering requests for demolition of designated properties. 1. An application for a demolition permit for designated properties will be filed with or referred to the Community Development Director by the Chief Building Official. The applicant will be provided a written response within fourteen (14) days of the request for a demolition permit describing the submittal materials needed for consideration. 2. An application for demolition approval shall include: 21 a. The general application information requested in Section 26.304.030 and written documentation that the Chief Building Official has determined the building an imminent hazard or b. Narrative text, graphic illustrations or other exhibits that provide evidence that the building, structure or object is of no historic or architectural value or importance. 3. When complete application materials are on file, a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice for the hearing will include publication, mailing and posting pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. The staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a staff report that analyzes the request relative to the criteria for approval. 4. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner /applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. 5. The HPC shall approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to consider the demolition request. 6. If the HPC approves the demolition request then a resolution of the HPC action will be forwarded to the City Council in accordance with Section 26.415.120 and no demolition permit will be issued until the thirty (30) day "call up" period by City Council has expired. 22 7. If the demolition request is denied because it does not meet the aforementioned standards, the applicant may request demolition approval based upon a finding of "economic hardship," as set forth below. 8. Before a demolition permit will be issued, a certificate of appropriateness for the redevelopment or reuse plan, as provided for in Subsection 26.415.070.D, must be approved. When a demolition permit must be issued because the building, structure or object is an imminent hazard or because of the issuance of a certificate of economic hardship, the permit may be received prior to the approval of an acceptable reuse plan. B. Procedures for obtaining a certificate of economic hardship. 1. Purpose: It is the policy of the City to respect private property rights. The City recognizes, therefore, that there may be some circumstances in which the operation of this Chapter could create an undue economic hardship. This provision is created to provide property owners with a means of demonstrating that such a hardship may exist and that they should be allowed to demolish a designated historic property because of that hardship. It is the intent of this provision to insure that no private property is taken without just compensation. 2. Standard of review: The standard of review for a determination of economic hardship will be whether refusing to allow the property owner to demolish the property would result in a violation of the prohibitions of the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions against taking of private property for public use without just compensation as those prohibitions are interpreted by the courts of Colorado and the United States. In applying the standards, the economic benefits of financial, developmental and technical assistance from the City and the utilization of any federal and state rehabilitation tax credit programs may be considered. 3. Application: a. Upon receiving a request for a certificate of economic hardship, the Community Development Director shall provide a written response within fourteen (14) days as to the submittal materials required. b. Within five (5) days after receipt of an application for a certificate of economic hardship, the Community Development Director shall determine whether the application is complete. If he or she determines that the application is not complete, the Director shall notify the applicant in writing of the deficiencies. The Director shall take no further steps to process the application until the deficiencies have been remedied. c. The application fee shall be set to defray all costs of the review process, including the fees of an independent hearing officer. 4. Administrative process: a. When the application is complete, the Community Development Director will refer the application to the Historic Preservation Officer and the City Attorney for review. 23 The Historic Preservation Officer and City Attorney shall jointly prepare a report setting forth the City's response. b. In the event the City response concludes that the application does not demonstrate a case of economic hardship, the application will be set for a public hearing before a hearing officer. c. The hearing officer will be contracted by the City to conduct an impartial quasi - judicial hearing on the question of economic hardship. The Officer shall have sufficient legal and technical experience to conduct a fair hearing in accordance with appropriate standards of due process. The application, all support materials and the City's report shall be provided to the hearing officer in advance of the hearing. At the hearing, the applicant will be provided with an opportunity to present his application and may be represented by counsel. The City position will be presented by the City Attorney. 5. Appeal: An applicant may appeal the decision of the hearing officer to District Court pursuant to Rule 106 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. (Ord. No. 1 -2002, §7 [part]; Ord. No. 30, 2007, §4) 26.415.090. Relocation of designated properties. The intent of this Chapter is to preserve designated historic properties in their original locations as much of their significance is embodied in their setting and physical relationship to their surroundings as well as their association with events and people with ties to particular site. However, it is recognized that occasionally the relocation of a property may be appropriate as it provides an alternative to demolition or because it only has a limited impact on the attributes that make it significant. A. Application. An application for relocation shall include: 1. The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. 2. A written description and/or graphic illustrations of the building, structure or object proposed for relocation. 3. A written explanation of the type of relocation requested (temporary, on -site or off -site) and justification for the need for relocation. 4. A written report from a licensed engineer or architect regarding the soundness of the building, structure or object, its ability to withstand the physical move and its rehabilitation needs, once relocated. 5. A conceptual plan for the receiving site providing preliminary information on the property boundaries, existing improvements and site characteristics and the associated planned improvements. 6. If the applicant does not own the receiving site, proof from the site's property owner of the willingness to accept the relocated building, structure or object. 24 7. Evidence that the applicant has or is seeking the necessary approvals to place the building on the identified receiving site. If the site is outside of the city limits, verification that the building will be preserved on its new site through a formal action of the other jurisdiction or a preservation easement. 8. Evidence of the financial ability to undertake the safe relocation, preservation and repair of the building, structure or object; site preparation and construction of necessary infrastructure through the posting of bonds or other financial measures deemed appropriate. 9. Supplementary materials to provide an understanding of the larger context for the relocated property and its impact on adjacent properties, the neighborhood or streetscape. B. Procedures for the review of relocation request. 1. The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for relocation approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. 2. Notice for the review of the relocation request shall include publication, posting and mailing pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. 3. If the relocation request is part of a major development project, the Community Development Director may consolidate or modify the review process accordingly pursuant to Section 26.304.060.B. 4. Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the standards for relocation approval set forth below, the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine if the standards for relocation have been met. 5. The HPC shall approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. 6. A resolution of the HPC action will be forwarded to the City Council in accordance with Section 26.415.120 and no relocation will occur until after the thirty (30) day "call up" period of the City Council has expired. C. Standards for the relocation of designated properties. Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or 25 3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. D. Procedures for considering request for relocation of properties under consideration for designation. While it is the intent of this Chapter to preserve properties of demonstrated significance, it is also recognized that all buildings and areas of importance to the general welfare, prosperity and civic pride of its citizenry cannot be identified, evaluated, documented and designated at one time. However, it is important to protect properties which potentially qualify for designation against needless loss until review and hearings can be completed. 1. No relocation will be permitted for properties under consideration for designation to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures unless relocation approval is issued by the Historic Preservation Commission or City Council. 2. All properties under consideration for designation and, therefore, subject to the temporary stay of relocation will be identified on a list maintained by the Chief Building Official. Property owners will be notified by registered mail that their property is under consideration for designation and have an opportunity to review all materials compiled at that time to verify accuracy. 3. These procedures shall apply to any building located within an area under preliminary application for designation from the time the application is filed until the time action is taken on the application by the City Council. 4. If a public hearing to consider the application for designation is not held by the City Council within six (6) months of the initiation of the stay, the stay will expire. An additional six -month stay period may be approved by City Council in the form of a resolution, at a public hearing, with a showing of good cause. (Ord. No. 1 -2002, § 7 [Part]) 26.415.100. Demolition by neglect. It is the intent of this Chapter to address the range of circumstances that affect the preservation of the community's significant historic and architectural resources. It is further recognized that many historic buildings and structures are lost because of deterioration from lack of maintenance. Whether this occurs unintentionally or through deliberate decisions, the result is 26 the same: the loss of community assets. Consequently, it is declared that the exterior features of any designated building or structure shall be preserved against decay and deterioration and kept free from structural defects. The designated structures shall receive reasonable care, maintenance and upkeep appropriate for their preservation, protection, perpetuation and use. A. Standards for reasonable care and upkeep. 1. The owner or such other person who may have legal possession, custody and control thereof of a designated property shall, upon written request by the City, repair the following exterior features if they are found to be deteriorating or if their condition is contributing to deterioration such that it is likely to compromise the building's structural integrity or as to create or permit the creation of any hazardous or unsafe condition to life, health or other property. These features include, but are not limited to: a. Deterioration of exterior walls, foundations or other vertical supports that causes leaning, sagging, splitting, listing or buckling. b. Deterioration of flooring or floor supports or other horizontal members that causes leaning, sagging, splitting, listing or buckling. c. Deterioration of external chimneys that cause leaning, sagging, splitting, listing or buckling. d. Deterioration or crumbling of exterior plasters or mortars. e. Ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roofs and foundations, including broken windows or doors. f. Defective protection or lack of weather protection for exterior wall and roof coverings, including lack of paint or weathering due to lack of paint or other protective covering. g. Rotting, holes and other forms of decay. h. Deterioration of exterior stairs, porches, handrails, window and door frames, cornices, entablatures, wall facings ornamental trim and other architectural details that cause delamination, instability, loss of shape and form or crumbling. B. Enforcement procedures. 1. The HPC may file a petition listing specific defects, in accordance with Subsection 26.415.110.A, with the Chief Building Official, requesting that the official act under the following procedures to require the correction of the defects or repairs to designated properties. 2. Whenever a petition is filed, the Chief Building Official shall attempt to make direct personal contact with the owner or other such persons having legal possession or custody and/or his representative. If personal contact cannot reasonably be accomplished, then written notification of the specific defects purported by the HPC and a request to inspect the property within ten (10) days will be mailed to the owner and other such persons having legal possession, custody and control and will be posted at a conspicuous location 27 • appropriate to the identified defects. In the written notification the Chief Building Official shall document the nature of the specific defects and the corrective action ordered. 3. After receiving agreement from the owner, his representatives or other such persons having legal possession, custody and control of the property for an inspection, the Chief Building Official and the HPC Officer shall within ten (10) working days conduct an investigation and prepare a written report determining whether the property requires work to address conditions set, forth in Subsection 26.415.100.A.1. 4. If the property is found to contain conditions needing correction, the owner, his representative or other such persons having legal possession, custody and control of the property will be served within fourteen (14) days with a complaint identifying the property deficiencies and providing notice that a hearing will be held before a Hearing Officer of the City within forty -five (45) days. The purpose of the hearing is to: a. Receive evidence concerning the charge of deterioration and b. Develop a plan and schedule for making the needed repairs in a timely fashion, such that the building is stabilized and the deterioration is arrested and c. Ascertain whether the owner or other parties intend to make application for financial assistance from the City to correct the building defects. 5. Following such notice and hearing, the Hearing Officer will make a determination if there are any corrections required pursuant to Subsection 26.415.110.A.1 and shall state in writing the findings of fact in support of that determination. If it is determined that the building or structure is undergoing deterioration or if its condition is contributing to deterioration, the owner or other parties of interest will be served an order to repair those defective elements of the structure within a reasonable specified time frame. 6. If the owner fails to make the necessary repairs within the identified time frame, the City may undertake the work to correct the deficiencies that create any hazardous and unsafe conditions to life, health and property. The expense of this work will be recorded as a lien on the property. C. AppeaL Within thirty (30) days, the owner may appeal the decision of the Hearing Officer to the Board of Appeals and Examiners pursuant to the process established in Chapter 8.08 of this Municipal Code. (Ord. No. 1 -2002 § 7 [part]) 26.415.110. Benefits. The City is committed to providing support to property owners to assist their efforts to maintain, preserve and enhance their historic properties. Recognizing that these properties are valuable community assets is the basic premise underlying the provision of special procedures and programs for designated historic properties and districts. Benefits to encourage good historic preservation practices by the owners of historic properties are an important aspect of Aspen's historic preservation program. Historic resources are a 28 valuable community asset and their continued protection is the basic premise supporting the creation of an innovative package of preservation tools that are unlike any other in the country. Aspen's preservation benefits are in response to tight historic preservation controls that have been legislated by the City since 1972. The Community Development Department and Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) are dedicated to assisting property owners in renovating and maintaining their property. Aspen is unique. Its historic resources and spirit of community have not been duplicated anywhere else in the world. It is this basic character that has helped make the City both economically vital and cherished by many. All properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures may be eligible for the following benefits. A. Historic landmark lot split. Properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures may receive an exemption from the subdivision and growth management quota system, pursuant to Sections 26.480 and 26.470, allowing owners of designated historic properties to create a second unit in addition to the historic building on their lot through the subdivision of the property. Refer to specific zone district information in Chapter 26.710 for further information. All parcels created through a Historic Landmark lot split shall retain designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. 1. An application for a lot split of a designated historic property may be filed by the owner by providing the standard information required in Chapter 26.304. 2. The procedure for the review of a historic lot split application is a two -step process including a public hearing before the HPC and the City Council. Notice for these hearings includes publication, mailing and posting pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. 3. Staff will review the submittal material and prepare a report with relevant information and a recommendation to continue, approve, approve with conditions or disapprove and the reason for the recommendation. 4. The HPC may approve a resolution, recommending that City Council approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the application. 5. The City Council may, by ordinance, approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the application. B. Increased density. Two detached single - family dwelling units or a duplex may be allowed on a smaller sized lot than is required for a non - designated property. Refer to specific zone district information in Chapter 26.710 for further information. C. Variances. Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district than what would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards. 1. The HPC may grant variances of the Land Use Code for designated properties to allow: 29 a. Development in the side, rear and front setbacks; b. Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between buildings; c. Up to five percent (5 %) additional site coverage; d. Less open space than required for the on -site relocation of commercial historic properties. 2. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. D. Parking. Parking reductions are permitted for designated historic properties on sites unable to contain the number of on -site parking spaces required by the underlying zoning. Commercial designated historic properties may receive waivers of payment -in -lieu fees for parking reductions. The parking reduction and waiver of payment -in -lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district. Refer to Chapter 26.515 for further information. E. Conditional uses. A variety of conditional uses are allowed for designated historic properties. These uses are identified in Chapter 26.710. F. Floor area bonus. 1. In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; 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; c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic buildings form, materials or openings; e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or 30 h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. 2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices. Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater likelihood of being awarded additional floor area. 3. The decision to grant a floor area bonus for major development projects will occur as part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Subsection 26.415.070.D. The floor area bonus may also be approved as part of a Historic Landmark Lot Split Review. No development application that includes a request for a floor area bonus may be submitted until after the applicant has met with the HPC in a work session to discuss how the proposal might meet the bonus considerations. G. Exemption from growth management quota system requirements. Certain types of development on designated historic properties are exempt from the growth management quota system and have reduced impact mitigation requirements. Refer to Chapter 26.470 for further information. H. Waiver of impact fees. Designated historic properties may be eligible for waiver of Impact Fees. Refer to Chapter 26.610 for further information. I. Rehabilitation loan fund. City Council may approve a zero interest loan in an amount up to twenty -five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) for any property that is in violation of Section 26.415.100 of the Land Use Code, Demolition by Neglect, or to fund other rehabilitation work which is considered necessary for the preservation or restoration of a designated structure. To be eligible for this benefit, a property owner shall show evidence of financial need. These one -time loans shall be repaid at the time of transfer -of -title or by the end of ten (10) years, whichever comes first. J. Conservation easement program. The City may accept a "Conservation Easement" from a property owner who wishes to forgo any of the allowed square footage on their property in exchange for a federal tax deduction. A deed restriction shall be filed on the site to show that future development is limited. The five hundred (500) square foot floor area bonus provided in Subsection 26.415.120E of the Land Use Code cannot be donated as a conservation easement. K. City building rehabilitation fund. The City shall give priority in the asset management plan to budgeting the funds necessary to adequately maintain, rehabilitate or restore City -owned designated properties. L. Transferable Development Right (TDR). Pursuant to Chapter 26.535 of this Code, owners of properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures may sever and convey, as a separate development right, undeveloped floor area to be developed on a different property within the City. Refer to Section 26.710, Zone Districts for further information on landing sites for TDRs. M. Tax credit applications. Community Development staff shall assist property owners in participating in State and Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit programs by helping with the preparation of application materials, undertaking the necessary reviews to assist in obtaining 31 certification. A twenty percent (20 %) state rehabilitation income tax credit may be available for locally designated properties and may be combined with a twenty percent (20 %) Federal Income Tax Credit which may be available for income producing properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places. N. Community initiated development. The City shall consider opportunities to be involved in public - privately funded rehabilitation efforts, building expansion, or infill projects that demonstrate good historic preservation practices. 0. Building codes. The International Building Code (IBC) provides for flexibility in its application to historic structures. In addition to the IBC, the City has adopted the International Existing Building Code (IEBC) to assist owners in making repairs in a manner that minimizes intrusion into the historic structure. P. Contractor training. The Community Development Department shall provide periodic workshops for contractors on proper preservation techniques, using grants or other sources of funding. Q. Cultural heritage tourism. Through grants or other sources of funding, the City may facilitate collaborative partnerships among tourist industry sectors, historic property owners and cultural heritage attractions to create a marketing strategy and marketing products to attract visitors interested in the distinctive historic character of Aspen. R. Preservation honor awards. The Aspen Historic Preservation Commission shall present annual awards to recognize exemplary historic preservation efforts in the City. S. Historic markers. Through grants or other sources of funding, the City may provide a historic marker of a standard design for any owner of a designated historic property who desires a marker to install on their building. The City may also develop a marker or signage program to recognize designated historic districts. 26.415.120. Appeals, notice to City Council and call up. A. Appeal. Any action by the HPC in approving, approving with conditions or disapproving a development order and an associated certificate of appropriateness for major development, demolition approval or relocation approval may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant or a property owner within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316. B. Notice to City Council. Following the adoption of a resolution approving, approving with conditions or disapproving a development application for a certificate of appropriateness for major development, demolition approval or relocation approval of a designated property, the HPC shall promptly notify the City Council of its action to allow the City Council an opportunity to avail itself of the call -up procedure set forth in Subsection 26.415.120.0 and D. C. Call - up. The City Council may order call up of any action taken by the HPC as described in Section 26.415.070 within thirty (30) days of the decision, action or determination. Consequently no associated permits can be issued during the thirty (30) day call -up period. 32 D. City Council action on appeal or call -up. The City Council shall consider the application on the record established before the HPC. The City Council shall affirm the decision of the HPC unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process or the HPC has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. The City Council shall take such action as is deemed necessary to remedy said situation, including, but not limited to: 1. Reversing the decision. 2. Altering the conditions of approval. 3. Remanding the application to the HPC for rehearing. (Ord. No. 1 -2002, § 7 [part]; Ord. No. 52 -2003, § 10) 26.415.130. Variances by other City review bodies. If an application for a variance involving a designated property is before the Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission, the HPC will be given the opportunity to make a written recommendation as to its approval. The Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission will not take action on said development application for a variance pursuant to Chapter 26.314, without receiving the written recommendation from the HPC. (Ord. No. 1 -2002 § 7 [part]) 26.415.140. Penalties. Any person violating the provisions of Sections 26.415.070 through 26.415.100 will be subject to the general penalty provisions of this Title. A. Additional penalties. Additional penalties for the violation of Sections 26.415.070 through 26.415.100 include: 1. Any person who constructs, alters, relocates, changes the appearance or demolishes a designated property in violation of any section may be required to restore the building, structure or setting to its appearance prior to the violation. 2. Following notice and public hearing, the HPC shall prohibit the owner, successor or assigns from obtaining a building permit for the subject property for a period of up to ten (10) years from the date of the violation. The City shall initiate proceedings to place a deed restriction on the property to ensure enforcement of this penalty. The property owner shall be required to maintain the property during that period of time in conformance with the Standards for reasonable care and upkeep set forth in Subsection 26.415.100A. 3. Any variances or historic preservation benefits previously granted to the property may be subject to revocation. (Ord. No. 1 -2002, § 7 [part]) Section 2: Chapter 26.420, Benefits is hereby deleted in its entirety. The content of the Chapter has been imported into Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation Section 3: 33 Chapter 26.535, Transferable Development Rights (TDR) is hereby amended to allow properties on the AspenModem Map to be sending sites for TDRs, even if they are not designated to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. The Chapter is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 26.535 TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) Sections: Sec. 26.535.010 Purpose Sec. 26.535.020 Terminology Sec. 26.535.030 Applicability and prohibitions Sec. 26.535.040 Authority Sec. 26.535.050 Procedure for establishing an historic transferable development right certificate Sec. 26.535.060 Procedure for extinguishing an historic transferable development right certificate Sec. 26.535.070 Review criteria for establishment of an historic transferable development right Sec. 26.535.080 Review criteria for extinguishment of an historic transferable development right Sec. 26.535.090 Application materials Sec. 26.535.100 Appeals 26.535.010. Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to encourage the preservation of historic landmarks, those properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures and those properties identified on the AspenModern Map, within the City by permitting those property owners to sever and convey, as a separate development right, undeveloped floor area to be developed on a different property within the City. The program enables standard market forces and the demand for residential floor area, to accomplish a community goal of preserving Aspen's heritage as reflected in its built environment. (Ord. No. 54 -2003, § §4, 5; Ord. No. 16 -2008) 26.535.020. Terminology. Establishment of a TDR. The process of creating an historic TDR certificate in exchange for a property owner lessening the allowable development on an historic property (the sending site) through a permanent deed restriction. Extinguishment of a TDR. The process of increasing the allowable development on a property (the receiver site), as permitted in the Zone District, through the redemption of an historic TDR certificate. Historic transferable development right certificate (historic TDR certificate). An irrevocable assignable property right which allows a certain amount of development, which may be conveyed separate from the property in which it has historically been associated (the sending site) and which may be used to increase development rights on another property (the receiver 34 site). TDR certificates shall require execution by the Mayor, pursuant to a validly adopted ordinance. Receiver site. A property on which developments rights are increased in exchange for the City extinguishing an historic TDR certificate held by the developer of the property. Receiver sites are also referred to as landing sites. Sending site. The designated historic landmark property, or property identified on the AspenModern Map, being preserved by reducing its allowable floor area in exchange for the City establishing and issuing an historic TDR certificate. (Ord. 54 -2003, § §4, 5) 26.535.030. Applicability and prohibitions. This chapter shall apply to properties eligible for issuance of a Historic TDR Certificate, known as Sending Sites, and properties eligible for the extinguishment of a Historic TDR Certificate, known as Receiving Sites. City of Aspen Historic TDR Certificates may only be used within the city limits of the City of Aspen, as hereinafter indicated, or in unincorporated Pitkin County, if and as may be permitted by the Pitkin County land Use Code. Pitkin County TDRs are not eligible for extinguishment within the City of Aspen. Sending Sites shall include all properties within the City of Aspen designated as a Historic Landmark, those properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, and those properties identified on the AspenModem Map, in which the development of a single - family or duplex home is a permitted use, according to Chapter 26.710, Zone Districts. Properties on which such development is a conditional use shall not be eligible. Sending Sites may also be established through adoption of a Final PUD Development Plan, pursuant to Chapter 26.445. Sending sites shall remain eligible for all benefits, bonuses, etc. allowed properties designated a Historic Landmark after establishment of transferable development rights, pursuant to Chapter 26.415. Receiving Sites shall include all properties in the City of Aspen permitted additional development rights for extinguishment of a Historic TDR is Chapter 26.710, Zone Districts. A property may also be designated as a Receiving Site through adoption of a Final PUD Development Plan, pursuant to Chapter 26.445. The allowable development extinguishment of a Historic TDR Certificate varies depending upon the zone district of the Receiving Site and the use of the land. Chapter 26.710, Zone Districts, describes the development allowance for each Historic TDR Certificate extinguished. A Historic TDR Certificate may be sold, assigned, transferred, or conveyed. Transfer of Title shall be evidenced by an assignment of ownership on the actual certificate document. Upon transfer, the new owner may request the City re -issue the certificate acknowledging the new owner. Re- issuance shall not require re- adoption of an ordinance. 35 The market for Historic TDR Certificates is unrestricted and the City shall not prescribe or guarantee the monetary value of a Historic TDR Certificate. The Community Development Director shall establish policies and procedures not inconsistent with this Chapter for the printing of certificates, their safe - keeping, distribution, recordation, control, and extinguishments. (Ord. No. 54 -2003, §§ 4, 5; Ord. No. 16 -2008) 26.535.040. Authority. The City Council, in accordance with the procedures, standards and limitations of this Chapter and of Chapter 26.304, Common development review procedures, shall approve or disapprove, pursuant to adoption of an ordinance, a land use application for the establishment of historic transferable development rights. The Mayor, in accordance with the procedures, standards and limitations of this Chapter and of Section 26.304, Common development review procedures, shall validate and issue historic TDR certificates, pursuant to a validly adopted ordinance. The Community Development Director, in accordance with the procedures, standards and limitations of this Chapter and of Section 26.304, Common development review procedures, shall approve or disapprove a land use application for the extinguishment of historic transferable development rights. (Ord. No. 54 -2003, §§ 4, 5) 26.535.050. Procedure for establishing a historic transferable development right certificate. The following steps are necessary for the issuance of a City historic transferable development right certificate: Preapplication conference. Property owners interested in the City's historic TDR program are encouraged to meet with a member of the Community Development Department to clarify the process, benefits and limitations of the program. Owner confirmation. An application for the issuance of a historic TDR certificate shall only be accepted by the City upon submission of a notarized affidavit from the sending site property owner signifying understanding of the following concepts: A deed restriction will permanently encumber the sending site and restrict that property's development rights to below that allowed by right by zoning according to the number of historic TDR certificates established from that sending site. For each certificate of development right issued by the City for the particular sending site, that property shall be allowed two hundred and fifty (250) square feet less of floor area, as permitted according to the property's zoning, as amended. The sending site property owner shall have no authority over the manner in which the certificate of development right is used by subsequent owners of the historic TDR certificate. 36 Application for issuance of historic TDR certificate. An applicant shall supply the necessary application materials, identified in Section 26.535.090, Application materials, along with applicable review fees. City review and approval of application. The Community Development Department shall review the application according to the review standards identified in Section 26.535.070, Review criteria for establishment of a historic TDR and shall forward a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council shall approve or disapprove the establishment of a historic TDR certificate by adoption of an ordinance, according to the review standards identified in Section 26.535.070, Review criteria for establishment of a historic TDR. The manner of public notice shall be publication, pursuant to Paragraph 26.304.060.E.3.a. Scheduling of closing date. Upon satisfaction of all relevant 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 County Clerk and Recorder. Closing. On the mutually agreed upon closing date, the Mayor 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 together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the County Clerk and Recorder's Office. (Ord. 54 -2003, §§ 4, 5) 26.535.060. Procedure for extinguishing a historic transferable development right certificate. The following steps are necessary for the extinguishment of a City historic transferable development right certificate: Preapplication conference. Property owners interested in the City's historic TDR program are encouraged to meet with a member of the Community Development Department to clarify the process, benefits and limitations of the program. Applicants are encouraged to meet with the City Zoning Officer and review potential development plans to ensure the additional development right can be properly incorporated on the receiver site. Associated planning reviews. An applicant must gain all other necessary approvals for the proposed development, as established by this Title. Application for building permit. An applicant shall submit the necessary materials for a building permit, pursuant to Section 26.304.075, Building permit. Confirmation of historic TDR certificate. The applicant shall submit the requisite historic TDR certificates, and the City shall confirm its or their, authenticity. City review of application. The Community Development Department shall review the application according to the review standards identified in Section 26.535.070, Review standards for extinguishment of a historic TDR. 37 Extinguishment of historic TDR certificate. Prior to and as a condition of, issuance of a building permit for a development on a receiver site requiring the extinguishment of a historic TDR certificate, the applicant shall assign the requisite historic TDR certificates to the City whereupon the certificates shall be marked "extinguished." The property shall permanently maintain the additional development benefit of the extinguished TDR according to the development allowance for a TDR pursuant to Section 26.710, Zone Districts. The property owner may, at their discretion, record a confirmation letter from the Community Development Director acknowledging the extinguishment of the TDR(s) for the receiver site. (Ord. No. 54 -2003, §§ 4, 5) 26.535.070. Review criteria for establishment of a historic transferable development right. A historic TDR certificate may be established by the Mayor if the City Council, pursuant to adoption of an ordinance, finds all the following standards met: A. The sending site is a historic landmark or property identified on the AspenModern Map, on which the development of a single - family or duplex residence is a permitted use, pursuant to Chapter 26.710, Zone Districts. 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. C. It is demonstrated that the establishment of TDR certificates will not create a nonconformity. In cases where a nonconformity already exists, the action shall not increase the specific nonconformity. 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 for a single - family or duplex residence, 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. F. The proposed deed restriction permanently restricts the maximum 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. For properties with multiple or unlimited floor areas for certain types of allowed uses, the maximum development of the property, independent of the established property use, shall be the floor area of a single - family or duplex residence (whichever is permitted) minus two hundred 38 fifty (250) square feet of floor area multiplies 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 for a single - family or duplex residence, 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 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 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. (Ord. 54- 2003, §§ 4, 5) 26.535.080. Review criteria for extinguishment of a historic transferable development right. Historic TDR certificates may be extinguished to accommodate additional development if the Community Development Director finds the following standards have been met: A. The receiving site is not restricted by a prescribed floor area limitation or the restricting document permits the extinguishment of historic TDR certificates for additional development rights. B. The receiving site and is eligible to receive an increase in development rights as specified in Chapter 26.710, Zoning Districts, according to the Zone District and the land use or as otherwise specified in a final PUD plan for the property. C. All other necessary approvals for the proposed development on the receiver site, as established by this Title, have been obtained. D. The applicant has submitted the requisite authentic historic TDR certificates for redemption. E. The applicant has submitted the necessary materials for a building permit on the receiver site, pursuant to Section 26.304.075, Building permit and the additional development can be accommodated on the receiver site in conformance with all other relevant requirements. 39 F. Prior to and as a condition of, issuance of a building permit for a development requiring the extinguishment of a historic TDR certificates, the applicant shall assign and deliver the authentic certificates to the City whereupon the certificates shall be marked "extinguished." G. The Community Development Director shall issue a letter confirming the extinguishment of the TDR certificates and increasing the available development rights of the receiver site. The applicant may wish to record this document with the County Clerk and Recorder. The confirmation letter shall not stipulate an absolute total floor area, but shall stipulate a square footage increase from the allowable floor area, according to the Zone District and land use of the receiver site at the time of building permit submission. The receiver site shall remain subject to amendments to the allowable floor area and eligible for certain floor area incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City Land Use Code, as may be amended from time to time. The form of the confirmation letter shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. H. The development allowed on the receiver site by extinguishment of historic TDR certificates shall be that allowed in Chapter 26.710, Zone Districts, according to the Zone District and the land use or as otherwise specified in a final PUD plan for the receiver site and shall not permit the creation of a nonconforming use or structure. (Ord. No. 54 -2003, § §4, 5; Ord. No. 16 -2008) 26.535.090. Application materials. A. The contents of a development application to establish an historic TDR certificate shall be as follows: 1. The general application information required in Common development review procedures, Chapter 26.304. 2. A notarized affidavit from the sending site property owner signifying acknowledgment of the following: a. A deed restriction will permanently encumber the sending site and restrict that property's development rights to below that allowed by right by zoning according to the number of historic TDR certificates established from that sending site. b. For each certificate of development right issued by the City for the particular sending site, that property shall be allowed two hundred and fifty (250) square feet less of floor area, as permitted according to the property's zoning, as amended. c. The sending site property owner shall have no authority over the manner in which the certificate of development right is used by subsequent owners of the historic TDR certificate. 3. A site improvement survey of the sending site depicting: a. Existing natural and man-made site features. b. All legal easements and restrictions. 40 4. Dimensioned, scaled drawings of the existing development on the sending site and a floor area analysis of all structures thereon. 5. A proposed deed restriction for the sending site. 6. Written response to each of the review criteria. B. The contents of a development application to extinguish an historic TDR certificate shall be as follows: 1. The necessary application materials for a complete building permit submission, pursuant to Section 26.304.075, Building permit. 2. Written response to each of the review criteria. (Ord. No. 54 -2003, § §4, 5) 26.535.100. Appeals An applicant aggrieved by a determination made by the Community Development Director, pursuant to this Section, may appeal the decision to the City Council, pursuant to the procedures and standards of Chapter 26.316, Appeals. An applicant aggrieved by a determination made by the City Council, pursuant to this Section, may appeal the decision to a court of competent jurisdiction. (Ord. No. 54 -2003, §5) Section 4: 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 5: 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 6: Recordation That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy of this Ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 7: Public Hearing A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 22nd day of November, 2010, 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. 41 INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the _ day of 2010. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2010. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney 42 Exhibit A Sec. 26.310.040. Standards of review. In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. Staff Response: The amendment is not in conflict with other areas of the Municipal Code. Aspen adopted historic preservation regulations almost 40 years ago and the identification and preservation of postwar era properties has been on -going for over 20 years. The proposed amendments are revisions to an existing voluntary system that requires detrimental alterations to potential historic resources to be temporary delayed while the City and property owner discuss alternatives. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Response: The AACP specifically addresses historic preservation and the importance of protecting "all buildings and sites of historic significance," representing not only the Victorian era, but Aspen's ski history and mid - century renaissance as well. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Response: Aspen has never had a minimum age requirement for designation. The opportunity for postwar era properties to be designated, at least voluntarily, has been in place for years, therefore staff does not perceive the code amendments as having any new, unanticipated impact on the community. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Response: n/a. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools and emergency medical facilities. Staff Response: n/a. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Response: A well used quote within the preservation field is that "The greenest building is the one that already exists." Staff believes that impacts on the natural environment are generally reduced by historic preservation efforts. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City. Staff Response: This code amendment is intended to ensure stability in Aspen's neighborhoods and community characteristics by preserving past development patterns where appropriate. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Response: n/a. L Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. Staff Response: Staff believes the extensive public process on this topic has been as comprehensive as possible. Staff is proposing amendments to the Land Use Code that are intended to reflect a broad range of input. While the proposed amendments may not please all parties, staff believes they represent the many opinions and creative ideas that have been generated during a difficult period that has been termed by some as "purgatory," and are a responsible way to conclude the debate. EXHIBIT B The proposed amendments to the Land Use Code are delineated as follows: • Text being removed is brown and struck out. • Text being added is orange and underlined. • Text which is relocated from Chapter 26.420, which is being deleted, into Chapter 26.415 is green. • Text which is not shown in color is not affected; and Chapter 26.415 . . .,, • • . • . • • HISTORIC PRESERVATION Sections: 26.415.010 Purpose and intent 26.415.020 Definitions 26.415.025 ' . - - ' • • • . Identification of historic properties 26.415.030 Designation of historic properties 26.415.040 Recordation of designation 26.415.050 Rescinding designation 26.415.060 Effect of designation • 26.415.070 Development involving designated historic properties 26.415.080 Demolition of designated properties 26.415.090 Relocation of designated historic properties 26.415.100 Demolition by neglect 26.415.110 Benefits 26.415.120 Appeals, Council notice and call up 26.415.130 Variances by other City review bodies 26.415.140 Penalties 26.415.010. Purpose and intent. The purpose of this Chapter is to promote the public health, safety and welfare through the protection, enhancement and preservation of those properties, areas and sites, which represent the distinctive elements of Aspen's cultural, educational, social, economic, political and architectural history. Under the authority provided by the Home Rule Charter of the City and 1 1 Section 29- 20- 104(c), C.R.S., to regulate land use and preserve areas of historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering and cultural importance, this Chapter sets forth the procedures to: A. Recognize, protect and promote the retention and continued utility of the historic buildings and districts in the City; B. Promote awareness and appreciation of Aspen's unique heritage; C. Ensure the preservation of Aspen's character as an historic mining town, early ski resort and cultural center; D. Retain the historic, architectural and cultural resource attractions that support tourism and the economic welfare of the community; and E. Encourage productive, economical and attractive reuse of historic structures. (Ord. No. 1 -2002, §7 [part]) The City does not intend by the historic preservation program to preserve every old Ibuildini but comment [ai]: This language Was recommended instead to draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in bY the Criteria committee or the Task Force . preserving the City's cultural, historic. and architectural heritage. This should be accomplished by ensuring that demolition of buildings and structures important to that heritage are carefully weighed with other alternatives. Alterations to historically significant buildings and new construction in historic areas shall respect the character of each such setting. not by imitating surrounding structures. but by being compatible with them as defined in historic preservation guidelines. 26.415.020. Definitions. The following definitions are specific to the terms as used in this Chapter and in the field of historic preservation: Alteration. A change to an existing building, structure or feature that modifies its original appearance or construction. Certificate of appropriateness. An official form issued by the City stating that the proposed work on a designated historic property is compatible with its historic and architectural character and, therefore, the work may be completed as specified in the certificate and the City may issue any permits needed to do the work specified in the certificate. Certificate of demolition approval. An official form issued by the City authorizing the issuance of a demolition permit for a designated historic property or for a building or structure located in a designated historic district. Certificate of economic hardship. An official form issued by the City, in connection with a certificate of demolition approval, that allows the demolition of a designated historic property as the owner has demonstrated that maintaining it will impose an economic hardship. Certificate of no negative effect. An official form issued by the City stating that the proposed work will have no detrimental effect on the character - defining features of a designated property and, therefore, the work may proceed as specified in the certificate without obtaining further 2 • approvals under this Chapter and the City may issue any permits needed to do the work in the specified certificate. Contributing resource. A building, site, structure or object that adds to the historic associations, historic architectural qualities or archaeological values for which a property or district is considered significant. Designated property. A property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Historic District A collection, concentration, linkage or continuity of buildings, structures, sites or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. Historic context paper. Research papers that define Aspen's architectural and cultural patterns in the context of local and national history. Historic context papers are used to guide staff. the Historic Preservation Commission and City Council in determining the historic significance of structures and properties in the City of Aspen. Integrity. The ability of a property to convey its significance relative to the aspects of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association. Monitoring committee. A subcommittee appointed by the Historic Preservation Commission of up to two (2) Commission members and the Historic Preservation Officer to provide oversight in the implementation of rehabilitation. Noncontributing resource. A building, structure, site or object that does not add to the historic architectural qualities or historic associations for which a property or district is significant because it was not present during the period of significance or does not relate to the documented significance; or due to alterations, additions, disturbances or other changes, it no longer possesses historic integrity. Object. A term used to distinguish buildings and structures from those constructions that are primarily artistic in nature or small in scale and simply constructed. It may be by nature or design movable, but it is associated with a specific setting and environment. Rehabilitation. Making a building or structure sound and usable without attempting to restore it to a particular period appearance, while retaining the character - defining features. Relocation. Moving a building or structure from its original, historically significant or existing location to another location. Repair. To restore to a sound or good state after decay, dilapidation or partial destruction. Restore. The repair or recreation of the original architectural elements or features of an historic property so that it resembles an appearance it had at some previous point in time. Significance. The documented importance of a property for its contribution to or representation of broad patterns of national, regional or local history, architecture, engineering, archaeology and culture. 3 Site. The location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined or vanished, where the location itself possesses historic, cultural or archaeological value regardless of the value of any existing structure. Structure. A term used to distinguish from buildings those functional constructions made for purposes other than creating human shelter. (Ord. 1 -2002, §7 [part]) 26.415.025 Identification of historic properties A. Surveys, Maps and Historic Context Papers. The Community Development Director shall conduct or cause to be conducted such preliminary surveys, studies or investigations as deemed necessary or advisable to adequately inform City Council and the Historic Preservation Commission of those properties located within the City which represent Aspen's 19 and 20 century history. The Community Development Director shall memorialize the results of surveys. studies and investigations in a series of historic inventory forms. maps and historic context papers. Said inventory forms. maps. and context papers shall be maintained by the Community Development Department and shall be made available for public inspection at all reasonable times. New inventory forms. maps and historic context papers shall not be adopted by City Council except for every tenth year, starting in January 2011. These resources shall be referenced by the Historic Preservation Commission and City Council when reviewing applications for designation. IBl Aspen Victorian Properties. Properties associated with Aspen's 1 9 th century history shall be - Comment (a2J: The TaskForce recommended called Aspen Victorian. The City of Aspen has comprehensively identified examples of n8 esto the treatment of Victorian era resources . Victorian era properties in Aspen since the 1970s. All such properties have been designated by ordinance to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Such properties are subject to the terms of this Chapter. Additional 19 century properties may be identified and designated in the future if they are determined to meet the criteria of Section 26.415.0303.1. AspenModern Properties. Properties associated with Aspen's 20 century history shall be - -- comment Iasi: The tern AspenModem defines called AspenModern. Properties added to the AspenModern Map shall be subject to a delay on be subject of 20 distinctions sfrom properties, which will P P P subject y be subject to some distinctions from the Victorian the issuance of land use approvals and building permits which could destroy their historic era properties. significance. Properties added to the AspenModem Map shall be eligible for certain preservation benefits without being designated by City Council and may be awarded preservation incentives above and beyond those identified at Section 26.415.110. as follows. Property owners are encouraged to meet proactively with the historic preservation commission before undertaking development plans to receive preliminary feedback on appropriate development and benefits. 1. Ninety -Day Negotiation Period. In the case that the owner of a property added to the AspenModem Map submits a land use application or building permit proposing work that the Community Development Director determines to meet the definition of Major Development. Demolition or Relocation. as defined in this Chapter, issuance of the land use approval or building permit shall be placed on a temporary ninety -day hold. 1 4 1 Work undertaken in conformance with the International Building Code provisions for emergency repairs shall be exempt from this Section provided that the proposed repairs match the surrounding exterior materials and character to the extent practicable. Also exempt from this Section are alterations. land use applications, and building permits limited to interior remodeling, paint color selection. exterior repainting or replastering similar to the existing finish or routine maintenance such as caulking. replacement of fasteners, or repair of window glazing and other such exterior alterations which are determined by the Community Development Director to be minimally intrusive or reversible work that does not diminish the historic character of the property. A property owner may also enter into the ninety -day negotiation period by submitting a voluntary application for designation to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Only complete land use applications or building permits, as determined by the Community Development Director. shall be accepted. Nothing herein shall prevent the City from reviewing the land use application or building permit during the ninety -day negotiation period. A letter from the property owner indicating an understanding of this ninety -day negotiation period shall accompany the land use application or building permit. The ninety -day negotiation period may be extended an additional thirty (30) days upon a resolution adopted by the Council, or longer if mutually acceptable to both the Council and the property owner. Within the ninety -day negotiation period. the following shall occur: a. The Community Development Director shall offer to meet with the property owner to discuss the City's Historic Preservation Program and benefits that the property may be eligible to receive upon designation as a Historic Landmark. b. The Community Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation Commission. at a public meeting, regarding the proposed land use application or building permit and the nature of the property. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting. [Fhel Historic Preservation Commission. using context papers and integrity scoring sheets ' Comment [a4]: Currently there are no specific for the property under consideration, shall provide Council with an assessment of the standards for determining the appropriateness of negotiated benefits. This language is intended to property's conformance with the designation criteria of Section 26.415.030.C.1. When provide aframework. any benefits that are not included in Section 26.415.110 are requested by the property owner. HPC shall also evaluate how the designation, and any development that is concurrently proposed. meets the policy objectives for the historic preservation program. as stated at Section 26.415.010, Purpose and Intent. kks1 an additional measure of the - -- Comment DOD TheH;storicPreservation appropriateness of designation and benefits, HPC shall determine whether the subject Force supported the concept of a matrix that classified properties based on significance and property is a "good. better, or best" example of Aspen's 20 century historic resources. integrity, and awards the most preservation benefits to the best examples. If Council supports the matrix concept, it will be refined for second reading and may be inserted as an illustration in this Chapter. 5 4 c. The Community Development Director shall confer with the City Council regarding the proposed land use application or building permit. the nature of the property. and the staff and Historic Preservation Commission's assessment of its historic significance and the effects of the application or building permit. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting. d. The City Council may negotiate directly with the property owner or may choose to direct the Community Development Director. or other City staff as necessary, to negotiate with the property owner to reach a mutually acceptable agreement for the designation of the property. The City Council may choose to provide this direction in Executive Session, pursuant to State Statute. As part of the mutually acceptable agreement. the City Council may, at its sole discretion, approve any land use entitlement or fee waiver permitted by the Municipal Code and may award any approval that is assigned to another Board or Commission. including variations. Council shall consider the appropriateness of benefits in light of whether the property is identified as a "good, better, or best' example of Aspen's 20 century history and shall also seek to be equitable in the benefits awarded through the negotiation process. Council shall seek compatibility with the neighborhood surroundingthe subject property. When benefits are awarded as part of the negotiation, Council shall require that the property be designated as a Historic Landmark, pursuant to the standards and limitations of Section 26.415.030. Designation of Historic Properties. As part of the mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council may choose to require the land use application or building permit that initiated the negotiation to be withdrawn by the property owner if said application orpermit would have negatively affected the historic significance of the property. Once a property identified on the AspenModem Map is designated to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. additional negotiation under this section is not allowed. e. If. upon the passage of 90 days or any extension thereof, the City and the property owner have failed to reach a mutually acceptable agreement, affected land use applications shall be issued a Development Order upon compliance with all applicable provisions of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. Affected building permits shall be reviewed and shall be issued upon compliance with all applicable building codes. The City Council. at its sole discretion, may choose to terminate negotiations at any time and allow the land use application or building permit to be processed. 2. Voluntary review /Processing Advantages. Owners of properties included on the AspenModem Map who voluntarily comply with the provisions of this Chapter may proceed with approved work without making application for designation. f Thu Community Comment [a6]: Items 2 and 3 are the benefits ment Director shall consider waiver or reduction of permit fees for the subject work. even may be awarded to AspenModem property, Development P subject l even if in is not designated If this is not achievable within the City budget. the Community Development Director shall ensure that the land use application and building permit review proceed ahead of all other applications except those associated with affordable housing and Essential Public Facilities. 6 3. Transferable Development Rights. Properties which are included on the AspenModem Map shall be eligible to create and sell transferable development rights according to the provisions of Chapter 26.535 of this Code, even if they are not designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. 4. Removal from AspenModern Map. If. in the opinion of the Community Development Director after execution of a building permit issued pursuant to this Section, the property .. -- Comment Lan Language amended since First included on the AspenModern Map has been demolished or so altered that it would no longer Reading. meet the criteria for designation to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. the Community Development Director shall remove the property from the AspenModem Map and it shall no longer he subject to the terms of this Chapter. In addition, if the primary structure(s) on any property identified on the AspenModem Map have been destroyed by an act of God or are otherwise declared unsafe and ordered demolished by the Chief Building Official, the property shall be removed from the AspenModem Map. Owners of properties included on the AspenModern Map may apply to the Community Development Director to be removed from the AspenModern Map. If the property owner indicates in writing that they have no interest in designation or negotiation, the property shall be removed from the AspenModern Map. The same property can be placed back on the AspenModem map if the owner submits a letter requesting this action. 5. 1Penaltiei Any owner who takes unapproved or unpermitted action to alter or demolish a comment Lai* These same penalties exist inthe property included on the AspenModem Map. including purposeful removal. change or current system, and apply to all existing landmarks. damage to any exterior materials, features, portions of a building. or structural members of a building shall be subject to the penalties established in Section 26.415.140. Penalties. Before any penalties are assessed pursuant to this Chapter, the Community Development Department must demonstrate to City Council, using date stamped photographs. that the exterior of the building has been altered after the adoption date of this ordinance. Properties included on the AspenModern Map shall receive reasonable care. maintenance and upkeep as described in Section 26.415.100. Demolition by Neglect. •41 5.025 Comment [a91: The language shown in brown is the existing regulations that apply to properties listed • • • . • on Ordinance #48. • • • • . • • .. ' • • �' • • • • ..' .. • • • in W-hi �.. - to - -,;;. work, o r-v isit. Ain= • 11 the l ' • e • . .. list: aee pment- Deparrtrent- ex-eept-- aslermitted- pursuant-to the 1 . . . . . . .. r . . . . . .. r ••• . f materials -and t#mrueter to-the -e -tent -rae • • • . . _ . • .• Upon- aeeeptturee the building-Ftermit -or -- land - -- use ftpplieatiott-ntay-be-revishitil , 8 • . benefits-that - • • . • •• . • • • b • • , • • • • . : • {lesigHationn - - :- Landmark the jetwsed f-the Potential- listor-ie- Resouree; anc-te • l>uildingtodes Affeeted- land reviewed-nnd- -shal-he- issued bey mod: 9 .. . _ • ent►nl l#istecie-- Zeseu�ee�u —mope a—r uest -to- the- --€emn »unity hetwe.. ! ! :,-the- ... • • • ... • • • • r� List -o --Pet £ nttft1 -- {Biter# ReS9Hffes� ineludi g -pit • • . r , • • • • r r .• • • 4e 10 y � 26.415.030. Designation of historic properties. The designation of properties to an official list, that is known as the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures which is maintained by the City, is intended to provide a systematic public process to determine what buildings, areas and features of the historic built environment are of value to the community. Designation provides a means of deciding and communicating, in advance of specific issues or conflicts, what properties are in the public interest to protect. A. Establishment of the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures. The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures has been established by City Council to formally recognize those districts, buildings, structures, sites and objects located in Aspen that have special significance to the United States, Colorado or Aspen history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture. The location of properties listed on the inventory shall be indicated on maps on file in the Community Development Department. r - . - 1 . • 11 It, • .. - B. Aspen Victorian it Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites - - -{ comment [ alOn : This is the existing criteriafor and Structures as an example of Aspen Victorian, an individual building, site, structure or l designation of properties that are at least l00years old. object or a collection of buildings, sites. structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The quality of significance of properties shall be evaluated according to the criteria described below. When designating a historic district, the majority of the contributing resources in the district shall meet the criteria described below: a. The property or district is deemed significant for its antiquity. in that it contains structures which can be documented as built during the 19 century, and b. The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting, design, materials. workmanship and association. given its age. The City Council shall adopt and make avai lable to the public score sheets and other devices which shall be used by the Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply this criterion. 12 2. Application. Property owners. the Community Development Director, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) or the City Council may file an application for designation of an Aspen Victorian building, district. site, structure or object on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. The application for the designation of a property or collection of properties shall include the following_ a. The applicable information required in subsections 26.304.030_B.1.. 2.. 3., and 4. b. Site or historic district boundary map. c. Property or district description, including narrative text, photographs and/or other graphic materials that document its physical characteristics. d. Written description of how the property meets the criteria for designation. C.AspenModern 1. Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites - - Comment [all]: The criteria in this section was le of As enModem, an individual building. site. structure or Force. edbytheCriteriacommitteeoftheTask and Structures as an example P g Force. object or a collection of buildings, sites. structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The quality of significance of properties shall be evaluated according to criteria described below. When designating a historic district, the majority of the contributing resources in the district must meet at least 'two of the criteria a -d, and criterion e ' Comment [a12]: Currently only one designation described below: , criterion must be met a. The property is related to an event. pattern, or trend that has made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific event.pattern or trend is identified and documented in an adopted context paper; b. The property is related to people who have made a contribution to local. state. regional or national history that is deemed important. and the specific people are identified and documented in an adopted context paper; c. The property represents 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 and the specific physical design. designer. or philosophy is documented in an adopted context paper; d. The! property possesses such singular significance to the City. as documented by the - - Comment (a13]: This "wildcard" criteria was opinions of persons educated or experienced in the fields of history, architecture, was unfore proposed a address properties wan sa h iseance that seen and not addressed in a istonc landscape architecture, archaeology or a related field. that the property's potential context paper. demolition or major alteration would substantially diminish the character and sense of place in the city as perceived by members of the community, and e. [Mei property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting. . Comment [a14]: Integrity isdeterminedusing design. materials. workmanship and association, given its age. The City Council shall scoring sheets that have been tailored toeach architectural style in the AspenModem program . adopt and make available to the public score sheets and other devices which shall be used by the Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply this criterion. 13 2. Application. Only the iropertyl owner(s) may file an application for designation of an . ( Comment [a15]: Voluntary only AspenModern building, district, site. structure or object on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. The application for the designation of a property or collection of properties shall include the following_ a. The applicable information required in subsections 26.304.030.B.1.. 2.. 3. and 4. b. Site or historic district boundary map. c. Property or district description, including narrative text. photographs and/or other graphic materials that document its physical characteristics. d. Written description of how the property meets the criteria for designation. e. Written description of historic preservation benefits which the property owner requests be awarded at the time of designation and relationship to Section 26.415.010, Purpose and Intent of the historic preservation program. D. Review, public hearings and notice. . • - • ! . . .. • ! • .. ... . . • ... • • ' - - Comment [a16]: This language remains from the .. ' ' • pre - Ordinance #48 approach to postwar properties. 2.1.An application for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall be transmitted to the Community Development Director to determine if the application is complete. For applications filed with sufficient information, a report will be prepared by City staff for transmittal to the HPC with the relevant information on the proposed historic property or district with a recommendation to approve or disapprove and the reasons for the recommendation. 34.A date for a public hearing on a complete application will be scheduled before the HPC. Notice of the hearing shall be provided according to the provisions of Subsections 26.304.060.E.3.a., b. and c., except when the Community Development Director; HPC or City Council is the applicant. When the Community Development Director, HPC or City Council is the applicant, notice of the hearing shall be mailed to the property owner(s) within three hundred (300) feet of the property and posted on the subject property for at least thirty (30) days prior to the hearing. Notice to the property owner shall be by registered mail. In the event that there is no evidence that the property owner received actual notice, the HPC may specify that additional measures be taken. 4.3.The HPC shall evaluate the application to determine if the property or district meets the criteria for designation. At the public hearing, the property owner, parties of interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to provide information about the property or district's 14 eligibility for designation. The HPC may recommend approval, disapproval or continuance of the application to request additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Their recommendation shall be forwarded to City Council. 5.4.Upon receipt of the decision, report and recommendations of the HPC, the City Council shall schedule a hearing on the application in accordance with the notice requirements for adopting an ordinance. The City Council shall evaluate the application to determine if the property or district meets the criteria for designation. At the public hearing, the property owner, parties of interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to provide information about the property or district's eligibility for designation. The City Council may approve, disapprove or continue the application to request additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. 6.5.If an application is denied, the Community Development Director, HPC or City Council may not file a reapplication for designation of the same property or district on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures for five (5) years from the date of the City Council disapproval. (Ord. No. 1 -2002, §7 [part]; Ord. No. 30, 2007, §1) 12445.035. , ' e- reseyf•eeg, - ' Comment [a17]: This language remains from the pre - Ordinance 448 approach to postwar properties. • ' .. " ' .. . , . . . — . , - A Pr . ! 1 . • • . • . . 1 • _ . • • 15 te- believe- tlathc preperty-sheukl- e- eonsi4er en-tewy; -of 1 1 Designittief}-o - ?Isterie p'-0l )ef-ie . • • ' • • ... mil-takes • t • • .... t • .. • _ ' ' . " V . • • . t t • • • t t. • • 1 1 t t _ . . . . • 16 34/F-200-7r 26.415.040. Recordation of designation. Upon the effective date of an ordinance by City Council designating a property on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, the City Clerk shall record with the real estate records of the Clerk and Recorder of the County, a certified copy of the ordinance including a legal description of the property. The location of properties designated by ordinance also shall be indicated on the official maps of the City that are maintained by the Community Development Department. (Ord. No. 1 -2002, §7 [part]) 26.415.050. Rescinding designation. A. Application and review. An application for the removal of a property from the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall follow the same submission requirements and review procedures as for designation described in this Chapter except that with respect to Subsection 26.415.030.C.4 an explanation shall be provided describing why the property no longer meets the criteria for designation. The HPC and City Council shall determine if sufficient evidence exists that the property no longer meets the criteria for designation and, if so, shall remove the property from the inventory. A parcel created through an historic Landmark lot split cannot be de- listed unless there is a finding that the resource which originally caused the site to be landmarked meets the criteria for removal from the historic inventory. B. Reapplication. If a request for rescinding designation is denied, an application cannot be filed again for a period of two (2) years from the date of the denial by the City Council. The time limitation of this Subsection may be waived by a majority vote of the City Council when such action is deemed necessary to prevent injustice or to facilitate the proper development of the City. (Ord. No. 1- 2002, §7 [part]; Ord. No. 43, 2004, §1) 26.415.060. Effect of designation. A. Approvals required. Any development involving properties designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, as an individual building or located in an historic district, unless determined exempt, requires the approval of a development order and either a certificate of no negative effect or a certificate of appropriateness before a building permit or any other work authorization will be issued by the City. B. Design guidelines. 1. The HPC has adopted design guidelines, hereinafter referred to as the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, in accordance with the procedures for notice and public hearings set forth in Section 26.304.06(E)(3) Paragraph (a). These guidelines set forth the standards necessary to preserve and maintain the historic and architectural 17 character of designated properties and districts. The standards apply to the exterior features and/or notable streetscape and landscape elements of the designated historic property and/or district. These guidelines are intended to offer assistance to property owners undertaking construction, rehabilitation, alterations, changes in exterior appearance or any other development involving designated historic properties or districts. The guidelines will be periodically reviewed by the HPC and amended at a public hearing, as needed. 2. The "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines,' as amended, which are on file with the Community Development Department, will be used in the review of requests of certificates of no negative effect or certificates of appropriateness. Conformance with the applicable guidelines and the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304 will be necessary for the approval of any proposed work. C. Special consideration. 1. To preserve and maintain the historic and architectural character of designated properties, the HPC or City Council may approve variations from the dimensional requirements set forth in the Land Use Code and may make recommendations to the Chief Building Official who has the authority to grant certain exceptions from the International Building Code (UBC) through the provisions of the International Existing Building Code (IEBC). These modifications may not change the applicable safety and permit requirements and must also follow the procedures provided for modifications set forth in the IEBC. 2. Designated historic properties are eligible for and have priority to participate in City programs related to financial, developmental or technical assistance that will serve to preserve, maintain or enhance their historic and architectural character. 3. All City authorities, including City Council, are authorized to grant economic and developmental benefits to designated historic properties or grant these benefits conditional upon the subsequent designation of the property. (Ord. No. 1 -2002, § 7 [part]; Ord. No. 43, 2004, § 2) 26.415.070. Development involving designated historic property. 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. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a development order. A. Exempt development. 1. Selected activities are exempted from the development review procedures including interior remodeling, paint color selection, exterior repainting or replastering similar to the 18 existing finish or routine maintenance such as caulking, replacement of fasteners, repair of window glazing or other such minimally intrusive work. 2. If there is any question if a work activity qualifies as exempt, the Community Development Director shall make the determination as to its eligibility. B. Certificate of no negative effect. 1. An application for a certificate of no negative effect may be made to the Community Development Director for approval of work that has no adverse effect on the physical appearance or character - defining features of a designated property. An application for a certificate of no effect may be approved by the Community Development Director with no further review if it meets the requirements set forth in the following Subsection 26.415.070.B.2: 2. The Community Development Director shall issue a development order based upon a certificate of no negative effect within fourteen (14) days after receipt of a complete application if: a. It is determined that the activity is an eligible work item and meets the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and b. Any modifications to the proposed work requested by the Community Development Director are agreed to by the owner /applicant and c. The proposed work will not diminish, eliminate or adversely affect the significant historic and/or architectural character of the subject property or Historic District in which it is located. 3. An application for a certificate of no negative effect shall include the following: a. The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. b. Elevations or drawings of the proposed work. c. Photographs, building material samples and other exhibits, as needed, to accurately depict location, extent and design of proposed work. d. Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, Residential design standards. 4. The following work shall be considered for a Certificate of No Negative Effect: a. Replacement or repair of architectural features which creates no change to the exterior physical appearance of the building or structure. b. Replacement or repair of architectural features that restores the building or structure to its historic appearance. 19 c. Installation of awnings or similar attachments provided no significant feature is damaged, removed or obscured by the installation. d. Fencing that has no adverse effect on the historic or architectural character of the property. e. Mechanical equipment or accessory features that have no impact on the character - defining features of the building or structure. f Signs which have no effect on the character - defining features of the historic property. g. Alterations to noncontributing buildings within historic districts that have no adverse effect on its historic or architectural character. h. Alterations to no more than two (2) elements of nonprimary facades of a designated building. i. Installation of site improvements, such as walkways, patios, pools or hot tubs, or similar significant features. 5. The development order and associated certificate of no negative effect shall expire and become null and void after three (3) years from the date of issuance by the Community Development Director unless a building permit is issued within that time. 6. In the event that the Community Development Director determines that the issuance of a certificate of no negative effect is not appropriate, the owner may apply for a certificate of appropriateness from the HPC. C. Certificate of appropriateness for a minor development. 1. The review and decision on the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness for minor development shall begin with a determination by the Community Development Director that the proposed project constitutes a minor development. Minor development work includes: a. Expansion or erection of a structure wherein the increase of the floor area of the structure is two hundred and fifty (250) square feet or less or b. Alterations to a building facade, windows, doors, roof planes or material, exterior wall materials, dormer porch, exterior staircase, balcony or ornamental trim when three (3) or fewer elements are affected and the work does not qualify for a certificate of no negative effect or c. Erection or installation of a combination or multiples of awning, canopies, mechanical equipment, fencing, signs, accessory features and other attachments to designated properties such that the cumulative impact does not allow for the issuance of a certificate of no negative effect or 20 d. Alterations that are made to nonhistoric portions of a designated historic property that do not qualify for a certificate of no negative effect or e. The erection of street furniture, signs, public art and other visible improvements within designated historic districts of a magnitude or in numbers such that the cumulative impact does not allow for the issuance of a certificate of no negative effect. The Community Development Director may determine that an application for work on a designated historic property involving multiple categories of minor development may result in the cumulative impact such that it is considered a major development. In such cases, the applicant shall apply for a major development review in accordance with Subsection 26.415.07.D. 2. An application for minor development shall include the following: a. The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. b. Scaled elevations and/or drawings of the proposed work and its relationship to the designated historic buildings, structures, sites and features within its vicinity. c. An accurate representation of all building materials and finishes to be used in the development. d. Photographs and other exhibits, as needed, to accurately depict location, extent and design of proposed work. e. Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, Residential design standards or a written request for a variance from any standard that is not being met. 3. The procedures for the review of minor development projects are as follows: a. The Community Development Director will review the application materials and if they are determined to be complete, schedule a public hearing before the HPC. The subject property shall be posted pursuant to Paragraph 26.304.060.E.3.b. b. Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the - proposed project and a recommendation to approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. c. The HPC shall approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a certificate of 21 appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a development order. d. The HPC decision shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316. D. Certificate of appropriateness for major development. 1. The review and decision on the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness for major development shall begin with a determination by the Community Development Director that the proposed project constitutes a major development. A major development includes one or more of the following activities: a. The construction of a new structure within a historic district; and/or b. Alterations to more than three (3) elements of a building facade including its windows, doors, roof planes or materials, exterior wall material, dormers, porches, exterior staircase, balcony or ornamental trim; and/or c. The expansion of a building increasing the floor area by more than two hundred and fifty (250) square feet; and/or d. Any new development that has not been determined to be minor development. 2. The procedures for the review of major development projects include a two -step process requiring approval by the HPC of a conceptual development plan and then a final development plan. If a major development project involves additional City Land Use approvals, the Community Development Director may consolidate or modify the review process accordingly, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B. 3. Conceptual development plan review. a. An application for a conceptual development plan shall include the following: (1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. (2) A site plan and survey showing property boundaries, the location and orientation of existing and proposed improvements and predominant site characteristics. (3) Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form, including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary features of all elevations. (4) Preliminary selection of primary building materials to be used in construction represented by samples and/or photographs. 22 (5) Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated historic property or historic district including at least one (I) of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models or streetscape elevations. (6) Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, Residential design standards or a written request for a variance from any standard that is not being met. b. The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major development projects are as follows: (1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. (2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. (3) 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. c. The effect of approval of a conceptual development plan is as follows: (1) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall not constitute final approval of a major development project or permission to proceed with the development. Such authorization shall only constitute authorization to proceed with the preparation of an application for a final development plan. (2) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the conceptual plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the final development plan unless agreed to by the applicant. If the applicant chooses to makes substantial amendments to the conceptual design after it has been approved, a new conceptual development plan hearing shall be required. (3) Unless otherwise specified in the resolution granting conceptual development plan approval, a development application for a final development plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a conceptual development 23 plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the conceptual development plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one -time extension of the expiration date for a conceptual development plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. 4. Final development plan review. a. An application for a final development plan shall include: (1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. (2) Final drawings of all proposed structures(s) and/or addition(s) included as part of the development at 1/4" = 1.0' scale. (3) An accurate representation of all major building materials to be used in the development, depicted through samples or photographs. (4) A statement, including narrative text or graphics, indicating how the final development plan conforms to representations made or stipulations placed as a condition of the approval of the conceptual development plan. b. The procedures for the review of final development plans for major development projects are as follows: (1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for final development plan approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Paragraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c. (2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. (3) 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. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a certificate of appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a development order. 24 (4) A resolution of the HPC action will be forwarded to the City Council in accordance with Section 26.415.130 and no permit will be issued for construction of the project until the thirty (30) day "call up" period by City Council has expired. (5) Before an application for a building permit can be submitted, a final set of plans reflecting any or all required changes by the HPC or City Council must be on file with the City. Any conditions of approval or outstanding issues which must be addressed in the field or at a later time shall be noted on the plans. E. Amendments, insubstantial and substantial. There are two processes for amending plans approved pursuant to a development order and an associated certificate of appropriateness. All requests for amendments, insubstantial or substantial, must be in writing and accompanied by drawing(s) and elevations as specified below. 1. Insubstantial amendments. a. Insubstantial amendments are minor modifications to HPC approved plans that: (1) Address circumstances discovered in the course of construction that could not have been reasonably anticipated during the approval process or (2) Are necessary for conformance with building safety or accessibility codes and do not materially change the approved plans or (3) Approve specific building materials, finishes, design of ornamental trim and other such detail not provided in the HPC approved plans or (4) Change the shape, location or material of a building element or feature but maintains the same quality and approximate appearance of that found in the approved plans. b. The Community Development Director may authorize insubstantial amendments to approved plans. c. Monitoring committees established by the HPC, composed of up to two (2) members of the Commission and the Historic Preservation Officer or assign, may also authorize insubstantial amendments. d. Decisions of the Community Development Director or monitoring committee are binding. The Community Development Director or monitoring committee may determine that the proposed changes qualify as a substantial amendment and remand the matter to the HPC. e. Disapproval of a request for an insubstantial amendment may be appealed to the HPC to be considered in accordance with the procedures for substantial amendments. E Approval of insubstantial amendments of plans will be reported to the HPC at their regularly scheduled meetings. 25 2. Substantial amendments. a. All changes to approved plans that materially modify the location, size, shape, materials, design, detailing or appearance of the building elements as originally depicted must be approved by the HPC as a substantial amendment. b. An application for a substantial amendment shall include the following materials, as determined appropriate by the Community Development Director: (1) A revised site plan. (2) Revised scaled elevations and drawings. (3) Representations of building materials and finishes. (4) Photographs and other exhibits to illustrate the proposed changes. c. The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for approval of a substantial amendment and waive any submittals not considered necessary for consideration. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. d. Notice for the review of an application for a substantial amendment will include publication, posting and mailing pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. e. Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the extent of the changes relative to the approved plans and how the proposed revisions affect the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Codes. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed revisions and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. f. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. 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. (Ord. No. 1 -2002, § 7 [part]; Ord. 43, 2004, § 3) 26.415.080. Demolition of designated historic properties. It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have demonstrated significance to the community. Consequently no demolition of properties designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures will be allowed unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section. A. Procedures for considering requests for demolition of designated properties. 26 1. An application for a demolition permit for designated properties will be filed with or referred to the Community Development Director by the Chief Building Official. The applicant will be provided a written response within fourteen (14) days of the request for a demolition permit describing the submittal materials needed for consideration. 2. An application for demolition approval shall include: a. The general application information requested in Section 26.304.030 and written documentation that the Chief Building Official has determined the building an imminent hazard or b. Narrative text, graphic illustrations or other exhibits that provide evidence that the building, structure or object is of no historic or architectural value or importance. 3. When complete application materials are on file, a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice for the hearing will include publication, mailing and posting pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. The staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a staff report that analyzes the request relative to the criteria for approval. 4. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been deternined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner /applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. 27 5. The HPC shall approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to consider the demolition request. 6. If the HPC approves the demolition request then a resolution of the HPC action will be forwarded to the City Council in accordance with Section 26.415.120 and no demolition permit will be issued until the thirty (30) day "call up" period by City Council has expired. 7. If the demolition request is denied because it does not meet the aforementioned standards, the applicant may request demolition approval based upon a finding of "economic hardship," as set forth below. 8. Before a demolition permit will be issued, a certificate of appropriateness for the redevelopment or reuse plan, as provided for in Subsection 26.415.070.D, must be approved. When a demolition permit must be issued because the building, structure or object is an imminent hazard or because of the issuance of a certificate of economic hardship, the permit may be received prior to the approval of an acceptable reuse plan. 13. Procedures for obtaining a certificate of economic hardship. I. Purpose: It is the policy of the City to respect private property rights. The City recognizes, therefore, that there may be some circumstances in which the operation of this Chapter could create an undue economic hardship. This provision is created to provide property owners with a means of demonstrating that such a hardship may exist and that they should be allowed to demolish a designated historic property because of that hardship. It is the intent of this provision to insure that no private property is taken without just compensation. 2. Standard of review: The standard of review for a determination of economic hardship will be whether refusing to allow the property owner to demolish the property would result in a violation of the prohibitions of the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions against taking of private property for public use without just compensation as those prohibitions are interpreted by the courts of Colorado and the United States. In applying the standards, the economic benefits of financial, developmental and technical assistance from the City and the utilization of any federal and state rehabilitation tax credit programs may be considered. 3. Application: a. Upon receiving a request for a certificate of economic hardship, the Community Development Director shall provide a written response within fourteen (14) days as to the submittal materials required. b. Within five (5) days after receipt of an application for a certificate of economic hardship, the Community Development Director shall determine whether the application is complete. If he or she determines that the application is not complete, the Director shall notify the applicant in writing of the deficiencies. The Director shall take no further steps to process the application until the deficiencies have been remedied. 28 c. The application fee shall be set to defray all costs of the review process, including the fees of an independent hearing officer. 4. Administrative process: a. When the application is complete, the Community Development Director will refer the application to the Historic Preservation Officer and the City Attorney for review. The Historic Preservation Officer and City Attorney shall jointly prepare a report setting forth the City's response. b. In the event the City response concludes that the application does not demonstrate a case of economic hardship, the application will be set for a public hearing before a hearing officer. c. The hearing officer will be contracted by the City to conduct an impartial quasi - judicial hearing on the question of economic hardship. The Officer shall have sufficient legal and technical experience to conduct a fair hearing in accordance with appropriate standards of due process. The application, all support materials and the City's report shall be provided to the hearing officer in advance of the hearing. At the hearing, the applicant will be provided with an opportunity to present his application and may be represented by counsel. The City position will be presented by the City Attorney. 5. Appeal: An applicant may appeal the decision of the hearing officer to District Court pursuant to Rule 106 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. (Ord. No. 1- 2002, §7 [part]; Ord. No. 30, 2007, §4) 26.415.090. Relocation of designated properties. The intent of this Chapter is to preserve designated historic properties in their original locations as much of their significance is embodied in their setting and physical relationship to their surroundings as well as their association with events and people with ties to particular site. However, it is recognized that occasionally the relocation of a property may be appropriate as it provides an alternative to demolition or because it only has a limited impact on the attributes that make it significant. A. Application. An application for relocation shall include: 1. The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. 2. A written description and/or graphic illustrations of the building, structure or object proposed for relocation. 3. A written explanation of the type of relocation requested (temporary, on -site or off -site) and justification for the need for relocation. 4. A written report from a licensed engineer or architect regarding the soundness of the building, structure or object, its ability to withstand the physical move and its rehabilitation needs, once relocated. 29 5. A conceptual plan for the receiving site providing preliminary information on the property boundaries, existing improvements and site characteristics and the associated planned improvements. 6. If the applicant does not own the receiving site, proof from the sites property owner of the willingness to accept the relocated building, structure or object. 7. Evidence that the applicant has or is seeking the necessary approvals to place the building on the identified receiving site. If the site is outside of the city limits, verification that the building will be preserved on its new site through a formal action of the other jurisdiction or a preservation easement. 8. Evidence of the financial ability to undertake the safe relocation, preservation and repair of the building, structure or object; site preparation and construction of necessary infrastructure through the posting of bonds or other financial measures deemed appropriate. 9. Supplementary materials to provide an understanding of the larger context for the relocated property and its impact on adjacent properties, the neighborhood or streetscape. B. Procedures for the review of relocation request. 1. The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for relocation approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. 2. Notice for the review of the relocation request shall include publication, posting and mailing pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. 3. If the relocation request is part of a major development project, the Community Development Director may consolidate or modify the review process accordingly pursuant to Section 26.304.060.B. 4. Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the standards for relocation approval set forth below, the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine if the standards for relocation have been met. 5. The HPC shall approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. 6. A resolution of the HPC action will be forwarded to the City Council in accordance with Section 26.415.120 and no relocation will occur until after the thirty (30) day "call up" period of the City Council has expired. C. Standards for the relocation of designated properties. Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 30 1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. D. Procedures for considering request for relocation of properties under consideration for designation. While it is the intent of this Chapter to preserve properties of demonstrated significance, it is also recognized that all buildings and areas of importance to the general welfare, prosperity and civic pride of its citizenry cannot be identified, evaluated, documented and designated at one time. However, it is important to protect properties which potentially qualify for designation against needless loss until review and hearings can be completed. 1. No relocation will be permitted for properties under consideration for designation to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures unless relocation approval is issued by the Historic Preservation Commission or City Council. 2. All properties under consideration for designation and, therefore, subject to the temporary stay of relocation will be identified on a list maintained by the Chief Building Official. Property owners will be notified by registered mail that their property is under consideration for designation and have an opportunity to review all materials compiled at that time to verify accuracy. 3. These procedures shall apply to any building located within an area under preliminary application for designation from the time the application is filed until the time action is taken on the application by the City Council. 4. If a public hearing to consider the application for designation is not held by the City Council within six (6) months of the initiation of the stay, the stay will expire. An additional six -month stay period may be approved by City Council in the form of a resolution, at a public hearing, with a showing of good cause. (Ord. No. 1- 2002, § 7 [part]) 31 26.415.100. Demolition by neglect. It is the intent of this Chapter to address the range of circumstances that affect the preservation of the community's significant historic and architectural resources. It is further recognized that many historic buildings and structures are lost because of deterioration from lack of maintenance. Whether this occurs unintentionally or through deliberate decisions, the result is the same: the loss of community assets. Consequently, it is declared that the exterior features of any designated building or structure shall be preserved against decay and deterioration and kept free from structural defects. The designated structures shall receive reasonable care, maintenance and upkeep appropriate for their preservation, protection, perpetuation and use. A. Standards for reasonable care and upkeep. 1. The owner or such other person who may have legal possession, custody and control thereof of a designated property shall, upon written request by the City, repair the following exterior features if they are found to be deteriorating or if their condition is contributing to deterioration such that it is likely to compromise the building's structural integrity or as to create or permit the creation of any hazardous or unsafe condition to life, health or other property. These features include, but are not limited to: a. Deterioration of exterior walls, foundations or other vertical supports that causes leaning, sagging, splitting, listing or buckling. b. Deterioration of flooring or floor supports or other horizontal members that causes leaning, sagging, splitting, listing or buckling. c. Deterioration of extemal chimneys that cause leaning, sagging, splitting, listing or buckling. d. Deterioration or crumbling of exterior plasters or mortars. e. Ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roofs and foundations, including broken windows or doors. f. Defective protection or lack of weather protection for exterior wall and roof coverings, including lack of paint or weathering due to lack of paint or other protective covering. g. Rotting, holes and other forms of decay. h. Deterioration of exterior stairs, porches, handrails, window and door frames, cornices, entablatures, wall facings ornamental trim and other architectural details that cause delamination, instability, loss of shape and form or crumbling. B. Enforcement procedures. 1. The HPC may file a petition listing specific defects, in accordance with Subsection 26.415.110.A, with the Chief Building Official, requesting that the official act under the following procedures to require the correction of the defects or repairs to designated properties. 32 2. Whenever a petition is filed, the Chief Building Official shall attempt to make direct personal contact with the owner or other such persons having legal possession or custody and/or his representative. If personal contact cannot reasonably be accomplished, then written notification of the specific defects purported by the HPC and a request to inspect the property within ten (10) days will be mailed to the owner and other such persons having legal possession, custody and control and will be posted at a conspicuous location appropriate to the identified defects. In the written notification the Chief Building Official shall document the nature of the specific defects and the corrective action ordered. 3. After receiving agreement from the owner, his representatives or other such persons having legal possession, custody and control of the property for an inspection, the Chief Building Official and the HPC Officer shall within ten (10) working days conduct an investigation and prepare a written report determining whether the property requires work to address conditions set, forth in Subsection 26.415.100.A.1. 4. If the property is found to contain conditions needing correction, the owner, his representative or other such persons having legal possession, custody and control of the property will be served within fourteen (14) days with a complaint identifying the property deficiencies and providing notice that a hearing will be held before a Hearing Officer of the City within forty -five (45) days. The purpose of the hearing is to: a. Receive evidence concerning the charge of deterioration and b. Develop a plan and schedule for making the needed repairs in a timely fashion, such that the building is stabilized and the deterioration is arrested and c. Ascertain whether the owner or other parties intend to make application for financial assistance from the City to correct the building defects. 5. Following such notice and hearing, the Hearing Officer will make a determination if there are any corrections required pursuant to Subsection 26.415.110.A.1 and shall state in writing the findings of fact in support of that determination. If it is determined that the building or structure is undergoing deterioration or if its condition is contributing to deterioration, the owner or other parties of interest will be served an order to repair those defective elements of the structure within a reasonable specified time frame. 6. If the owner fails to make the necessary repairs within the identified time frame, the City may undertake the work to correct the deficiencies that create any hazardous and unsafe conditions to life, health and property. The expense of this work will be recorded as a lien on the property. C. AppeaL Within thirty (30) days, the owner may appeal the decision of the Hearing Officer to the Board of Appeals and Examiners pursuant to the process established in Chapter 8.08 of this Municipal Code. (Ord. No. 1 -2002 § 7 [part]) 26.415.110. Benefits. The City is committed to providing support to property owners to assist their efforts to maintain, preserve and enhance their historic properties. Recognizing that these properties are valuable 33 community assets is the basic premise underlying the provision of special procedures and programs for designated historic properties and districts. comment [a18]: All historic preservation information has been combined into one chapter. Benefits to encourage good historic preservation practices by the owners of historic properties are an important aspect of Aspen's historic preservation program. Historic resources are a valuable community asset and their continued protection is the basic premise supporting the creation of an innovative package of preservation tools that are unlike any other in the country. Aspen's preservation benefits are in response to tight historic preservation controls that have been legislated by the City since 1972. The Community Development Department and Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) are dedicated to assisting property owners in renovating and maintaining their property. Aspen is unique. Its historic resources and spirit of community have not been duplicated anywhere else in the world. It is this basic character that has helped make the City both economically vital and cherished by many. All properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures may be eligible for the following benefits. A. Historic landmark lot split. Properties listed on the Aspen - -- comment ram: This sentence includes Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures may receive an exemption from the mcorred code citations, which are eliminated . subdivision and growth management quota system, pursuant to Sections 26.480430 and 26.470:9 T0, allowing owners of designated historic properties to create a second unit in addition to the historic building on their lot through the subdivision of the property. Refer to specific zone district information in Chapter 26.710 for further information. All parcels created through a Historic Landmark lot split shall retain designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. 1. An application for a lot split of a designated historic property may be filed by the owner by providing the standard information required in Chapter 26.304. 2. The procedure for the review of a historic lot split application is a two -step process including a public hearing before the HPC and the City Council. Notice for these hearings includes publication, mailing and posting pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. 3. Staff will review the submittal material and prepare a report with relevant information and a recommendation to continue, approve, approve with conditions or disapprove and the reason for the recommendation. 4. The HPC may approve a resolution, recommending that City Council approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the application. 5. The City Council may, by ordinance, approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the application. 34 B. Increased density. Two detached single - family dwelling units or a duplex may be allowed on a smaller sized lot than is required for a non - designated property. Refer to specific zone district information in Chapter 26.710 for further information. &C.Variances. Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district than what would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards. 1. The HPC may grant variances of the Land Use Code for designated properties to allow: a. Development in the side, rear and front setbacks; b. Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between buildings; c. Up to five percent (5 %) additional site coverage; d. Less open space than required for the on -site relocation of commercial historic properties. 2. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. ED.Parldng. Parking reductions are permitted for designated historic properties on sites unable to contain the number of on -site parking spaces required by the underlying zoning. Commercial designated historic properties may receive waivers of payment -in -lieu fees for parking reductions. The parking reduction and waiver of payment -in -lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district. Refer to Chapter 26.515 for further information. $:E.Conditional uses. A variety of conditional uses are allowed for designated historic properties. These uses are identified in Chapter 26.710. E:F.Floor area bonus. 1. In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; 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; 35 1 c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. 2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices. Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater likelihood of being awarded additional floor area. 3. The decision to grant a floor area bonus for major development projects will occur as part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Subsection 26.415.070.D. The floor area bonus may also be approved as part of a Historic Landmark Lot Split Review. No development application that includes a request for a floor area bonus may be submitted until after the applicant has met with the HPC in a work session to discuss how the proposal might meet the bonus considerations. F:G.Exemption from growth management quota system requirements. Certain types of development on designated historic properties are exempt from the growth management quota system and have reduced impact mitigation requirements. Refer to Chapter 26.470 for further information. GH.Waiver of impact fees. ! • • : : • .. • • • • • . • • • . . . . . . _ _.. _ . , _ . , - • • • , . , - 52 2003, § 9) Designated historic properties may be eligible for waiver of Impact Fees. Refer to Chapter 26.610 for further information. 1. Rehabilitation loan fund. City Council may approve a zero interest loan in an amount up to twenty -five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) for any property that is in violation of Section 26.415.100 of the Land Use Code, Demolition by Neglect, or to fund other rehabilitation work which is considered necessary for the preservation or restoration of a designated structure. To be eligible for this benefit, a property owner shall show evidence of financial need. These one -time loans shall be repaid at the time of transfer -of -title or by the end of ten (10) years, whichever comes first. J. Conservation easement program. The City may accept a "Conservation Easement" from a property owner who wishes to forgo any of the allowed square footage on their property in exchange for a federal tax deduction. A deed restriction shall be filed on the site to show that 36 future development is limited. The Live hundred (500) square foot floor area bonus provided in Subsection 26.415.120€ of the Land Use Code cannot be donated as a conservation easement. K. City -owned building rehabilitation fund. The City shall give priority in the asset management plan to budgeting the funds necessary to adequately maintain. rehabilitate or restore City -owned designated properties. L. Transferable Development Right (TDR). Per Pursuant to Chapter 26.535 of this Code, owners of properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures may sever and convey, as a separate development right, undeveloped floor area to be developed on a different and- Ineehisterie property within the City. Refer to Section - -Comment (a201: A 2007 code amendment 26.710, Zone Districts for further information on landing sites for TDRs. only for the he p to be landed on historic properties, only for t purpose of increasing the maximum size of a free market unit in a mixed use building by 500 M. Tax credit applications. Cit Community Development staff shall assist property square feet owners in participating in State and Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit programs by helping with the preparation of application materials, undertaking the necessary reviews to assist in obtaining certification. A twenty percent (20 %) state rehabilitation income tax credit may be available for locally designated properties and may be combined with a twenty percent (20 %) Federal Income Tax Credit which is may be available for income producing properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places. N. Community - initiated development. The City will shall consider opportunities to be involved in public - privately funded rehabilitation efforts, building expansion, or infill projects that demonstrate good historic preservation practices. O. Building codes. The International Building Code (IBC) provides for flexibility in its application to historic structures. In addition to the IBC, the City has adopted the International Existing Building Code (IEBC) to assist owners in making repairs in a manner that minimizes intrusion into the historic structure. P. Contractor training. The Community Development Department shall provide periodic workshops for contractors on proper preservation techniques, using grants or other sources of funding. Q Cultural heritage tourism. Through grants or other sources of funding. the City may facilitate collaborative partnerships among tourist industry sectors. historic property owners and cultural heritage attractions to create a marketing strategy and marketing products to attract visitors interested in the distinctive historic character of Aspen. R. Preservation honor awards. The Aspen Historic Preservation Commission shall present annual awards to recognize exemplary historic preservation efforts in the City. S. Historic markers. Through grants or other sources of funding. the City shall knayl provide a Comment [a21]: There is no funding source in owner of a designated historic property who desires place for the City to guarantee a historic marker to historic marker of a standard design for any g P P all of the nearly 300 properties included in the a marker to install on their building. The City may also develop a marker or signage program to preservation program. recognize designated historic districts. 26.415.120. Appeals, notice to City Council and call up. 37 � k A. AppeaL Any action by the HPC in approving, approving with conditions or disapproving a development order and an associated certificate of appropriateness for major development, demolition approval or relocation approval may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant or a property owner within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316. B. Notice to City CounciL Following the adoption of a resolution approving, approving with conditions or disapproving a development application for a certificate of appropriateness for major development, demolition approval or relocation approval of a designated property, the HPC shall promptly notify the City Council of its action to allow the City Council an opportunity to avail itself of the call -up procedure set forth in Subsection 26.415.120.0 and D. C. Call -up. The City Council may order call up of any action taken by the HPC as described in Section 26.415.070 within thirty (30) days of the decision, action or determination. Consequently no associated permits can be issued during the thirty (30) day call -up period. D. City Council action on appeal or call -up. The City Council shall consider the application on the record established before the HPC. The City Council shall affirm the decision of the HPC unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process or the HPC has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. The City Council shall take such action as is deemed necessary to remedy said situation, including, but not limited to: 1. Reversing the decision. 2. Altering the conditions of approval. 3. Remanding the application to the HPC for rehearing. (Ord. No. 1 -2002, § 7 [part]; Ord. No. 52 -2003, § 10) 26.415.130. Variances by other City review bodies. If an application for a variance involving a designated property is before the Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission, the HPC will be given the opportunity to make a written recommendation as to its approval. The Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission will not take action on said development application for a variance pursuant to Chapter 26.314, without receiving the written recommendation from the HPC. (Ord. No. 1 -2002 § 7 [part]) 26.415.140. Penalties. Any person violating the provisions of Sections 26.415.070 through 26.415.100 will be subject to the general penalty provisions of this Title. A. Additional penalties. Additional penalties for the violation of Sections 26.415.070 through 26.415.100 include: 1. Any person who constructs, alters, relocates, changes the appearance or demolishes a designated property in violation of any section may be required to restore the building, structure or setting to its appearance prior to the violation. 38 1 2. Following notice and public hearing, the HPC shall prohibit the owner, successor or assigns from obtaining a building permit for the subject property for a period of up to ten (10) years from the date of the violation. The City shall initiate proceedings to place a deed restriction on the property to ensure enforcement of this penalty. The property owner shall be required to maintain the property during that period of time in conformance with the Standards for reasonable care and upkeep set forth in Subsection 26.415.100A. 3. Any variances or historic preservation benefits previously granted to the property may be subject to revocation. (Ord. No. 1 -2002, § 7 [part]) Chapter 26.420 Benefits This chapter is proposed to be deleted in its entirety. The content of the Chapter has been imported into Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation, above. Chapter 26.535 TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) Sections: Sec. 26.535.010 Purpose Sec. 26.535.020 Terminology Sec. 26.535.030 Applicability and prohibitions Sec. 26.535.040 Authority Sec. 26.535.050 Procedure for establishing an historic transferable development right certificate Sec. 26.535.060 Procedure for extinguishing an historic transferable development right certificate Sec. 26.535.070 Review criteria for establishment of an historic transferable development right Sec. 26.535.080 Review criteria for extinguishment of an historic transferable development right Sec. 26.535.090 Application materials Sec. 26.535.100 Appeals 26.535.010. Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to encourage the preservation of historic landmarks, those properties listed on the Aspen "Inventory of #hHistoric'Landmark sSites and sStructures and those properties identified on the AspenModern Map, within the City by permitting those property owners to sever and convey, as a separate development right, undeveloped floor area to be developed on a different property within the City. The program enables standard market forces and the demand for residential floor area, to accomplish a community goal of preserving Aspen's heritage as reflected in its built environment. (Ord. No. 54 -2003, § §4, 5; Ord. No. 16 -2008) 39 1 26.535.020. Terminology. Establishment of a TDR. The process of creating an historic TDR certificate in exchange for a property owner lessening the allowable development on an historic property (the sending site) through a permanent deed restriction. Extinguishment of a TDR. The process of increasing the allowable development on a property (the receiver site), as permitted in the Zone District, through the redemption of an historic TDR certificate. Historic transferable development right certificate (historic TDR certificate). An irrevocable assignable property right which allows a certain amount of development, which may be conveyed separate from the property in which it has historically been associated (the sending site) and which may be used to increase development rights on another property (the receiver site). TDR certificates shall require execution by the Mayor, pursuant to a validly adopted ordinance. Receiver site. A property on which developments rights are increased in exchange for the City extinguishing an historic TDR certificate held by the developer of the property. Receiver sites are also referred to as landing sites. Sending site. The designated historic landmark property, or property identified on the AspenModern Map, being preserved by reducing its allowable floor area in exchange for the City establishing and issuing an historic TDR certificate. (Ord. 54- 2003, § §4, 5) 26.535.030. Applicability and prohibitions. This chapter shall apply to properties eligible for issuance of a Historic TDR Certificate, known as Sending Sites, and properties eligible for the extinguishment of a Historic TDR Certificate, known as Receiving Sites. City of Aspen Historic TDR Certificates may only be used within the city limits of the City of Aspen, as hereinafter indicated, or in unincorporated Pitkin County, if and as may be permitted by the Pitkin County land Use Code. Pitkin County TDRs are not eligible for extinguishment within the City of Aspen. Sending Sites shall include all properties within the City of Aspen designated as a Historic Landmark, those properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, and those properties identified on the AspenModern Map, in which the development of a single - family or duplex home is a permitted use, according to Chapter 26.710, Zone Districts. Properties on which such development is a conditional use shall not be eligible. Sending Sites may also be established through adoption of a Final PUD Development Plan, pursuant to Chapter 26.445. Sending sites shall remain eligible for all benefits, bonuses, etc. allowed properties designated a Historic Landmark after establishment of transferable development rights, pursuant to Chapter 26.415. 40 Receiving Sites shall include all properties in the City of Aspen permitted additional development rights for extinguishment of a Historic TDR is Chapter 26.710, Zone Districts. A property may also be designated as a Receiving Site through adoption of a Final PUD Development Plan, pursuant to Chapter 26.445. The allowable development extinguishment of a Historic TDR Certificate varies depending upon the zone district of the Receiving Site and the use of the land. Chapter 26.710, Zone Districts, describes the development allowance for each Historic TDR Certificate extinguished. A Historic TDR Certificate may be sold, assigned, transferred, or conveyed. Transfer of Title shall be evidenced by an assignment of ownership on the actual certificate document. Upon transfer, the new owner may request the City re -issue the certificate acknowledging the new owner. Re- issuance shall not require re- adoption of an ordinance. The market for Historic TDR Certificates is unrestricted and the City shall not prescribe or guarantee the monetary value of a Historic TDR Certificate. The Community Development Director shall establish policies and procedures not inconsistent with this Chapter for the printing of certificates, their safe- keeping, distribution, recordation, control, and extinguishments. (Ord. No. 54 -2003, §§ 4, 5; Ord. No. 16 -2008) 26.535.040. Authority. The City Council, in accordance with the procedures, standards and limitations of this Chapter and of Chapter 26.304, Common development review procedures, shall approve or disapprove, pursuant to adoption of an ordinance, a land use application for the establishment of historic transferable development rights. The Mayor, in accordance with the procedures, standards and limitations of this Chapter and of Section 26.304, Common development review procedures, shall validate and issue historic TDR certificates, pursuant to a validly adopted ordinance. The Community Development Director, in accordance with the procedures, standards and limitations of this Chapter and of Section 26.304, Common development review procedures, shall approve or disapprove a land use application for the extinguishment of historic transferable development rights. (Ord. No. 54 -2003, §§ 4, 5) 26.535.050. Procedure for establishing a historic transferable development right certificate. The following steps are necessary for the issuance of a City historic transferable development right certificate: Preapplication conference. Property owners interested in the City's historic TDR program are encouraged to meet with a member of the Community Development Department to clarify the process, benefits and limitations of the program. 41 Owner confirmation. An application for the issuance of a historic TDR certificate shall only be accepted by the City upon submission of a notarized affidavit from the sending site property owner signifying understanding of the following concepts: A deed restriction will permanently encumber the sending site and restrict that property's development rights to below that allowed by right by zoning according to the number of historic TDR certificates established from that sending site. For each certificate of development right issued by the City for the particular sending site, that property shall be allowed two hundred and fifty (250) square feet less of floor area, as permitted according to the property's zoning, as amended. The sending site property owner shall have no authority over the manner in which the certificate of development right is used by subsequent owners of the historic TDR certificate. Application for issuance of historic TDR certificate. An applicant shall supply the necessary application materials, identified in Section 26.535.090, Application materials, along with applicable review fees. City review and approval of application. The Community Development Department shall review the application according to the review standards identified in Section 26.535.070, Review criteria for establishment of a historic TDR and shall forward a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council shall approve or disapprove the establishment of a historic TDR certificate by adoption of an ordinance, according to the review standards identified in Section 26.535.070, Review criteria for establishment of a historic TDR. The manner of public notice shall be publication, pursuant to Paragraph 26.304.060.E.3.a. Scheduling of closing date. Upon satisfaction of all relevant 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 County Clerk and Recorder. Closing. On the mutually agreed upon closing date, the Mayor 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 together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the County Clerk and Recorder's Office. (Ord. 54 -2003, §§ 4, 5) 26.535.060. Procedure for extinguishing a historic transferable development right certificate. The following steps are necessary for the extinguishment of a City historic transferable development right certificate: Preapplication conference. Property owners interested in the City's historic TDR program are encouraged to meet with a member of the Community Development Department to 42 clarify the process, benefits and limitations of the program. Applicants are encouraged to meet with the City Zoning Officer and review potential development plans to ensure the additional development right can be properly incorporated on the receiver site. Associated planning reviews. An applicant must gain all other necessary approvals for the proposed development, as established by this Title. Application for building permit. An applicant shall submit the necessary materials for a building permit, pursuant to Section 26.304.075, Building permit. Confirmation of historic TDR certificate. The applicant shall submit the requisite historic TDR certificates, and the City shall confirm its or their, authenticity. City review of application. The Community Development Department shall review the application according to the review standards identified in Section 26.535.070, Review standards for extinguishment of a historic TDR. Extinguishment of historic TDR certificate. Prior to and as a condition of, issuance of a building permit for a development on a receiver site requiring the extinguishment of a historic TDR certificate, the applicant shall assign the requisite historic TDR certificates to the City whereupon the certificates shall be marked "extinguished." The property shall permanently maintain the additional development benefit of the extinguished TDR according to the development allowance for a TDR pursuant to Section 26.710, Zone Districts. The property owner may, at their discretion, record a confirmation letter from the Community Development Director acknowledging the extinguishment of the TDR(s) for the receiver site. (Ord. No. 54 -2003, §§ 4, 5) 26.535.070. Review criteria for establishment of a historic transferable development right. A historic TDR certificate may be established by the Mayor if the City Council, pursuant to adoption of an ordinance, finds all the following standards met: A. The sending site is a historic landmark or property identified on the AspenModern Map, on which the development of a single- family or duplex residence is a permitted use, pursuant to Chapter 26.710, Zone Districts. 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. C. It is demonstrated that the establishment of TDR certificates will not create a nonconformity. In cases where a nonconformity already exists, the action shall not increase the specific nonconformity. 43 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 for a single - family or duplex residence, 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. F. The proposed deed restriction permanently restricts the maximum 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. For properties with multiple or unlimited floor areas for certain types of allowed uses, the maximum development of the property, independent of the established property use, shall be the floor area of a single - family or duplex residence (whichever is permitted) minus two hundred fifty (250) square feet of floor area multiplies 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 for a single - family or duplex residence, 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 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 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. (Ord. 54- 2003, §§ 4, 5) 26.535.080. Review criteria for extinguishment of a historic transferable development right. Historic TDR certificates may be extinguished to accommodate additional development if the Community Development Director finds the following standards have been met: 44 A. The receiving site is not restricted by a prescribed floor area limitation or the restricting document permits the extinguishment of historic TDR certificates for additional development rights. B. The receiving site and is eligible to receive an increase in development rights as specified in Chapter 26.710, Zoning Districts, according to the Zone District and the land use or as otherwise specified in a final PUD plan for the property. C. All other necessary approvals for the proposed development on the receiver site, as established by this Title, have been obtained. D. The applicant has submitted the requisite authentic historic TDR certificates for redemption. E. The applicant has submitted the necessary materials for a building permit on the receiver site, pursuant to Section 26.304.075, Building permit and the additional development can be accommodated on the receiver site in conformance with all other relevant requirements. F. Prior to and as a condition of, issuance of a building permit for a development requiring the extinguishment of a historic TDR certificates, the applicant shall assign and deliver the authentic certificates to the City whereupon the certificates shall be marked "extinguished." G. The Community Development Director shall issue a letter confirming the extinguishment of the TDR certificates and increasing the available development rights of the receiver site. The applicant may wish to record this document with the County Clerk and Recorder. The confirmation letter shall not stipulate an absolute total floor area, but shall stipulate a square footage increase from the allowable floor area, according to the Zone District and land use of the receiver site at the time of building permit submission. The receiver site shall remain subject to amendments to the allowable floor area and eligible for certain floor area incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City Land Use Code, as may be amended from time to time. The form of the confirmation letter shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. H. The development allowed on the receiver site by extinguishment of historic TDR certificates shall be that allowed in Chapter 26.710, Zone Districts, according to the Zone District and the land use or as otherwise specified in a final PUD plan for the receiver site and shall not permit the creation of a nonconforming use or structure. (Ord. No. 54 -2003, § §4, 5; Ord. No. 16 -2008) 26.535.090. Application materials. A. The contents of a development application to establish an historic TDR certificate shall be as follows: 1. The general application information required in Common development review procedures, Chapter 26.304. 2. A notarized affidavit from the sending site property owner signifying acknowledgment of the following: 45 a. A deed restriction will permanently encumber the sending site and restrict that property's development rights to below that allowed by right by zoning according to the number of historic TDR certificates established from that sending site. b. For each certificate of development right issued by the City for the particular sending site, that property shall be allowed two hundred and fifty (250) square feet less of floor area, as permitted according to the property's zoning, as amended. c. The sending site property owner shall have no authority over the manner in which the certificate of development right is used by subsequent owners of the historic TDR certificate. 3. A site improvement survey of the sending site depicting: a. Existing natural and man -made site features. b. All legal easements and restrictions. 4. Dimensioned, scaled drawings of the existing development on the sending site and a floor area analysis of all structures thereon. 5. A proposed deed restriction for the sending site. 6. Written response to each of the review criteria. B. The contents of a development application to extinguish an historic TDR certificate shall be as follows: 1. The necessary application materials for a complete building permit submission, pursuant to Section 26.304.075, Building permit. 2. Written response to each of the review criteria. (Ord. No. 54- 2003, § §4, 5) 26.535.100. Appeals An applicant aggrieved by a determination made by the Community Development Director, pursuant to this Section, may appeal the decision to the City Council, pursuant to the procedures and standards of Chapter 26.316, Appeals. An applicant aggrieved by a determination made by the City Council, pursuant to this Section, may appeal the decision to a court of competent jurisdiction. (Ord. No. 54 -2003, §5) 46 i - ---- ___)C 14 I 17- ( A--C_:..._--- f r " You don't have to go to Germany to see the Bauhaus. • Come to aspen." ASPEN MODERN.. Acor s environmental hear?. hat 7 mtpieed geaeruliuns of architects. 1 4 r `� '( 1 ti 1 l l l 1 1 I t' N I inc5sding modernist luasinarirs such _„ as Marcel Breuer. Holbert Bayer. and I ., l t 1 ` I 1 1 1 1 1'. [ 1 l loin hautner. Not all of their buildings made it through to the tarn i of the oeraune, hoarser. - Hess is e begun'mt: affirmed architect Harry • Teague. welcoming alto• uttditatee to pom in this newan of prosecuti ' on ronvemaonm. Teague wis ptined by State Sateen fail Schwartz and ottu7 cx 'n as part pal a panel • dienuoioo htcused on the Iola of a nember of eignTeant modern a strunaro anti the poulbiltly ni era +ng [xl.:n. 1~seuu It the eunseraation owned ley phlltueophical and more I pragmatic. One audience memb chalieogct the panelist's to cone up with a slogan to &OW atcchitecturuI tourists and enhance the local \ I . • m'i' Or Peggy Smith, a profeufa at Wake f ierst 1 ktivers ey • and teethe- oFm upcoming battle nn American aki retort architecture. • 1: 1 ktsas: • ltssrs_ r enmpk �.Q local came up whb w ...inner [m the spot *You ILO have to go to Carron? to kr... •tw: c c a..,iac es o MO. uhne see the Benham. Cone M Aspen.' wall acrd mini tww.ls al the A.apen Me daws. s Suw. chalet style Aamc � l� felkdsl he the txkct tl awl the tarsal Aspen IReury an MI�n emr,tgh lxaldusko torsion Thu City of St.. non 11.11 to Destgat N4sfA+bal, :Lspm n [ +trtern.'?• mC *1 in a - P nu-mixer i� efbttt to uoneterve its .nu:al[•rntst heritage and tjaia 1 pf-: rt kw an idea that . an be csrnt oruraial �« �(.1� 1 - in a oantlt toutonic that traces it■ raOta • -• }!°� F � F• tlr t " to the Ii- I(.t, Critics Mien loin to the . i '' i s .. a t' ji • _ annual Cheri melon arc+ itectutc . ASPEN If MOWN POS NSW THINGS, the damned the past rulhrr than whale -hot ski slopes and p irivtexptc 4'irtorirn mining procreated i. They n wnfns ihr.httna: ttrttagen come to mind. Lately. haweeer. it is the c yi - cif older tin ctures in the snake of ecdleertua of Huulvas.11adern and Swiss draper anhl- - pretrial' Yet, ad xatra trope tibia in•Wre tau n Am wsut� national utrntam. A 141,411 ° this event tan help tlw public see • uyrryuwium. [txuJnuted b y the City of Aspen and the • • their horn . it r in a new light. and r hktiors Trust kw Hashnir listanvahm, brought celebrate eta I •` 'i II tctcred hisunir tat 1 ' together mare than 100 Iw plc to debate and digest the post-and y ! Aspen. people and their architecture. post-and fuutre�d .Atpenti 20th entaun buildings from Ihr prat and tame our own I and landtioi t. l'<• :ccml men txtcn A Exhibit D Staff analysis of how AspenModern addresses the Historic Preservation Task Force's October 2009 Recommendations TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the Record of Votes The following recommendations reflect the majority opinion of the Task Force. This opinion is based on votes to questions presented to the group by the committees charged with exploring the following topics: Historic Districts, Criteria, Architecture, Voluntary vs. Involuntary & Economics and Incentives. These are identified in capital italics at the end of each recommendation. Additional issues raised by individual Task Force members are identified as Gap topics. I. WHY PRESERVE A. The Task Force finds that the people, trends, and events after WWII have significantly influenced the development of the Aspen we know today. These chapters are an important part of our community's story, and they are worthy of conveying to Aspen's residents and visitors now and in the future. (CRITERIA vote No. 1: Passed 16 - 4) ADDRESSED IN ASPENMODERN? This is a philosophical statement by the Task Force. AspenModern is intended to convey the community's story now and in the future. B. The Task Force finds that elements of the built environment that are contemporaneous with post WWII people and events are a reflection of that history and some may be worthy of preservation. (CRITERIA vote No. 2: Passed 19 - 1) ADDRESSED IN ASPENMODERN? This is a philosophical statement by the Task Force. AspenModern is intended to identify which aspects of the built environment are worthy of preservation. II. VOLUNTARY VS. INVOLUNTARY A. Owner consent is not needed to pursue a landmark designation application for Post World War II properties. (GAP vote No. 1: Passed I - 10) ADDRESSED IN ASPENMODERN? AspenModern requires owner consent for all designation, so the proposal doesn't match the Task Force recommendation, which was a very close /split vote. Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance for voluntary preservation only. B. No changes to the Landmark designation process for currently designated historic landmarks should be made. This applies to properties that are 100 years old and older and currently designated Post WWII buildings. (VOLUNTARY VS. INVOLUNTARY vote No. 1: Passed 15 - 4 w/ 1 abstention) 1 ADDRESSED IN ASPENMODERN? The proposed ordinance does not change the designation process for Victorian era properties and terms their preservation Aspen Victorian to distinguish from AspenModern. III. WHAT TO PRESERVE A. The Task Force proposes amendments to criteria code language. (CRITERIA vote No.3: Passed 12 - 4 w/ 4 abstentions) (See revised sample ordinance language in detailed vote descriptions.) ADDRESSED IN ASPENMODERN? The proposed language is included in the ordinance, with minor word - smithing for clarity. B. The Context Papers are a key component of the criteria filter. They are intended to establish the historic context of potential resources being considered. The Task Force proposes that existing Context Papers be updated and new ones prepared. (CRITERIA vote No. 4: Passed 15 - 5) ADDRESSED IN ASPENMODERN? Improvements to the context papers are complete. C. The Integrity Scoring Sheets are the second filter in the designation process. At this stage, the physical quality and condition of the potential historic resource are evaluated. The very best examples are distinguished from the rest of the field. The sample Integrity Scoring Sheet is a work in progress. Because this is such an important step in the overall designation process, we believe it is essential that further refinement and testing be undertaken. At this time, the Task Force recommends that the relevant Integrity Scoring Sheets be developed and incorporate them into the designation process. (CRITERIA vote No. 5: Passed 14 - 6) (See sample integrity scoring sheet in the detailed vote descriptions.) ADDRESSED IN ASPENMODERN? The integrity score is a required step in the designation review process, as recommended. Staff believes improvements to the scoring sheets are still necessary. D. The Tiered System Matrix elaborates on the classification distinctions determined by the Integrity Scoring Sheets. Restrictions and benefits for each classification are outlined. The matrix is intended to identify historic resources that are of the highest quality and the most important to the community as well as to encourage the preservation of other resources that contribute to the overall historic fabric. The Task Force proposes this matrix as a template for refinement. (CRITERIA vole No. 6: Passed 13 - 7) (See sample of the matrix in detailed vote descriptions.) ADDRESSED IN ASPENMODERN? The matrix is referenced in the Ordinance and requires Council feedback and refinement E. The Task Force recognizes that their recommendations represent a significant amount of work remaining to be done. The task force recommends that a small working group be 2 established to work with staff to develop and test the proposals. The group should include some current task force members to provide continuity. Community input is important. (CRITERIA vote No. 7: Passed 15 - 5) ADDRESSED IN ASPENMODERN? Staff is waiting for direction from Council as to which styles are included in the program, etc. A small committee could be formed to finalize scoring sheets, for instance, in December /January. F. The Task Force proposes that the following subjects and styles may be important to Aspen's history and the Context Papers be updated and new ones prepared for the following: 1. People, Trends & Events (Passed 13 - 7) 2. Chalet Styles (Passed 15 - 5) 3. Rustic Styles (Log Homes) (Passed 16 - 4) 4. Modern Styles (Passed 11 - 9) 5. Interiors of Public Spaces (Passed I1 - 9) (CRITERIA vote No. 8) ADDRESSED IN ASPENMODERN? To date, Council provided direction and funding to staff to address Chalet, Rustic and Modern, but not People Trends and Events, or Interiors. G. Before implementing or considering an Involuntary or Voluntary Historic Preservation program for Post WW II properties, the City of Aspen should first historically or Landmark Designate all City of Aspen owned properties identified as "Eligible" by proposed criteria. (VOLUNTARY VS INVOLUNTARY vote No. 2: Passed 15 - 5) ADDRESSED IN ASPENMODERN? The proposed ordinance does not require the City to initiate designations. Council policy direction is needed. H. City Council should create, with the consent of the property owners, a new Aspen Meadows Conservation district encompassing the areas commonly known as the Aspen Meadows including the Aspen Institute, The Aspen Music Festival, and the Aspen Center for Physics. (HISTORIC DISTRICTS vote No. 2: Passed 17 - 3) ADDRESSED IN ASPENMODERN? The Meadows properties are opposed to the district. They have submitted draft amendments (included in the packet) to their SPA that address AspenModern goals, as well as their own thoughts for process improvements, etc. 1. City Council should pursue a combination of strategies to address redevelopment in the remaining blocks of the core area/historic town site, aka mountain to river and river to river. These strategies include: 1. Possible development in the future of a Conservation District throughout Aspen's central neighborhoods to protect the character and context of the neighborhood. Design review would be handled by a new appointed board who would apply adopted guidelines, OR 3 2. Possible revision of the existing Residential Design Standards, applicable throughout Aspen's central neighborhoods, to protect the character and context of the neighborhood and to create stronger relationships with adjacent development. Design review would be conducted by Planning Staff who would apply adopted guidelines. 3. Identification of smaller pockets of town with a strong identifiable character, for instance the Lift 1 neighborhood- the original portal to Aspen Mountain, which would be appropriate for designation as a Conservation District. These might include overlays as proposed by residents and owners in a particular area. In any case the applicability of the review is a matter for discussion. The design review could be applied to all construction, or only to demolition and replacement, street facing facades, projects exceeding 85% of the allowed FAR (i.e. "maxing out ") or some other definition which was felt to represent a change that warranted consideration in terms of neighborhood compatibility. (HISTORIC DISTRICTS vote No. 3: Passed 12 - 8) ADDRESSED IN ASPENMODERN? Mass and scale issues throughout town are receiving attention in the proposed AACP document. J. The Task Force finds that the scale and diversity of sizes and styles of buildings in Aspen are part of the historic character of Aspen. (ARCHITECTURE vote No. 1: Passed 19 - 1) ADDRESSED IN ASPENMODERN? This is a philosophical statement more than a recommendation. K. Controlling the height, mass and scale of new buildings and houses is essential to preserving the character of Aspen. There is general concern about what appears to be a lack of respect for neighborhood context, even in existing historic districts. The Task Force recommends that the City Council take the concerns of height, mass and scale into consideration in their deliberations for all new projects and address, when applicable, any existing laws and regulations that might need strengthening or clarifying as regards the issues of height, mass and scale to protect the village feeling of Aspen. (GAP vote No. 5: Passed 9 - 7) ADDRESSED IN ASPENMODERN? Mass and scale issues throughout town are receiving attention in the proposed AACP document. IV. HOW TO PRESERVE A. The Task Force recommends that the City offer to conduct and pay for a preliminary review (similar to the studies performed by Derek Skalko, One Friday Design Collaborative, for the Subcommittee) of each Post World War II property identified for potential historic designation to outline the development potential, limitations and applicable incentives in the event of Historic Designation. Such studies should be shared with the property owners. (ECONOMICS & INCENTIVES vote No. I: Passed 14 - 6) 4 ADDRESSED IN ASPENMODERN? This is not one of the incentives included in AspenModern. There is no funding source available at this time. At a worksession in August, ComDev did suggest some ideas for in -house services that could be offered to property owners. They are not included in the current proposal. B. The Task Force recommends that the value and cost of incentives (both monetary, such as fee waivers, as well as variances and bonuses) should be analyzed and considered as part of the Historic Designation and incentive award process by both HPC and Council. A detailed listing of all proposed and /or granted Fee Waivers, TDRs, Variances and bonuses for a property, and the estimable value of such awards, should be included in any staff recommendation, report, Historic Preservation Commission or Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution, or City Council Ordinance regarding consideration or award of historic preservation incentives. (ECONOMICS & INCENTIVES vote No. 2: Passed 15 - 3 w/ 2 abstentions) ADDRESSED IN ASPENMODERN? The negotiation process to date has included detail about incentives requested, development alternatives, etc. Staff has not provided estimated value because we believe that some considerations cannot be assigned an accurate value. Staff has included language in the proposed ordinance committing to create a table summarizing proposed benefits during each negotiation and some level of "cost/benefit" anaylsis. The table will identify the monetary value of benefits where a number can be provided (such as fee waivers). Benefits that are tangible, but not estimable by staff will be listed, along with benefits or impacts that are intangible. C. TDR's may become a more important tool for Historic Preservation in Aspen. Given this potential, the task force recommends that the City expand their tracking of the TDR market to include any and all information that is available regarding the market or arm's length transfer of City of Aspen TDR's. (ECONOMICS & INCENTIVES vote No. 3: Passed 18 - 2) ADDRESSED IN ASPENMODERN? Council discussed this issue in a worksession earlier in 2010. ComDev currently tracks the initial sale of the TDR and the landing site, but the sales price and subsequent transfers before landing are not recorded. D. The best form of Historic Preservation may be a property on which no renovation or additions are being considered. Current City of Aspen Historic Preservation Incentives are generally development incentives. Historic Preservation incentives or awards should be developed for the benefit of designated properties that are not currently being developed or redeveloped. The Task Force recommends that more priority should be placed on rewards for maintenance, repair and restoration. Nondevelopment awards could include: 1. City Property Tax abatement — The City portion of property taxes in Aspen could be abated in whole or in part for properties that are designated in the future. The abatement would terminate upon further development of the property. By so doing, the City would be encouraging the owner to continue to live in the property and not redevelop it. The eligible properties would be limited to properties 5 designated in the future, but the City could at its option include some previously designated properties so long as the owner is in residence and the property has not been redeveloped. 2. The City could fund property taxes imposed by other jurisdictions. 3. Lot cost /long term maintenance and repair loans. Loans or grants could be made outright or possibly repaid upon sale (similar to Affordable Housing Fee deferral). 4. Almost any service or benefit that the City controls and provides to its citizens for a fee, could be provided without the fee. Examples are: complimentary passes for ARC, the golf course, the Wheeler and our many music and other festivals. Even electrical service in areas provided could be considered. Anything which could be used to encourage a resident owner to continue to live in his or her designated property and not develop it should be considered. 5. City purchase of historic resources through revolving funds or acquisition of life estates. 6. Funding for historic preservation earmarked by C.O.R.E. 7. For the special challenges posed in preservation of small lodges, the City could offer the services of an expert "Lodge Dream team" to advise the property owner. 8. The Pitkin County Assessor's Office could be asked to more carefully consider approaches to valuation of historic properties. These sites are not "teardowns" that should be valued primarily based on the lot, nor should they be further motivated towards redevelopment through an exaggerated assumption of potential. (ECONOMICS & INCENTIVES vote No. 4: Passed 19 - 1) ADDRESSED IN ASPENMODERN? ComDev has discussed these incentive ideas with the Finance Department. All but recommendation #8 require a funding source, or otherwise impact City budget and are not possible at this time. The recommendation to the Assessor's Office could be accomplished. E. The Task Force recommends that those property owners who do take action to improve a historic resource should be assisted so that instead of feeling "punished" by designation, they feel "honored." Owners of designated properties should be recognized during National Historic Preservation week by the HPC and its staff at the annual festivities and in the newspapers and by proclamation from the Mayor and Council. All owners should be given plaques for their houses. All of this is to let people know that we live in a historic town and that each designated house is a cherished treasure of Aspen and each owner is appreciated. Expeditious and courteous treatment should be provided by City staff through every stage of public participation in the historic preservation process. The rules and procedures should be as quick, simple and liberal as possible without allowing the historic character of the property to be destroyed. (ECONOMICSS & INCENTIVES vote No. 5: Passed 20 - 0) ADDRESSED IN ASPENMODERN? The benefits section of AspenModern includes the City's commitment to recognize good work with annual awards. At this time there is no funding for a marker program. The City could take other measures, such as thank you notes, public recognition, etc. at a relatively low cost. 6 F. The Task Force recommends more focus on neighborhood outreach. Plans and information about upcoming Historic Designation, development applications and the award of historic incentives and variances should be easier to understand and more accessible to the public. (EC'ONOMICS & INCENTIVES vote No. 6: Passed 19 - I) ADDRESSED IN ASPENMODERN? Com Dev has met internally to discuss public notice requirements and is committed to writing notices in layman's terms etc. to the greatest extent possible. Additional improvements to noticing may be valuable. G. The Task Force recommends Aspen City Council encourage the Housing Authority that as part of their mission, the purchase of historic structures for affordable housing be accomplished. The Authority should investigate and consider making these purchases of designated historic structures an on -going part of their program to increase "close in" affordable housing. They shall look at both single occupancy and remodeling to accommodate multi - family use, within the rules and regulations of Aspen's zoning laws. (ECONOMICS & INCENTIVES vote No. 7: Passed 15 - 5) ADDRESSED IN ASPENMODERN? This recommendation has not been forwarded to the Housing Authority yet. H. The conclusion of the Task Force is that the financial impact of designating Post WWII properties is specific to the individual property and cannot be determined until incentives are applied. ( EC'ONOMIC'S & INCENTIVES vote No. 9: Passed 15 - 5) ADDRESSED IN ASPENMODERN? This is a philosophical statement more than a recommendation. 1. The conclusion of the Task Force is that for Post WWII properties, the financial impact is specific to the individual property and cannot be generalized — sometimes the awards are too great, other times likely not enough. (ECONOMICS & INCENTIVES vote No. 10: Passed 16 - 4) ADDRESSED IN ASPENMODERN? This is a philosophical statement more than a recommendation. J. The Task Force finds that some of the City of Aspen's most valuable Historic Preservation Incentives may not be able to be utilized for every potentially historic Post World War II property. The City of Aspen should carefully consider the potential negative economic impact on the owners by Historic Designation of Post World War II properties and investigate and develop other incentives which are applicable and of economic benefit to these properties. (ECONOMICS & INCENTIVES vote No. 11: Passed 18 - 2) ADDRESSED IN ASPENMODERN? The proposed ordinance retains the negotiation process, whereby property owners identify the incentives that are most necessary and appropriate to their circumstance. 7 K. Criteria recommendations contemplate that potentially historic properties will be identified and ranked in "not eligible," "good," "better," "best," or similar categories. The Task Force recommends that more historic preservation incentives be awarded to the "best" properties and fewer incentives be awarded to eligible properties that are ranked as "good" or "better." (ECONOMICS & INCENTIVES vote No. 12: Passed 11- 8 w/ 1 abstention) ADDRESSED IN ASPENMODERN? This is included in the AspenModern ordinance. L. In addition to waiver of Affordable Housing, Parks Dedication and TDM Fees, all City fees such as Plan Review and Building Permit Fees, Wavier of City of Aspen System Fees such as Water Taps, as well as waiver of other City of Aspen requirements such as Construction Management Plan, etc. should be available as historic preservation incentives. (ECONOMICS & INCENTIVES vote No. 13: Passed 13 - 8) ADDRESSED IN ASPENMODERN? This is included in the AspenModern ordinance, particularly for properties that are mapped but not designated. Any property owner proposing designation can ask for fee waivers in the negotiation process. M. The Task Force believes that property rights and emotional costs related to Historic Designation and resulting limitations should be considered within Aspen's historic preservation program. (ECONOMICS & INCENTIVES vote No. 14: Passed 15 - 6) ADDRESSED IN ASPENMODERN? This is a philosophical statement more than a recommendation. Staff is sensitive to this important issue. N. The Task Force recommends that better notice of development will be provided to neighbors. (GAP vote No. 2: Passed 10 - 9 w/ 2 abstentions) ADDRESSED IN ASPENMODERN? Notice is addressed above. O. The Task Force recommends Staff and HPC will not encourage a certain style of additions to historic buildings. (GAP vote No. 4: Passed 18 - 3) ADDRESSED IN ASPENMODERN? HPC is in the process of reviewing their design guidelines and will discuss this recommendation. 8 October 29, 2010 THE CITY OF ASPEN Dear Property Owner, There are some important dates in the next month that we want to bring to your attention. In 2007, Aspen City Council adopted an Ordinance, known as Ordinance #48, which identified a specific list of 53 potential historic resources. Properties included on the list were identified through architectural surveys and Council directed that the final list be limited to properties within the mountain to rivers boundary of the core of town. Multi- family properties were eliminated from the Ordinance. Over the past three years citizen boards and City Council have discussed the preservation of Aspen's postwar history. After significant review and discussion by citizen boards and City Council, amendments to the historic preservation program are being proposed. Following is a brief explanation of the key changes: • A voluntary historic preservation program called AspenModern. • What properties are included in AspenModern? o Eligibility for AspenModern includes discussion of the style of the building in a context paper and an individual architectural integrity score prepared for each property. Preliminary scores are being prepared and can be shared and discussed with you if requested. o Drafts of context papers on important postwar styles are located on the city website www.aspenpitkin.com (click on Post World Warr II architecture at the right hand side). Short films on each style are also posted on the website to provide a quick 20 minute overview. Council will be asked to adopt context papers as part of the AspenModern ordinance in November. o City Council will decide whether only the properties included on Ordinance #48 are included in AspenModern or whether other postwar era sites, including multi- family buildings, should be included in the voluntary program. o A period of 10 years is proposed before context papers and additional properties are considered for inclusion in AspenModern again. (2021) • What does this mean for my property? o Ability for property owners to negotiate with City Council to gain valuable incentives and benefits in turn for historic designation. o A delay period of 90 days when an application or permit is submitted for demolition or major exterior changes for any of the AspenModern properties. o During the demolition delay period, the property owner and the City may discuss preservation opportunities and negotiate the preservation of the building in exchange for benefits. Assuming that all City Codes are met, the permit shall be issued at the end of the 90 days if an agreement is not met between the property owner and the City. o The amendments include an appeal process to be removed from AspenModern. City Council will hold at least 3 meetings to review the amendments. Your attendance is welcome. The initial meeting dates are November 8` November 22 " December 13` On November 8` Council's action will be primarily to announce that a public hearing will be held on November 22 and December l3` On the 8` City Council will ask questions about the amendments, but may not take public comment that evening. November 22 and the December 13` meeting are for public comment. City Council agendas and packets are available at www.aspenpitkin.com, "Upcoming Events." Meetings can be viewed online at any time by visiting www.aspenpitkin.com and clicking on "Watch Webcasts." All meetings are held in the basement of Aspen City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street. It is important that the City's historic preservation program be appropriate for this unique town, important to current and future generations, and equitable to property owners. City staff involved with this project are identified below and you may submit comments and questions to us, which will be copied to City Council at your request. We are happy to discuss the AspenModern proposal at any time and welcome your input. Sincerely, Chris Bendon Amy Guthrie Sara Adams Community Development Director Historic Preservation Officer Senior Planner City of Aspen City of Aspen City of Aspen chris.bendonrii;ci.aspen.co.us amy.guthrie a ei.aspen.co.us sara.adams ei.aspen.eo.us 970/429 -2765 970/429 -2758 970/429 -2778 CC: Mayor Mick Ireland Aspen City Council Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 12, 2010 variances, fee waivers. The less common requests are flexibility on stream margin standards, determination of top of slope, location of building envelope and extended period of vested rights. Ms. Guthrie told Council staff and HPC are recommending some changes and are still working with the applicant on these. Mayor Ireland asked to what a 45 degree height limit at the top of slope refers. Ms. Guthrie said the city engineer determines the top of the bank next to the river and that no building can be within 15' of that as well as an angle projected along the top of the slope to determine the height. Ms. Guthrie said this is a unique site and there is some support for this request. Most of the neighborhood was built out in the 60's and 70's and most buildings are past the top of slope line. Mayor Ireland asked how the fee waivers will be paid for. Ms. Guthrie said staff does not have a proposal for that. Mayor Ireland said in order to support a fee waiver, he needs to see alternative funding. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #23 SERIES OF 2010 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNTION, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT AND ORDINANCE #48, SERIES OF 2007, NEGOTIATIONS FOR PRESERVATION OF POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1102 WATERS AVENUE, LOT 14, CALDERWOOD SUBDIVISION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO Councilman Romero moved to adopt Ordinance #23, Series of 2010, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Johnson. Roll call vote; Romero, yes; Torre, yes; Johnson, yes; Skadron, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion carried. COUNCIL DETERMINATION OF ASPEN MODERN STYLES Mayor Ireland noted the memo states the Historic Preservation Task Force is no longer active and has not reviewed the new context papers in order to reconsider their recommendations, which were adverse to some of the styles. Amy Guthrie, community development department, told Council the HP Task Force is no longer convened. Those white papers have been distributed to HPC and to Task Force members; however, there is no feedback. Mayor Ireland said it might be in order to let the HP Task Force deliberate and forward comments on the context papers to Council. Ms. Guthrie said staff is trying to comply with Council's direction to have an ordinance in place by the end of the year and to divide this up into digestible information. This is a presentation of the context papers; staff is going to P &7, next week and first reading in front of Council in November. Ms. Guthrie noted this information is also in a video available on the city's website. Ms. Guthrie said there is agreement that only properties in the context papers have been documented to a level of understanding and are worthy of landmark designation. 5 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 12, 2010 Council watched the 20 minute video on Aspen modern styles. Ms. Guthrie said staff feels the video is a good way to present the amount of detail associated with this topic and is proud of the amount of research assembled on this product. Ms. Guthrie said it is the foundation of which kind of properties are worthy of preservation in Aspen. The designation program will be voluntary for properties that meet the qualifications. Mayor Ireland asked if there are provisions for people who think they should be included. Ms. Guthrie answered buildings not discussed in the context papers will not be eligible for designation. The criteria committee of the HP Task Force proposed for an unanticipated highly significant property associated with an event or something like that; otherwise, the context papers are meant to define a group eligible for designation for the next 10 years. A property owner on this list can volunteer to come to Council for a session about their property and impacts of designation and offsets of benefits designation. Ms. Guthrie said the proposed ordinance, like Ordinance 48, is that the city will not initiate any designations until a property owner is interested. If a property owner were to propose demolition, staff would ask for a delay to review alternatives. Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing. Bill Stirling reported the HP Task Force did not propose that the panabode style be part of post WWII categories. Stirling said he likes the inclusion as these are like kit houses and represent an economic style akin to miner's cabins. Stirling said the modern group, #4, is the richest with a range of important architects. The video illustrates how avante garde Aspen went right after WWII. Stirling recommended Council direct staff to include all 4 of these styles in the rewriting of Ordinance #48. Yasmine dePagter said chalet, rustic, modem and international were considered by the HP Task Force who did not recommend inclusion of panabode and modern chalet. Ms. dePagter said if the task force did not agree to those styles, it may be difficult to convince the community. Ms. dePagter said the city needs to be careful not to undermine the program by designating just anything. Ms. dePagter noted there are impacts to neighbors of designated buildings with all the incentives that come along with designation. Ms. dePagter suggested a meeting with the task force, HPC and Council. Anne Mullins said each of the styles presented should be adopted; each represents either social history or global design history. Ms. Mullins said the ordinance is a vehicle to help property owners save properties that have been determined valuable to the town. Ms. Mullins said this is a good negotiating tool. Mike Maple, HP Task Force member, noted whatever standards and process are set should be the same whether this is voluntary or involuntary. Maple said of the challenges is to determine what is valuable to the community and in 2009, questions about preserving Aspen Modern were asked and support for preservation of post WWII buildings was only 33% of full time homeowners. Maple pointed out a staff survey about preserving modern structures only garnered 24 responses and only 19 live in Aspen. This does not seem to indicate overwhelming community support for this program. Maple encouraged Council to follow the recommendations of the task force that the 4 styles suggested should be broken into 7 styles. Maple said the city should first determine whether something is valuable or not; the standards should not be influenced on whether the designation is voluntary or not. 6 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 12, 2010 Maple said his concern is that in the future voluntary will turn into involuntary designations. Marilyn Marks asked how property owners will get assurance that voluntary means voluntary and not being preserved without notice. Ms. Marks asked under what circumstances the city would continue to use emergency ordinances to declare properties historic. Ms. Marks suggested the ordinance contain language stating the city will not use emergency ordinance to undo these assurances. Council agreed to ask the city attorney's office if there is a way to accomplish that. Mayor Ireland said the emergency ordinance regarding the Given Institute has not been adopted yet. Councilman Romero noted there is operating experience to respond to some concerns about historic designations. Councilman Torre said some future Council could determine an emergency ordinance for historic preservation was in the community's best interest and he does not think this Council can determine the future; the community may forward the desire for historic preservation. Junee Kirk, HPC task force member, told Council 50% of the task force is in favor of approving these 4 styles as important to preserve Aspen's heritage. Ms. Kirk said the Given Institute should be preserved in an all out effort, including emergency ordinance. Jim Curtis said he attended several task force discussions and presentations and there seems to be a general consensus there are 5 to 20 buildings that should be preserved. Adopting more possible structures for preservation seems to be diluting the historic worth. Bill Wiener, HP Task Force, reminded Council the task force has the guideline that for historic preservation, everything was on the table. Wiener noted while history looks back, historic preservation looks forward so the next generation can see the history and decide for themselves. Wiener said he does not like the categorization of buildings and this exercise should be looking at Aspen's history not styles. Wiener noted things in the community encourage demolition and reconstruction and removing some of those incentives would go toward preserving Aspen's character. Jack Wilke said his concern is the category of his property, modern chalet, was not enthusiastically received by the task force to be included in preservation. Councilman Romero asked what the process steps are after Council adopts, or not, the style papers. Ms. Guthrie said staff is presenting an ordinance to HPC this week and to P &Z next week. This is scheduled in front of Council November 8 for first reading with anticipated adoption before the end of the year. Ms. Guthrie said if Council needs more information or they want to exclude a category, staff would like to know that. Councilman Romero said after 3 years in this process, there are several hinge points of debate, like the HP task force working for 18 months, the discussion of styles. Councilman Romero said there is the idea of preserving property rights, the idea of preservation of public benefits of historic preservation. Councilman Romero said one argument is that too many styles dilute quality; another argument is the neighborhood impacts of the property. There is also the argument that not enough is known to narrow the choices versus these styles represent various windows of Aspen's past and these should be preserved. Councilman Romero said Council has made the decision to make participation voluntary and a leap of faith that the program will work. Councilman 7 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 12, 2010 Romero said he does not want to eliminate any particular style at this point. The city's energy should be spent trying to make sure the proper incentive balance is proposed; to make sure assurances are conveyed to property owners and to the overall public about the program and that the program works — private owner /public benefit. Councilman Torre said he would like to go forward including all the styles to see what the process brings out. Councilman Torre said he is happy that the story is starting to be told with the video, the context papers and encouraged staff to move forward with how the rest of the story unfolds, about the city having a greater vision about what they are trying to share and to preserve and all this needs to be woven together so the community can understand why this preservation is being recommended. Councilman Torre pointed out the map with proposed styles and Ordinance #48 houses. Councilman Torre said one of the benefits of preservation is making sure the potential properties will be visible and will be part of the story. Councilman Torre said he supports including the styles. Councilman Torre said he would like to know how many modern chalet style buildings are already preserved; how many panabodes are already preserved. Ms. Guthrie said there are 260 Victorians designated and about 20 post WWII properties designated, representing modem, chalets, panabodes, one rustic building. Councilman Torre said the community has already agreed to some degree that these post WWII properties are worth preserving. Councilman Torre said it was a good exercise to have identified the styles; however, that is just a stepping off point and the story is more important and some things may have been missed because they did not fit into a "style ". Councilman Torre said he feels this process has done justice to both sides of the question. Councilman Johnson said he can see the importance of the chalets, the rustics and the international modern; however, the importance of the panabodes and the modern chalets is more difficult to see, Councilman Johnson said at this point those two styles do not seem to have overwhelming support. Councilman Johnson said there needs to be a way for the story to be told and allowing structures outside these styles to be part of it. Bendon said in a voluntary system, if a property owner comes for with a panabode they want to preserve and that wasn't one of the adopted styles, the context paper gives a way to evaluate the structure. Adopting the context paper does not say all of a style has to be preserved; it is a tool in the preservation system. Councilman Skadron said he feels it is an important part of Council's job to protect the community character and a component of that character is the past and to preserve the community character for future generations. Councilman Skadron stated he can support all 4 styles being included. Councilman Skadron said an issue for him is the impacts to the character from the benefits of voluntary designation and how that might be mitigated. Mayor Ireland agreed about impacts of development from historic preservation in the neighborhoods and substituting one character problem for another. Mayor Ireland said he would like time to read the context papers before the next step and to continue the process as outlined by staff. 8