Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.council.regular.20120123
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA January 23, 2012 5:00 P.M. I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Scheduled Public Appearances IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes) V. Special Orders of the Day a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments b) Agenda Deletions and Additions c) City Manager's Comments d) Board Reports VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion) a) Resolution #6, 2012 — Amended CMAQ Contract b) Resolution #7, 2012 — Appointment of City Attorney c) Minutes — January 9, 17, 2012 VII. First Reading of Ordinances a) Ordinance #2, 2012 — 119 Neale Historic Designation and Lot Split P.H.2/27 b) Ordinance #3, 2012 — AACP Review and Code Amendments P.H. 2/13 c) Ordinance #4, 2012 — Subdivision Amendment — 320 Lake Avenue P.H. 2/27 VIII. Public Hearings a) Ordinance #1, 2012 — Code Amendment — Liquor Servers b) Ordinance #19, 2011 — Aspen Walk 404 Park Avenue IX. Action Items X. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting February 13, 2012 COUNCIL'S ADOPTED GUIDELINES • Stick to top priorities • Involve others in community problem solving • Be thorough, deliberate and accountable for consequences when making decisions COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. i Jim Markalunas 624 W. North Street -q 5 1 v Aspen, CO 81611 t� U' January, 2012 To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council of Aspen, Colorado RE: A commemoration plaque to be placed on "The Midland Bridge" Gentlemen, As a citizen of Aspen, I request your support and endorsement to honor the memory of D.R.C. Brown, Sr. for his generous contribution to the citizens of Pitkin County of the historic Colorado Midland Railroad Bridge aka "The Midland Bridge" or the "Old Maroon Creek Bridge" by endorsing our request to CDOT granting us permission to place a commemorative plaque on said bridge recognizing D.R.C. Brown Senior's contribution to the State of Colorado, the County of Pitkin, the City of Aspen and all its Citizens We request you have staff prepare a resolution incorporating the dedication language of "The Midland Bridge" in honor of D.R.C. Brown Sr. Resp Submitted, 41. arkalunas, Citizen A footnote on the history of the Midland Bridge Dear Editor: Re: Your article on the Maroon Bridge 3/26/07 by Scott Condon. A footnote on the history of the Midland Railroad Bridge: Had it not been for the generosity of D.R.C. Brown Sr., the course of events might have been different and the historic Midland bridge might not have survived it's illustrious 120 years. The following is a quote from the Aspen Times in 1929. "On September the 10th, A.E. Carleton sold to D. R. C. Brown, the Midland Steel bridge over Maroon Creek for consideration of $500.00 and on December 3rd, 1929 D. R. C. Brown conveyed the same to the County of Pitkin as a free gift. The deed also conveys the land from the east end of the bridge to the Newman switch. The commissioners will now ask the State Highway Department to accept same as a part of State Highway 82" For the newcomer to Aspen: Here are some important facts. 1) A.E. Carlton was the last owner and operator of the Colorado Midland Railroad which was abandoned in 1922. 2) The "Newman switch" was located near the present site of the Roundabout. 3) The "Midland Bridge" was modified for use as a two lane highway bridge for cars and trucks. 4) The original railroad bridge was fabricated by the Niagara Iron Works of Buffalo, New York and had to be shipped to Colorado across the country by rail; thus the reason why the Colorado Midland Railroad lost its race with the Denver and Rio Grande RR into Aspen. In closing, this historic bridge should be designated the "Midland Bridge" as a tribute to 19th century technology and iron - worker craftsmanship. Upon completion of the new bridge, the historic "Midland Bridge" should be converted to its original railroad bridge configuration as a permanent monument to the audacity and skills of the early railroad pioneers of Colorado. Indeed, the Midland Bridge has served this community well, and will continue to serve the citizens of itkin County for another 120 years. ■ "Jim-- cMarkalunas The Midland Bridge Erected in 1888, this iron bridge stands today as a monument to the pluck and perseverance of our day railnad pioneers who built this 640 foot iron bridge to connect the growing mining city of Aspen, Colorado into the rail network of a nation. This bridge was fabricated by the Niagara Iron Works of Buffalo, New York in the fall of 1887 and erected in Aspen, January 1888. On Saturday. February. 4th, 1888 the Colorado Midland Railroad arrived in Aspen three months behind the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad, due to delays in the construction of this bridge. This bridge served Aspen by railroad until the demise of the Midland in 1918. A. E. Carlton, president of the Colorado Midland sold the bridge to D.R.C. Brown, Sr. who then contributed this bridge, at no cost, to the people of Pitkin County. In 1921, this trestle was used to cross Maroon Creek by auto, and soon thereafter, it became a State Highway bridge. Now used as a pedestrian walkway, this bridge stands as a tribute to the foresight of our railroad pioneers and the generosity of D.R.C. Brown, Sr. who saved it from demolition. This Colorado Midland Railway bridge is Aspen's link with its past. The Midland "ten wheelers" no longer "puff and chug" into Aspen. The beautiful "McQueens" became "yard goats" on some forgotten siding in some forgotten place. But, the Colorado Midland Railroad will never be forgotten, because, as some say: "The Colorado Midland never really went away" Dedicated to the memory of D.R.C. Brown, Sr. by resolution of the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners and the Aspen City Council. AD 2012 m • N Markalunas . ' 9253399 p 1 . ,.. , s • ..... -:, -," ,i`x.".e....,..,-"-- `,..--;"'`':`, ,-...."*.....,....„...:.: .. 1 ,t,h,-..v. ,.,.. - .,-- ....... . • .74:. ,-24-.A. .... 1. ' 1144I3'. ' '.. '...• . - • . .- . 4.r.is • • • '-.- L It•'- V .. ; ., ri• - *I t e 4,-, W,SZ4`.1t"Ptft."-■;''W-S,..s."„,1/2. AF.4.741r4 ....., ...47 f ..... 4 : 4 -4. •••• - • .• •• , . . . • „:„..,--• -_. -,A t& .. t4 1 , 41- 6 4.,-•-• , -, ,,,,,,,,-,/ , ' 'Ad' '40 .- •• . , . ... • • - . . • •• ., .,. , - -. • ..,,11 •,1 . ':••.;, , dt" , . 4 : - ;;• , " . -'44 ,3 :: 4. •Lt : - - .:•rz. ,,--,- t; -e..v... . •;,,_. ..,- -, ...,--- •-•• ., .,- • • • .. . ..... . . ••• , -: ..,,.. ., . . : • - . . ,_, •.;• . r&.,..4 --.44-4.r.4 :;:wviy.,;:- , -Evir .,g-i, .'„ "::,.: :• , , - • . : , " ' - ', --. -.: - : ' - ' • • ' .: . . -: :. .- •• .. : • : • • • • ., • --A__ .... „-A, , ..tk,%\e.*-..‘.- „..... , e ;,...e...-,r , . %f...t• , '-` n ,',' ` - ' • e ' • ..1,- - -,••.---,, ..., ..,,, 7 - •, - , _ ..' 10-.4.--..,.. .. ,:.. , -.r . ,,,,t2, ., -....-„,- , • 9,-;, ...,.. .? ..,---- -..• `t‘.Z,,, liye .• . ,,,, „...„....„„ , - , _ - ' .., ,, - ., • ' --. - ".. .. :. • . ' : • . -: . l ,.; , ...„;4 10 44 , , ; .,„ „ ..._ , . -• ..-. -., - - • . . • ...- - -. . -.- - - , .. 'i -1.* •A' ,i'l" ,!:?:_. .: J z't=,'N;,,,,,,i:),:-"A T -:‘ ,,,. ' , . -.' ,,,,,.. - •• , .'... ,-;` i' ':'„ cli ' .. ; A ' ?".".: . :: : P;',. 'r ;.1 :1P : t 1 i i 1 4: ''4 :''' :t YP: : n,77 ■; ..t ;: Lt;...'re,; ji.r.i. ??':f •Ztj-Nk..1t.;:j0cf.,•kep-1,01 I ‘..." -.' .:-••,. - --• :- it<t'l'ii,,,"':::::Itcf.. :r• 11.•:qattg I ti74,' , = , Til'N' , qt - V:.IXV...-.0• , -,:`. -14P. - '- '",t ; /-'.• ,"?;,'' '',- ,. .Y . .` .:;)'. :,''',-,*4' :3 ..'; 1 1;;, 1- ‘'•fx:ili.:‘?-4• , "-r:::' - !--.1: 4 . 4 -1.,ntl.N . ;::..3 , ":„1"4:: t.tfi, ;..1.'5"i ,- .%,,,4. I; :1'01 ,,.' .- • - ,• r:i- •,,.." ik .',. ' • 4 ''';'-, ,..... ..: ..;:: --'': ,■ .-c*.:_,..(r '•'. ..,'-',,.. _ , • -_; ,, . . : r :: ,-,-,....‘. J.,..,,.- ..',., ..,7-....„14.1,:7:,,``41:t4- * -1;' . -4- . " .. ';:" `fl 2 7. :-.„, ..-. ,c 4 i : _.zz •.=,..',:.,..P :" 4 :71.A. , 41. - jim.":147-'4 , ,.. , ,, .., ' .4 .,... ;..--:.. '...1.!. - ii.1 K •% ' , "Ntirzo ,",..71. - -Y- • .F , ,N'' -... ' t .1 : :•••?, ..,_;r4.`.':. ..t -,,,' :;; cr.;;:::- .-;;;,'.......,.'1 4 1 -4 . • . 4 ,4-5. „,..,?, .. - - . ,:. . , • .:,. r- . .:...... . - ' - r---:- - :.:,.. • ..1..,, .- ,,...,T.:-:;.:.;T,Y*•.-4: --,:-. 7;•-•4Q4 -- :rig-4:4' :•:::'•:: . ' 2' --%.< i ..‘,.••w-r ,,,,,t"' '44, i"......-'5,.. ''.•-•.? q • - •:-•-r•i' - - . .t.kg„ .f.. , .,... .:11q30.y....0 - ' s .... .. . ,..::: 7- .- v ...-.. F .,:-./... ; k ',,:.,:„. , Itil: '. : - ..; " S. , ' •-, -:".' ,i'.. ''‘k-A7tht'll;M:, O‘ft 7. ‘:. ' !.. - l ".1' , ...„`V 4 ',..... , 1 :... 4 e a.'' ''',''''''.••. > V; • ' .:, '.-. AV,. 7-11; .-5 itt . 4 s- z _ • xr.ww. - .f ' .;,.v• ..5,19.. .: ••• ••'',: .. : :- ...• : :.,;N •.,:,- s >,.. : :•!., ,., .i.,.....3•!;::- li , .::: 1,- Jr . :::•::'.. -. ..: 17 ...: 1 4-:•:- - -,. - ` e •'=' , " , •••;.- - .: - I.,: c;,-- '' .....--.. .1.ickst-. ' -,.. ,..7 . t.i..• •;--i.v.:.."••:'t.■;* • .'r • z ,.. .,..•" ..... 9 --'' : '''.*: 4 ' . •' er : .' ... , . , , ...- . .... ..,;. , .: ?4,N ,,,....... 4 4';.,• ; :s4.,;,'„' ,,,z_.: :fiAc : 47•C.:.'..!,.; .. ,- ,.; '' •-- 4 . : 4.!•,, •- - ., e..,,,, ';.•,; ,.,''''- ..-: ;:f-i" •'........"'•' ' " '''''' . • . - '-'" 1 ,.:.„: : , ; •e,- ,..*Ak, ,Iffp•i;: ''',..ci,-- ,. -•., - ':-: - . •".7.).'... ,,,,..... 4 '...:.,„: - .-,,----c: -... ...1."•••• ; 3. ...-. - . • - _ .. . .., . ••• :„.. . . ,..,„ _ ,,,.,, •. ,..„;„.,,,„,...„....„...,...„, 4E; ?4 ,-.„....., or. ,... .1.‘,.:,:-.; ‘.. ,„ • ...••••„. - . ....,-.: . • - .' . . . p• ,,,....:‘ •••• - ,1 ...'•• ,.. .••:.41AV, • , 4 -/s.;-*.te ...:. -.%:..2.(:: .- - • - ,:e• - : ' .1 , t ' ' , •/5 1 k )1 144i - 1.,''''•, 83 r "••■,.•,2.,''•:04'''*t:71nr..3Z,',:-,,''s% A ‘ ,,:-. '''-': .;.'• 40 :, ' •.: ' A , . . -, : • -.• ,:vrAs.<„. - 7** -1•40? ..z... • •• ..,,,..„ , ...h.„ .,..., , ; .• , .... ., . . ..., ., . . .. _ aux .,,,,.. .. : ..'," . , ',..e... -. -e....44,Vi- fi '''.: , 4': • ' ;0''' iI *''' 1 . ,',..4 . - •13 -*-; - T ''...'• '..: '. • .., , - * , ..• .. ' - •,...'• ;V , - ,,,t ' L' ,:. ,‘, = ' ..' ^Tr' ,..,t .. ,...,' ,, .. 7..,.........- .• _, , . - .. -• .. . , . - .. n . . - - ' • r , -Vt' ' lye , .c..., ,• .` A- - . N,* '' ,,,m,,,. ‘.. „... , . .. ' '',..' `''',¢ .,...• kr."...... 4 ''''' ' • ‘.". . , '*".' ''' .1. . -^, -174 * ` ''''..' . •••• -'....., .e. .. I•kr.... -;--- N'oe....7 1',X*.;.'i-='' ' :- .....:;,r2.,• . .- ' ,•-• . •-7; F ' „, '.. - -.., :.• -- . """ *g;.-- -,•,`. r'" - ,.,.., ....17e. • . ,L,....._.,..4....,_"'"' -, • ...: - .."-•-.. 0 . a. '" -... ,"'• - - .' ..4' 1■V:*, ..-:5"..'-4 47 ":t. 4. . - ' ' • '. - .......- . ..:,. --""?. •• '"" • '''' _40- ' - ''" :,..'., -. ;•.- - =P1- 5 .,":,700 • : : ' - - - : - ''' •"‘' ' . -Z,fari '" • --,' 44 .;,,',14 ' . '''' ...- - " . - _:.? tt' - '^ ' ' - c'.."°* % :.'".,2' ' -• - • . *- •,'"" .. - -. .... '''• ' -:..' -- •'-__ .,--- -- . - - ".-- ' .- - , - s.':' ..1 ' - - toti.f I''''f' -4.0' ^ .""-' ""-: • '1.- .;..:)%-,- '-::..1. - .z. : .-., - .... _____.•'-.-. -• - -- .. . ,', •• ' - - ; • :.•-.•• '''47.'-i;,....`.:s*-•,:.• s•-•• r •' 4 . 1- - .,- ,,,.. e e , a 1 o -,•''' et . - , ...--T ...41.... - ,, ' ------•-- ___,.. . • 1 ri • - - .....,..... - .....1. k .,' --* ' tI .1, `e s ta: . 2,* . ';' ,. :_,_ a.•-..... e•-• ----- - _ .---"---"--- - . . ; - • t:- , ..- • - ' -- .. '' - ,...,-... • . e.....-- 4, z ......; - . . .- ..' :,... _._- ........,..--vo. .. --,,,..-... - ___.........---• • ,, . . - . ':'• - ,:,....s - '. . •.. ,a• ..:!,: ,,,...,..9e....- '. 4,4 ; ' 4, - :- '40116.- .3*...,7,20 og, • !'''' _ ,_...-- - ------ .- '",' 2: . ";, St- 44• ..,S,'%4V, t v...14 1. 1 . g '!"•••4 . ,.-%. ' • - ---------- _■•••• - , - ' 1 : . .. .• A" ' - . . /:..- - - :', " `re'r e * ,-$ .''''''''.r-1 ,4 '• 1 " - . '' 14:0St . -.+.---.--...-:. .•'. - '.. - .. . ir - '. ., . • ' ' ' ■....- ... ;II Li . .. ...,\ ."1 t . . :- 11 • ...."..„. „„„...• ... • Aeateir- „........,.. ., 4, - . +,., ..'';',... `'' . ; t'S. ' '' - . ......-.'-.-.. ..et.,,,,•W`'...,..11110.-- •. ., a , .. .. I ' 4 - ....----•_ - a .0-.. - -- ... ., • 1 4. ''- ' ' ' ' ' . " -:•■*•'--'•'.•:::--''' •••••"'''''' . " ...."- : • - rer .. .. . d , ' . ••• .• ri -X " - ' 41; - . ...'''' • . ..,.. ' - t - • ' . ... - • . • • . • *- ...1 ,.. i " ' ,t; a• it* ''''.' r .. ,......'r - -- •'''''''' .. - --„, ...;„-:-..., - s t - il " . . ; • .,, •• 4 :-'" 74 i ,„. *- ., ,,,,k‘' • . . 4 ,.. , ,, .. ir ,. • . - ir _ 0 *, ' 4 .. ,,: , •t : 4.. " 4 ' . '. II '1'-- „„„i,..,4,-,...4! ' ' , jr.!1, L.J4 ...., :. 'Z... ''`' . :., *.- Ai . . 4 - • ■ .••• , , . .. • . - . - • • 1-''' - I. :- - .:,:. ir r •,. _ _ .4, - , , f .- --.• ..4, A fi. ''..•:.,1 " 4 - - 4.„,- ......-,,,::•• , - IP iik i •• .- 4 ' ' .1 , ..,. .f c , ■• ../. . -f...,:_k.;,..4.- , . f• 040/ "ir r ...u. , _I■ ' 4 0.. ,- * 4 s. , lift - :. lii„ 1 ; -'' -.Is - ' • v. -4 , ,.„ . _. ... -14.,,, • - , •:•;+fr, ,. t :4;1 . 21- " .s. . e - ',:g ,,,,ggi "'"V:4,';'., - -. a T •••`.,. ,1•2 , kf. '..- 4 -1- 41, ‘" --- • - i 0 0--,--- -, , . - • ..--- , . . . -, •:'----• , ..- ., ... _ .- . - "..' - let ,.;.;.,. ,... -., .. _ - - ... • v -. 1., : - - . *., • .. ,.- . , 4 • - - . .... . .. F.: ..,,,..... . - . ', - -.,;. . . • , t .0.;:. . "-We ..,....,... , ,,,,,„ -,,.• . , . . / . . \ - • • --. +....-...., .... . • -t - , '.r. • .- 0. 4 w . ).1 / li i "V:kS .4: . 1 .. "" . 1 %. . ;.: s r i• . -. , ' : • A - ;....,•, i...- ' 7 ,...... ' ....• . .' Pa . .... ^r Niii.t. ' lb. to ... .......................,,,.. _.... ...„, .r....- * ...: , ' ' -.• -.11e... Ag .41 • - •• :. , '-i i" ' .4 ' 0 ' Z ' ' ' - • tie- rs - : . . . ...044e,o,!r- ,,.. t- 4 10, - i• :4111111116111 . ,;• ;.s . 1 s .c . ..., 4....... - . 0 \ tit I • :. .. i. - , 4. •. , ' hOd 4 „ -4. 'A • 1.. .. • .... - • - - .'S - a:v • : • .. 'T. • , ••••.!, ' r -,...- • - ' g .• - . ,, • , • .,,,, . . o f , A 11,‘ • _.,- .. . I.. . ,. 0,,, .. -- -,-..:. • a'-' ., . „i t ' i. . •••••■• ,,,... . . ....k., , , . .4 t . 'F'.1y 0 ., "1 ,., T "tlf. - •,12} <., .... -:. . -- .. •St ' .... , o - * Ali • . ,.i.„ . , ..„..,. ..... ... ., . ' . 1. • _ . . • ._ .. .• . ... ,T.- v • , 1 .4, ..„ 4. .. .. . .. , . - - le. ._. _ 41 „ 40 • , . . • . - -4! ..- • . _ -.- .... " .' 'W... • • . • ., - . . . • • . - ' , - . , • - - e... , if . • - , f- • * . .0 . -. • vi MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John Krueger and Lynn Rumbaugh, Transportation THRU: Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager DATE OF MEMO: January 13, 2012 DATE OF MEETING: July 23, 2012 RE: Approval of Amended CMAQ Contract SUMMARY This memo requests that Council approve the attached resolution accepting amended Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) Grant AQC M045 -010 (18562). This grant, for the purchase of a bike share kiosk, was previously accepted in July of 2011 and has been amended to reflect Pitkin County's participation in the project. The new contract is in the amount of $235,000.00, with the additional $200,000 reflecting Pitkin County's participation with no net financial impact to the City (see Financial Implications below). The amended contract is a result of CDOT's request that the two projects be combined into one for purposes of contract administration. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION In July, 2011, Council approved contract AQC M045 -010 (18562) between the City and CDOT in the amount of $35,000.00 for a bike share kiosk. In December of 2011, Pitkin County selected to move forward with a $200,000 bike share equipment purchase using its CMAQ funds. The attached contract amendment rolls the County's CMAQ project and dollars into the City's existing grant contract, changing the dollar amount of the contract from $35,000.00 to $235,000.00. 1 BACKGROUND In the 1980's, the City of Aspen was designated by EPA as a non - attainment area for PM10 (particulate pollution sized 10 microns or less). Since then the City adopted several measures, including expanding the second - largest mass transit system in Colorado, paid parking, an extensive bicycle /pedestrian trail system, carpool incentives and a carshare program. These measures helped the City of Aspen become a maintenance area on July 14, 2003. The City of Aspen is currently eligible for CMAQ funding every two years from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) based on Aspen's EPA air quality designation as a PM10 maintenance area. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality grants have been awarded to the City of Aspen every other year since 2000 for the purpose of implementing projects or procuring equipment to mitigate PM -10 pollution in the upper valley. Bike sharing typically involves a number of bicycles made available for shared use as a means of increasing mobility options and reducing traffic congestion and air pollution. Bike share programs are often considered a part of the "last mile" solution for transit, meaning that a bicycle can provide transit users with the link between their station /stop and their final destination. The same can hold true for the link between bike sharing and car sharing, trail use, carpooling and other alternative transportation modes. Recognizing this Zink and the opportunity for increased bicycle mode share, CDOT has approved the use of CMAQ funding for the purchase of one kiosk to be owned by the City and operated by WE- cycle. In July of 2011, Aspen City Council approved a contract between CDOT and the City for the purchase of a bike share kiosk. Meanwhile, Pitkin County was in discussions with its staff and WE- cycle for the same type of project using County CMAQ dollars. In December, the Board of County Commissioners elected to move forward with the same project. CDOT has requested that the two projects be combined into one for the purposes of expediency and efficiency, as well as to avoid multiple requests for proposals that could result in multiple vendors providing different equipment for one bike share program. 2 DISCUSSION As discussed above, CDOT has requested that the City and the County combine their two CDOT projects into one. Failure to do so could result in multiple vendors providing different equipment for the same bike share program. Eliminating the City's contract and replacing it with a County contract would, according to CDOT, result in a potential six -month project delay. As the project lead, the City will hold the contract with CDOT, manage the procurement process and be responsible for submitting reimbursement requests to CDOT. The County will serve on the procurement committee and be wholly responsible for its $200,000 portion of the project. The County will also retain ownership of all equipment purchased with its portion of CMAQ funds. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Combining the City and County projects will not change the City's final grant amount and match. Project Federal Local Total City bike share equipment $28,977.00 $6,023.00 $35,000.00 County bike share equipment $165,580.00 $34,420.00 $200,000.00 Total $194,557.00 $40,443.00 $235,000.00 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS In the 1980's, the City of Aspen was designated a PM -10 (particulate pollution sized 10 microns or less) non - attainment area by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A number of mitigation measures including free transit, paid parking and an anti - idling ordinance helped Aspen receive a PM -10 maintenance designation in 2003. However, Aspen continues to be challenged in maintaining and meeting future air quality standards. As discussed above, programs that decrease the need for vehicle ownership and /or single - occupant driving are key to reducing PM-10 levels. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution, amending the CMAQ contract. 3 ALTERNATIVES Council could choose to decline the contract amendment and move forward with the original $35,000.00 contract. This would mean that the County would undergo a separate procurement process and possibly result in two types of bike share equipment being purchased. PROPOSED MOTION "I move to approve Resolution # of 2012 on the consent calendar of January 23, 2012. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: �....sc U 7et Gfit9ep C ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Proposed Resolution Attachment B: Amendment to CMAQ Contract AQC M045 -010 (18562) 4 RESOLUTION NO. �P Series of 2012 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT AQC M045 -010 (18562) BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND THE STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, TO ACCEPT AN AMENDMENT TO A CONGESTION MITIGATION AIR QUALITY (CMAQ) GRANT, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID DOCUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, the City of Aspen seeks to improve air quality by reducing PM -10 pollution; and WHEREAS an amendment to contract AQC M045 -010 (18562) between the City of Aspen, Colorado and the State of Colorado, is annexed hereto and made a part thereof; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves an amendment to Contract AQC M045 -010 (18562) between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and the State of Colorado Department of Transportation, 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 amended contract on behalf of the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 23` day of January, 2012. 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 on the day hereinabove stated. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 5 ATTACHMENT B - CONTRACT AMENDMENT CONTRACT AMENDMENT Amendment #1 Original CMS # 12 HA3 34249 CMS # 12 HA3 40126 Protect # AQC M045 -010 (18562) PO # 271001449 1) PARTIES This Amendment to the above - referenced Original Contract (hereinafter calved the Contract) is entered into by and between the CITY OFASPEN, (hereinafter called 'The Local Agency'), and the STATE OF COLORADO (hereinafter called the *State ") acting by and through the Department of Transportation, (hereinafter called'CDOT'). 2) EFFECTIVE DATE AND ENFORCEABILITY This Amendment shall not be effective or enforceable until it is approved and signed by the Colorado State Controller or designee (hereinafter called the "Effective Date'). The State shall not be liable to pay or reimburse Contractor for any performance hereunder including, but not limited to, costs or expenses incurred, or be bound by any provision hereof prior to the Effective Date. 3) FACTUAL RECITALS The Parties entered into the Original Basic Contract #12 HA3 34249, dated August 28, 2011, for a Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) project in the City of Aspen. This project is to improve the at quality with the purchase of multiple Bike -Share Kiosks. The parties now agree to increase the CMAQ and local funding by $200,000.00. $35,000.00 was previously encumbered under the Original Basic Contract. The contract has now been increased to a new total of $235,000.00 4) CONSIDERATION - COLORADO SPECIAL PROVISIONS The Parties acknowledge that the mutual promises and covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration are sufficient and adequate to support this Amendment. The Parties agree to replacing the Colorado Special Provisions with the most recent version (if such have been updated since the Contract and any modification thereto were effective) as part consideration for this Amendment. If applicable, such Special Provisions are attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. 5) LIMITS OF EFFECT This Amendment is incorporated by reference Into the Contract, and the Contract and all prior amendments thereto, if any, remain in full force and effect except as specifically modified herein. 6) MODIFICATIONS. The Amendment and all prior amendments thereto, if any, are modified as follows: a. Exhibit C -1 Exhibit C to the Basic Contract shall be removed and replaced in its entirety by Exhibit C -1 attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. All references In the Basic Contract to Exhibit C shall be removed and replaced by Exhibit C -1. 7) START DATE This Amendment shall take effect upon the date of the State Controller's Signature. 8) ORDER OF PRECEDENCE Except for the Special Provisions, in the event of any conflict, inconsistency, variance, or contradiction between the provisions of this Amendment and any of the provisions of the Contract, 6 the provisions of this Amendment shall in all respects supersede, govern, and control. The most recent version of the Special Provisions incorporated into the Contract or any amendment shall always control other provisions in the Contract or any amendments. 9) AVAILABLE FUNDS Financial obligations of the state payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted, or otherwise made available. The Remainder of this Page left Intentionally Blank • 7 THE PARTIES HERETO HAVE EXECUTED THIS AMENDMENT Persons signing for Contractor hereby swear and affirm that they are authorized to act on Contractor's behalf and acknowledge that the State Is relying on their representations to that effect. Local Agency STATE OF COLORADO City of Aspen John W. Hicksniooper, GOVERNOR Department of Transportation By: Printed Name of Authorized Signor Title: - By: Timothy J. Harris - CDOT Chief Engineer `Signature Date Date LEGAL REVIEW John W. Suthers, Attorney General By: Signature - Attorney General's Office ALL CONTRACTS REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE STATE CONTROLLER CRS 42430.202 requires the State Controller to approve all State Contracts. This Contract Is not valid until signed and dated below by the State Controller or delegate. Contractor is not authorized to begin performance until such time. If Contractor begins performing prior thereto, the State of Colorado Is not obligated to pay Contractor for such performance or for any goods andior services provided hereunder. STATE CONTROLLER David J. McDermott CPA By: Department of Transportation Date: 8 B. Matching Funds The matching ratio for the federal participating funds for this Work is 82.79% federal -aid funds (CFDA #20.205) to 17.21% Local Agency funds, it being understood that such ratio applies only to the $235,000.00 that Is eligible for federal participation, It being further understood that all non - participating costs are borne by the Local Agency at 100 %. If the total participating cost of performance of the Work exceeds $235,000.00, and additional federal funds are made available for the Work, the Local Agency shall pay 20% of all such costs eligible for federal participation and 100% of all non - participating costs; if additional federal funds are not made available, the Local Agency shall pay all such excess costs. If the total participating cost of performance of the Work is less than $, then the amounts of Local Agency and federal -aid funds will be decreased in accordance with the funding ratio described herein. The performance of the Work shall be at no cost to the State. C. Maximum Amount Payable The maximum amount payable to the Local Agency under this Agreement shall be $194,557.00 (For CDOT accounting purposes, the federal funds of $194,557.00 and the Local Agency matching funds of $40,443.00 will be encumbered for a total encumbrance of $235,000.00), unless such mount is increased by an appropriate written modification to this Agreement executed before any increased cost Is incurred. It is understood and agreed by the parties hereto that the total cost of the Work stated hereinbefore is the best estimate available, based on the design data as approved at the time of execution of this Agreement, and that such cost is subject to revisions (in accord with the procedure in the previous sentence) agreeable to the parties prior to bid and award. D. Single Audit Act Amendment All state and local government and non -profit organizations receiving more than $500,000 from all funding sources defined as federal financial assistance for Single Audit Act Amendment purposes shall comply with the audit requirements of OMB Circular A -133 (Audits of States, Local Governments and Non - Profit Organizations) see also, 49 C.F.R. 18.20 through 18.26. The Single Audit Act Amendment requirements applicable to the Local Agency receiving federal funds are as follows: I. Expenditure less than $500,000 The Local Agency expends less than $500,000 in Federal funds (ail federal sources, not just Highway funds) in its fiscal year then this requirement does not apply. 11. Expenditure exceeding than $500,000- Highway Funds Only The Local Agency expends more than $500,000 in Federal funds, but only received federal Highway funds (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, CFDA 20.205) then a program specific audit shall be performed. This audit will examine the "financial" procedures and processes for this program area. III. Expenditure exceeding than $500,000 - Multiple Funding Sources The Local Agency expends more than $500,000 In Federal funds, and the Federal funds are from multiple sources (FTA, HUD, NPS, etc.) then the Single Audit Act applies, which is an audit on the entire organization /entity. iv. Independent CPA Single Audit shall only be conducted by an independent CPA, not by an auditor on staff. An audit is an allowable direct or indirect cost. Page 2 of 2 9 V RESOLUTION NO. Series of2012 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPOINTING JAMES R. TRUE TO THE OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY. WHEREAS, Section 7.1 of the Home Rule Charter of the City of Aspen requires the City Council to appoint a City Attorney to serve as the legal representative of the City; and WHEREAS, James R. True has distinguished himself serving as Special Counsel for the City of Aspen for more than four years; and WHEREAS, James R. True has indicated an interest in serving as the City Attorney for the City of Aspen. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, that James R. True, is hereby appointed to the office of City Attorney for the City of Aspen, effective February 21, 2012. Dated: , 2012. 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 January 23, 2012. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk VI a� MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation OfficerCkWj RE: First Reading of Ordinance # v� Series of 2012, 117/119 Neale Avenue Historic Landmark Designation, Historic Landmark Lot Split and Transferable Development Rights DATE: January 23, 2012 SUMMARY: 117/119 Neale Avenue is a ` = >, . 15,000 square foot lot that contains a non - le family home and an 1880s era historic sin g Y log cabin that was moved into the City of Aspen from its original location along Owl Creek Road. The cabin is a voluntarily deed i restricted Accessory Dwelling Unit. ;' - ! The owner proposes voluntary landmark I : . 1 t t t _ :.i designation and a Historic Landmark Lot Split. 1. 1 111 1 I 1 I t 1 ' ' Some of the development rights may be =- removed from the property through " Transferable Development Rights for Historic Landmarks. The existing ADU deed restriction is to be removed from the cabin, which will become a free market home. The applicant's stated goal is to ensure the long -term preservation of the cabin as- is, directing any future development potential towards the lot that contains the non - historic home. HPC reviewed the application on January 1 lth and recommended Council approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff and HPC recommend Council approve Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split. Staff recommends Council allow for the creation of TDRs. APPLICANTS: Jeffrey Shoaf, property owner. PARCEL ID: 2737- 073 -53 -002. 1 HISTORIC DESIGNATION 26.415.030.B. Aspen Victorian 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. Staff Finding: The log cabin at 117 Neale Avenue was built in the 1880s. The applicant has submitted information about the relocation of this building from Snowmass to the Benedict family's Stillwater Road property in the 1960s, then to Neale Avenue in the 1990s. The cabin has not been designated in the City of Aspen up to this point primarily because it was moved into the City after most of the inventories of Victorian era historic resources were completed. HPC did present an award to the applicant in 1999 for the renovation of the cabin. The historic portion of the building is essentially the log walls that define the original cabin. At the time that the Benedict family rescued the cabin from "demolition by neglect," the roof was already gone. Benedict, and then Jeffrey Shoaf, built a new roof, added a porch, altered some windows, and constructed a small addition on the north side of the building. The cabin is significant for its antiquity. There are very few examples of mining era log cabins remaining in the area. There is no appropriate integrity scoring form to use for this property because the forms that have been created for 19 century residential buildings generally refer to structures that have wood siding and Queen Anne related detailing. The scoring form for Rustic buildings refers to structures built in the 20 century. The cabin in question does not have integrity in terms of location or setting given that it was built in Snowmass, in a more rural environment. It does have integrity in the fact that the scale of the building is preserved, the original log walls are preserved and the original craftsmanship is evident. The cabin also has historical association with Fritz Benedict. Benedict's role as a pioneer architect in postwar Aspen, and as an influential mentor to many designers who arrived here from 2 the 50s and on, is well documented in the research paper "Aspen's Twentieth- Century Architecture: Modernism 1945 - 1975." Staff and HPC find that criteria A and B are met and support landmark designation. HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT In order to complete a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the Municipal Code states that the application shall meet the following requirements of Aspen Land Use Code: Section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section 26.470.070(C), and Section 26.415.120(A). Recent amendments to the code have rendered the latter two code citations inaccurate. Section 26.470.070(C) previously provided for Growth Management exemption of a new home on a Historic Landmark Lot Split parcel. The exemption is now found at Section 26.470.060. Section 26.415.120(A) refers to appeals of HPC decisions. The correct code citation is 26.415.110(A), which is procedures for review of Historic Landmark Lot Splits. The relevant code sections are addressed below. 26.480.030(A)(2), SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, LOT SPLIT The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single - family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the following conditions are met: a) The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969. This restriction shall not apply to properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures; and Staff Finding: The property is located in a subdivision approved by the City, however there is an exemption from this standard for historic properties. b) No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.470.070(B); and Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to create two lots. Lot 1, which will contain the existing non - historic house will be 12,762 square feet in size. Lot 2, with the cabin, is proposed to be 3,040 square feet in size. Both conform to the minimum lot size of 3,000 square feet for Historic Landmark Lot Splits. The buildings will not be required to mitigate for affordable housing because they are existing units. The deed restriction that has dedicated the cabin as an ADU since 1998 will be removed. c) The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.470.040(C)(1)(a): and 3 Staff Finding: The land has not received a subdivision exemption or lot split exemption. d) A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Staff Finding: The subdivision plat shall be a condition of approval. It must be reviewed by the Community Development Department for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land use action. e) Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. Staff Finding: The subdivision exemption agreement shall be a condition of approval. j) In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. Staff Finding: No demolition is proposed. g) Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. Staff Finding: A total of two units are planned for this property. 26.480.030(A)(4). SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT a.) The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand (6,000) square feet in size and be located in the R -6, R -15, R -15A, RMF or 0 Zone District. Staff Finding: The subject parcel is 15,017 square feet and is located in the R -15 Zone District. b.) The total FAR for both residences shall be established by the size of the parcel and the Zone District where the property is located. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the subdivision exemption plat. 4 Staff Finding: FAR is based on the lot size of the "fathering," i.e. existing parcel. In this case, deductions are required due to the topography of the site. The FAR that remains available after slope calculations is approximately 4,833 square feet. The applicant represents that all FAR will be allocated to the non - historic house on Lot 1, except what is needed to cover the cabin in its existing condition. As a preservation incentive, HPC was asked for, and has approved, a 500 square foot FAR bonus, which fully covers the size of the historic cabin. Typically in a lot split, FAR is divided somewhat proportionately between the two lots. In this case, the applicant does not want to allow for the potential for a future addition to the cabin. Staff finds that this meets the underlying goal of the Historic Landmark Lot Split, which is to remove development pressure from historic buildings. However the FAR that is available for the site cannot be allocated 100% to the non - historic home because it will be more FAR than zoning allows for Lot 1. The following page is a summary of the development options for the property. The applicant must determine whether Option 1 or Option 2 is preferred by the time of Second Reading. It is likely that some of the allowable FAR will be removed from the site in the form of two or three TDRs. Criteria for creating TDRs are discussed at the end of the memo. 5 117/119 NEALE AVENUE HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT ANALYSIS Without With designation designation Option 1 Option 2 Lot size 15,017 Lot 1: 12,762. Lot 2: 3,040 Lot 1: 12,762. Lot 2: 3,040 Maximum density Duplex plus 1 1 single family on each 1 single family on each voluntary ADU, 1 lot, no ADUs required lot, no ADUs required mandatory ADU FAR distribution 4,833 for a duplex, Lot 1: 4,200 Lot 1: 4,083 plus 350 square foot ADU exemption granted in 1998 Lot 2: 500 sq.ft.FAR Lot 2: 500 sq.ft. FAR bonus granted by HPC to bonus granted by HPC to cover the cabin (ADU cover the cabin (ADU bonus goes away), 500 bonus goes away), 750 square feet of allowable square feet of allowable FAR converted to two FAR converted to three TDRS, 133 square feet of TDRS allowable FAR unusable (can't be added to cabin due to applicant representation that no addition will be made. Can't be added to house on Lot 1 because the max. FAR for Lot 1 is 4,200 TOTAL FAR 5,183 4,700 on site, 500 square 4,583 on site, 750 square feet to be located feet to be located elsewhere in the form of elsewhere in the form of TDRs= 5,200 TDRs= 5,333 Setback variances 10' front yard 10' front yard reduction for 10' front yard reduction for reduction for cabin cabin, 5' sideyard for cabin cabin, 5' sideyard for cabin awarded in 1998 awarded by HPC in 2012 awarded by HPC in 2012 Required parking 2 for each unit in the 2 for the single family 2 for the single family duplex, 1 for each house on Lot 1. 1 space house on Lot 1. 1 space ADU located on Lot 1, dedicated located on Lot 1, dedicated for the use of the cabin on for the use of the cabin on Lot 2. Lot 2. 6 TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS 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 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. Staff Finding: Single family and duplex uses are permitted in the zone district where 117/119 Neale Avenue is located. B. It is demonstrated that the sending site has permitted unbuilt development rights, for either a single- family or duplex home, equaling or exceeding two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of floor area multiplied by the number of historic TDR certificates requested. Staff Finding: The application demonstrates that there is unused FAR available on the property. 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. Staff Finding: No non - conformities will be created by the project. All dimensional requirements of the zone district are met or have properly received variances from HPC. 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. Staff Finding: The analysis only includes development that is by right or has been awarded by HPC approval. E. Any development order to develop floor area, beyond that remaining legally connected to the property after establishment of TDR Certificates, shall be considered null and void. Staff Finding: No such development order exists. 7 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 my 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. Staff Finding: The deed restriction will follow the form approved by 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. Staff Finding: A closing will be scheduled at the conclusion of the review. 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) Staff Finding: The applicant has provided floor area analysis. RECOMMENDATION: Staff and HPC recommend Council approve Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split, and the creation of TDRs. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: 8 PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance # 4 of 2012, on First Reading." Exhibits: Ordinance #±-!Series of 2012 A. Application 9 ORDINANCE # _� (Series of 2012) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO APPROVING HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT AND CREATING TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 117/119 NEALE AVENUE, LOT 2, AMENDED SHOAF'S WATERFALL SUBDIVISION, TOGETHER WITH THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON THE DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 799 AT PAGE 660, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2737 073 - - 002 WHEREAS, the property owner, Jeffrey Shoaf, applied for voluntary Historic Landmark Designation, Historic Landmark Lot Split and creation of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs); and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.050.030.B of the Aspen Municipal Code establishes the process for Designation and states that an application for listing on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall be approved if City Council, after a recommendation from HPC, determines sufficient evidence exists that the property meets the following criteria: 26.415.030.B. Aspen Victorian 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; and WHEREAS, for City Council approval of a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the application shall meet the following requirements: 26.480.030(A)(2), SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, LOT SPLIT The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single - family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the following conditions are met: 117/119 Neale Avenue Ordinance # , Series of 2012 Page 1 of 7 a) The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969. This restriction shall not apply to properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures; and b) No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.470.070(B); and c) The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.470.040(C)(1)(a): and d) A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.470. e) Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. f) In the case where an existing single - family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. g) Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single - family home, and 26.480.030(A)(4), SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT a.) The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand (6,000) square feet in size and be located in the R -6, R -15, R -15A, RMF or 0 Zone District. b.) The total FAR for both residences shall be established by the size of the parcel and the Zone District where the property is located. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the subdivision exemption plat. c.) The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying Zone District. The variances provided in Paragraphs 26.415.120.B.1.a, b and c are 117/119 Neale Avenue Ordinance #_, Series of 2012 Page 2 of 7 only permitted on the parcels that will contains an historic structure. The FAR bonus will be applied to the maximum FAR allowed on the original parcel, and 26.415.110(A), BENEFITS 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; and WHEREAS, Section 26.535.070 of the Aspen Municipal Code establishes the process for creation for Transferable Development Rights, which shall be approved if City Council determines sufficient evidence exists that the property meets the following criteria: 26.535.070. Review criteria for establishment of a historic transferable development right. A. The sending site is a historic landmark on which the development of a single - family or duplex residence is a permitted use, pursuant to Chapter 26.710, 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 117/119 Neale Avenue Ordinance # , Series of 2012 Page 3 of 7 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 my 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; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer, in her staff report to City Council, performed an analysis of the application, found that the review standards for Historic Landmark Designation, Historic Landmark Lot Split and Transferable Development Rights are met, and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on January 11, 2012, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application for Historic Landmark Designation, Historic Landmark Lot Split, and benefits within their purview, namely an FAR bonus, setback variances and parking variances, found the application was consistent with the review standards and unanimously recommended approval by a vote of five to zero (5 to 0), with conditions; 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. 117/119 Neale Avenue Ordinance # , Series of 2012 Page 4 of 7 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Historic Designation Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Aspen City Council hereby approves Historic Designation for 117/119 Neale Avenue, Lot 2, Amended Shoals Waterfall Subdivision, Together With The Property Described On The Deed Recorded In Book 799 At Page 660, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. Section 2: Historic Landmark Lot Split Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section 1, above, the City Council does hereby grant a Historic Landmark Lot Split Subdivision Exemption for 117/119 Neale Avenue, Lot 2, Amended Shoals Waterfall Subdivision, Together With The Property Described On The Deed Recorded In Book 799 At Page 660, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 1. A subdivision exemption plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall: a. Meet the requirements of Section 26.480 of the Aspen Municipal Code; b. Contain a plat note stating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to the provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; c. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R -15 zone district, except the variances approved by the HPC; and d. Be labeled to indicate that this proposal will create Lot 1 of 12,762 square feet in size with _ square feet of floor area, and a Lot 2 of 3,040 square feet in size with square feet of floor area, plus _ square feet available to be used for TDRs. No more than 500 square feet of FAR may be allocated to development on Lot 2. e. An easement shall be indicated on Lot 1 for the purpose of creating one parking space dedicated in perpetuity for the use of Lot 2. The curb cut, driveway and /or parking area on Lot 1 shall meet the City Engineer's requirements for safety. Section 3: Transferable Development Rights The owner will record a deed restriction permanently restricting the maximum development of the property (the sending site) to an allowable floor area not exceeding the allowance for a duplex residence plus a 500 square foot FAR bonus awarded by HPC, minus two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of floor area multiplied by the number of historic TDR certificates established. Section 4: Severabilitv 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 117/119 Neale Avenue Ordinance # , Series of 2012 Page 5 of 7 separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5: 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 6: Vested Rights The Land Use entitlements granted herein shall be vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site - specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, including Final Major Development and Commercial Design Reviews by the HPC, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 117/119 Neale Avenue, Lot 2, Amended Shoafs Waterfall Subdivision, Together With The Property Described On The Deed Recorded In Book 799 At Page 660, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Section 7: Public Hearing A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 27 day of February, 2012 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a 117/119 Neale Avenue Ordinance # , Series of 2012 Page 6 of 7 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 23` day of January, 2012. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2012. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney 117/119 Neale Avenue Ordinance # , Series of 2012 Page 7 of 7 ATTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT'. p , l c a a I I1 1� /� Name: ,F 4'� 7 ' )ga i i ci I+Lyt4Cf(//, Location: 1 �W�J' �-�Q v ` f L 1 (Indicate street address, lot & block number, egal descri ere appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) APPLICANT: �' \� //gyp. Name: , ' 7 r s f Address: . B I At :A / .ti t f / f Phone #: to gT1 /�� A fl 2 f J J r REPRESENTATIVE: Name: -c,'WU Address: Phone #: 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 Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane D Commercial Design Review ❑ Lot Split ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansio ' ❑ Residential Design Variance ❑ Lot Line Adjustment 0, Other:' ::W ❑ Conditional Use 17'� OtAl `o EXISTING CCONDTTU NS: descri stion of e 'stint buildints, uses, previous approvals, etc.) Spill -�vi m 4 PROPOSAL: (descn of proposed buildirgs, uses, modificatio s, etc.) $4 s - -t (A QJ Z $ F l 1 Have y attached the o llowing? FEES DUE: $ 1 1 {- j 0 • ❑ Pre - Application Conference Summary ❑ Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement ❑ Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form ❑ Response to Attachment 144, 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 -D model. Your pre - application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3 -D model. XFI ITY Connect Page 2 of 3 From: jeffshoaf@comcast.net To: "jeffshoaf' <jeffshoaf @comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 8:05:56 PM Subject: Benedict Cabin History October 31, 2011 attention: Amy Guthrie "THE BENEDICT CABIN HISTORY", updated and with additional paragraph 117 Neale Avenue, Aspen According to Jens Christianson, who was very familiar with the cabin and lived on Owl Creek Road for most of his 90 plus years only a couple of miles from the original cabin site (which is where the Snowmass Tmbers Club is now, at the bottom the Elk Camp Lifts), the "Benedict Cabin" was originally built in the 1800's by a Scandinavian woodsman and trapper, who was locally well known as an excellent cabin builder and overall craftsman. Back in the 1990's, I told Jens about my plans to acquire and move the cabin from the Benedict's Stillwater Road land to my property across Neale Avenue from No Problem Joe's historic home site. When we talked about the 1886 newspaper article that was still attached to one of the logs inside, Jens was not surprised, and just nodded his head and smiled his approval! In the early 1970's, Fritz and Fabi Benedict decided that the cabin was architecturally and historically too valuable to just let go to waste or be tumed into firewood like so many other beautiful and historic cabins of the valley, and it was clearly in the path of future development where it was. By then, there was no roof on the cabin as evidenced by a 1973 photograph, and the exterior, hand hewed log walls were falling in on each other and the place was heading downhill fast! The Benedicts decided something had to be done to save the cabin as an example of 1880's era local architecture and construction. They carne up with the idea of disassembling and moving the cabin to their vacant Stillwater Road property on the river near the old gravel pits in East Aspen, to be rebuilt and preserved there. Their original idea as I was told was to rebuild the cabin for the use of their daughter, Jessica. Unfortunately, when the cabin project was nearly complete, the Benedict's Cabin got "red tagged" by the building department for reasons I do not know and was never completely finished. In spite of the fact that the exterior logs were fully chinked and finished, the front porch beautifully designed and built, the windows and doors were all installed and completed, and the wood shingled roof and fish scale accents were finished, ....and the entire cabin was basically "weather tight" and ready to go, it was still red tagged. Even though there was a dishwasher and sink in the kitchen section and a modern bathroom downstairs, I do not believe the cabin was ever fully operational. The cabin did remain very functional and served various purposes over the years, including finally being the Resnick's construction headquarters during the building of their new home , in addition to being a quaint, local delight to all who came down Stillwater Road and admired it! Fritz and Fabi sold the underlying property, including the cabin to the Stewart Resnicks, who proceeded to build their lovely 2nd home past the cabin site. Unfortunately for them, they used all their allowable floor area on the new house, and even though they wanted to keep the cabin, if at all possible, they were not allowed to do so and had to have the cabin removed from their property for zoning purposes. This set of circumstances led to me acquiring the cabin from the Resnicks by way of a sealed bid auction. My purpose in acquiring the cabin was always to be as faithful as possible in reconstructing the cabin on my Neale Avenue property true to the Benedict's classic, original design and their preservation intentions. Through research, I was even able to learn who had helped rebuilt the cabin for Fritz in the early 1970's, and I was able to hire the same old time local builder, namely Bill Knight, that the Benedicts had back then to help rebuild the cabin on my property! Bill was naturally excited about the opportunity to work on the new reconstruction of the historic cabin for a second time....only 25 years later than the 1st time, and with historic designation hopefully being granted, we hope for the last time! In addition to the original logs, we salvaged as much as we could from the Stillwater cabin site, !, including the original cypress barn wood, vertical siding that the Benedicts had used and is still in place on the north end of the cabin, just like Fritz had done it! The original "fish scale" Victorian accent shingles were likewise reused as Fritz had and we even matched the cabin's new chinking to exactly Fritz.s chosen color and had hardwood floors installed like his on the porch and inside.. In 1998 and 1999, we did our very best to reconstruct the cabin in it's present location on Neale Avenue true to what Fritz and Fabi had envisioned and built on Stillwater. A significant part of the end result now in place is that the cabin's most visibly important, east facing, Neale Avenue exposure with the porch is almost identical to what the Benedicts originally designed and built on Stillwater, also facing the street! Elsewhere, the cabin's reconstruction underwent only minor changes that were made primarily to accommodate the new orientation and siting at the present Neale Avenue location. In addition to the above historic features maintained, we also only used authentic, City of Aspen acquired 100 year old mall bricks for the access sidewalk, entryway and the front porch step. An authentic Victorian design, wooden picket fence, with entry gate has been installed, and authentic, antique light fixtures, and 100 plus year old beams further enhanced the overall curb appeal from Neale Avenue, which was very important to us. Additionally, the smaller scale of the cabin contributes significantly to the present overall positive, historic Neale Avenue neighborhood experience, especially in these times of big and bigger house being built all the time! I hope to see, that through the powers and wisdom of "Historic Designation ", the cabin will always remain where it is now and true to the Benedict vision . In conclusion, and as a part of my Land Use Application, and as per Amy's request, I want to state what I am doing regarding: 1) the FAR of the Benedict Cabin and spell out my intentions to restrict any future additions, remodeling or expanding of the current Cabin, and 2) what I would be asking the HPC to provide for me as additional benefits for me taking on historic designation for the Cabin. Firstly, my intention is to limit the Benedict Cabin in the future to its current size and footprint on the newly created lot #2, Benedict Cabin Subdivision Exemption plat, which is true to the Benedict's original vision. Secondly, I would ask HPC to grant me a 500 square foot FAR bonus, to be applied to the larger lot #1 where my current house is located. Additionally, any unused FAR from the Cabin lot #2, not used by the current cabin "as is ", shall also be transferred and credited to the larger lot #1 for any future use or . . .. . .... ..... •nn n • 1 A 1 / 1 P1(111 XFIIVITY Connect Page 3 of 3 redevelopment on lot #1. It also appears that I will need setback and parking variances on lot #2 as well as per Amy. Finally, if at all possible, I would ask for an exemption from having to either build an ADU or pay cash in lieu with the future redevelopment of my current house on lot #1, in light of the fact that the Cabin was originally approved and built as an ADU with few restrictions, and basically continues to functions the same. Thank you for reviewing these matters and I sincerely look forward to working with you all. Jeffrey S. Shoaf Jeffrey Shoaf Aspen Realty Exchange 119 Neale Ave ' jeffshoaf@comcast.net 970 925 -4501 Office 970 948 -3129 Cell ■ 1 1 nil /7f11 1 Amy Guthrie From: jeffshoaf@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 4:02 PM To: Amy Guthrie Subject: Fwd: Benedict Cabin History; Jessica Benedict's responce! Amy, I have just received this email from Jessica Bennedict. Please note the correction and please forward this to the commission. See you here shortly at the cabin. Feel free to park in the driveway just North of the cabin, away from the ski hill. Thanks again for your help and I did go to the website for tonight's agenda. See you soon. Jeff Jeffrey Shoaf Aspen Realty Exchange 119 Neale Ave jeffsh oaf(n� comcast. net 970 925 -4501 Office 970 948 -3129 Cell From: "JGordon" <jgordon @theranch.net> To: jeffshoaf @comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 3:35:55 PM Subject: Re: Benedict Cabin History Jeffrey, Your "history" looks good with one small change. Fritz was still alive when the property was sold to the Resnicks. I have looked through my photos here at the house and have been unable to find the "cabin" photo. It is possible that it is in a file in the storage barn which is too difficult to get to today with the recent snow. I will put it on my "to do" list and look for it when the weather clears. I have included a short letter of encouragement on your quest to designate the cabin as historical. I consider it a very worthwhile project and wish you luck this afternoon at the meeting. Sincerely. Jessica Benedict - Gordon Dear Amy and the HPC, I am writing you in support of Jeffrey Shoaf's proposal to designate the "Benedict Cabin" as an historical building to be placed on the City of Aspen's historic registry. I believe Jeffery has spent time and money to insure that the cabin retained it's authentic character. There are very few structures 1 • - ' ' --,('* .A. ''';"''' % ....‘ -'t ••• ' • ‘ • .',,,,, q ' - - -- - . . . ... . ..... , .01..';',i.: ;,' ,...c. ''...:4\- ,N ,..+. 17 `,* , .0: ,• ,,,,. ,," `,.'S-,..N. iN, '0 „ ,,,- < , (., ... - 01•:, , .4'.: - .1:, '';' '' 'ti 4 .4, 4 . ' " - ' „,:‘, ,N ' , • , :7 1 , , k'''' .;\ t t . , - „ , ,:..;,- . ' /*.t. .4 ,k /f :/'%." ...,:: '.,/,':. 4 .--' ,./S_,-,' ,-/:: ,,A;;`'.,•e.-.,..,s/,, ." . .-kt. ., ,/, .,,,,.. k,, ,,, ,,,,,-, .., ,.-%,,,., / ,./1,...: ,,,,,: t,, 0%. .s, .i 01 0... ,./ •;;; -;'/, .,., * -.-- /•/..*'/. < - .,' ' -1, .,-//: AZ' l''''' ....•• ..-•.; / 9,.. /%, •• • ,'‘., . , 4" e, A ,,:'S 4, k' • ''' : XI; 47: ''''' •''''. .. •: 4 : '‘. • :' * 4 : . L' .. 4"4 '.% n. 4 : • ‘:' P " u.. • 4; • NZ 4 1 }N. 1 • " ."4", i ;$ ,''' .."'"--. ''', .,.:, A .".*- /..! %.,..- / / /Z, ',.:' `. :',, .:' .....i ''.. p, . : ' ' : '''. 4 *)', ' •:.: :' ''' . .,: : '''': :X: L ' - ■. ' r4,,,,,,,04;,,<,41:f.,:ii.'..,,,4-4j1,4..‘'.%::::...,,...Z*Z .14)4''z'•%4...7...N0,... . 1'. • ••• :. ' N,,' .... Q.. .. .' • :% '''...'s ,:'^a ''.2," ..,7,' A .N -:' - ;•' , .S. .‘;',. ''' ...."' . ..0.- ,N ,..:;: ",/1' 3 .0 _.: .-1 •,,' ' ..'Z, -. # SA _,N, ... - .,.'., ,;',".` ''..-:''.': ', ,. ... .,..- .., .. ''‘.,:., .r ,...: liZ, -,'-' ..A. N •.'"...•■•;:•-•' -..",-: , . „.s; , ' . ‘ ...".-,, -,' • • ,''' •••4 .;\ .!-.' ...."'''' ,"•-• ,,,,, ...s.1 .t , ..'s. c••",`. .,,,', ".,,, ,,,. .,,, , , „.. . ,>.• , -, .., . f .w„ „, 0. . ,,, '',„,. re. ...:, ...4. ,,,,, r.,7 ' 0 , .,N... . ...... .4 :‘•,,, • • 1 1 ,■ 4 :4 .4'' ,!. ' ‘` ,'A''. ''''' ,' 4 '',,, '• :' ,.• . - - .. _ ‘ i.t; • .,,V , ,,...:` - , i 0 -, ‘ ,.."‘ ,:h-, „,,,,'„, ....,,f7 .. -• - ,I# ..,, ..: •-:,..'''''' . ' - 1 roN 1. •■ ',"'#:!"' ''•'.. :%. • *' ' ,.. - .-- . • ..• • • • E ,..N..."?..' „.•.:' -'''. , . . . . ' k ' 1. ' . -...ift _ -... .. _ , , r A: \ .1. "' ....' s ..1.d8 s uroul 6 -4. -- , •,..• ,• - _ . • „..... ioi „ ,, ...11, 0• ■ . • , . ,,„----..... ■ \ ' • - 1W • i; ..i 1 • .'-,-'•' .... -.... , _.....■ , , , . . , , 4-..,.:. „ -- fr -• - ...:,.•-•%--- . ._ ,.....,-,--- ilogoilwoo ',- . ,-;;.,... -- 1 • • ... ' - , - - -1..... , '• - -4 • .- 4'1/4„ ____-__, ..-- . a T — 100 111111 ___,..... . \ • . ‘.0,-.. .- /..,,.. -.4,.. , --_-_-_,----_____I-_,--,-, , siaps,ogoom.-- 8 mom -.% . , . \ t . . ..c;f1.,4,1,*,,,-• . ----___,-- , ,__.--,----- . . 4.00011110.1111111".1110 l .. igit —" T '- _,T, I .,.... 1 4e I a; r ~ , •, , ,, , • 0 ' •••7 • r r .. ...• .- • . • : - , ,- • ,, •-••".„ ,,, ' - - -- F - - - : --- _ —, L__- -- ___.,-- ----- - ,, , .— .0 „ma , , . ___--.1if._ 1: - __40 ... , -' •. ,.:. . - - ., . . • I. • .,' - . •-, ,...v •• , ----- .._-- , • .. 0007080i,,,tm. .. ,........------.-;,_ _..1.1.--t IiitA „.,.- _ , .-.: . • , • , :.,,aarill • ....._, --..-- ----- - _ , 3,..:.... . ut __,■,:i." \A-• . , , • , . : . • . , - .-. • --, z -.• .- • ,-..,, . -• _ . .. / ,_,-,------- Bow.- •_•_. . .--.-. - .• - - - - jo g' - ,.....it-kl_ ti t02,....1-•-' - ,;...... : • • , ' .-. e .,:t...,.. c,,,.. ,,,,: , _ , : '.-1-$ 0 4" :2.: -. ., .-...-..• 0 . ',.-. \.\,--1:-'• -,,• -...,- • . . • • , .,. ,, • - . . ':-•••. 9 _... _ -... . .. 1 ,. .. • • 44 :' '. 'Ll ) ; - .. 1 • ' :- ... 0 .-. -. 7 ;:',7 . , • -:` , . 1 . /./.. • , , - - .4- -",:‘,..i..J....,4 'i ,,,.. . 1 . ,_ 4 __.....---;-- ..._. _,,,,,,,/,. • 1 : • • • • - • ' '• - .9,_ . ••, r‘r - t.'•-•-1. '1 . 1V1, 11-'--------- \ ---- , ._:-.--,--, 1 _ ,;••• ---,• ..I --,-,====.1111, • 1 1 ' ' ' . r -4 • , • . , ,, .. . . 1 ..,..... „.,,,,,,___,•,_ • . / .... • - . ' 1' - '- - 1 , ._. . . . , • t i. , _. r-,, , ,. .:. ......,./.. . • . • ' . .. , , . ---.. -';'.7iItfc -----., 2 - -, .L • . „ ---./. I . .2 ,, • .. .. . .. .. • • t, t --. . . i. --- • I *: \ •-,..--•,, - ••• • -‘, :".... •. .:....1, _....,\ _._,,-;._ , _,I, , .. .. -_,.-.,„-. i,_ - -... ; 7 ; = . ' 7 = 'i - -: , • . „ •• : .....1: . ,, ..... - ■ , , „,.: • , 4. - - - -- , 1 -- .. _ , - ,- - . ' . , 1 . . , ., t . ; •,• ,- :- : '., . __ : , , ,, t, • - - - i• • -• ',•-, '-.L.', i. i ---,..: - I . ,.:. -.. _ •:, - , . ... ., .. • ... . . . . . . .. . - - _. , -; .-• ,, t , . ., - .- Iti t ;:..-, - • -• - . - -. , ... . _-...., .._-..„,:„. ... • -• . • • ..- - 1, t , i• - A t .- --; . 6 ,"" a ' " - --. 1 ' -: `") c: ..' r: .-' . ..;--',—...- . 1.t.,;, :::::. — , .. , ....-, , .... . t 1 , - -1 41 1 4e!.. ''',,'. , , ; ' ,1 ' - ":•::i V..:.r...- : • :,:•-•.:._"--'_.. • - ,- .± 1117.., ..1 '''•-• , :,,,,--..,.-- .."_.• ''s — r.....,- — , - --..- -..Fii.: • ,.... • • .• - . 4..-7= • 4--11 ' f--1 • -• ,- ,'' 1 '7 - --- • -- --•• -- -- `-'. - - 1 ' .1,' ..,,.., ,, - ,s."„..- ".1 ... ,.."41, •',/•• ' .+., 1 :',.■ N. . ./.2 :::....:' - / . ".. „ N ,a• r .-1/4, ,,,,, .,..,„ ,.■ , .. . ,. 4, . s „. ,, ■:. .,,,. 4,, , . : ' ''''''''',: '' -......' '.:•-' ' - .. ', • — ' 7... : ,. , , -, . — -' / ../: .,'N 4 ". ' ./'::'."''''' 0. ..."! . 4: .■:' - , ' ■':, .,',', ', :j: . . '''' ' \ ': •-- ' ' ''-.- :::: - .. ',.. ' - .: '''''' 4- 4 - .. ..: .• .•''''' ,C, ''. ' ''''"' :,:.:' '''''''. :'2 . 4 :: ' 4.% . 1..■ S. 4 ''': '''. ' ,.4 .: .... . ''''' ''', , . 4 e ...:: :,'''::•:,:•:' , . ' ''' :,. - 4. %,.. " '. .', .A A: '''..(,"..", ‘: ,."■• 1 ;, ..:' • -* , + .,..-., , .. ' ,'1 \'' .-'% , 4 •' .. ''': , s 'o-: 4. ..,,,° - ,,, • . ,. , • :L - 1 , -,;: ' •`‘; -.A,' „ \ n :: ...'S7, . ,''' , . ' ,'"* ''# . 4" .' .." '.' ......", ...",, .-,N ..■,• ,,' ,.." .. ., , ....,, -," ..,., $ .,-,.. „ # .,..„. ,- ,,,.. i ., . . _ - , ..,",,,, „,#, -., , • # # : ... ..", '' „N., s '■ , „ '..,,:. , 4 ,...... ,;.:,„ .,,,:, ",,, -0, ,,,, ,c, ,,l'.. -, ..: ,,, .,7, .2.., • .."," . ,',.. ,1/4., „..,-; ,..., ,.,. • • - VV.' ' ' • - ', ‘''t '.: •, ' •" '''' - '''. . ' ' • " - N. ..s, ,` ' ..' ... 4: :Oa n''''. , :k ... :$._ +: '.../.. ....,`,/ ... i.: .....".....- -.1L.-. ,;., -, ' • 1..'1'';'-'; -, 7-, I i • - . , i . . • .. I •••• ,0„ ,I ,r : • • , • - Pvt ;‘ • . '.( 11 . * 1 ' ''' • , , . . . • . • , t' '' • , . - • . .., . . . ... . •-' -. . f • • 1 . . • ... • .I ,,-- , , . , . ., , ,,, ...• . , ' . I * r / - • ' . , . • '''' ':' . . ' It Ai‘ Nk . .. .14 11.' - ; -". ...; ) . ' ..‘..-:- - •' \.`,-..,_ , ' t . ' . - , • ' • ' ' .vd f - ." -• . •-•-• • ::: : : •. '‘ AV q ,•. , •g,-2. -,'4.... . .. . ^.- ... • . • , ' • • . .. - , '••• • • - • • — . • .,....„ ‘: N. ,. 4,..., ,, w .... • 4 . - 1.5rk-'/ , ,. , „, - • -. .■ • • " ':'... ''':' •'. ' . ' 4 J: ' - . t' ` ' - • - / •/ - • 4 •----. . . . 'I. . . . . • . • • • .• . :. .• - .1 1 i , t),N1 . - - . • . ' / : ' ..j1 dr *' • ''• 1 . . , - . • • V. I s •, %. ' , 1• '' ! • ''• 1 • - • • . ,. ' 0:4' Y •IsF . „ . .. .. ''' :: -'. ''. • ff on 4 ‘ fN . ..-;.-.... -. •fp:,4,.-, . - : !,. ---•--- ,,, ; ,..,, 10 r . • i ,-. _ . . , ,• - , •; . f - ': - , • :•'• .,. 1.41' i- : * ' .,- ' . . ' 1 .'':•, . -: ---••• -- : --:::,..,:- ./ 1 't : / . /./ . /!' '•:t7/ ''f''' . . .. ..„,/,.', , ., • . 2 ,/;./ ..',`•4 lityc,a, . -. ,..'-';' - ..f l t ‘ i:.j17 'i 1. ' 7 --- -- y Y,_„4",itt , k...1.11131.i-ft.179 - ---7' - \: 14, '‘.1 ' 1. 4 1. 1 .' ' ' ,Pe 41:::'; Itt' " . , : • . II ' • ' . ':: ' 1 . IA • -.,.r. , .. , .. .1 - 1. - :,_,•,..::,;„, ; i : . it v , ',1- ,, •,, _ . v. ,• 1, t. ,i -.-..., . ; , _ . • ., ,, .; .., A .., i • , ,.•-•-,• • ' •— • c... t.. L.'•:',1 . VIV,V. .• ' . . • ' .. ' ti: .' - , 14 - t --.. '.• ---- • 4 ‘ -.?ifiY 1 . : 1- 1',' , k . , . .' -- - , t', ,,; ,',...:.•, - : .. _ _- , . • --',=:•:.• -N- '' 'i.' ' ' ;' , ••• • ..,,, ,,,-;.;..„ ...p, I , , , : ',*. , . k , ' '' ' ' c 1 or F-fr,- •-• . i i ..., • ,,,-.-- .1' L ill : . ! Ai .,,.._- 1 _ i t; J -..P... , -..., ,r,ic. ' i i 'i . . 1 : J •:,'" , r, ' - 1, ' 2 . ' ' . , .. , . ' r4)411 '• ---- . --- 3 ' . - ---•:.: • - - \ 4 , 64 1 •Yr' 1 1 - -' el • 1:'; ...:.• • i,•••,,- ; •4'.. . •--' • . , , „ . • --.4.: _I-- -:--, , 7 . •-• . , ' ,4-• YI■ •-:,:..,-....,. i. . : ff . -. - •.` :;i:-;.-.?. ,r - . ...- .,..,.....-, 1 _ , - .t-t: . ' 7 , 1 1,-.IF - , ,, '•i ,:,•-•••; , • • ;! • , . --- ..i...._..,- : ‘--• ,, , ', , q, •• )..:,,, , - ; , . - ..: • '' - .' - • . ' -- - - • - - -- - • , , \ 'ir•• .,e- -.: . i ,..,,j!.. 1,.- .. ,'.-11 , : I • . _, , • ., ... . , . . . , 1 . . f l , ' • , I., 0 4: I L ..- • ! 1' .. • -' • •-• - • -, -. - - - - - , r I Xi 'I.' ,.; ‘ :1 ., 4 41 i. ' '. ..-- -7," . , "...= - - -- -- -- - . - . ,.. ..- - ,. .. -.. --, / A t... • ..;; • . _ ' _ . - ,.-.. I, ' -1.1./ ii. 'to .11 §.,..-) ■' . ::- .......; ... . '-' --:". -::- "!:.:,-- -.- ... 7' ;;;.-. 7 , -. .;.:-":c . ; i, ':,'",-- '',..::. -h- ` - 4P • . i::? ,- t.";t1: ,.., !°- .1----..;.' ' ' 1 !L% iJkl.i:Ar_.. .. 17 . . I - . ' 2 ;4 • - ri , s - 44, ...^-•.,„- , . 44 ,-...-4....t.A , .. v '4; .4.. k• ..•': . ■••■.. , 44 .- -4 ‘‘'',,-, -.V I•4'4 'i -k., 'N'....;:s. - 4..: ,, ,-- - ;„, , ,,,- - 44. - 4* - • - '‘-i•-••' . .;, - s:* 'y• 4 ''...' .' .Y ''-- • -::'1.. N - . *,.i.;; '..,: *,..... N. - t. , ...-N. .7,i; v•• ‘ 7,4 - .777 ,... • ...• 7 A .. • . •,.. 47,, • ,,,, .7,, • .., r. • • -..„..., 7..., • , s., .7 ,., 4„... ,0 .‘ ' • .. • . 1 7, • ' - 7 'S. '• • , •I • A• •,.." '.• - •.'- r''' • ■•••• fs, .-.• . '1 4 ' ." kg? "- .N. ...: - 7,,. •''''• , 7%, ' • •cr " • ," . 1, . : ; N •.'"A ,,;N: ".• PN 4 A.N...,4% ,"..: " ,k t• 4,N: ' '''" 'A ''' " \ •*".". ,.":,. tt A . i.....' 4 'N't - ., 1 1 - Z -°"." ,'" ' • • ' 1 '. "i1 '1: ' ',- l' '' '1 ' "-N A ) ' • • •N -A ',, • , :i.‘ •:,, .7* A •-‘ • •'•• - •:ZN.• . % .,•;' •'‘,,, •• *.t..Z 1 4`; '1; :4. •Z,N.i,:• .it, '", ••. ' -'•;?...78. , ‘ 4 ‘..,• . ‘ A's 1 .•,' . • '• ' . -• • . . • - ',,c .c . ‘`‘...,7‘:, -..i ''''‘,..•'‘,.. •Z 4 '' .7,e'r •,tc- .: .i . , 7"'; .A Af •S •Z. '''' " '`': 4 Z. - —'k s ' ' A 'A: "1..4 * :% ' -A -." . - • • • ' . , -.. .. ,) "' •,. 'a •-' , t. • • * I+ • -` • •Nr * •"•,- • • i7 •w ' • A „7i: ‘.7 •'•• ,..Z. ,C. --..ik• -•:. -^'‘ -‘ - •• ' . ..-..... -.,., ...-- ' . , - . .. , . • . 8 ‘ .. N • . . \ 7.1', ' ,i‘„ ''.:..\ ...7i.' Z'c_A _, A -,.. '.... — ,- . - .: . ' ''• .2 -.‘ ‘. .i..'*'• -"7 17 . N - , .- - 0 „Fs .,..,.,, : ...- , , - -. ,. : • . z... • ' - -,., ` . • -.--_ •____'_--_--- - . -,.--- .- • ,,, • ). * . ...--'4v,,.401P 1 e '-'. t • .:-.* • • . ''' jOi"" ' . . ./ ( • '';' --- -- ' -------. • ---- "C`N - :''' ---------r _ ; ' ;,,' .,, \ ---- ---- - . .... . i j . .- 4.• ,,..• ------.-- . .„ . r - / " ; "., ---- - - ... : •. - , ...T . •.,16:'' :1 ,. %: 1 40 , -.::• - •.•'"' • . . .- ' . . • , 1.- . , " ; -.•:.—.' . --_-_--''.._,„ .4 ......, ..,.....:. ---4 •_-_ .1 • --- y " rt ,4,...- • . . • . . I : . . ..,.'" ' • i.4 ; • - • • • • :. ,. NN---' :SI -______,_ . ' - .-- *-- `---- -- * * - - **- - .- .-- • . - - Nr-:' • . -.-. A" ""....--,./ . . 1 N. l '• ,•, • ... . . '' '''• ._ '....,, -6 !---Imal_IPlarmom -- - --------- ------------L.• r:.= - - • • kk • • .!. •••.. ...-,..,, ---. ,f • _ l • --,---,,,, - -,-..,s_.._ ' . ,• r ------- • "'. — '' ' • % ,, :t . - r ; I I: ' - '.•k h . , :- ... , ;. • • • . ;-''''•- .....,.. " . ._...J .... ,: . ,„'-. ..;-: , . 19 eetr.,...;„. - ; , --- .14 , i , ,,. ' l • . , -e ,' . . ., - -i. '';;;' • ;... ' ....' :. • , .„: —, ,' ..' 3;7. If-7, , ...- .. , .• ,,., i \ . ....47,,......4,., -- '. 4 ..„ • . ... - ' ll 1_,,. \ '•-• ! '' .--• Ni4• t_...) :c.,:- ;:, ,, (. - I •1 1 %1. 1 ..„.._, , " t .- . A ' ' ..,%"1" . i i I • .., - . . • ' • 2 - . '...,_ , -': 1, 1 ,!i ...,.:...• , .14 ; ,, , ,,,,,.. .., ..e . .......„.... , _ , 4" ...:1 .- .:, 1 %.' 0, ' , .f ■... \+1 1 . - 4. -,...3-,::;.;. ,e' • ,-.• , A II , 1 .,' , ,..,, 11, „. , , , 1 . 1 ; , t iii t. r ir.; . \ , , ■ \ ',.. ';;? ,,.. `. .. . , '.".. ,1 '',. 4 ‘',. 14 14f - rtr‘. ...;:17Z, , ,:...... : .. : . i . .:-.,.. . -,. '.. , - - it : ‘,''' ';;''' .' - - ' '-' - --- ' . .. . ':-_____' 2.''' • . .' '.■ -,-; l' .1 .. : . .• 1 '',1_,l'1' It •i d i •i'i. . , , - - -,7- --- ____. : -- 4., -...,-.. ,.,.... I At_ , .,.. , . ..., , I .', .:-••:',•- \ 1 . V,.. ......"...;' - ' - .. 1 , ,,... -..,, , .--_•.,....__.,.• „.,.. .-- '''S'.7.47--Arkli,; t., • 1 • . • ?I ''-': ' ''.Mr. 10' l - • i...10. • - '--t-zi,-...... • 1,...,, ....: •••s.,..,......: . . 4..' t. '-'4 - t- • . „7,...-W7' ......' . n ,-A-..' • • c .:.- .., , :' li. , . . , - . - "Wft-.4,55, — - .e. ,,,,,..., ...1::,. • '.I 1 .' . . k • , 1-.7 .- .., .. I li% ;,• 'i t r_ , \ . -': '-' • - • ' i ll 4 4 .i. - 7 : - , i i i i , ' k ' .... 1 1, ' -'.'' - 1 - 4-..2.: ' ■ • .f ';' el 'l ' ':., J . . A , .1,:ll t . . 4 \ ...!:.., . '.:: .. . . • . . • 0 ' • ' . F .--. -r- .:*'•••• •"!!.‘kz‘:•-;,‘ - i.,'-. ;- ." ' "-::.•Yir,„...e •■;i,,, f. ,, . I . - ...r, ,, I r ., ,...„ 1, t., ... . . . . . :i. :'' ' ' •1 , - .. „ 7 ,i - -0. i. K.';;:i . 1:1 --,..,,- .1": ... - '''. ',...::, j. •,.."'' • -.7-- ,A. I I :',., 1 .f.;„ 41. ik i ''' r ::-.- '''.- '''' .-' 4 .'"'"' :..; ii),"".., - lt ,---•.' " r,... . bii .-..„., .. 4. , ._ , .....; • ,. ..... . • . -,_, :- , ....... 1- , .. :, . .-.- --: r 1 - r. -..,.. . . Ito ..•.' ..- , .. ...-•- . ...... • '. 'W-1--• • • :., 1.-.." t r.fs''.' ',-.,.! - 1 - '''' r. • A• .'. ,.. • - .- .- .,,,,------.....::;=.-.z - .- -- Is. ' - ''•:- ' . ' • - , ..• -..,:ftt- - - *,1 t ,- .. - ,..%.1 .. --- - :„...., - zilt.- - i..f,7-51, - ; - .. - -.. - ?,... .. : .- _ -.. . —, . ,.,..;;.,41 .- ,; --',..- -..4„..... ,4,,s. •• , f, 'p 3 &s rtt - - ' -----:- _ ,., - ..-:,..._ ' --. - - - .:..‘";',.,1. - W*;*-• ',.. ,it. `;;;,,;; • 1. .,,,,.a--_ .."". ,"-- ...,.. ._ . ...---- :. ' ... • . ' -.4 : "2 --- ' -- . - '. - '-'. '"; ' - .. -.. l':. ,. 4- ' ''''''''.---•;-:---:'-'-' .. - - . . - ' ' - , - ' . .: -.• - - ---' tp • •it . J• 1 •s?h-il, .i --- .,- \\ .' %''. i.,:-r..,:' •-• .• •'.- ' - - -• - - -11- - •.,. ,s; . • s'h A . .",,i`"•,-4N- ..A: -'' ''../ ''' • i ., - , •8 . „. : .,..... ,. ,..,.;,`,..;:" . ',,,..,:: ": - . . ' -• ' • ' -- ' . ., ..i •, . .. . ,: • . . , .8,-,‘ ;4, -s „rs.,.%7:',1 ••• • : . . , . • - -,-, : • • -. • ---- - - • S. -,..„ ■ 4 "'s sth. , "t •,'"t % - ..>". s. ' • -.. - s. ...„. • -.. •-, .s.. - „......... -..s.- ,,s. ..." ••,........ , . . . , . • .- .. '?,,•••;,',.'. „..„f •Is ,i ....".'‘ A.. %. • s'N.,-,•'s s'.! •_-• * ;*■-. ',"; - :cr -,:,+. -:" .. ,s;‘,, A: A - 1/4"' 4 ,•.•N 4.,"t".:! • - • - ..1/4, -..ts „1/4 " . ...., .,,,t, ' ' , ,.. 'A A., ' .9 , ...., '',. . • '. . ,. . ' ...... •N '7 ‘ • .b.: .• 4 . %. 1i '01 ,%,, .,- .i 4 :074 p'S, 44 • , . • .44,_ ' 4,24 '' . ', .4,':,,s.' .74,.. 44;: ...s% .:4 .4. • .:, . l '''• - ' '' 2 1 . ,.. " . 4 V. i *. ' . - ' '."... 4 4 ...%. 1 • " N. „s ",,, . • -,N „...„. .„, ,n ...,,, ..„,-. ..„„s .„,"......„ ,,,,,,. ., - 4 ,.. 4 , ..„,, , . ' N. 44,,,. 4 , 4 ,1' , ,.. , ts";: I\ ' • , '44. ... -.1 % WI - ill. %. ' ',` -44%. •. 4 n .4 %. ' ' 1 % % 1.• .1% % t -'• ■••• •., , t.", 1/4 4.,... , 1/4 ' ‘ • ''':',. - . . . - . Al •.,.: A ,...N: - 4,.. 4:1/4 ,A';', ...._, ' 4. N''.;„ ' 'ON A . .0",""-- 4 `) , ,•,.. • A 1"..! c.....• ..:,• 7 - ..,•' . 7 ,!'• ;‘ `,7 c .7'7, .ii.: ..," ‘'`• .,,,7:: • •'''`% ••,. ,;•;,° --,:`, • .• . . . - It, .,,,,.,7 .,•.......„, , • .,:i.y., . ,z , „.„, „ •,..% .,-„, ,,,,,,. ...,%,,..„ -,..;:. ,,,-, ,,s,..•,.„..i • " -,,..,A„ ,,,,,z , ..,-„,,,...„ ....., ,.....s ,s. .,,,,,,, ,,,..."..,"„ tN, ,,,,,,•• " ....N ,,:,,,, • ..: , . . 1 , 7 , , 4 ,,....‘,„..., ,.,.• ,, .. ,. .,. , 14 . . ,. ,,i, ,,, :,.. ,..\ ..,.• 4 , ,, ... 4 t , ,N .. .;....4 ..,. 0,,, ....N, ''',. , I.' ',',\ .,:4, .,, ' ,, , ,, 4 , .4.. , :4 ,,,, .,:" - ) . f ' .N.,,A‘,. 4 , , ' .1/4 ti,,` -..,,- 41/4 . ..-.Z . - ... r ". 4A -4" ,At „si „;,.+-- A .0,, , •,.,n ,.„,„,°: k ..-;-;,.. :.--7*. ',„.."'..„,,,'--- ,,,,`. , ,-*.: ! ,..--. ,,-..- *'; . - ,,,. .,... ..*3. 4:N... A., ....t' ...''.... .11: ....N. 414 4 ‘ .‘ W.' 44.1 _t:: - .4 ,4, -A. --",... 44.°•`...44*_ , '..:4 .. '„ ',_,.,:,.< ...,,_ ..: _•7 __ • • . . ;`,.''',.<''•, ,1 '.,;k,.:, -.-e--- , ? , .. ..:1/4 et ,, - . , . , . 1 . ' N. 1 '...,.',..\ a • 7......."'.....-Z..,.„ ... \\,\ ,,, , ..........„.11 e. '''...".... 1 ..._ \'‘.........„ .••••••• ..........„,....., ■....,,,,,......................,'... ... , \ ...e ' ... .-...... .. .... ■ a• 11/4 ' -- ... . ..`,„ , ... ,. . " ,. -,• ‘ .. ,..,..1 .... 4 . .........., , ,a0 .6. 1 ...., Nk...• ... 77 - ,.. .T .. ftilff .....'' • ,. . — 4110 ' ... ..,..... ,...,, . ....).0 , .. . ---- siiiii . .... . .:.... / A --_,.:-„, .-1-1 : „ * A- - - - ... .,:., Li-,-„, . • - - ' 1 ` 1 \ • fl . . . \ ---k—sl'e-Alks................____..s.r... 'V ••■ . • .. _ ...... .. .., .. 1 i ■' -. ---- iiiiiitialt. 410** ...k" .-. 40" • " r ' • • • - ' - . t " «!' ,_ - . • it - I f : It . • - ZYL . . 4, i 4 1 ; ...,..-" ;-''' - - .1 '211111. • , ..-- 7 - 7 ti 0 i - --", ' • • • • ------ 1 1 . . • i 71ter..Z:-. • . - :: # ' , • . . P 4 4 e 44 i •:. . . _ . . .*- IP 3 !' • ,.: . -'i ...... %... , . -. ... - -.. ,. - IV • . - ilg. , _ ._ _ _ • , • - 7.■ t 2." , 1 1 . r ;Z•loria.,..„.,2atitzszt„..4,,misferxvoc- 1 • , , • - 7 . , , , t, .. a e....„. .. .L . 1 - • • ...,,, 4gNaitiMitialhNkAogpgq., --- :+!!', , , . - . . • - . - • ,. ' , I I, i 1 r ; . **.' , . ' - '.- -"' 10.4101.- , n. ■ ; la .:, - • . , ' . ,.. , , ' 1 ; ...,--.0 '. - .. i ' t ..- ' mo ., - 1 . , . • • -- -- . . • 144v - kar". t • • . .. i 1 - , 4 1 • k" ' . ' . ..' . . , .,• V " ; • . • 4 • . I WI- ■IY" • .e., '. ." ' • • • ,. , - . ., •- ....4. • .. 0, ' . . - . , — 4 ." - ( f 1 '.• - / . . • - I . L.- -. . ...■ • . .. . 4 ... ' 1 2 • . . . . ' . ,,,,„,,,,,. .._. ..." ,,, ....,.. (1 ..-T ., ,•,•\.•,... ••- .•:•:: ..: . 4 4 . • d f ■ ... • i ,- i- * ' '- .// .. .. . , .. , , :.• . .-4 . - 4 r : ') . r ,, • Pk ' ' ' '•''''' 1 • / • • , '',/ s ' / ------• ' r -... .Z .N ..N . :,'Z ‘- ' .....L...---"---- : .; . '. 4/ 7 4 . .. ' :: ;:'...- - .: j..::".....::.-:'' • . .. ; ' '. ' '<■‘-A 4 73;", ' ..'4.14 ' ,4.4^ . ', '.. -' 4 .,,, • . • ,•• , 4..7,'. /4.' ' . -, , ,•.* ' ,. '., .: .,, .,.. .,,.,- 4. - ------ _____, z , 4 51 1 It ,4 1 ligl la 1 !,I i i :. ! :1. i ll 1 ' I it 1 h .. D i q2E 5,-c. - 5 7 1 ili i r55 % !pi! ga . vg 1 *2 == 4 1 ': 1 01 5 M ilmll 11:; 1 1 1 4,1 11 5 114 4! ; .4 1 . , 4„ 0g!i!. , eilibla a ix_ p 4g4 -eta -1 411!15 1 4 ;1, aci g.!,, e le i i 3 1 ; !iph ill pl 2 kig I 1 , , 11:1 ql-WmINI WI EV1 : E fl; - , 1 !II; Ph gi 2 4/!c11 ai! i 1 -1 1 14 141 !i4 4i ! /it 1 4 ; 1 i r 1 1 : 1 V! 2 "1 i ;'4 ;i1 12 2i q@F1:-iiiii$ :-.. 202E I 5 4 5 ' 114 1St 5 t x t 11 WI 4 ; tpg ,g1 1.! : t ' 1 4; '..i 2 121 13 ' Iris 1 1 i -1 i ItLia .111-11g 9 l; 14 li ! efi ' ill 1 144 1 . i ; 1 1 1 11 1 1; httk; w 1 OP 1 1 1 ' I , t v i .ilt-' iii - In ;1.1 ill; id - Nil ill il ! " 4 4CM ! ! 0 V. II .2 .4 1 PIF. !/!' ''' ; !1 1 i 41 g 22i 222 2.;22: #112 12 1 a 4 it t: i 4 i ! :41191 4? 0,1E144. pia' '4 11 gi ril4RA 'qg * =* 1 .. :.et Y y4 - I q I i Z - • ..., ,. :,...., .. i 14 r---- " ' F --H ..,, 7--- ,,, Jr;e". - . g . r , „ . , ,-- :., # .....f ist; •.! ...., .. ag ar ' .*7!.... - IIMIIIL.,- . 1 4P 8 ... ! ' lill , . 4! ; I i x .ii OP , . 1 li ..‘ Z '''''',t ... ........., i 1 A 1.A , 0 ,iti 2 '., ,.. "--- '....... , 1 1 . .-...„.. li .Y0A0 WEN 0 , 8 - ...■.* ."' / C , ',*,., P . 1M1 1 I PitLc* + -, __. 0 4 ' • 'Ill '' El g, g , ..;;.... --- i "IN .. 8 lo 4 4 1 - -.... , ,,—, , geo, - - / ,F s oat s , a . 0 x% ■6 ? ,... __ ;,- . ! '4 (f) i 0 ,.v/ / / z 8/ / ..,. % .:,...?.1, Z ° !/ : /.., V 1 . ,.. • i, j ° ,. , , i , CD 5 :/ 8 ,. ---______ ; "/ j - ,, ----rh (.) . 0 --- i : • allikopy, i b I . 0- - -- ). I ' fide :401 , - --- :1,11 LIJ / i !IM ... .. . / , i i ,.. AI: 141 • OD '41. "'" . •Ns-___ -______- , .,,, Noy • 1 !gli, - Ili. . .0 ;44 ithl .,,/ ..... ____ ■ __.:-_--------------- 04 .0...., t 1 s .,,,- lie4 444 10 ,- -- " ---2_" =-- — -- — . Ay- M ••', •,----- 10....,,,,,X. -----------2.-----...-7,-....:.---- -_,-.. .%* „,„/• Z ,°;t ---- f ek i „....% „,------- -2 S- ---:= r i 3 IA •- •; ...-4 . --------- ....::_. , I=Nre. ----.% - -.7.= 13 44 /. •.• .. ,7 . _, --- . = --- ---- _ g aggg T7.7 PID eL I- . 1 p 14, pia ;!!!1. ■#' ' !_,,_■'------.-- 1 taXii,/g T1 --,'Cg.: ............ _ .. .- ,.r .: „...„,„,„....„...„.... .1-l- "PEEEE3-27--zI ; :1X;1 t iliti 0 ........../'''":„..../-"----________A/:„...■-•C"' ; t . - . . " - - ' - - ' - - . . , - - -. ...:-; - - ' ; ? - t - - — - . . . . . . , . . z. . . . . . . 7. ,. . . . . . ,,..... ,, ,e, /- ,- ". . . 3-0 • " - - -...: - - - '' Willi:1 __,...... ...... . _ _ ......,_ ..._ I t.! .., \Mb MEMORANDUM TO: City of Aspen Mayor and City Council FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner- '! i‘ Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: First Reading of Aspen Area Community Plan review and Associated Code Amendments MEETING DATE: January 23, 2012 (Public Hearings, February 13 and 27, 2012) SUMMARY: The City and County Planning and Zoning Commissions approved an update to the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) on November 15, 2011. One change in the document related to the authority the document should have in land use case review. Staff recommended, and the P &Z voted, that the document should be "guiding" in nature, meaning that development applications should not be subject to the specific language of the AACP. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council adopt the AACP as a guiding document and adopt related code amendments. BACKGROUND & OVERVIEW: Since 2000, the P &Z, HPC and City Council have often relied on certain language in the 2000 AACP as part of their review of development applications, often regarding the need for new development to be compatible in mass, scale etc. with the surrounding neighborhood. While the land use code contains similar language /criteria for some review processes, such language /criteria is not included for all types of reviews. These "gaps" in the code have resulted in review boards citing the 2000 AACP to retain authority over "compatibility" and related issues. With the new AACP identified as "guiding" only, staff is recommending inserting "compatibility" language into the land use code where it is not currently present, so that review boards retain the authority they have grown accustomed to, in all type of land use review. There are currently sixteen (16) review criteria in the Land Use Code that call for general compliance or consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Because the updated AACP is to be used in a guiding capacity, these references need to be amended. Staff proposes replacing these general statements with much more specific review criteria to ensure review boards retain their existing authority. These review criteria are outlined in more detail below. In the past, staff has referred to these as "gap" code amendments because they are intended to cover the "gap" • created by changing the AACP from a regulatory document to a guiding document. In addition, staff recommends adding criteria to the Land Use Code related to neighborhood outreach prior to the submission of development applications. Such public outreach is Page 1 of 10 referenced in the 2000 AACP, and staff believes it is a step that should be part of the regular land use process. Finally, staff recommends some changes to the review procedures related to Commercial Design Review to ensure review authority is maintained. HPC and P &Z reviewed a code amendment related to this in 2009. P &Z approved Resolution 17, Series of 2009, recommending City Council adopt a code amendment changing the nature of Commercial Design Review and Conceptual HPC Review. This is attached as Exhibit L. City P &Z is reviewing the code amendments on January 17, 2012, which is after the packet for first reading is submitted. Their comments and changes on the code amendments will be incorporated in the second reading packet. CODE AMENDMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES: The following is the review procedure for adopting a guiding community plan: • Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.208.010(I), City Council has the authority to adopt by resolution or ordinance any plans, guidelines, or documents that will be used in a guiding or regulatory capacity by the city. • Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.212.010(R), the Planning and Zoning Commission has the authority to adopt by resolution any plans, guidelines, or documents that will be used in a guiding capacity by the Commission. The following is the review procedure for amendments to the land use code: • Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310.040, City Council is the final review authority following a recommendation from the Planning & Zoning Commission for all code amendments. STAFF COMMENTS: ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN ADOPTION The City and County Planning and Zoning Commissions adopted an updated Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) on November 15, 2011. City Council was provided with a hard copy of the document as part of this packet, it is also attached by reference as Exhibit 0 and available online at www.AspenCommunitvVision.com and clicking on the "Latest Document" link. The document is before City Council for consideration, and the P &Zs' resolution approving the document is attached as Exhibit M. The AACP is the community plan for the City of Aspen. It is an aspirational document that is used to guide budget priorities, department work programs, and potential code or policy changes. The P &Zs met jointly from March 2009 — November 2011 to review and adopt the plan. The considered public feedback from small group meetings, surveys, large group clicker -style meetings, public comments at their meetings, as well as existing conditions work. All of this information is available on the AACP project website: www.AspenCommunityVision.com. The plan before City Council is the version adopted by the P &Zs. City Council may adopt the plan without changes, add an addendum to the plan outlining any concerns or policy differences Council may have, or adopt a revised version of the plan. Page 2 of 10 P &Z and staff recommended the AACP be adopted as a guiding document. In order to replace the 2000 AACP with this updated plan, City Council must approve, by ordinance, rescinding the 2000 AACP. Council may adopt/endorse the 2011/2012 AACP by Ordinance or Resolution. For simplicity, the Ordinance includes rescinding the 2000 AACP and adopting the 2011/2012 AACP. Code amendments addressing review criteria that require consistency with the AACP are outlined later in the memo and are included in the Ordinance. Staff recommends adopting all three actions in one Ordinance to ensure there are no gaps in the Land Use Code related to the AACP. City Council held a series of work sessions in 2011 to review the draft AACP. Council comments from those meetings are outlined below, but are not incorporated into the draft before City Council. ASPEN IDEA CHAPTER • Add Hospital Improvements to the "What's Changed Since 2000" list. • Edit the Linkages section to add additional information about the economy and the dual relationship our events and economy have. • List Policy II.1 as a Proposed Code Amendment. TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER • Add a reference to the Car to Go Program to the "What's Changed Since 2000" list. • Remove references to the ROD in "What's New in the 2011 AACP" and clarify the language. • Add a policy to Section II, Bike and Pedestrian, to pursue designation as a Bike Friendly Community. • Change the reference to "development" in Policy III.2 to "construction." • Eliminate the reference to "supply of parking" in Policy V.1. • Add a policy to Section VI, Bike and Pedestrian, to increase outreach on bike etiquate and safety. • Add a policy to Section VII, Airport, to strive to better integrate the airport with transit to reduce visitor reliance on automobiles. • Add bus lanes to Implementation Step II.3.b • Expand Implementation Step II.3.d to improve safety everywhere in the UGB. • Add an Implementation Step under Policy I11.3 to educate the community about bike routes. PARKS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE & TRAILS CHAPTER • Add a reference to the linkage quality parks, recreation, open space, and trails have to our economy and the Aspen Idea in the Philosophy. • Add the Islin Park improvements to the "What's Changed since 2000" section. • Add a reference to the Aspen Idea in the Linkages section. • Amend Policy I1.2 to focus on determining an appropriate subsidy level for the ARC. Page 3 of10 ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP CHAPTER • Add a reference to monitoring ozone pollution levels and the creation of a dedicated energy efficiency division to the "What's Changed Since 2000" list. • Consolidate and shorten the Linkages section. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CHAPTER • Consider shortening and bulleting the "What's Changed Since 2000" section. • Add a policy in Section I, Historic Preservation Education, related to the many characters that have shaped Aspen. • Add an Implementation Step under Policy I.1 about creating an Aspen History Book. • Add an Implementation Step under Policy I.2 about the fact that Aspen is a leader in the Historic Preservation field and that we have a role to education the world. LIFELONG ASPENITE CHAPTER • Add references to careers, jobs, and trainings, as well as working to have an economy that allows Aspenites to be active, contributing members throughout their lives to the Philosophy section. • Consider re- arranging the paragraphs in the "What's Changed Since 2000" for better clarity. • Remove the Proposed Code Amendment label from Policy III.1. GENERAL COMMENTS • Consider changing all references to mitigating impacts to state "mitigate all reasonable, directly related impacts." PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS City Council requested that staff provide a list of all the "Proposed Code Amendments" in the 2011 /2012 AACP. A complete list, by chapter is attached as Exhibit N. There are 37 Policy Statements identified as Proposed Code Amendments. STAFF COMMENTS: CODE AMENDMENTS Staff has used the direction provided from the Wienerstube case to inform the AACP gap code amendments. Specifically, staff has proposed language to create a new, specific, requirement for neighborhood outreach as well as adding criteria to SPA, PUD, and Subdivision that require new development be "compatible with or enhance the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space, while emphasizing quality construction and design." Each proposed code amendment is outlined below. The amendments have been limited to strictly address maintaining the existing authority the P &Z, HPC, and City Council currently have when reviewing development proposals. The full text of the existing code sections, as well as the proposed redlines, is attached in Exhibits B - K. The proposed amendments do not address other substantive changes that are called for in the 2011 AACP — a separate City Council work session has been scheduled for March 5, 2012 to Page 4 of10 prioritize those potential code amendments. The Planning and Zoning Commission is scheduled to meet on February 7, 2012 to review their recommended priorities. NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH - EXHIBIT B The 2000 AACP includes language that has been used by City Council to request an applicant conduct enhanced public outreach: • "The genuine character of our community should be measured by the quality of our human interactions, not by the physical look or man -made artifacts or the magnificent beauties of surrounding nature around us...We must elevate the best interest of people and we must demonstrate our good will toward each other and all comers." (pg 7 -8 of 2000 AACP). • "...the character of the built environment in Aspen is maintained through public outreach and education about quality design, historical context, and the influence of the existing built and natural environments." (pg 42 of 2000 AACP) Staff has added a section to the Common Development Review Procedures, section 26.304, to require all major projects to conduct a form of enhanced public outreach. The proposed language is written to require that any project being reviewed by City Council, or any project deemed by the Community Development Department to be significant, must conduct some form of public outreach prior to the first public hearing. The applicant has a choice of a number of public outreach methods, including holding a meeting, conducting a survey, or preparing a "enhanced" public notice that includes more detailed information than current noticing requirements. City Council should consider if enhanced public outreach should be a requirement, or if it should be a suggestion for all development proposals. Exhibit B includes proposed new section. AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE AND ZONE DISTRICT MAP - EXHIBIT C The current code requires code changes or rezoning proposals to meet nine review criteria in section 26.310, including the need to be consistent with the AACP. Staff proposes to replace this criterion with the following: "Whether the proposed amendment furthers an adopted policy, community goal, or objective." This language is common in other communities, and reflects the broad -based nature of debate when it comes to code amendments. Staff believes this revised language provides the ability for P &Z and City Council to review a potential code amendment or rezoning against community opinion and broad city policies. A previous version of this proposal referenced a "recognized" community goal or objective. P &Z requested staff explore the use of different language, stating that a "recognized" community goal might not be specific enough. Staff suggests the language above, requiring that a code amendment further an adopted policy, goal, or objective. Other alternatives could include accepted, widely accepted, or widely recognized. Code amendments are fundamentally different from reviewing land use cases — they should reflect the overarching community goals and aspirations, which may not be formally adopted. The code amendment process itself enable Page 5 of 10 a broad -based conversation about how our code can implement community priorities, and staff recommends including broad language in this instance. Exhibit C includes the full Review Criteria text as well as the proposed changes. VARIANCES - EXHIBIT D Land Use Code section 26.314 includes a provision to enable property owners with a clear hardship to request a variance from underlying dimensional requirements. This ability is required under state and case law. This section on variances currently includes two references to the AACP, which staff proposes eliminating. The aspirational nature of the AACP does not translate well to reviewing on- the - ground dimensional variances. Staff's experience is that the AACP is not a useful tool in the variance review process. Exhibit D includes the full Review Criteria text as well as the proposed changes. CONDITIONAL USES - EXHIBIT E Land Use Code section 26.425 includes six criteria to review applications for Conditional Uses, including one requiring consistency with the AACP. Staff proposes amending this criterion to state: "The conditional use is consistent with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be located and complies with all other applicable requirements of this Title." When reviewing uses that are appropriate or inappropriate for a specific location, the intent of the zone district, as well as the compatibility of the use with the immediate area (currently a review criteria) inform the review process in a more meaningful way than consistency with a community plan that is not site - specific. Staff's experience is that the AACP is not a useful tool in the conditional use review process. Exhibit E includes the full Review Criteria text as well as the proposed changes. ESA — 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW - EXHIBIT F Any development within 150 feet of the 8040 elevation line is required go through a heightened review with P &Z to ensure it is sensitive to the natural environment and visual quality of the mountainside. One review criteria references the AACP Parks, Recreation, and Trails Plan. Staff received feedback from the Parks Department, and they have an adopted plan containing more specific information than the AACP, which they use to guide their 8040 Greenline referrals. Staff has proposed replacing the AACP reference with the Parks Department plan. Exhibit F includes the full Review Criteria text as well as the proposed changes. ESA — STREAM MARGIN REVIEW - EXHIBIT F Any development within 100 feet of the Roaring Fork River is required go through a heightened administrative review with P &Z to ensure it is sensitive to the natural environment and quality of the river. One review criteria references the AACP Parks, Recreation, and Trails Plan. Staff received feedback from the Parks Department, and they have an adopted plan containing more specific information than the AACP, which they use to guide their Stream Margin referrals. Staff has proposed replacing the AACP reference with the Parks Department plan. Exhibit F includes the full Review Criteria text as well as the proposed changes. • Page 6 of10 SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA (SPA) — EXHIBIT G SPAs provide flexibility when special circumstances exist on a parcel, and the process requires creative land planning techniques while allowing use and dimensional variations. The first SPA review criteria calls for consideration of "Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space." There is also a review criterion requiring consistency with the AACP. Staff believes that with some additions, the first SPA review criteria provides the ability to review the mass, scale, neighborhood compatibility, and design quality: "Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space, while emphasizing quality construction and design." This change strengthens the existing SPA review criteria and reflects how the AACP has been used to review SPAs. Exhibit G includes the full Review Criteria text as well as the proposed changes. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) — EXHIBIT H PUDs provide flexibility in the planning process and encourage flexibility and innovation in development. They allow changes to the underlying dimensional requirements if they will result in greater compatibility with the surrounding land uses and development. The PUD criteria are very detailed, and cover topics ranging from architectural design to transportation to site access. The existing criteria are quite comprehensive, and allow flexibility and discretion in P &Zs and Council's review. The full review criteria are attached in Exhibit H - some specific sections that address compatibility the neighborhood include Sections 26.445.050 B.1, B.2, C.1, C.2, and E.1. There is one criterion requiring consistency with the AACP. Staff suggests amending that criterion to reflect the mass and scale criterion in SPA: "The proposed development shall be compatible with or enhance the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of density, height, bulk, and architecture." In addition, a criterion to allow changes to the maximum density of a project is included in the PUD section. Staff proposes eliminating the AACP language. In staff's experience, the general, aspirational language of the AACP does not provide meaningful direction in this instance. Finally, there are three review criteria related to Architectural character. Staff proposes adding similar language as the SPA change to ensure quality construction and design are included in all PUDs. Exhibit H includes the full Review Criteria text as well as the proposed changes. GROWTH MANAGEMENT — EXHIBIT I Any project that creates new net livable or net leasable space is required to go through the Growth Management Quota System. There is one criterion requiring consistency with the AACP. In staff's experience, the AACP has not an effective tool in the GMQS review process. Staff suggests amending that criterion to reflect the fact that the GMQS review is mostly concerned with uses (what goes on inside the building), not mass and scale (what the building Page 7of10 looks like): "The proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of land uses in the surrounding area." In addition, each year City Council meets to discuss if any unused Growth Management allotments should be rolled -over to the next year. One criterion requires consistency with the AACP, which staff proposes to eliminate. The review is a technical accounting review, and the AACP and other adopted area plans do not provide good direction for the review. Exhibit I includes the full Review Criteria text as well as the proposed changes. SUBDIVISION - EXHIBIT J Any project that creates new units of land is required to go through the subdivision process. There is one criteria requiring consistency with the AACP. Staff suggests amending that criterion to reflect the mass and scale criterion in the SPA section: "The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with or enhance the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space." In addition, one criterion allows changes to Engineering standards if the proposed engineering design is compatible with the AACP. Staff proposes eliminating the language. The Engineering Department is supportive of the change, as they have far more comprehensive review standards than any language contained in the AACP. In addition, staff suggests eliminating the reference to special review in this section, as it makes more sense and is clearer if the review is handled within Subdivision. Exhibit J includes the full Review Criteria text as well as the proposed changes. OFF- STREET PARKING - EXHIBIT K The off - street parking section of the Land Use Code includes review criteria for commercial parking facilities. One criteria requires that the location, design, and operating characteristics of the facility be consistent with the AACP. Staff recommends eliminating this criterion. In staff's experience, the general, aspirational language of the AACP does not provide meaningful direction in this instance. Exhibit K includes the full Review Criteria text as well as the proposed changes. CITY COUNCIL CALL -UP OF COMMERCIAL DESIGN AND HPC CONCEPTUAL DECISIONS - ExHIBIT L City Council currently has the authority to call up certain design related approvals granted by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and the Planning and Zoning Commission (P & Z) within thirty (30) days of approval. City Council's review of the application is limited to the record that was established at HPC or P &Z. City Council must make a finding as to whether the review board denied due process, exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. Staff proposes a number of code amendments to the procedure of City Council call -up of HPC and P &Z decisions. The code amendments allow for a de novo review, meaning new evidence and information can be used by City Council in their review. The code amendments are drafted Page 8 of 10 such that City Council may review the application de novo and approve the application, remand it back to the reviewing board, or continue it to gather more information. The text was recommended by HPC and P &Z when they reviewed the code amendments in 2009. Exhibit L includes a copy of P &Z Resolution recommending approval of the call -up code amendments. City Council may want to discuss if the call -up code amendments should also include the ability for Council to alter the conditions of approval or deny the application without remanding it back to the original review body. Below is a summary of the changes, labeled by Ordinance section: Section 19: Section 26.415.120 Appeals, Notice to City Council Call up of HPC Decisions: This Section proposes to provide call -up notification to City Council after the approval of Conceptual review because the main issues (i.e. mass, scale, height, context, location) are considered and approved at this time. The call up period of 30 days is consistent with the existing regulations. Part D specifies that the Council review will be de novo. Staff proposes that Council consider the same review process and requirements criteria as the reviewing body when they conduct the "call up" review. Section 20: 26.412.040.B Appeals, Notice to City Council Call up of Commercial Design Review Decisions: The proposed amendments mirror Section 19, except this section relates to Commercial Design Review decisions by the P & Z and HPC. Section 21: 26.415.070.D.3 HPC Conceptual Development Plan Review: This Section of the Historic Preservation Chapter of the Code outlines proposed requirements for call up after a Conceptual Design is approved. Staff proposes that the Community Development Director can extend the 1 year timeframe for submitting a Final Review application to HPC if there is a delay associated with call up review at Council. Section 22: 26.415.070.D.4 HPC Final Development Plan Review: Staff proposes to delete part b.4 that requires call up notification to Council after Final Development approval is granted by HPC. Staff finds that the call up notification is more appropriate after Conceptual approval because the primary aspects of the project are decided at that level. It seems unfair for an applicant to proceed through Final Review at HPC if the primary features of the project may warrant a de novo review by Council pursuant to the proposed call up provision. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Staff requested input from the Parks and Engineering Departments, as certain criterion referenced their plans and work program. Their comments were incorporated into the proposed changes. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed code amendments. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. , Series of 2012 on First Reading, amending the land use code references to the Aspen Area Community Plan, and adopting the 2011 /2012 AACP" Page 9 of 10 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A — Review Criteria and Staff Findings EXHIBIT B — Neighborhood Outreach EXHIBIT C - Amendments to the Land Use Code and Zone District Map EXHIBIT D — Variances EXHIBIT E — Conditional Uses EXHIBIT F — ESA — 8040 Greenline Review and Stream Margin Review EXHIBIT G — Specially Planned Area (SPA) EXHIBIT H — Planned Unit Development (PUD) EXHIBIT I — Growth Management EXHIBIT J — Subdivision EXHIBIT K - Off - Street Parking EXHIBIT L — P&Z Resolution 17, Series 2009, Code Amendment on Council Call -Ups EXHIBIT M - P &Z Resolution 22, Series 2011 approving the 2011 AACP EXHIBIT N — Proposed Code Amendments identified in the AACP. EXHIBIT O — P &Z approved 2011/2012 AACP, attached by reference — A copy is available online at www.AspenCommunityVision.Com, click on "Latest Document" Page 10 of 10 ORDINANCE No. (Series of 2012) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE 2011/2012 ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN (AACP) AS A GUIDING DOCUMENT, REPLACING THE 2000 AACP AND DECLARING IT NO LONGER IN EFFECT, AND ADOPTING CODE AMENDMNETS RELATED TO THE REVIEW CRITERIA REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH THE AACP AND ADDING NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH REQUIREMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE: 26.304 — COMMON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES; 26.310.040 — AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE AND OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP; 26.314.040 — VARIANCES; 26.425.040 — CONDITIONAL USES; 26.435.030 — DEVELOPMENT IN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS (ESA), 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW; 26.435.040 — DEVELOPMENT IN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS (ESA), STREAM MARGIN REVIEW; 26.440.050 — SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA (SPA); 26.445. — PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD); 26.470.030 — GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMQS); 26.470.050 — GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMQS); 26.480.050 — SUBDIVISION; 26.515.040 — OFF - STREET PARKING. WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council, pursuant to Section 26.208.0100) of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, has the authority to adopt community plans for the City of Aspen that are guiding in nature; and WHEREAS, in 2008 the City of Aspen commissioned a study with Economic Research Associated (ERA), a consulting firm, who produced a White Paper on the Aspen Economy (referred to as the "Economic White Paper ") outlining a history of the Aspen economy since 1970; and WHEREAS, in from October 2008 — Feb 2009, the public provided extensive input on an update to the 2000 AACP through small group meetings, large group meetings, and a survey (collectively referred to as "round 1 of public input "); and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter referred to as "Commissions ") met in work sessions from Feb 2009 through September 2010 to draft an update to the 2000 AACP using round 1 of public input, the Existing Conditions Report, the Economic White Paper, and comments from the public as well as City and County staff; and WHEREAS, on September 30, 2010 a draft of the AACP update was released for public review; and WHEREAS, from October 2010 — January 2011 a second round of public outreach was held, which included small group meetings, large group meetings, and a survey (collectively referred to as "round 2 of public input "); and City Council Ord #_ of 2012 AACP gap Code Amendments Page 1 of 19 WHEREAS, the Commissions met in work sessions from January 2011 - March 2011 to review round 2 of public input; and WHEREAS, on March 28, 2011 a second draft AACP update was released for public review; and WHEREAS, during duly noticed public hearings, the Commissions held public hearings to make edit the draft and to solicit public comment and input on the draft of the AACP Update on April 12, 2011, April 26, 2011, May 10, 2011, May 19, 2011, May 24, 2011, May 26, 2011, May 31, 2011, June 2, 2011, June 9, 2011, June 10, 2011, June 16, 2011, July 7, 2011, July 12, 2011, July 14, 2011, July 21, 2011, July 26, 2011, July 28, 2011, August 9, 2011, August 11, 2011, August 12, 2011, August 18, 2011, August 25, 2011, September 8, 2011, and September 13, 2011; and WHEREAS, on September 15, 2011 a third draft AACP update was released for public review; and WHEREAS, during duly noticed public hearings, the Commissions held public hearings to make edit the draft and to solicit public comment and input on the draft of the AACP Update on September 22, 2011, September 29, 2011, October 11, 2011 and November 8, 2011; and WHEREAS, on November 8, 2011 a fourth draft AACP update was released for public review; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission found that the 2011 AACP furthers the goals of the Aspen area community and that it is in the best interest of the community that the plan be adopted, and did pass Resolution 22, Series of 2011 during a duly noticed public hearing on November 15, 2011, continued from November 8, 2011, adopting the 2011 Aspen Area Community Plan as a guiding document; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.210 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, the Director of the Community Development Department initiated amendments to the Land Use Code related to compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) and neighborhood outreach to reflect the fact that the 2011 /2012 AACP update is being adopted as a guiding document; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Community Development Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Sections 26.304 - Common Development Review Procedures, 26.310.040 - Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, 26.314 - Variances, 26.425.040 - Conditional Uses, 26.435.030 - ESA 8040 City Council Ord #_ of 2012 AACP gap Code Amendments Page 2 of 19 Greenline Review, 26.435.040 — ESA Stream Margin Review, 26.440.050 — SPA, 26.445 — PUD, 26.470 — Growth Management Quota System (GMQS), 26.480.050 — Subdivision, and 26.515.040 — Off -Street Parking; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 10, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve amendments to the text of Sections 26.304 — Common Development Review Procedures, 26.310.040 — Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, 26.314 — Variances, 26.425.040 — Conditional Uses, 26.435.030 — ESA 8040 Greenline Review, 26.435.040 — ESA Stream Margin Review, 26.440.050 — SPA, 26.445 — PUD, 26.470 — Growth Management Quota System (GMQS), 26.480.050 — Subdivision, and 26.515.040 — Off - Street Parking, as described herein, by a ( - ) vote; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310 and that the approval of the amendments is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council find that the 2011 /2012 AACP furthers the goals of the Aspen Area community and that it is in the best interest of the community that the plan be adopted and replace the 2000 AACP as the City of Aspen's Community Plan; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the 2011 /2012 AACP furthers the goals of the Aspen Area community and that it is in the best interest of the community that the plan be adopted as a guiding document; and WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code are delineated as follows: Text unaffected is black and in standard print and looks like this. Tcxt being removed is red with • - . Text being added to the code is green with underline and looks like this. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: The Aspen City Council hereby adopts the 2011/2012 Aspen Area Community Plan as a guiding document that functions as the City of Aspen's Community Plan and Master Plan. The 2000 AACP is no longer in effect as the Community Plan or Master Plan for the City of Aspen. Section 2: 26.304.020.B — Common Development Review Procedures, Pre - application conference, Issues of discussion, shall be amended as follows: B. Issues of discussion. Issues that may be discussed at the pre - application conference may include, but are not limited to, the following: City Council Ord #_ of 2012 AACP gap Code Amendments Page 3 of 19 1. Proposed development. The applicant should describe the general nature of the proposed development including, if applicable, proposed land uses and their densities; proposed placement of buildings, structures and other improvements; character and location of common open space or treatment of public uses; preservation of natural features; preservation of properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures; protection of environmentally sensitive areas; proposed off - street parking and internal traffic circulation and total ground coverage of paved areas and structures. 2. Review procedure. The Community Development Department staff member shall identify procedural review requirements for the proposed development and applicable review standards and terms of this Title that apply to the review of the proposed development. This should include identifying those stages of the common review procedure which apply, which decision - making body or bodies will review the development application and the approximate length of the development review procedure. 3. Referral agencies. The Community Development Department staff member shall identify the City, State and Federal agencies that are required to review the proposed development, provide the applicant with persons at these agencies to contact about review procedures and generally describe the information which will be needed to satisfy the concerns of the relevant City, State and Federal agencies. 4. Application contents. The Community Development Department staff member shall establish the contents of the development application required to be submitted for the proposed development. This should include descriptions of the types of reports and drawings required, the general form which the development application should take and the information which should be contained within the application. 5. Application copies and fee. The Community Development Department staff member shall identify the number of copies of the development application that are required to be submitted for the proposed development, along with the amount of the fee needed to defray the cost of processing the application and an estimate of the number of hours of staff review time associated with the fee. 6. Written summary. Following the conclusion of the conference, the applicant shall be presented with a written summary of the meeting. One (1) copy of this written summary should be submitted back to the Community Development Department at the time of submission of the development application. 5,7.Neighborhood Outreach. The Community Development Department staff member shall identify if a neighborhood meeting or other neighborhood outreach, as outlined in Sec 26.304.035, is required prior to submission of the development application. Section 3: A new section 26.304.035 — Neighborhood Outreach, shall be added as follows: City Council Ord # of 2012 AACP gap Code Amendments Page 4 of 19 Sec. 26.304.035. Neighborhood Outreach A. Purpose. In order to facilitate citizen participation early in the development review process, the City may require certain development applications to conduct public outreach prior to filing a development application. The applicant must show a concerted effort inform neighbors and the public about the application prior to the first public hearing. B. Applicability. A neighborhood meeting shall be required on any development proposal that is subject to City Council review unless the Community Development Department determines as a part of the pre- application conference that the development proposal is limited in nature. In addition, the Community Development Department may make a determination that neighborhood outreach is required for significant development applications reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission. C. Appropriate forms of public outreach. The applicant may choose to do one or more of the following forms of public outreach. Community Development Department staff may, as part of the pre - application conference, suggest certain forms of public outreach that would be most appropriate for a development application. 1. Information meeting. The applicant may hold a neighborhood meeting to gain input from neighbors and citizens. The meeting must be open and accessible to the general public and held in a location in proximity to the proposed development or in a publicly accessible building such as City Hall or the Public Library. The applicant or applicant's representative shall attend the neighborhood meeting and be available to answer questions from the public. The applicant shall be responsible for scheduling and coordinating the neighborhood meeting. Renderings, modeling, or other visual representations of the project within its context is required. The applicant should conduct noticing to ensure the public is aware of the meeting. 2. On -line meeting. The applicant may conduct an on -line meeting to gain input from neighbors and citizens. The meeting must be open to the general public. The applicant or applicant's representative shall attend the on -line meeting and be available to answer questions from the public. The applicant shall be responsible for scheduling and coordinating the on -line forum. Renderings, modeling, or other visual representations of the project within its context is required. The applicant should conduct noticing to ensure the public is aware of the on -line meeting. 3. Enhanced Public Information. The applicant may provide detailed information on the project in the form of a project website, a detailed public notice mailing, etc. that explains the proposal, outlines the review process, provides visual rendering or maps, or any other information that will describe the project in layman's terms. The applicant shall be responsible for coordinating the information. The applicant should conduct noticing to ensure the public is aware of a website, etc. This may be provided as part of the public hearing mailing required pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3.c. City Council Ord #_ of 2012 AACP gap Code Amendments Page 5 of 19 4. Individual Outreach. The applicant may conduct individual or small group meetings with neighbors of the project. The applicant shall be responsible for organizing and attending the meetings. At the meetings, the applicant should provide a summary of the proposal, including basic use -type information, building height, and renderings. 5. Any other form of public outreach that will provide neighbors a genuine opportunity to understand the development proposal and provide comments to the application. F. Summary of Public Outreach. A written summary of the public outreach, as well as the method of public notification, shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the official record — either as part of the initial application or as an addendum to the application. Any documentation that was presented to the public as part of the outreach should also be included as part of the official record. Section 4: 26.310.040.B — Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, Standards of Review, shall be amended as follows: B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Arcs. Community-Plan furthers an adopted policy, community goal, or objective. Section 5: 26.314.040.A — Variances, Standards applicable to variances, shall be amended as follows: A. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the appropriate decision - making body shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of • • • - ' •. ., - this Title and the Municipal Code; and 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere inconvenience. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the Board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title and the Municipal Code to other parcels, buildings or structures, in the same zone district. City Council Ord #_ of 2012 AACP gap Code Amendments Page 6 of 19 Section 6: 26.425.040 — Conditional Uses, Standards applicable to all conditional uses, shall be amended as follows: Sec. 26.425.040. Standards applicable to all conditional uses. When considering a development application for a conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether all of the following standards are met, as applicable. A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and ., ... - - - • - .. ' ..-, • - - intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be located and complies with all other applicable requirements of this Title; and B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; and C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; and D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems and schools; and E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; and F. The Community Development Director may recommend and the Planning and Zoning Commission may impose such conditions on a conditional use that are necessary to maintain the integrity of the City's Zone Districts and to ensure the conditional use complies with the purposes of the Aspcn Area Community Plan, this Chapter and this Title; is compatible with surrounding land uses; and is served by adequate public facilities. This includes, but is not limited to, imposing conditions on size, bulk, location, open space, landscaping, buffering, lighting, signage, off - street parking and other similar design features, the construction of public facilities to serve the conditional use and limitations on the operating characteristics, hours of operation and duration of the conditional use. Section 7: 26.435.030.C.11 — 8040 Greenline review standards, shall be amended as follows: 11. The adopted plans, recommendations and policies of the Aspcn Arca Community Plan: - - . • .. ' .. Open Space and Trails Board are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical. City Council Ord #_ of 2012 AACP gap Code Amendments Page 7 of 19 Section 8: 26.435.040.C.2 — Stream Margin review standards, shall be amended as follows: 2. The adopted plans, recommendations and policies of the Aspcn Arm Community Plan: Parks /Rccr ation/Trails Plan Open Space and Trails Board and the Roaring Fork River Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. Areas of historic public use or access shall be dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. A fisherman's easement granting public fishing access within the high water boundaries of the river course shall be granted via a recorded "Fisherman's Easement;" and Section 9: 26.440.050.A — Review standards for development in a Specially Planned Area (SPA), General, shall be amended as follows: A. General. In the review of a development application fora conceptual development plan and a final development plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall consider the following: 1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space, while emphasizing quality construction and design. 2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development. 3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mudflow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. 4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large. 5. Whether the proposed development is in compliant with the Aspcn Arca 65. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel or the surrounding neighborhood. 76. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty percent (20 %) meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Subsection 26.445.040.B.2. 87. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to demonstrate the general reasonableness and suitability of the proposed development and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and Section; provided, however, that in the review of the conceptual development plan, consideration will be given only to the general concept for City Council Ord # _ of 2012 AACP gap Code Amendments Page 8 of 19 the development, while during the review of the final development plan, detailed evaluation of the specific aspects of the development will be accomplished. Section 10: 26.445.020 — PUD Applicability, shall be amended as follows: Sec. 26.445.020. Applicability. Before any development shall occur on land designated Planned Unit Development (PUD) on the official zone district map or before development can occur as a PUD, it shall receive final PUD approval pursuant to the terms of this Chapter. However, in no event shall adoption of a final development plan be required for the construction of a single detached- or duplex - residential dwelling on a separate lot, in conformance with the General Provisions of this Chapter, Section 26.445.040 below. All land with a PUD designation shall also be designated with an underlying zone district designation most appropriate for that land. A development application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) may be applied for by the property owners of any proposed development in the City that is on a parcel of land equal to or greater than twenty -seven thousand (27,000) square feet intended for residential, commercial, tourist or other development purposes. A development application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) may be applied for by the property owners of any proposed development in the City that is on a parcel of land less than twenty -seven thousand (27,000) square feet intended for multi - family residential, commercial, tourist or other development purposes if, prior to application, the Community Development Director determines the development of the property may have the ability to further the adopted goals of the Aspcn Arc Community Plan community and that the provisions of the Planned Unit Development land use review process will best serve the interests of the community. By virtue of this determination, the application shall not be granted any special rights or privileges and shall be required to demonstrate compliance with all applicable portions of this Chapter. If the Community Development Director determines the proposed development is not suitable to be reviewed as a Planned Unit Development, the property owner may appeal the decision to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Commission, by Resolution and after considering a recommendation made by the Community Development Director, may determine that the development of the property may have the ability to further the adopted goals of the Aspcn Arca ommunity and that the provisions of the Planned Unit Development land use review process will best serve the interests of the community. By virtue of this determination, the application shall not be granted any special rights or privileges and shall be required to demonstrate compliance with all applicable portions of this chapter. A development application for a Minor Planned Unit Development (Minor PUD) may be applied for by the property owners of a parcel of land located within the Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) Zone District intended for development consistent with the purpose of the LP Overlay Zone District. Section 11: 26.445.020.A — PUD, Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD, General Requirements, shall be amended as follows: City Council Ord #_ of 2012 AACP gap Code Amendments Page 9 of 19 A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspcn Arca Community Plancompatible with or enhance the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of density, height, bulk, and architecture. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Section 12: 26.445.020.B.6.a — PUD, Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD, Establishment of dimensional requirements, shall be amended as follows: 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more adopted goals of the community as expressed in the Aspcn Arca Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan, as applicable, to which the property is subject. Section 13: 26.445.020.E.1 — PUD, Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD, Architectural character, shall be amended as follows: 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources and emphasize quality construction and design. Section 14: 26.445.020.I.4 — PUD, Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD, Access and circulation, shall be amended as follows: 4. The recommendations of the Aspcn Ar a Community Plan and adopted specific plans, as applicable, regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. Section 15: 26.470.030.F, GMQS, Aspen metro area development ceilings and annual allotments, shall be amended as follows: F. Accounting procedure. The Community Development Director shall maintain an ongoing account of available, requested and approved growth management allocations and progress towards each development ceiling. Allotments shall be considered allocated upon issuance of a City Council Ord #_ of 2012 AACP gap Code Amendments Page l0 of 19 development order for the project. Unless specifically not deducted from the annual development allotment and development ceilings, all units of growth shall be included in the accounting. Affordable housing units shall be deducted regardless of the unit being provided as growth mitigation or otherwise. After the conclusion of each growth management session and year, the Community Development Director shall prepare a summary of growth allocations. The City Council, at its first regular meeting of the growth management year, shall review, during a public hearing, the prior year's growth summary, consider a recommendation from the Community Development Director, consider comments from the general public and shall, via adoption of a resolution, establish the number of unused and unclaimed allotments to be carried forward and added to the annual allotment. The City Council may carry forward any portion of the previous year's unused allotment, including all or none. The City Council shall also consider the remaining development allotments within the development ceilings, established pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.C, and shall reduce the available development allotment by any amount that exceeds the development ceiling. The public hearing shall be noticed by publication, pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3.a. The City Council shall consider the following criteria in determining the allotments to be carried forward: 1. The goals and objectives of thc Aspcn Area Community Plan. 21. The community's growth rate over the preceding five -year period. 32. The ability of the community to absorb the growth that could result from a proposed development utilizing accumulated allotments, including issues of scale, infrastructure capacity, construction impacts and community character. 43. The expected impact from approved developments that have obtained allotments, but that have not yet been built. Section 16: 26.480.050, Subdivision, Review standards, shall be amended as follows: 2. The proposed development is : - ' - : ,- - - • : - - • . - . ' . - compatible with or enhances the mix of land uses in the surrounding area. Section 17: 26.470.050.B.2, GMQS, General requirements, General requirements, shall be amended as follows: Sec. 26.480.050. Review standards. A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: A. General requirements. 1. The proposed subdivision shall be consistcnt with thc Aspcn Arta Comprehensive Plan compatible with or enhance the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space. City Council Ord # of 2012 AACP gap Code Amendments Page 11 of 19 2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. 3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. 4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. B. Suitability of land for subdivision. 1. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. 2. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility • - - • - • - • - - - - Plan an adopted specific area plan, Title 28, and/or, the existing, neighboring development areas .. • •.. - - - - - - • . 2. A unique situation exists for the development where an equally safe and technically sufficient solution will provide a better design solution. 23. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter • - - -- - • • Section 26.470.070.5, Demolition or redevelopment of multi - family housing. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. E. School land dedication. Compliance with the School land dedication standards set forth at Chapter 26.620. City Council Ord #_ of 2012 AACP gap Code Amendments Page 12 of 19 4 F. Growth management approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH -PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. Section 18: 26.515.040.B, Off - Street Parking Special review standards, shall be amended as follows: B. A special review to permit a commercial parking facility may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: . - . . • : -, : - • : - . : .: - ating characteristics of the facility are consistent with the Aspen Arca Community Plan. 21. The project has obtained growth management approvals or is concurrently being considered for growth management approvals. 42. The location, capacity and operating characteristics, including effects of operating hours, lighting, ventilation, noises etc., of the facility are compatible with the existing land uses in the surrounding area. 43. Access to the facility is from an acceptable location that minimizes staging problems, conflicts with pedestrian flow, conflicts with service delivery and elimination of on- street parking. 54. The proposed style of operation is appropriate (manned booth, key cards etc.). 65. The massing, scale and exterior aesthetics of the building or parking lot are compatible with the immediate context in which it is proposed. 7-6. Where appropriate, commercial uses are incorporated into the exterior of the facility's ground floor to mimic conventional development in that Zone District. Section 19: Section 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council and Call -Up, which section describes the process for City Council "call -up" of Historic Preservation Commission decisions, shall be amended as follows: 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. City Council Ord # of 2012 AACP gap Code Amendments Page 13 of 19 B. Notice to City Council. Following the adoption of a resolution approving, approving with conditions or disapproving a Conceptual Ddevelopment Plan 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. Notification shall consist of a description in written and graphic form of the project with a copy of the approving document. 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, applications for Final Development Plan Review shall not be accepted by the City and no associated permits can shall be issued during the thirty (30) day call -up period. If City Council exercises this call -up provision, no applications for Final Development Plan Review shall be accepted by the City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council takes action as described in subsection 26.415.120.D. If the City Council does not call up the action within the call -up period, the resolution of HPC shall be the final decision on the matter. D. City Council action on appeal or call -up. The City Council shall, at a public meeting, consider the application on the record established before thc HPCde novo. The City Council may, at its discretion, consider evidence included in the record established by the Historic Preservation Commission or supplement the record with additional evidence or testimony as necessary. The City Council shall conduct its review of the application under the same criteria applicable to the reviewing body. shall affirm the decision of the HPC unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process or thc HPC has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. The City Council's °ha" take c., ^t, action shall be ... - -- . - - - .. -• : .: • ... • : -, • - .. _ .. limited to: 1. Accepting the decision. 1_Reversing thc dccision. 32. Remanding the application to the HPC with direction from Council for rehearing and reconsideration. (Ord. No. 1 -2002, § 7 [part]; Ord. No. 52 -2003, § 10) 3. Continuing the meeting to request additional evidence, analysis, or testimony as necessary to conclude the call -up review. E. Additional Actions. The rehearing and reconsideration of the application by the HPC shall be duly noticed pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E Public Notice and shall be limited to the topics listed in the direction from Council. The HPC decision is final and concludes the call up review. Substantive changes, as defined in Section 26.415.070.E. 2 Substantial Amendments, made to the application during the call up review and outside the topics listed in the remand from Council shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.415.070.E and shall require a new call up notice to City City Council Ord # of 2012 AACP gap Code Amendments Page 14 of 19 Council. The call up review shall be limited only to the changes approved in the Substantial Amendment application. Section 20: Section 26.412.040.B. — Appeals, notice to City Council and Call -Up, which section describes the process for City Council "call -up" of Commercial Design Review decisions, shall be amended as follows: 26.412.040.B. Appeals, Notice to City Council, and Call -Up. 1. Appeals. An applicant aggrieved by a determination made by the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, pursuant to this Chapter, may appeal the decision to the City Council, pursuant to the procedures and standards of Chapter 26.316, Appeals. 2. Notice to City Council. Following the adoption of a resolution approving or approving with conditions a development application for Ceonceptual Ddesign, the City Council shall be promptly notified of the action to allow the City Council an opportunity to avail itself of the Gall- up procedure set forth below. Notification shall consist of a description in written and graphic form of the project with a copy of the approving document. Also see appeal procedures, Section 26.412.090 below. 3. Call - up. Following the adoption of a resolution approving or approving with conditions a development application for Commercial Design Review, the City Council may order call -up of the action within thirty (30) days of the decision, action or determination. Consequently, applications for Final Design shall not be accepted by the City and no associated permits can shall be issued during the thirty -day call -up period. If City Council exercises this call -up provision, no applications for Final Design shall be accepted by the City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council takes action as described in subsection 26.412.040.B.4. If the City Council does not call up the action within the call -up period, the resolution shall be the final decision on the matter. 4. City Council action on call - up. The City Council shall, at a public meeting., consider the application de novo. on thc record established before the Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable. The City Council may, at its discretion., consider evidence included in the record established by the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning and Zoning Commission, as applicable, or supplement the record with additional evidence or testimony as necessary. The City Council shall conduct its review of the application under the same criteria applicable to the reviewing body. Shall affirm the decision of the Commission unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process or thc Commission exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. The City Council's shall take such action shall be as its dcemsed necessary to remedy said situation, including but not limited to: a. Accepting the decision. a_Reversing the decision. b. Altering the conditions of approval. City Council Ord # of 2012 AACP gap Code Amendments Page 15 of 19 b.E. Remanding the application to the applicable Commission with direction from City Council for rehearing and reconsideration. (Ord. No. 13, 2007, §1) c. Continuing the meeting to request additional evidence, analysis, or testimony as necessary to conclude the call up review. 5. Additional Actions. The rehearing and reconsideration of the application by the applicable Commission shall be duly noticed pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E Public Notice and shall be limited to the topics listed in the direction from Council. The decision made by the applicable Commission is final and concludes the call up review. Substantive changes, as defined in Section 26.412.080 Amendment of Commercial Design Review Approval, made to the application during the call up review and outside the topics listed in the remand from Council shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.412.080 and may require a new call up notice to City Council. The call up review shall be limited only to the changes approved in the Amendment application. Section 21: Section 26.415.070.D.3 — Conceptual Development Plan Review, which section describes the process for Review and approval of Conceptual Development Plans by the Historic Preservation Commission, shall be amended as follows: 26.415.070.D.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. (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 City Council Ord #_ of 2012 AACP gap Code Amendments Page 16 of 19 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. (4) A resolution of the HPC action shall be forwarded to the City Council in accordance with Section 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council, and call -up. No applications for Final Development Plan shall be accepted by the City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council takes action as described in said section. 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-approval shall be required, pursuant to Section 26.415.070.D.3.- (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 Community Development Director may grant an extension of this limitation if the delay has been caused by the application requiring additional reviews or similar delays that could not have been reasonably predicted by the applicant. 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 City Council Ord # of 2012 AACP gap Code Amendments Page 17of19 provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. Section 22: Section 26.415.070.D.4 — Final Development Plan Review, which section describes the process for Review and approval of Final Development Plans by the Historic Preservation Commission, shall be amended as follows: 26.415.070.D.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. City Council Ord # of 2012 AACP gap Code Amendments Page 18 of 19 _(1)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 cxpircd. (54) 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. Section 23: 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 24: A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 13 day of February, 2012, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 23 day of January, 2012. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2012. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney City Council Ord # _ of 2012 AACP gap Code Amendments Page 19 of 19 Exhibit A - Staff Findings 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 Finding: The proposed amendments will clarify language in the code. Because the updated Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) is being adopted as a guiding document, references to the AACP in the Land Use Code in Review Criteria need to be amended. The proposed amendments eliminate out of date language, replace certain references to the AACP with more specific review criteria, and improve to clarity of the code. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: The proposed amendments are intended to better reflect the concepts in the AACP. When reviewing a development proposal, the AACP is used to evaluate the mass, scale, and compatibility of a new building. Instead of referencing the AACP, the proposed amendments create more specific review criteria. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding: Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. 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 finds this criterion to be met. Staff Finding: Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City. Staff Finding: The proposed amendments are intended to better reflect the concepts in the AACP, which include direction that development should be consistent and compatible with the community. When reviewing a development proposal, the AACP is used to evaluate the mass, scale, and compatibility of a new building. Instead of referencing the AACP, the proposed amendments create more specific review criteria, including changes that more specifically require development to be compatible with the community. Staff finds this criterion to be met. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: The updated AACP is being adopted as a guiding document, requiring all references to the AACP in Review Criteria to be removed. Staff finds this criterion to be met. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. Staff Finding: The updated AACP is being adopted as a guiding document, requiring all references to the AACP in Review Criteria to be removed. Staff finds this criterion to be met. h& vt1 • Chapter 26.304 COMMON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES Sections: Sec. 26.304.010 General Sec. 26.304.020 Pre - application conference Sec. 26.304.030 Application and fees Sec. 26.304.035 Neighborhood Outreach Sec. 26.304.040 Initiation of application for development order Sec. 26.304.050 Determination of completeness and review by the Community Development Director Sec. 26.304.060 Review of a development application by decision - making bodies Sec. 26.304.070 Development orders Sec. 26.304.075 Building permit Sec. 26.304.020. Pre - application conference. A. General. Prior to the formal filing of a development application, unless waived by the Community Development Director, the applicant shall confer with a member of the staff of the Community Development Department to obtain information and guidance regarding the format and processing of the development application. The purpose of such a conference is to permit the applicant and the Community Development Department staff to review informally a proposed development and determine the most efficient method of development review before substantial commitments of time and money are made in the submission of an application. The Community Development Director may decide as part of the pre - application process to hold pre - application work sessions with decision- making bodies if it is determined that such work sessions would provide the Community Development Department or the applicant with additional information or guidance necessary to the preparation or processing of an application for development. B. Issues of discussion. Issues that may be discussed at the pre - application conference may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Proposed development. The applicant should describe the general nature of the proposed development including, if applicable, proposed land uses and their densities; proposed placement of buildings, structures and other improvements; character and location of common open space or treatment of public uses; preservation of natural features; preservation of properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures; protection of environmentally sensitive areas; proposed off - street parking and internal traffic circulation and total ground coverage of paved areas and structures. 2. Review procedure. The Community Development Department staff member shall identify procedural review requirements for the proposed development and applicable review standards and terms of this Title that apply to the review of the proposed development. This should include identifying those stages of the common review procedure which apply, which decision - making body or bodies will review the • Page 1 of 5 development application and the approximate length of the development review procedure. 3. Referral agencies. The Community Development Department staff member shall identify the City, State and Federal agencies that are required to review the proposed development, provide the applicant with persons at these agencies to contact about review procedures and generally describe the information which will be needed to satisfy the concerns of the relevant City, State and Federal agencies. 4. Application contents. The Community Development Department staff member shall establish the contents of the development application required to be submitted for the proposed development. This should include descriptions of the types of reports and drawings required, the general form which the development application should take and the information which should be contained within the application. 5. Application copies and fee. The Community Development Department staff member shall identify the number of copies of the development application that are required to be submitted for the proposed development, along with the amount of the fee needed to defray the cost of processing the application and an estimate of the number of hours of staff review time associated with the fee. 6. Written summary. Following the conclusion of the conference, the applicant shall be presented with a written summary of the meeting. One (1) copy of this written summary should be submitted back to the Community Development Department at the time of submission of the development application. (Ord. No. 1 -2002, § 5 [part]) 6 7.Neighborhood Outreach. The Community Development Department staff member shall identify if a neighborhood meeting or other neighborhood outreach, as outlined in Sec 26.304.035, is required prior to submission of the development application. Sec. 26.304.035. Neighborhood Outreach A. Purpose.. In order to facilitate citizen participation early in the development review process the City may require certain development applications to conduct public outreach prior to filing a development application. The applicant must show a concerted effort inform neighbors and the public about the application prior to the first public hearing. B. Applicability. A neighborhood meeting shall be required on any development proposal that is subject to City Council review unless the Community Development Department determines as a part of the pre - application conference that the development proposal is limited in nature. In addition, the Community Development Department may make a determination that neighborhood outreach is required for significant development applications reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission. Page 2 of 5 C. Appropriate forms of public outreach. The applicant may choose to do one or more of the following forms of public outreach. Community Development Department staff may, as part of the pre - application conference, suggest certain forms of public outreach that would be most appropriate for a development application. 1. Information meeting. The applicant may hold a neighborhood meeting to gain input from neighbors and citizens. The meeting must be open and accessible to the general public and held in a location in proximity to the proposed development or in a publicly accessible building such as City Hall or the Public Library. The applicant or applicant's representative shall attend the neighborhood meeting and be available to answer questions from the public. The applicant shall be responsible for scheduling and coordinating the neighborhood meeting. Renderings, modeling, or other visual representations of the project within its context is required. The applicant should conduct noticing to ensure the public is aware of the meeting. 2. On -line meeting. The applicant may conduct an on -line meeting to gain input from neighbors and citizens. The meeting must be open to the general public. The applicant or applicant's representative shall attend the on -line meeting and be available to answer questions from the public. The applicant shall be responsible for scheduling and coordinating the on -line forum. Renderings, modeling, or other visual representations of the project within its context is required. The applicant should conduct noticing to ensure the public is aware of the on -line meeting. 3. Enhanced Public Information. The applicant may provide detailed information on the project in the form of a project website, a detailed public notice mailing, etc. that explains the proposal, outlines the review process, provides visual rendering or maps, or any other information that will describe the project in layman's terms. The applicant shall be responsible for coordinating the information. The applicant should conduct noticing to ensure the public is aware of a website, etc. This may be provided as part of the public hearing mailing required pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3.c. 4. Individual Outreach. The applicant may conduct individual or small group meetings with neighbors of the project. The applicant shall be responsible for organizing and attending the meetings. At the meetings, the applicant should provide a summary of the proposal, including basic use -type information, building height, and renderings. 5. Any other form of public outreach that will provide neighbors a genuine opportunity to understand the development proposal and provide comments to the application. F. Summary of Public Outreach. A written summary of the public outreach, as well as the method of public notification, shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the official record — either as part of the initial application or as an addendum to the application. Any documentation that was presented to the public as part of the outreach should also be included as part of the official record. Sec. 26.304.060. Review of a development application by decision - making bodies. Page 3 of 5 E. Public notice. 1. General. Whenever a notice of a public hearing is required, notice shall be provided to the public, pursuant to the terms of this Section. 2. Content of notice. Every notice shall include the name and address of the applicant, the type of development application sought, date, time and place of the hearing, the address and legal description of the subject property if applicable, a summary of the development application under consideration and identification of the decision - making body conducting the hearing and such other information as may be required to fully apprise the public of the nature of the application. 3. Manner of notice. Every notice shall be given in one (1) or more of the following manners, as specified in this Title for each type of development: a. Publication of notice. Publication of notice shall be provided by the applicant or the Community Development Department at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing through publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City. b. Posting of notice. Posting of notice shall be made by the applicant, who shall obtain a copy of the form from the Community Development Department. The notice shall be posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, by posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the property subject to the development application. The sign shall be made of suitable, waterproof materials, shall be not less than twenty -two (22) inches wide and twenty -six (26) inches high and shall be composed of letters not less than one (1) inch in height. c. Mailing of notice. Mailing of notice shall be made by the applicant, who shall obtain a copy of the notice from the Community Development Department. The mailing shall contain that information described in Paragraph E.2 above. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice shall be sent by first class, postage prepaid U.S. mail or hand delivered, to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. d. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the Official Zoning District Map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change, shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Page 4 of 5 owner. An applicant for surface development shall notify e. Notice to mineral estate pp p fY affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application for development. The applicant shall certify that notice has been provided to the mineral estate owner. • Page 5 of 5 ( h i ti t C or Chapter 26.310 AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE AND OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP Sec. 26.310.010 Purpose Sec. 26.310.020 Procedure for amendment Sec. 26.310.030 Application Sec. 26.310.040 Standards of review Sec. 26.310.050 Temporary suspension of building permits — pending ordinance Sec. 26.310.060 Notation of Planning and Zoning Commission resolution on Official Zone District Map Sec. 26.310.070 Recordation of designation Sec. 26.310.080 Placement on City's Official Zone District Map Sec. 26.310.085 Disputes about zoning of a property Sec. 26.310.090 Time limitations 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. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Planfurthers an adopted policy, community goal, or objective. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. 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. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. Page 1 of 1 )1i3 Chapter 26.314 VARIANCES Sections: Sec. 26.314.010 Purposes Sec. 26.314.020 Authority Sec. 26.314.030 Authorized variances Sec. 26.314.040 Standards applicable to variances Sec. 26.314.050 Procedure for variance approval Sec. 26.314.060 Conditions Sec. 26.314.070 Expiration Sec. 26.314.080 Appeals Sec. 26.314.040. Standards applicable to variances. A. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the appropriate decision - making body shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Aspen Arca Community Plan and this Title 26 and the Municipal Code; and 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere inconvenience. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the Board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title and the Municipal Code to other parcels, buildings or structures, in the same zone district. B. In order to authorize a variance from the permitted uses of Title 26, the appropriate decision - making body shall make a finding that all of the following circumstances exist: 1. Notice by publication, mailing and posting of the proposed variance has been provided to surrounding property owners in accordance with Subparagraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a. —c. Page 1of2 2. A variance is the only reasonable method by which to afford the applicant relief, and to deny a variance would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship such that the property would be rendered practically undevelopable, as distinguished from mere inconvenience. 4. The temporary off -site storage or construction staging can be undertaken in such a manner so as to minimize disruption, if any, of normal neighborhood activities surrounding the subject parcel. 5. If ownership of the off -site parcel subject to the proposed variance is not vested in the applicant, then verified written authorization of the parcel's owner must be provided. 6. Adequate provision is made to restore the subject parcel to its original condition upon expiration of the variance, including the posting of such financial security as deemed appropriate and necessary by the appropriate decision - making body to ensure such restoration. Page 2 of 2 .mac ibrt Chapter 26.425 CONDITIONAL USES Sections: Sec. 26.425.010. Purpose. Sec. 26,425.020. Authority. Sec. 26.425.030. Authorized conditional uses. Sec. 26.425.040. Standards applicable to all conditional uses. Sec. 26.425.050. Procedure for review. Sec. 26.425.060. Application. Sec. 26.425.080. Amendment of development order. Sec. 26.425.040. Standards applicable to all conditional uses. When considering a development application for a conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether all of the following standards are met, as applicable. A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the : - = intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be loc and complies with ' all o ther applicable requirements of this Title; and B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; and C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; and D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems and schools; and E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; and F. The Community Development Director may recommend and the Planning and Zoning Commission may impose such conditions on a conditional use that are necessary to maintain the integrity of the City's Zone Districts and to ensure the conditional use complies with the -yeses . .- - • : - - • .: - . ' : -, this Chapter and this Title; is compatible with surrounding land uses; and is served by adequate public facilities. This includes, but is not limited to, imposing conditions on size, bulk, location, open space, landscaping, buffering, lighting, signage, off- street parking and other similar design features, the construction of public facilities Page 1 of 2 to serve the conditional use and limitations on the operating characteristics, hours of operation and duration of the conditional use. Page 2 of 2 "Elthibif F Chapter 26.435 DEVELOPMENT IN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS (ESA) Sections: Sec. 26.435.010. Purpose. Sec. 26.435.020. Authority. Sec. 26.435.030. 8040 Greenline review. Sec. 26.435.040. Stream margin review. Sec. 26.435.050. Mountain view plane review. Sec. 26.440.060. Application. Sec. 26.435.070. Procedure for approval of development in ESA. Sec. 26.435.080. Application. Sec. 26.435.090. Conditions. Sec. 26.435.100. Amendment of an ESA development order. Sec. 26.435.030.8040 Greenline review. C. 8040 Greenline review standards. No development shall be permitted at, above or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. The arcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for P P P P development considering its sloe, ground stability characteristics, including mine P g P g Y g subsidence and the possibility of mudflow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the City. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects of water pollution. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the City. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. Page 1 of 4 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting i and grading, maintain open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development and said roads can be properly maintained. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. 11. The adopted plans, recommendations, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Open Space and Trails Board are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical. (Ord. No. 55- 2000, § 7) Sec. 26.435.040. Stream margin review. C. Stream margin review standards. No development shall be permitted within the stream margin of the Roaring Fork River unless the Community Development Director makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below: 1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State which shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off -site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development; and 2. The adopted plans, recommendations and policies of the : ' - - e :: - Y • : - open Space and Trails Board and the Roaring Fork River Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. Areas of historic public use or access shall be dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. A fisherman's easement granting public fishing access within the high water boundaries of the river course shall be granted via a recorded "Fisherman's Easement;" and 3. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made outside of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be recorded on a plat pursuant to Subsection 26.435.040.F.1; and Page 2 of 4 4. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during construction. Increased on -site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained outside of the designated building envelope; and 5. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and 6. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished; and 7. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the 100 -year flood plain; and • 8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank stability. New plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers and grasses) outside of the designated building envelope on the river side shall be native riparian vegetation as approved by the City. A landscape plan will be submitted with all development applications. The top of slope and 100 -year flood plain elevation of the Roaring Fork River shall be determined by the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department and filed at the City Engineering Department; and 9. All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope does not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty -five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. .Height shall be measured and determined by the Community Development Director using the definition for height set forth at Section 26.04.100 and method of calculating height set forth at Section 26.575.020 as shown in Figure "A "; and u dove. f 1 .ropn.. n�pn mn co ■ ■■ �.■ sI N 173 1r „ ?..: .,r Fi Jura " 10. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or Page3of4 located down the slope and shall be in compliance with Section 26.575.150. A lighting plan will be submitted with all development applications; and 11. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones. Page 4 of 4 Rh . 04 _ 6 1 Chapter 26.440 SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA (SPA) Sections: Sec. 26.440.010. Purpose. Sec. 26.440.020. Applicability. Sec. 26.440.030. Designation of Specially Planned Area (SPA). Sec. 26.440.040. Procedures for review. Sec. 26.440.050. Review standards for development in a Specially Planned Area (SPA). Sec. 26.440.060. Application. Sec. 26.440.070. SPA agreement and recordation. Sec. 26.440.090. Amendment to development order. Sec. 26.440.050.Review standards for development in a Specially Planned Area (SPA). A. General. In the review of a development application for a conceptual development plan and a final development plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall consider the following: 1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space, while emphasizing quality construction and design. 2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development. 3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mudflow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. 4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large. 5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Arc Cep 56. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel or the surrounding neighborhood. 67. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty percent (20 %) meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Subsection 26.445.040.B.2. 7S. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development. Page 1 of 2 The burden shall rest upon an applicant to demonstrate the general reasonableness and suitability of the proposed development and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and Section; provided, however, that in the review of the conceptual development plan, consideration will be given only to the general concept for the development, while during the review of the final development plan, detailed evaluation of the specific aspects of the development will be accomplished. B. Variations permitted. The final development plan shall comply with the requirements of the underlying zone district; provided, however, that variations from those requirements may be allowed based on the standards of this Section. Variations may be allowed for the following requirements: open space, minimum distance between buildings, maximum height, minimum front yard, minimum rear yard, minimum side yard, minimum lot width, minimum lot area, trash access area, internal floor area ratio, number of off - street parking spaces and uses and design standards of Chapter 26.410 for streets and related improvements. Any variations allowed shall be specified in the SPA agreement and shown on the final development plan. Page 2 of 2 t. iii Eh Chapter 26.445 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Sections: Sec. 26.445.010. Purpose. Sec. 26.445.020. Applicability. Sec. 26.445.030. Procedures for review. Sec. 26.445.040. General provisions. Sec. 26.445.050. Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD. Sec. 26.445.060. Application materials. Sec. 26.445.070. Recording a final PUD development plan. Sec. 26.445.080. Notice of PUD designation. Sec. 26.445.090. Placement of PUD designation on Official Zone District Map. Sec. 26.445.100. Amendment of PUD development order. Sec. 26.445.110. Enforcement of PUD development order. Sec. 26.445.020. Applicability. Before any development shall occur on land designated Planned Unit Development (PUD) on the official zone district map or before development can occur as a PUD, it shall receive final PUD approval pursuant to the terms of this Chapter. However, in no event shall adoption of a final I development plan be required for the construction of a single detached- or duplex - residential dwelling on a separate lot, in conformance with the General Provisions of this Chapter, Section 26.445.040 below. All land with a PUD designation shall also be designated with an underlying zone district designation most appropriate for that land. A development application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) may be applied for by the property owners of any proposed development in the City that is on a parcel of land equal to or greater than twenty -seven thousand (27,000) square feet intended for residential, commercial, tourist or other development purposes. A development application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) may be applied for by the I property owners of any proposed development in the City that is on a parcel of land less than twenty -seven thousand (27,000) square feet intended for multi- family residential, commercial, tourist or other development purposes if, prior to application, the Community Development I Director determines the development of the property may have the ability to further the adopted, goals of the Aspen Arm Community Plancommunity and that the provisions of the Planned Unit Development land use review process will best serve the interests of the community. By virtue of this determination, the application shall not be granted any special rights or privileges and shall be required to demonstrate compliance with all applicable portions of this Chapter. If the Community Development Director determines the proposed development is not suitable to be reviewed as a Planned Unit Development, the property owner may appeal the decision to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Commission, by Resolution and after considering a recommendation made by the Community Development Director, may determine that the development of the property may have the ability to further the adopted goals of the lea Gommunity-Plancommunity and that the provisions of the Planned Unit Development land use Page 1 of 7 review process will best serve the interests of the community. By virtue of this determination, the application shall not be granted any special rights or privileges and shall be required to demonstrate compliance with all applicable portions of this chapter. A development application for a Minor Planned Unit Development (Minor PUD) may be applied for by the property owners of a parcel of land located within the Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) Zone District intended for development consistent with the purpose of the LP Overlay Zone District. (Ord. No. 10 -1999, § 2 (part); Ord. No. 52 -1999, § 1) Sec. 26.445.050.Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD. A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited issues associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be - • • - • - - • • - • ' ' ' compatible with or enhance the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of density, height, bulk, and architecture. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. B. Establishment of dimensional requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying Zone District shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade and significant vegetation and landforms. Page 2 of 7 d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking and historical resources. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. 3. The appropriate number of off -street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any nonresidential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the City. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance to the proposed development. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: Page 3 of 7 1 • a) The increase in density serves one or more adopted goals of the community as expressed in rho Aspen Arca Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan, as applicable, to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses and characteristics. Notes: a) Lot sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher or lower rate than specified in the underlying Zone District as long as, on average, the entire PUD conforms to the maximum density provisions of the respective Zone District or as otherwise established as the maximum allowable density pursuant to a final PUD Development Plan. b) The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD are required to be reflected in the final PUD development plans. C. Site design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man -made features and the adjacent public spaces and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man -made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. 7. For nonresidential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Page 4 of 7 D. Landscape plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the City, with surrounding parcels and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well- designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man -made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. E. Architectural character. 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources and emphasize quality construction and design. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of IP P the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or less- intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both Public Safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up- lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. G. Common park, open space or recreation area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: Page 5 of 7 I t 1. The proposed amount, location and design of the common park, open space or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial or industrial development. H. Utilities and public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. I. Access and circulation. (Only standards 1 & 2 apply to minor PUD applications) The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way or other area dedicated to public or private use. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. • Page 6 of 7 • 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Arca Community Plan and adopted specific plans, as applicable, regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. 6. Security gates, guard posts or other entryway expressions for the PUD or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. J. Phasing of development plan. (does not apply to conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees -in -lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. (Ord. No. 12, 2007, §24) Page 7 of 7 ANL p hi to. r Chapter 26.470 GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMQS) Sections: Sec. 26.470.010. Purpose. Sec. 26.470.020. Applicability. Sec. 26.470.030. Aspen metro area development ceilings and annual allotments. Sec. 26.470.040. Exempt development. Sec. 26.470.050. General requirements. Sec. 26.470.060. Administrative applications. Sec. 26.470.070. Minor Planning and Zoning Commission applications. Sec. 26.470.080. Major Planning and Zoning Commission applications. Sec. 26.470.090: City Council applications. Sec. 26.470.100. Calculations. Sec. 26.470.110. Growth management review procedures. Sec. 26.470.120. Community objective scoring criteria. Sec. 26.470.130. Reconstruction limitations. Sec. 26.470.140. Amendment of a growth management development order. Sec. 26.470.150. Appeals. Sec. 26.470.030.Aspen metro area development ceilings and annual allotments. F. Accounting procedure. The Community Development Director shall maintain an ongoing requested and approved growth management account of available, pp ement allocations and progress g g q towards each development ceiling. Allotments shall be considered allocated upon issuance of a development order for the project. Unless specifically not deducted from the annual development allotment and development ceilings, all units of growth shall be included in the accounting. Affordable housing units shall be deducted regardless of the unit being provided as growth mitigation or otherwise. After the conclusion of each growth management session and year, the Community Development Director shall prepare a summary of growth allocations. The City Council, at its first regular meeting of the growth management year, shall review, during a public hearing, the prior year's growth summary, consider a recommendation from the Community Development Director, consider comments from the general public and shall, via adoption of a resolution, establish the number of unused and unclaimed allotments to be carried forward and added to the annual allotment. The City Council may carry forward any portion of the previous year's unused allotment, including all or none. The City Council shall also consider the remaining development allotments within the development ceilings, established pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.C, and shall reduce the available development allotment by any amount that exceeds the development ceiling. The public hearing shall be noticed by publication, pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3.a. The City Council shall consider the following criteria in determining the allotments to be carried forward: Page 1 of 3 i 21. The community's growth rate over the preceding five -year period. K. The ability of the community to absorb the growth that could result from a proposed development utilizing accumulated allotments, including issues of scale, infrastructure capacity, construction impacts and community character. 43. The expected impact from approved developments that have obtained allotments, but that have not yet been built. (Ord. No. 21- 2005, §1; Ord. No. 12- 2006, §§1, 2; Ord. No. 14, 2007, §1) Sec. 26.470.050. General requirements. A. Purpose: The intent of growth management is to provide for orderly development and redevelopment of the City while providing mitigation from the impacts said development and redevelopment creates. Different types of development are categorized below, as well as the necessary review process and review standards for the proposed development. A proposal may fall into multiple categories and therefore have multiple processes and standards to adhere to and meet. B. General requirements: All development applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for growth management review based on the following generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type of development: 1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi -year development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet this standard. I 2. The proposed development is -: - ' - - ' ,- ,- - • :: - • - : . - . ' :.- compatible with or enhances the mix of land uses in the surrounding area. 3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district. 4, The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval, as applicable. 5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60 %) of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection 26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter . 26.540, such Certificate Page 2 of 3 shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate. (Ord. No. 6 — 2010, §2) 6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30 %) of the additional free - market residential net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ( "voluntary units ") may be deed - restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100 Employee /Square Footage Conversion. (Ord. No. 6 — 2010, §2) 7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, _ solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services. (Ord. No. 14, 2007, §1) Page 3 of 3 E bi ay Chapter 26.480 SUBDIVISION Sec. 26.480.010. Purpose. Sec. 26.480.020. Applicability and prohibitions. Sec. 26.480.030. Exemptions. Sec. 26.480.040. Procedures for review. Sec. 26.480.050. Review standards. Sec. 26.480.060. Application. Sec. 26.480.070. Subdivision agreement. Sec. 26.480.080. Amendment to subdivision development order. Sec. 26.480.090. Condominiumization. Sec. 26.480.050. Review standards. A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: A. General requirements. 1. The proposed subdivision shall be . - • - - . - - • - - - - - • Plan.compatible with or enhance the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space. 2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. 3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. 4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. B. Suitability of land for subdivision. 1. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. 2. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. Page 1 of 2 1 C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (Scc, Chapter 26.130) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with an adopted specific area plan, Title 28, the Aspcn Arca Comprehensive Plan, and /or the existing, neighboring development areas : - : • - - - - . 2. A unique situation exists for the development where an equally safe and i technically sufficient solution will provide a better design solution. 32. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements I of - : : - : . ! , ' = - -. -- = - .. • - : :: _ : -- Section 26.470.070.5, Demolition or redevelopment of multi - family housing. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. E. School land dedication. Compliance with the School land dedication standards set forth at Chapter 26.620. F. Growth management approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH -PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44 -2001, §2; Ord. No. 12, 2007, § §29, 30) • Page 2 of 2 Chapter 26.515 OFF - STREET PARKING Sections: 26.515.010 General provisions 26.515.020 Characteristics of off - street parking spaces 26.515.030 Required number of off - street parking spaces 26.515.040 Special review standards 26.515.050 Cash -in -lieu for mobility enhancements 26.515.010. General provisions. A. General requirements. All development shall be provided with off - street parking as provided in this Chapter. B. Requirements for expansion /redevelopment of existing development. No development shall reduce the number of existing off - street parking spaces below the minimum number of existing spaces required herein for that development, unless expressly exempted by this Chapter. If existing development is expanded, additional off - street parking spaces shall be provided for that increment of the expansion as if it is a separate development. An existing deficit of parking may be maintained when a property is redeveloped. C. Off - street parking calculation. All requirements for off - street parking for residential dwellings and lodges shall be calculated based on the number of units. Requirements for off - street parking for commercial uses shall be calculated based on the net leasable area of the structure or use. Requirements for all other land uses not considered residential, lodging or commercial shall be established by special review. D. Required number of spaces when fractional spaces computed. When any calculation of off - street parking results in a required fractional space, said fractional space may be paid through a cash -in -lieu payment, or an entire space may be provided on the site. E. Commercial Parking Facilities. When a parking facility is proposed to function as a commercial parking facility, as such terms are used herein, review and approval shall be according to Chapter 26.430, Special review and the review standards of Section 26.515.040, Special review standards. Development of such a facility may also require conditional use review in some Zone Districts. Also see definition of "Commercial parking facility," Section 26.104.100. (Ord. No. 17 -2005, § 1) 26.515.020. Characteristics of off - street parking spaces. A. General. Each off - street parking space shall consist of an open area measuring eight and one half (8'/z) feet wide by eighteen (18) feet long and seven (7) feet high with a maximum slope of twelve percent (12 %) in any one direction. Each parking space, except those provided for detached residential dwellings and duplex dwellings, shall have an unobstructed access to a street or alley. Off - street parking provided for multi - family dwellings which do not share a common parking area may be exempted from the unobstructed access requirement subject to special review pursuant to Chapter 26.430, Special review and the standards set forth at Section 26.515.040, Special review standards, below. Off - street parking must be paved with all weather surfacing or be covered with gravel. For residential development, a grass ring or grass- paver- type surface may be used. All parking shall be maintained in a usable condition at all times. B. Location of off - street parking. Off - street parking shall be located on the same parcel as the principal use or an adjacent parcel under the same ownership as the lot occupied by the principal use. For all uses, parking shall be accessed from an alley or secondary road, where one (I) exists unless otherwise established according to this Chapter. C. Detached and duplex residential dwelling parking. Off - street parking provided for detached residential dwellings and duplex dwellings are not required to have unobstructed access to a street or alley, but shall not block access of emergency apparatus to the property or to structures located on the property. This allows for "stacking" of vehicles where one (1) vehicle is parked directly behind another. D. State Highway 82 off - street parking. All parking required for uses fronting State Highway 82 shall, if an alley exists, be provided access off the alley and shall not enter from or exit onto State Highway 82. E. Restrictions on use of off - street parking areas. No off - street parking area shall be used for the sale, repair, dismantling or servicing of any vehicles, equipment, materials or supplies, nor shall any such activity adjacent to off - street parking spaces obstruct required access to off - street parking areas. Parking spaces shall be used for the parking of vehicles and shall not be used for nonauto related uses such as storage units or trash containers. Parking spaces may only be used as a commercial parking facility if approved for such use. See Subsection 26.515.010.E and the definition of commercial parking facility, Section 26.104.100. Commercial parking facilities shall require special review approval and may also require conditional use approval in some Zone Districts. F. Surface parking. Surface parking is prohibited or requires conditional use review as a principal use of a lot or parcel in some Zone Districts. For surface parking of eight (8) or more spaces, parking areas shall include one (1) tree with a planter area of twenty (20) square feet for each four (4) parking spaces. Planter areas may be combined, but shall be proximate to the parking spaces. The Planning and Zoning Commission may waive or modify this requirement on a per case basis. Parking within structures is exempt from this landscaping provision. G. Restrictions on drainage, grading and traffic impact. Off - street parking spaces shall be graded to ensure drainage does not create any flooding or water quality problems and shall be provided with entrances and exits so as to minimize traffic congestion and traffic hazards. H. Restrictions on lighting. Lighting facilities for off - street parking spaces, if provided, shall be arranged and shielded so that lights neither unreasonably disturb occupants of adjacent residential dwellings nor interfere with driver vision. All outdoor lighting shall comply with the outdoor lighting regulations, Section 26.575.150. (Ord. No. 17 -2005, § 1) Sec. 26.515.030. Required number of off - street parking spaces. Off - street parking spaces shall be provided for each use according to the schedule, below. Whenever the off- street parking is subject to establishment by adoption of a planned unit development final development plan, that review shall be pursuant to Chapter 26.445, Planned unit development. Whenever the parking requirement shall be established through a special review, the standards and procedures set forth at Section 26.515.040, Special review standards, below, shall apply. Whenever the parking requirement may be provided via a payment -in -lieu the standards and procedures set forth at Section 26.515.050, Cash -in -lieu for mobility enhancements, below, shall apply. An existing deficit of parking may be maintained when a property is redeveloped. Use Aspen Infill Area All Other Areas Commercial One space per 1,000 net Three spaces per 1,000 net leasable square feet of leasable square feet of commercial space. 100% commercial space. may be provided through a payment in lieu. Residential — Lesser of one space per Lesser of one space per Single - Family and Duplex bedroom or two spaces per bedroom or two spaces per unit. Fewer spaces may be unit. approved, pursuant to Chapter 26.430, Special review and according to the review criteria of Section 26.515.040. Residential — One space per unit. Fewer One space per unit. Fewer Accessory Dwelling Units spaces may be approved, spaces may be approved, and Carriage Houses pursuant to Chapter 26.520, pursuant to Chapter 26.520, Accessory dwelling units and Accessory dwelling units and carriage houses. carriage houses. Residential — One space per unit. Fewer Lesser of one space per Multi Family (as a single spaces may be approved, bedroom or two spaces per use) pursuant to Chapter 26.430, unit. Special review and according to the review criteria of Section 26.515.040. Residential — One space per unit. 100% One space per unit. Fewer Multi Family within a may be provided through a spaces may be approved, mixed - use building payment in lieu. No pursuant to Chapter 26.430, requirement for residential Special review and according units in the CC and C -1 Zone to the review criteria of Districts. Section 26.515.040. Hotel/Lodge .5 spaces per unit. Fewer 0.7 spaces per unit. Fewer spaces may be approved, spaces may be approved, pursuant to Chapter 26.430, pursuant to Chapter 26.430, Special review and according Special review and according to the review criteria of to the review criteria of Section 26.515.040. No Section 26.515.040. requirement for lodging units in the CC and C -1 Zone Districts. All Other Uses (civic, Established by special review Established by special review cultural, public uses, according to the review according to the review criteria essential public facilities, criteria of Section of Section 26.515.040. child care centers, etc.) 26.515.040. For properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, fewer spaces may be provided and /or a waiver of cash -in -lieu fees may be approved, pursuant to Chapter 26.430, Special review and according to the review criteria set forth below. For lodging projects with flexible unit configurations, also known as "lock -off units," each separate "key," or rentable division, shall constitute a unit for the purposes of this Section. For projects with parking requirements in multiple categories (residential, commercial, lodging or other), the provision of on -site parking may be approved to satisfy the requirements for each use concurrently, pursuant to Chapter 26.430, Special review and according to the review criteria set forth below. (For example: A project comprised of commercial use requiring five [5] parking spaces and lodging use requiring five [5] parking spaces may be approved to provide less than ten [10] total parking spaces.) This shall not apply to parking which is provided through a payment -in -lieu. (Ord. No. 17-2005, §1) 26.515.040. Special review standards. Whenever the off - street parking requirements of a proposed development are subject to special review, an application shall be processed as a special review in accordance with the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304 and be evaluated according to the following standards. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the project requires review by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Community Development Director has authorized consolidation pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B, the Historic Preservation Commission shall approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the special review application. A. A special review for establishing, varying or waiving off - street parking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on the on- street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. 2. An on -site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. 3. Existing or planned on -site or off -site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. B. A special review to permit a commercial parking facility may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 12. The project has obtained growth management approvals or is concurrently being considered for growth management approvals. 23. The location, capacity and operating characteristics, including effects of operating hours, lighting, ventilation, noises etc., of the facility are compatible with the existing land uses in the surrounding area. 34. Access to the facility is from an acceptable location that minimizes staging problems, conflicts with pedestrian flow, conflicts with service delivery and elimination of on- street parking. 4$. The proposed style of operation is appropriate (manned booth, key cards etc.). 56. The massing, scale and exterior aesthetics of the building or parking lot are compatible with the immediate context in which it is proposed. P. Where appropriate, commercial uses are incorporated into the exterior of the facility's ground floor to mimic conventional development in that Zone District. (Ord. No. 17 -2005, §1) 26.515.050. Cash -in -lieu for Mobility Enhancements. A. General. The City conducted a parking facility analysis in the fall of 2001 and determined the costs associated with developing new parking facilities to serve the demands of development. While not all potential facilities represented the same potential expenditure, facilities considered likely to be developed by the City required an expected twenty -five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) to forty thousand dollars ($40,000.00) per space to develop in 2001 dollars. Parking serving commercial and mixed -use development is a public amenity and serves the mobility of the general population. As such, the mobility needs of the general population can be improved through various means other than the provision of on -site parking spaces. B. Cash - in - lieu. A cash -in -lieu payment, for those types of development authorized to provide parking via cash -in -lieu, may be accepted by the Community Development Director to satisfy the off - street parking requirements as long as the following standards are met: 1. Amount. In developments, where the off - street parking requirement may be provided via a payment -in -lieu, the applicant shall make a one -time only payment to the City, in the amount of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) per space. A prorated payment shall be made when a portion of a space is required. 2. Time of payment. The payment -in -lieu of parking shall be due and payable at the time of issuance of a building permit. All funds shall be collected by the Community Development Director and transferred to the Finance Director for deposit in a separate interest bearing account. 3. Use of funds. Monies in the account shall be used solely for the construction of a parking facility, transportation improvements, including vehicles or station improvements, transportation demand management facilities or programs, shared automobiles or programs and similar transportation or mobility - related facilities or programs as determined appropriate by the City. 4. Refunds. Fees collected pursuant to this Section may be returned to the then - present owner of the property for which a fee was paid, including any interest earned, if the fees have not been spent within seven (7) years from the date fees were paid, unless the Council shall have earmarked the funds for expenditure on a specific project, in which case the time period shall be extended by up to three (3) more years. To obtain a refund, the present owner must submit a petition to the Finance Director within one (1) year following the end of the seventh (7` year from the date payment was received by the City. For the purpose of this Section, payments collected shall be deemed spent on the basis of "the first payment in shall be the first payment out." Any payment made for a project for which a building permit is revoked or cancelled, prior to construction, may be refunded if a petition for refund is submitted to the Finance Director within three (3) months of the date of the revocation or cancellation of the building permit. All petitions shall be accompanied by a notarized, sworn statement that the petitioner is the current owner of the property and that the development shall not commence without full compliance with this Chapter and by a copy of the dated receipt issued for payment of the fee. 5. Periodic review of rate. In order to ensure that the payment -in -lieu rate is fair and represents current cost levels, it shall be reviewed periodically. Any necessary amendments to this Section shall be initiated pursuant to Section 26.310.020, Procedure for amendment. (Ord. No. 17 -2005, §1) RECEPTION #: 565855, 01105/2010 at 10:12:34 AM. 1 OF 8. R $41.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO RESOLUTION No. 17 (Series of 2009) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, ASPEN, COLORADO, DETERMINING THAT AMENDMENTS TO THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE MEET APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW: 26.415.120 - APPEALS, NOTICE TO CITY COUNCIL AND CALL UP; 26.412.040.B - APPEALS, NOTICE TO CITY COUNCIL AND CALL UP; 26.415.070.D.3 - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW; 26.415.070.D.4 — FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW. WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.210 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, the Director of the Community Development Department initiated amendments to the Land Use Code related to the provisions for City Council "call-up" review of Conceptual Review approvals granted by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Community Development Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended denial of the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Sections 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council and call up; 26.412.040.B - Appeals, notice to City Council and call up; 26.415.070.D.3 - Conceptual Development Plan Review; 26.415.070.D.4 — Final Development Plan Review, as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the amendments proposed herein are consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan which, in part, calls to "retain and encourage an eclectic mix of design styles and to maintain and enhance the special character of our community "; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 21, 2009, continued to June 16, 2009, continued to November 3, 2009 and continued to December 15, 2009 the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve amendments to the text of Sections 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council and call up; 26.412.040.B - Appeals, notice to City Council and call up; 26.415.070.D.3 - Conceptual Development Plan Review; 26.415.070.D.4 — Final Development Plan Review, as described herein, by a 3 - 1 vote; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310 and that the approval of the amendments is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, Planning & Zoning Commission Reso #17 of 2009 De novo Code Amendment Page 1 of 8 WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code are delineated as follows: Text unaffected is black and in standard print and looks like this. - • . - .. - .. - • - • Text being added to the code is red with underline and looks like this. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION as follows: Section 1: Section 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council and Call -Up, which section describes the process for City Council '`call -up" of Historic Preservation Commission decisions, shall be amended as follows: 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 Conceptual Ddevelopment Plan 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. Notification shall consist of a description in written and graphic form of the protect with a copy of the approving doc ument. 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, applications for Final Development Plan Review shall not be accepted by the City and no associated permits eats -shall be issued during the thirty (30) day call -up period. If City Council exercises this call -up provision. no applications for Final Development Plan Review shall be accepted by the City' and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council takes action as described in subsection 26.415.120.D. If the City Council does not call up the action within the call -up period, the resolution of HPC shall be the final decision on the matter. D. City Council action on mall -up. The City Council shall, at a public meeting, consider the application . - -. . - ... • - - - ' - e novo. The City Council may, at its discretion, consider evidence included in the record established by the Historic Preservation Commission or supplement the record with additional Planning & Zoning Commission Reso #17 of 2009 De novo Code Amendment Page 2 of 8 evidence or testimony as necessary. The City Council shall conduct its review of the application under the same criteria applicable to the reviewing body. °h ll ate-m he - •. - • • - - - - • - - • -- - • . The City Council's shall take • sue#- action shall be . . • - • •• . •,. - - limited to: - 1. Accepting the decision • 32. Remanding the application to the HPC with direction from Council for rehearing and reconsideration. (Ord. No. 1 -2002, § 7 [part]; Ord. No. 52 -2003, § 10) 3. Continuing the meeting to request additional evidence, analysis, or testimony necessary to conclude the call -up review. E. Additional Actions. The rehearing and reconsideration of the application by the HPC shall be duly noticed pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E Public Notice and shall be limited to the topics listed in the direction from Council. The HPC decision is final and concludes the call up review. Substantive changes. as defined in Section 26.415.070.E. 2 Substantial Amendments. made to the application during the call up review and outside the topics listed in the remand from Council shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.415.070.E and shall require a new call up notice to City Council. The call up review shall be limited only to the changes approved in the Substantial Amendment application. Section 2: Section 26.412.040.B. — Appeals, notice to City Council and Call -Up, which section describes the process for City Council `'call -up" of Commercial Design Review decisions, shall be amended as follows: 26.412.040.B. Appeals, Notice to City Council, and Call -Up. 1. Appeals. An applicant aggrieved by a determination made by the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, pursuant to this Chapter, may appeal the decision to the City Council, pursuant to the procedures and standards of Chapter 26.316, Appeals. 2. Notice to City Council. Following the adoption of a resolution approving or approving with conditions a development application for Ceonceptual Delesign, the City Council shall be promptly notified of the action to allow the City Council an opportunity to avail itself of the call -up procedure set forth below. Notification shall consist of a description in written and graphic form of the project with a copy of the approving document. Also see appeal procedures, Section 26.412.090 below. 3. Call -up. Following the adoption of a resolution approving or approving with conditions a development application for Commercial Design Review, the City Council Planning & Zoning Commission Reso #17 of 2009 De novo Code Amendment Page 3 of 8 may order call -up of the action within thirty (30) days of the decision, action or determination. Consequently, applications for Final Design shall not be accepted by the City and no associated permits eeft-shall be issued during the thirty-day call -up period. If City Council exercises this call -up provision, no applications for Final Design shall be accepted by the City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council takes action as described in subsection 26.412.040.B.4. If the City Council does not call up the action within the call -up period, the resolution shall be the final decision on the matter. 4. City Council action on call -up. The City Council shall, at a public meeting, consider the application de novo. • • : - .. ' _ . _ . - , - .. , - • ..- : - - . - ' _ - . - .. . The City Council may. at its discretion, consider evidence included in the record established by the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning and Zoning Commission, as applicable, or supplement the record with additional evidence or testimony as necessary. The City Council shall conduct its review of the application under the same criteria applicable to the reviewing body. . . - -• - - . _ _ - _ . -- - • .. _ - • , • - abused its er-etion —The City Council' s_GhaIl take e}3 action shall be as-i deef sed • : -- - . - ' - : - - . - . - limited to: a. Accepting the decision. aRe-ver-sifig--the-cleeision7 b.e.Remanding the application to the applicable Commission with direction from City Council for rehearing and reconsideration. (Ord. No. 13, 2007, §1) c. Continuing the meeting to request additional evidence. analysis. or testimony as necessary to conclude the call up review. 5. Additional Actions. The rehearing and reconsideration of the application the applicable Commission shall be duly noticed pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E Public Notice and shall be limited to the topics listed in the direction from Council. The decision made by the applicable Commission is final and concludes the call up review. Substantive changes. as defined in Section 26.412.080 Amendment of Commercial Design Review Approval, made to the application during the call up review and outside the topics listed in the remand from Council shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.412.080 and may require a new call up notice to City Council. The call up review shall be limited only to the changes approved in the Amendment application. Section 3: Section 26.415.070.D.3 – Conceptual Development Plan Review, which section describes the process for Review and approval of Conceptual Development Plans by the Historic Preservation Commission, shall be amended as follows: Planning & Zoning Commission Reso #17 of 2009 De novo Code Amendment Page 4 of 8 it 26.415.070.D.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. (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. Planning & Zoning Commission Reso #17 of 2009 De novo Code Amendment Page5of8 (4) A resolution of the HPC action shall be forwarded to the City Council in accordance with Section 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council, and call -up. No applications for Final Development Plan shall be accepted by the City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council takes • action as described in said section. 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 ling— approval shall be required, pursuant to Section 26.415.070.D.3.- (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 Community Development Director may grant an extension of this limitation if the delay has been caused by the application requiring additional reviews or similar delays that could not have been reasonably predicted by the applicant. 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. Section 4: Section 26.415.070.D.4 — Final Development Plan Review, which section describes the process for Review and approval of Final Development Plans by the Historic Preservation Commission, shall be amended as follows: 26.415.070.D.4. Final Development Plan Review. a. An application for a final development plan shall include: Planning & Zoning Commission Reso #17 of 2009 De novo Code Amendment Page 6 of 8 x r+� N 1 (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 4 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 I 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 4 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. accordance with Section 26.115.130 and no permit will be if/sued foF (4) 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. Planning & Zoning Commission Reso #17 of 2009 De novo Code Amendment { Page7of8 FINALLY, adopted and approved this 15 day of December, 2009. Stan Gibbs, Vice- Chairman Attest: ian, City Clerk /:ck Approved as to form: ames R. True, Special Counsel Planning &Zoning Commission Reso #17 of 2009 De novo Code Amendment Page 8 of 8 RECEPTION#: 585695, 01/06/2012 at La 4A 11:56:38 AM, 1 of 3, R $0.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO For IT JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND THE PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ADOPTING THE 2011 ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No 22, Series of 2011 Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 08- 2011 WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter referred to as "Commissions ") have the responsibility to review comprehensive plans (hereinafter referenced as a "community plan "); and WHEREAS, the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission has the final authority to adopt community plans for Pitkin County, pursuant to and in compliance with CRS 30 -28 -106 through 109; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.212.010(R) of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, has the authority to adopt community plans for the City of Aspen that are guiding in nature; and WHEREAS, in 1993 the Commissions joined together in the development and adoption of the 1993 Aspen Area Community Plan (referred to as "the 1993 AACP); and WHEREAS, in 2000 the Commissions joined together in the development and adoption of the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan (referred to as "the 2000 AACP ") which encompassed the Aspen Urban Growth Boundary (referred to as the "UGB "); and WHEREAS, in 2008 City and County Planning staff prepared the State of the Aspen Area: 2000 — 2008 report (referred to as "the Existing Conditions Report") outlining the conditions in the Aspen Area UGB; and WHEREAS, in 2008 the City of Aspen commissioned a study with Economic Research Associated (ERA), a consulting firm, who produced a White Paper on the Aspen Economy (referred to as the "Economic White Paper ") outlining a history of the Aspen economy since 1970; and WHEREAS, in from October 2008 — Feb 2009, the public provided extensive input on an update to the 2000 AACP through small group meetings, large group meetings, and a survey (collectively referred to as "round 1 of public input"); and WHEREAS, the Commissions met in work sessions from Feb 2009 through September 2010 to draft an update to the 2000 AACP using round 1 of public input, the Existing Conditions Report, the Economic White Paper, and comments from the public as well as City and County staff; and City P &Z Resolution 22, Series 2011 County P &Z Resolution 08 -2011 Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS, on September 30, 2010 a draft of the AACP update was released for public review; and WHEREAS, from October 2010 - January 2011 a second round of public outreach was held, which included small group meetings, large group meetings, and a survey (collectively referred to as "round 2 of public input "); and WHEREAS, the Commissions met in work sessions from January 2011 - March 2011 to review round 2 of public input; and WHEREAS, on March 28, 2011 a second draft AACP update was released for public review; and WHEREAS, during duly noticed public hearings, the Commissions held public hearings to make edit the draft and to solicit public comment and input on the draft of the AACP Update on April 12, 2011, April 26, 2011, May 10, 2011, May 19, 2011, May 24, 2011, May 26, 2011, May 31, 2011, June 2, 2011, June 9, 2011, June 10, 2011, June 16, 2011, July 7, 2011, July 12, 2011, July 14, 2011, July 21, 2011, July 26, 2011, July 28, 2011, August 9, 2011, August 11, 2011, August 12, 2011, August 18, 2011, August 25, 2011, September 8, 2011, and September 13,2011; and WHEREAS, on September 15, 2011 a third draft AACP update was released for public review; and WHEREAS, during duly noticed public hearings, the Commissions held public hearings to make edit the draft and to solicit public comment and input on the draft of the AACP Update on September 22, 2011, September 29, 2011, October 11, 2011 and November 8, 2011; and WHEREAS, on November 8, 2011 a fourth draft AACP update was released for public review; and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 15, 2011, continued from November 8, 2011 the Commissions voted to adopt the 2011 Aspen Area Community Plan; and WHEREAS, the Commissions find that the 2011 AACP furthers the goals of the Aspen Area community and that it is in the best interest of the community that the plan be adopted; and WHEREAS, the Commissions find that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN AND PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONS THAT:. City P &Z Resolution 22, Series 2011 County P &Z Resolution 08 -2011 Page 2 of 3 Section 1: The City of Aspen and Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commissions hereby approve the 2011 AACP as presented at the joint public hearing held on November 15, 2011. Section 2: The City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commissions hereby recommends that City Council adopt the 2011 AACP by Resolution. APPROVED by the Commissions at a public hearing on November 15, 2011. APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:: / %JJ� R. True, Stan Gibbs, City P &Z Chair City of Aspen Special Counsel /zit ATTEST: ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONI► . " c MMISSION: ' John El . I my Attorney Joe Krabac • County P &Z Chair • 1 EST: Jea-ette Jones, Coq ty Clerk i • City P &Z Resolution 22, Series 2011 County P &Z Resolution 08 -2011 Page 3 of 3 gror ty' 2012 AACP: Proposed Code Amendments (This list is organized by chapter, sub - headings and policy statements. The policy statements may propose amendments to the Land Use Code, Building Code, Housing Guidelines, Historic Preservation Guidelines or Commercial Design Guidelines. For further details on proposed amendments, please see Implementation Steps under each Policy Statement in AACP Appendix.) Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability Achieving Community & Economic Sustainability I.6. Establish lower maximum building heights to maintain Aspen's small town character. (Community Goal, Proposed Code Amendment) Urban Growth Boundary II.2 Urban densities should be located within the commercial core of Aspen, and appropriate increases in density should only occur if they result in the preservation of land in the proximity of the UGB through TDRs or other land use tools. (Community Goal, Proposed Code Amendment) Residential Sector III.1. Protect the visual quality and character of residential neighborhoods by reducing site coverage. (Proposed Code Amendment) II1.2. Control the location and limit the size of homes in order to: • Protect the natural visual quality and scenic value of river corridors and mountainsides, while also preventing environmental degradation and protecting water quality; • Protect our small town community character and historical heritage; • Limit consumption of energy and building materials; • Limit the burden on public infrastructure and ongoing public operating costs; • Reduce short- and long -term job generation impacts, such as traffic congestion and demand for Community Workforce Housing; • Limit zoning variances to reduce impacts on the neighborhood and the community; • Limit site coverage. (Proposed Code Amendment) 11I.3. Ensure City and County codes are consistent in the vicinity of City /County boundaries to prevent shifts in the character of neighborhoods, and encourage smoother cross - boundary transitions regarding house size and density. (Proposed Code Amendment) III.4. Ensure that the County and City Transferrable Development Rights (TDR) programs continue to effectively preserve backcountry areas /agricultural lands and historic structures, respectively. (Work Program for Planning, Proposed Code Amendment) Lodging Sector IV.1. Minimize the further loss of lodging inventory. (Community Goal, Collaborative Initiative, Proposed Code Amendment) IV.2. Replenish the declining lodging base with an emphasis on a balanced inventory, and diverse price points. (Community Goal, Proposed Code Amendment) IV.3. Lodging amenities should be designed to facilitate interaction between visitors and residents. (Community Goal, Proposed Code Amendment) IV.4. Zoning and land use processes should result in lodging development that is compatible and appropriate within the context of the neighborhood, in order to: • Create certainty in land development; • Prioritize maintaining our mountain views; • Protect our existing lodges; • Protect our small town community character and historical heritage; • Limit consumption of energy and building materials; • Limit the burden on public infrastructure and ongoing public operating costs; • Reduce short- and long -term job generation impacts, such as traffic congestion and demand for Community Workforce Housing (Community Goal, Proposed Code Amendment) Commercial Sector V.3. Ensure that the City Land Use Code supports innovative development that respects our architectural heritage in terms of site coverage, mass, scale, form and a diversity of heights, in order to: • Create certainty in land development • Prioritize maintaining our mountain views • Protect our small town community character and historical heritage • Limit consumption of energy and building materials • Limit the burden on public infrastructure and ongoing public operating costs • Reduce short- and long -term job generation impacts, such as traffic congestion and demand for Community Workforce Housing (Work Program for Planning, Proposed Code Amendment) Public, Institutional & Non - Profit Sector VI.1 Zoning and land use processes should result in public, institutional and non - profit development that is appropriate and respectful within the context of the neighborhood, and should clearly reflect its use. (Community Goal, Proposed Code Amendment) Mitigating Impacts VII.3. Allow abatements in mitigation for certain types of development that provide significant community benefits and are in the public interest. (Community Goal, Proposed Code Amendment) VII.4. Develop better methods to manage adverse construction impacts, including a construction pacing system that respects quiet enjoyment of our community and neighborhoods. (Community Goal, Proposed Code Amendment) Review Process VIII.3. Ensure that PUD and COWOP processes result in long -term community benefits and do not degrade the built environment through mass and scale that exceed Land Use Code standards. (Community Goal, Proposed Code Amendment) Transportation User Groups & Transportation Demand Management 11I.2. Minimize the adverse impacts of development on the valley -wide transportation system that occur during economic booms and periods of intense construction activity. (Collaborative Initiative, Proposed Code Amendment) III.3. Require development to mitigate for its transportation impacts. (Proposed Code Amendment) Housing Sustainability & Maintenance I.5. Emphasize the use of durable and environmentally responsible materials, while recognizing the realistic lifecycle of the buildings. (Incentive Program, Proposed Code Amendment) Program Improvements II.6. Eliminate the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) program, unless mandatory occupancy is required. (Proposed Code Amendments) Land Use & Zoning IV.1. Community Workforce Housing (CWH) should be designed for the highest practical energy efficiency and livability. (Incentive Program, Proposed Code Amendment) IV.2. All CWH must be located within the Urban Growth Boundary. (Proposed Code Amendment) IV.3. On -site housing mitigation is preferred. (Work Program for Planning & APCHA, Proposed Amendment) IV.5. The design of new Community Workforce Housing (CWH) should optimize density while demonstrating compatibility with the massing, scale and character of the neighborhood. (Proposed Code Amendment) IV.6. Residents of Community Workforce Housing (CWH) and free - market housing in the same neighborhood are treated fairly, equally, and consistently, with regard to any restrictions or conditions on development such as parking, pet ownership etc.. (Proposed Code Amendment) Parks, Recreation, Open Space & Trails Recreation II.4. New recreational facilities should fully offset impacts and maintain the contextual character of the built environment. (Proposed Code Amendment) Environmental Stewardship Greenhouse Gases I.4. All new development and uses should minimize their greenhouse gas emissions. (Proposed Code Amendment) Air Quality 11.4. All new development and uses should minimize their air pollution emissions. (Proposed Code Amendment) Water III.3. Maintain and preserve existing riparian habitat and wetlands. (Work Program for Planning and Engineering Departments, Proposed Code Amendment) III.4. Reduce the quantity of urban pollutants in stormwater runoff that discharges into the Roaring Fork River and its tributaries. (Work Program for Engineering Department, Proposed Code Amendment) III.5. Increase the natural filtration of storm- and melt- water. (Work Program for Engineering Department, Proposed Code Amendment) Waste Management & Reduction IV.4. Increase the practice of deconstruction and increase the amount of materials that are diverted from the landfill, reused or recycled. (Proposed Code Amendment) Renewable Energy V.4. Require new development and redevelopment to minimize their energy usage and use on -site renewable energies as the site allows. (Incentive Program, Work Program for Canary Initiative and Building Department, Proposed Code Amendment) Wildlife & Wildlife Habitat VILA. Sustain, protect and restore biodiversity and native ecosystems through land use planning, resource acquisition and best land management practices on public and private lands. (Community Goal, Collaborative Initiative, Work Program for Planning, Parks, and Open Space Departments, Proposed Code Amendment) VII.2. Elected and appointed Boards and Commissions should consider environmental and wildlife issues when making decisions. (Community Goal, Proposed Code Amendment) Historic Preservation Energy Efficiency VI.1. All historic landmark properties should be maintained in a manner that improves energy efficiency while maintaining architectural integrity. (Proposed Code Amendment) Publicly Accessible Interiors IV. I Explore code changes to preserve exceptional character - defining historic interiors in public buildings and publicly accessible buildings. (Work Program for Planning and Asset Management Departments, Proposed Code Amendment) The Lifelong Aspenite Health &Well -Being III.1. Promote community -wide collaboration to address health and social service needs throughout the community and in association with new development. (Community Goal, Work Program for Health and Human Services, Proposed Code Amendment) Exhibit 0 A copy of the P &Z adopted 2011/2012 Aspen Area Community Plan is available on- line at www.AspenCommunityVision.com by clicking on the "Latest Document" link. TO: Mayor and Council MEMORANDUM Vitc• FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director 0)4 "' RE: 320 Lake Avenue- Subdivision Amendment, First Reading of Ordinance #$, Series of 2012 DATE: January 23, 2012 APPLICANT /OWNER: 320 Aspen, LLC. SUMMARY: The current owner of the property, The Applicant requests that Council amend the Ronnie Marshall of 320 Lake Avenue, Marshall Lot Split Subdivision approval granted in Aspen, CO 81611, has consented to the 1987. The Subdivision, which split one large parcel application. in half, included a condition of approval that created more restrictive setbacks on Parcel 1 than required REPRESENTATIVE: Michael Hoffman, by underlying zoning. Garfield and Hecht, P.C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: LOCATION: 320 Lake Avenue, Parcel I Staff recommends that the amendment be approved of the Marshall Lot Split, Aspen. finding that circumstances on the site, as well as City Land Use regulations, have changed since the ZONING & USE: R -6, single family Subdivision approval. home. i / • ! ' / r > L t , _ . ., ,, < '" r 1 ' It' , � i � � 1�1�N 1 Y � � A � .a T 21, -.N. • S i - :gelo: LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURE: In December, the Applicant received HPC approval for a remodel to the existing Victorian era home on the subject site. The remodel entails demolishing and replacing an older addition to the building, and moving the house slightly closer to the street and towards the south. HPC granted Conceptual approval including variances from the standard setback requirements of the R -6 zone district. It was anticipated that the applicant would then approach Council to ask that the standard setback requirements, rather than the setbacks established in the 1987 Subdivision, be applied. Staff determined that it was best to have HPC conduct design review and make a determination on the appropriateness of Conceptual approval before Council was asked to consider the project, rather than the other way around. The ability for the applicant to move forward to Final HPC approval depends on Council's determination regarding the setback condition, which appears as a note on the Marshall Lot Split plat. Council is the review authority on this Subdivision Amendment. SUBDIVISION REVIEW Subdivision review was originally required to split what was once 13,000 square foot lot into two approximately equal lots. The parcels both meet the minimum lot size for the neighborhood, which is 6,000 square feet. Section 26.480.080.B of the City Land Use Code provides that Subdivision amendments which are not insubstantial are reviewed and approved by City Council, "provided that the proposed change is consistent with the approved plat." Staff Response: Some of the original records for Council review of this Subdivision were apparently not retained. The application includes the minutes from City Council's Nov. 23, 1987 discussion. Planning Staff and Council were concerned with avoiding negative impacts to existing trees on the property as well as Hallam Lake, and crafted a condition on the Subdivision in that vein. The 1987 Subdivision approval stated that all development on this property should be confined to the footprint of the Victorian and the addition that was already in place at that time. It appears that this was done in order to protect a row of three large cottonwoods in the south sideyard of Parcel 1. Those trees have since deteriorated in health and have received Parks Department approval to be removed. Without the trees, there is no clear reason to limit the buildable area on the south side of Parcel 1 in a manner that is different than what is required of the rest of the neighborhood. Regulations to protect Hallam Lake from the impact of development on the bluff were adopted after this Subdivision. The current redevelopment proposal is subject to these strict criteria, particularly the requirement for setback from the top of slope. Staff believes that development at the rear of the site is appropriately regulated through today's Environmentally Sensitive Area regulations. Staff cannot identify a rationale for restricting the front yard setback on this parcel in a manner that is different than adjacent parcels. Page 2 of 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the applicant's proposed plat amendment, removing the 1987 condition, is accepted due to changed circumstances and changed Land Use Codes since the time of approval. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance # Series of 2012 on First Reading." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance # i t, Series of 2012 Exhibit A: Application Page 3 of 3 ORDINANCE # (Series of 2012) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO APPROVING A SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 320 LAKE AVENUE, PARCEL 1 OF THE MARSHALL LOT SPLIT, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2735 - 124 -01 -002 WHEREAS, the applicant, 320 Aspen, LLC, represented by Michael Hoffman, Garfield and Hecht, P.C., has requested a Subdivision Amendment for the property located at 320 Lake Avenue, Parcel 1 of the Marshall Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. The current owner of the property, Ronnie Marshall, has consented to the application; and WHEREAS, Section 26.480.080.B of the Aspen Municipal Code establishes the process for Subdivision Amendment which may be approved by City Council, "provided that the proposed change is consistent with the approved plat;" and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer, in her staff report to City Council, performed an analysis of the application, found that the review standard for Subdivision Amendment is met, 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 Ordinarice 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: Subdivision Amendment Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Aspen City Council hereby approves a Subdivision Amendment to remove a plat note which imposes setback restrictions on Parcel 1 of the Marshall Lot Split plat and replaces it with the following note: The execution and recording of the Amended Plat memorializes the vacation of the first Plat Note found on the Plat for Marshall Lot Split, recorded in the real property records of Pitkin County on January 26, 1988 in Plat Book 20 at Page 54, as such vacation was approved by the City of Aspen in Ordinance # , Series of 2012. The Plat Note, which restricted development into the existing sideyard and front yard for Parcel 1, is no longer needed as it restricts development within the south sideyard because trees located on the south side of Parcel 1 have become old and diseased. The City of Aspen Parks Department has issued 320 Lake Avenue Ordinance # , Series of 2012 Page 1 of 3 Tree Removal Permit 2009 -109 to authorize the removal of those trees. Restriction of development within the front yard and north side yard is governed by the dimensional requirements of the R -6 zone district, except as those requirements have been or may be varied by the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission or other authorized representative of the City of Aspen. Section 2: Recordation A subdivision exemption plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. Section 3: 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 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: Vested Rights The Land Use entitlements granted herein shall be vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site - specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, including Final Major Development and Commercial Design Reviews by the HPC, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land 320 Lake Avenue Ordinance # , Series of 2012 Page 2 of 3 Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 320 Lake Avenue, Parcel I of the Marshall Lot Split, Aspen . Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Section 6: Public Hearing A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 27 day of February, 2012 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 23` day of January, 2012. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2012. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney 320 Lake Avenue Ordinance # Series of 2012 Page 3 of 3 4. ASPEN OFFICE GARFIELD & HECHT, P 601 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone (970) 925 -1936 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Facsimile (970) 925 -3008 Since 1975 www.garfieldhecht.com E. Michael Hoffman E -mail: mhoffmanl(aigarfieldhechtcom Phone: (970) 925 -1936 December 30, 2011 Ms. Amy Guthrie Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Amendment of Plat for 320 Lake Avenue, Aspen, Colorado. Dear Amy: This letter represents the next phase of the application of 320 Aspen, LLC (the "Applicant ") for development of 320 Lake Avenue in Aspen (the "Property "). As discussed below, the Applicant seeks to eliminate a note found on the Marshall Lot Split Plat (the "Plat ") which restricts development along the south edge of the Property. It appears that the note was originally included on the Plat to protect three large cottonwood trees, which have now become old and in need of removal. The Aspen Historic Preservation Commission ( "HPC ") recently granted conceptual approval to a development plan for the Property which requires use of some of the land restricted by the plat note. To accomplish that development plan, the Applicant requests a modification of the plat to remove the relevant note pursuant Section 26.480.080 B. of the City of Aspen Land Use Code (the "Code "). The legal description of the Property is Parcel I, Marshall Lot Split, according to the Plat thereof recorded January 26, 1988 in Plat Book, 20 at Page 54.Pitkin County, Colorado ( "the Property "). In the late 1980s the City approved a subdivision exemption for a 13,603 square foot lot owned by Ronnie Marshall. The City's decision authorized the filing of the Plat which created two smaller parcels, designated Lots I and II. A copy of the Plat is enclosed with this letter as Exhibit A. A note found on the original plat restricts development in an area which in 1988 was occupied by three large cottonwood trees. While those three trees still exist, the City's Parks Department has determined that the integrity of the three subject trees has been compromised by age and decay 4 Ms. Amy Guthrie December 30, 2011 Page 2 and that the trees should now be removed. A permit for removal of the trees has been issued by the City. Copies of a letter from the City Forester and an Addendum to the resulting permit, which describe these findings, are enclosed with this application as Exhibit B. The HPC granted Conceptual Approval to the Applicant's preservation and development proposal for the Property on Wednesday, December 14, 2011. While this part of the application does not involve the City's Historic Preservation Guidelines or the historic preservation provisions of the Aspen Land Use Code (the "Code "), the request made in this letter is fully consistent with the HPC approval. Code Section 26.480.080 B. provides that a plat may be approved by City Council without completion of an entirely new subdivision process when "the proposed change is consistent with the approved plat." The original Plat was originally approved by City Council for the purpose of permitting development of each of the two parcels resulting from the lot split in a manner consistent with the Property's natural constraints. One of the most obvious of those natural constraints was the existence of three cottonwoods near the south boundary of Lot I. Glenn Horn was the City's planner who presented the application to Council on November 23, 1987. As recorded in the minutes of that meeting, Horn said it is doubtful there will be an addition on the south side as there are 3 tremendous cottonwoods which set the tone for the whole parcel. Horn said it is unlikely the applicant would be permitted to remove those trees. Mayor Stirling suggested adding a condition to preserve the existing front setback and the south side setback. Councilman Gassman moved to add condition 9 that an addition to the existing house not encroach into the sideyard more than it does and not encroach more to the south than it does on parcel 1; seconded by Mayor Stirling. All in favor, motion carried. A copy of these minutes is included with this application as Exhibit C. Unfortunately no copy of the staff memorandum or the City Council resolution of approval survives. However, these minutes appear to fully explain how the plat note at issue here was first authorized by Council. The limitation added to the 1987 approval as condition 9 was memorialized on the Plat by the following language: "An addition to the existing house will not encroach into the existing side and front yard for Parcel I." An enlargement of that portion of the Plat which included this note is found on Exhibit D, attached hereto. A proposed First Amended Plat for Lot I, Marshall Lot Split (the "Proposed Amended Plat "), in both 24" x 36" (one copy) and 11" x 17" format (15 copies), has been filed with this application. The Proposed Amended Plat meets all of the City Engineer's requirements for documents of this type. The only substantive change effected in the Proposed Amended Plat is that found in the note found in the center bottom of the document: Ms. Amy Guthrie December 30, 2011 Page 3 The execution and recording of this Amended Plat memorializes the vacation of the first Plat Note found on the Plat for Marshall Lot Split, recorded in the real property records of Pitkin County on January 26, 1988 in Plat Book 20 at Page 54, as such vacation was approved by the City of Aspen in Resolution No. Series of 2012. The Plat Note, which restricted development into the existing side and front yard for Parcel I, is no longer needed as it restricts development within the south side yard because the trees located on the south side of Parcel I have become old and diseased. The City of Aspen Parks Department has issued Tree Removal Permit 2009 -109 to authorize the removal of those trees. Restriction of development within the front yard and north side yard is govemed by the dimensional requirements of the R -6 zone district, except as those requirement have been or may be varied by the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission or other authorized representative of the City of Aspen. We understand that you need to re- review the "common development review procedures" set forth in Section 26.304 of the Code. Our responses to those procedures, which were also included in our request for Conceptual Approval from the HPC, are included with this application as Exhibit E. Copies of a letter of authorization and of the fee agreement are attached hereto as Exhibit F. Sincerely, E. Michael Hoffman Table of Exhibits Exhibit A — Proposed First Amended Plat of Parcel I, Marshall Lot Split Exhibit B - Letter from the City Forester and Addendum Exhibit C — Minutes of City Council Meeting of November 23, 1987 Exhibit D — Enlargement from Original Plat Showing First Plat Note Exhibit E — Responses to Common Development Review Procedures Exhibit F — Letter of Authorization and Fee Agreement Exhibit B Aspen City - Regular Meeting November 23, 1987 app ••riation resolution, which is a housekeeping item. Abel said t' city has requested RFTA do the improvements to the alley as -rt of the Rubey park project. Abel said it is necessary to a•• opriate revenues from the city and expenditures for this project. Abel told Council early in the project it became apparent it web . be appropriate to remove the trees off the site and replace it 'th new landscaping. Abel said this resolution also incorporates -.e contributions from Hadid Aspen Holdings to refund part of the t - sportation study. Councilman Tuite asked if the city has replaced • ido's fence. Abel said it has not been replaced. The project is o .old for the alley work due to weather. Councilman Tuite said he ^- ld like the fence repaired regardless. Councilwoman Fallin moved to approve the supplemental •-.ropria- tion for RFTA; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in . or, LOT SPr,IT - Marshall Glenn Horn, planning office, told Council this is an application for subdivision exception to create a lot exempt from growth management. The existing parcel is about 13,000 square feet. This parcel is located on Lake avenue overlooking Hallam lake. Horn told Council the parcel is heavily wooded and has a small Victorian house on it, which is historically designated. Horn said the pertinent issue is the impact on Hallam lake and the adjacent property owners. Horn told Council staff has worked with the applicant in setting a complete building envelope on the newly created parcel and a partial building envelope on the existing parcel to protect Hallam lake and the neighbors. Horn pointed out there are a lot of trees on the parcel, which the applicant has committed to replanting or replacing. The appli- cant has also committed to take a new house on parcel 2 through a voluntary review of HPC. The applicant has met with Hallam lake representatives, who has added conditions or the approval. Based on the setbacks, the building envelopes and the conditions outlined, P & Z and staff both recommend approval. Jane Ellen Hamilton, representing the applicant, told council the applicant acceded to every request from Hallam Lake. The applicant has also voluntarily increased the setback quite significantly from what the Code requires. Ms. Hamilton said the applicant will commit to relocating the trees that will have be to taken out to build the building. Mayor Stirling opened the public hearing. Mayor Stirling read into the record a telegram strongly opposed to this lot split 9 Aspen City — Conned - Regular Mettinq ..- November 23. 1987 from Victor Lundy. Bill Martin asked if the present home is to be destroyed. Mayor Stirling said the house is a historic landmark. Ms. Hamilton said the applicant has no intentions of destroying the house. Councilman Gassman said he does not see a building envelope on parcel 1. Horn said the applicant has agreed to limit the setback on the rear yard to 20 feet. Horn said he discussed with P & Z a front yard setback to maintain the existing front yard. P & Z did not support the recommendation to set the front yard setback in excess of the existing code. Horn said it is doubtful there will be an addition on the south side as there are 3 tremendous cottonwoods which set the tone for the whole parcel. Horn said it is unlikely the applicant would be permitted to remove those trees. Mayor Stirling suggested adding a condition to preserve the existing front setback and the south side setback. Councilman Gassman moved to add condition 9 that an addition to the existing house not encroach into the sideyard more than it does and not encroach more to the south than it does on parcel 1; seconded by Mayor Stirling. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Isaac said it is unfortunate what has happened along Lake avenue. There has been a lot of development along the street. Councilman Gassman said he does not want to approve something in excess of the new R -6 regulations. Horn said the development will be subject to the new FAR regulations. Mayor Stirling closed the public hearing. Councilman Isaac moved to approve the Marshall subdivision exception and growth management exemption for the purpose of creating 2 lots with the 9 conditions listed in the planning office memorandum; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, with the exception of Councilwoman Fallin. Motion carried. 88 1 ► : A- . L L. Mayor Sti 'ng said this public hearing will be continued to set the mill levy - December 9, 1987. Mayor Stirling opened the public hearing. Doug Carlson presented a prop. • prepared by Dick Butera as an alternative to spending 550,000 consulting fees for the parking structure. The proposal shows . story parking garage on the Rio Grande property that has as an ernative 24,000 square feet on top to be used for city /county fices. 300 parking spaces could be provided in this parking garage. ouncil suggested this be discussed December 9th. Mayor Stirling -d if the bt4LM Jiaindye rut 1989 iuA.ludeb 1]ie webt ell • • •- 10 Exhibit C PARKS & RECREATION October 20, 2009 Rowland and Broughton Architecture and Urban Design 117 South Monarch. Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 320 Lake Avenue; 3 narrowleaf cottonwoods To Whom It May Concern: The purpose of this document is to summarize the findings by the City Forester upon investigation of 3 narrowleaf cottonwoods (Populus angustifolia) on the south side of the property Iocated at 320 Lake Avenue in Aspen, Colorado. This investigation was completed to determine the health and structural stability of these trees in response to the request for them to be removed. Each tree was investigated separately using a resistograph on the trunks as well as in the canopies. The resistograph is a tool that allows the operator to measure and map internal decay pockets without causing harm to the living tree. An arborist, chosen and hired by the applicant, was used to conduct the investigation in the canopies with guidance from the City Forester. Resistograph results will be attached to this document along with written explanations /diagrams of these test areas in each tree. Formulas utilized to determine strength loss and the threshold for labeling hazard trees come from Wagener 1963 and Mattheck and Breloer 1998, respectfully. The strength loss formula is as follows: strength loss = (diameter of decayed wood) ^3 / (diameter of trunk) ^3 x 100 The hazard tree threshold formula is as follows: t= R; where t is the thickness of sound wood remaining in the thinnest remaining wall and R is the radius of the decay pocket plus the remaining wall thickness. East most tree; furthest from Lake Avenue This cottonwood has an outside bark diameter of 35 inches, with approximately a 2 inch bark layer. There have been some large wounds Left behind in the canopy of this tree due to past pruning. The upper most lead of this tree has a significant amount of decay due to one of these old wounds. Just below this main leader, at the point where another large scaffolding branch is located, the decay pocket ends. The resistograph was utilized at this branch union to determine structural integrity, and adequate sound wood was found. It is my recommendation that the above referenced upper leader be pruned at the branch union of said scaffold branch. No other threatening issues were found in the canopy of this tree. After a resistograph inspection of the trunk of this tree, 2 feet above grade, it was determined that a decay pocket existed with an average diameter of 19 inches. This decay pocket was off center inside the trunk, favoring the south east direction. The thinnest strip of sound wood on this south east side is 3.5 inches in diameter. The strength loss formula yielded a loss of 23% in this trees strength as a result of this decay. The hazard tree threshold formula resulted in 0.3, which indicates that this tree should not fail due to this defect. It is the Parks Department's position that this tree shall remain on. site and continue to be a major contributor to the community forest, with the consideration that the upper lead (described above) be removed as a safety precaution. The removal of that particular branch is a decision to be made by the owner if they choose to do so. Middle tree This cottonwood has an outside bark diameter of 31 inches, with approximately a 2 inch bark layer. Again, there have been some major wounds created in the central lead of this tree which have lead to extensive decay. Unlike the east most tree, there isn't a good location to prune out this decayed leader without taking the tree completely out. The resistograph results in this area showed no sound wood on the west/north west side of the trunk, accompanied by several woodpecker cavities. The trunk of the tree was resistographed and a decay pocket was detected with a diameter of 18 inches. The thinnest strip of sound wood was on the south side of the tree and measured 3.5 inches. The strength loss formula resulted in a 29% loss, while the hazard threshold formula resulted in 0.29. When the threshold formula results in anything less than (13, the tree is more likely to fail. Due to the extensive decay in the canopy with nowhere to prune back to, it is the Parks Department's position that this tree should be removed before structural failure of the crown can cause damage to the home. West most tree; closest to Lake Avenue This cottonwood has an outside bark diameter of 29 inches, with approximately a 2 inch bark layer. There is one area where an old pruning cut has caused a large wound in one of the main leaders of this tree. It was explored with the resistograph and no significant decay was detected. All other areas of the canopy seemed normal. • The trunk was resistographed at 2 feet above grade, resulting in a decay pocket that averaged 16 inches in diameter. The thinnest strip of sound wood was on the east and south east sides of the tree, measuring 3 inches in both places. The strength loss formula resulted in a loss of 26 %, while the threshold formula resulted in 0.26. This threshold reading, significantly less than the 0.3 level, indicates that this tree has a higher potential for structural failure. It is the Parks Department's position that this tree be removed to mitigate the possibility of structural failure of the entire tree at the point of decay. In summary, it was found that all three trees have pockets of decay in the trunks, though the middle and west trees resulted in a rating of `hazardous' according to Mattheck and Breloer's formula. The east tree has a hazard in the canopy in the form of one decayed lead which should be removed if the owner chooses to do so. It is recommended that this east tree be placed on a monitoring plan, in which the Parks Department is happy to help with, to keep an eye on the potential advancement of the decay pocket in the trunk_ The middle and west trees should be removed at this time to avoid potential failure. Sincerely, Chris Forman, City Forester 585 Cemetery Lane Aspen, Colorado 81611 970 - 920 -5120 p 970- 920 -5128f chrisf@ci.aspen.co.us Project 3e40, tgLe Are By: CT Job No: Date: /6 - 2.0-0 • BIG R Logistics, LLC terembigtmfg.coin Subject: Page: of i : ' ' i I • I 1 I I Hy I t I et I 4 te-t I i 1 I 1 ' I I I I I I I i ---t 1-1 i 1 • Hi I I j I I I I )0 I r if -le j 1 C-F I — I — I ----- " M i____I 4- ,-",---,-,----, , 1 , , 1 _ *di i 1 „ I . i ! ! : 1 I 1 I I I 1 I . —1--- --' I - I -i ' 1 I ._ 1 ,. 1 ! I I I ' : ' [ -' 1 'Ili I 1 -- --; I I -- I ---- ' ' 1 4 . NMI 1 1 — 1 I i TA I / i I 1 , I j [ I t NW> 1 A / / IIP2 II • ,_ 4 iti : - S' ei*- e /I — r I i ../i _ q.... ' E l / - A K — I 1 r 1 , , 1 ,r 1 ,,... 1 -- --I- ,,,,, / f i r - 7 I [ ' —I— 1 • c .- /1 - : • _ 1 N . i I I I . l y9 " I I E 1 i 4 0 + A 7 i i I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 , i t_... L 1 II 1 ' 1 I 1 1, - I - I I I I I 1 1 ' ' I I I- -i ___J I 1 I 1 l _ . _i___ I 1 . 1 _ J 1 1 F T I _ i • 1 1 1 I 1._ _ , , --3 --1 1 L I 1 1 1 -- 1 -I-4 I 1 L 1 1 • ',Z; Project: 37,0 t4€. Ice , By: Cf Job No: Date: ,o-Z'- of . Bata a Logistics. LLC envw bigrmfg .com Subject: Page: of Piaji 1 1 1 • 1 ! ! 1 ILII i ,.. I I i • I I I I T i I I 1f 41- I. _I- _kuiSS_I - L1 _1 1 4 i 1 I , 1 - -I .. _ _ 'III II 4.•••-r I - i I -,. --, , , t leli-iat,i_ 7 4_ (—I- K....11 _____ • ,-... 91}t- v A r r A P _ ic.5 Y i ei I . I I I i r I i ', I I 1 ! I Li El 1 li x A _ i 1 1 . . 1--1-1-1' I 3 --- ' - 1 I it 1 r N. .1 _ , t I ' 1 , v r 1 , I 1 i I yo9 • / I I ..-.; , 7 . _ 71 , „.„..; Tirir 1, r .._i .. _____ L 1Itrn 7,- , _ I 1 ‘‘111 -2 —,--- ro___ __ __.,, _ _ ___ ____k_i__ - __ . „si _ • ,...„ , . intirir _4__I. c• 4..sv - ! —Lc -I- „ , 1 ---1- 1 ____[___; _2„ i .,.___ . i 4 ; . . , 1 i . h.-. i i 1 1 1 • , 1 n---1 --• . , i L.-_-_L_Li 1. _ .:•_ . __--r----r 1 i , i—L ------ 4 -1 , ' . • 1 I 1•1•11111M MN — 1 I I t 1 4 11 _1 _ , I ' _I ! ! , , i i sim mi ---- 4e.k‘e 2' 4,Ar _ r.A-C _ j 1 1 1 1 1 ri , MEMO 0 • q _fr" I I , • , I t d. EMI — i . I 111.111EM • 1 1111 IIIM 7 r A ! ' ' 0 I I llatIMER50 1 AM (0 ,. - / • 1.11011Malli I :El - I - 1 — • 1111 M' ., 11111 APat Ma I _ i ! , 1 IL - :Mil mara1111,11 1. _ I 1 I Mink Mar IIIIIIIISMIL, i --, , , .4. - ' I 1 ! • t. K.< /.3r 0,, I 1 - . i 1 , , „, , 1 1 ! . , 1 , . E, 1 1 1 , i i_. , •• , --, • 1 1 ,__i 1 1 1 , 1 , 1 ____ ! • • i .1_ i ITT i 1 , -, , , , , - 1 t . 11 - I I i 1 1 I j__ :.. . ... iftil- ,/c_t-e„. Z? fl i es - 4 - fd'-- a_ z rie • 6 - 4 s"." Se •-... ir ft-rev/ - 11 . ' ' C.,, 1-1------ "t•r -c/.4 7n• a ‘ 9 t• _ — t • • • SO 11 le*---- 4.4 er .1 40 -e it 41--q--- .b.,42-0.- .k.5.6----/(5 ALL-f.:4 0--7-1 . .4- a 4 / -&-: —H ------"-- . . T 11 11 • • lic x.,.11/ ,c iJk f e z' 44,,•4,-...4 . Co/ S I I . ti . r • ad-ts ' eGn 7 4 .40 1 't alc. - A/477L- 7‘-des - • ;:' : : I I . .. 1 vn • : .... - De )),o1/.ei ...;,..- ec.., -1- tr 2 I 4 S• sr. r le— CS 3 4,_j • _ .i Nr.,,,a 41,_ .9viz. ge7 e 0 ofeve. rae .- cs *Jet ca_ .1 1 -Pie.A ii+-el _ _ _ I I I _________ — --- r i i ,..,„ ,„,,,..,,,,,,_ e z I litre i s-44 . 6...1 4 / 5,-,../., Vzt,..,. •14-1,4-•," - 11 z ' v i 4fre t 4 c, - I - - - - --" . _ — --.•-- ..-, — . - 1 1 i. - 7 . i. . ) / A,- gg t) c _.. —,.._. sbi ✓/ ca.„.., un1:� �1 ? ±.4c 5 • (:.7 ?j: Jnvu+/yv/✓ viz, 7 :„Li�1)-e/ _ 1 Z . - el -A-A,- cA.rl e Z / 4 4,4. : C f . -. 3A e so,.f ienJ 77.2... 3�/ t . } tr / � r � -- _--____ i J7l</ e.,_x ?-f? z'ct..i^< a_ G.-e `// /,..yv7` -... 414„,. — – • Ti 11 Sr; % 4 , - �w e Z azx!z -- 4 , �„ L f ip.h.. �( 6. ../ Y'/ � _: 2 i1 i . ; . j • . -- - - ----' - is �.- -- ....___-- -__....__._... li . 1,1 t ei It _' 3 Z >/e. iiv< _v ?, 4-. frz_ wera 442_ / 0-is 91 Z gi _ .& br; /(') Tin., � r-y-�- s e. I4J4, e A c m.. �l�e .,/( + t E i (P I>ri ll erk 1,..._ ryit :eci e:. f _ e1a-4€ -p-- c._s.._ /4 #.�.__. l/¢-`� s = 777-7777111777- . • LY.....brt.i Yn,, / ,erft , e; ._ dikewli_4'- .r.h..— Ai /1_4 -04' L!{3 -r_ w Y✓1. . ___ 1- - i- rt ;OL/ .4 , --,�� ctt . 1, r1?C� ene—v eS_# s / i f Z. U -.. sl 11 . 1 ff aS! Z __. ' k fri Ltrs 2 �J / , .fLw { _ ts�'?Lr . 1'4-.4' . Aec .1z,- -�. 3 < , /..onoE"_ _,... 0 �rlild ail". ,),....n,_ y z. • 'I' . T` - _ r �i r( &t .5 GZ,_� tu? -�... IJA i%: i1 .-._._ . ' W ) 'ed . T /Jro„ --1 ,.. z - ' In-r- - t t/sl . S� .o f ;0 H_ .. - � _ I 1 iii; Je' 7._ —ji c;. y Q41 Y / .. :`D � T/! �t - 1" id j a . 1 113 7 .0 4e/ - , iie. io is� ,,sdfley[�ue-- Pa� _4A:k 3` -_- _ 3 • _ T- -__ Ct , u.-._ utj¢ �L }�t .x. Y•`e aes(— - r J c si< _ __ • m. .. r4, 3 z • of _ Soc.... al. .__- _— .__..__ • II • 0 Th r al -c �e�y,� .-.'' 3�` /� / k. J7 c�.t .••... ..a s ,e, f Wei - I.1,.�_t.%'e''f le.-42.1 /..A1 447._c...,.‘71. "-- r,a!" .. yt ,�,_ � - -. 11- . ::...,_ t re,+ 6 . - . N-Y1-r i rj'L_s e /J9 ' .___.L _...----.-- _. .. A>- • ec. _ -^ / _ u_ .. '" "" 1� '_'_c a P Mme- ^ K - , T n rr a f , I Ua � ems ... : j : e � _ f - n /cC - is-- - I ) 3 iv a l �U��H� mow! y - -. .il 4. i {ce - __ br +161 tsar u # _ , ( 7( ‘c'(o� Lto�vL_.%J e� - -- -- .......4. S wc'ki .e ,. 7[�'-�- / / . `L G 4 c C g cck , ,, 'GcY -W _' --- - .v. • . .-.; . 1-11ed r:%--- 0 cc . 4- s1 -71-h- t i:iti- _ 5... om-- - , /4 _ s eli �A`- -t — I� br777 p< c J eC NJ a7 b/c b ': z • ' (r $ w _ ° L • rr2/ ., ,* w-A- , � A eo l , 44€x . , rz/�J 06 ', * f. . , ..7 • 11 ' �--�---- . . , . .~~-- -~~-' --^~-'- -' . � ��� � - 7 » : � �^ �� , J ~_..~ ^ ---_--_ �� �- __, _ _ _~__,_~_____ --.-^~_- ' -��� �� --'-----_---- �: +�'/ � e~l r' l __//"� __`^�`^/' _______ . il II 4 ,= �----=' . __ '/)-� --��- v� • . '1 . ----� __- ..��—___---' . � � __--��---`. _`--____--^—..~.`�~^—���`�_ _'.-�__�-_---_---~-�--`_-~'-^.^-___'`---'- ( ~ s _. . lr _ il • ___ il - - , . . . . — — i . . MUST BE POSTED ON PROPERTY Addendum to Permit #2009 -109, 320 Lake Avenue The owner at 320 Lake Avenue has requested the removal of 3 large narrowleaf cottonwood trees, on the south side of' the property, in order to expand /relocate the current structure. The expansion desired would require the removal of all trees. Each tree was investigated separately using a resistograph on the trunks as well as in the canopies. After extensive review of the inspection outputs, the Parks Department has permitted the removal of 2 of these trees due to their current condition of having an unacceptable amount of decay within their boles and canopies. The third tree was determined to be of borderline structural integrity and was originally required to be preserved in an effort to maintain some of the valuable tree resources on this property. Upon further extensive scientific investigation into the crown of this tree, it has been determined that the tree has a limited life expectancy coupled with marginal structural integrity. It is for these reasons that the Parks Department shall grant the removal of this third narrowleaf cottonwood tree, as originally requested by the applicant. The applicant must provide the City Forester copies of approved building permits at 320 Lake Avenue prior to the removal of the tree. At that time, this addendum shall be validated and the tree Wray be removed with no further documentation required. The original' permit contains information regarding the middle and west trees and is considered accurate and applicable to the project site. The original permit and this addendum shall be kept onsite. Proper n: Chris Forman Forester, City of Aspen Date 1 • 1'2 • to Stephen Ellsper ' +n Director Parks and Operi Space Date Permit Valid for one year after approval date. • ff • - ^ yam` ' 4 p v. 4 ` • " .... t• I • p 1 ' ' •• !•" i • tl +1 . ..- • .i. . .. ,. ! _ .. t . . :-./4 , - 4. - 1 ' i . 4%. "14 t , r -, , • - wjl i e • L rl , tl Exhibit E CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Sara Adams, (970) 429 -2778 sara.adams@ci.aspen.co.us DATE: 12.11.09 PROJECT: 320 Lake Avenue, Parcel I of the e ^' y. Marshall Lot Split y r- REPRESENTATIVE: Rich Carr' l CCY Architects 228 Midland Avenue � Yr' ■ Basalt, CO (970)927.4925 1,�}'; rcarr@ccyarchitects.com ` TYPE OF APPLICATION: Certificate of Appropriateness for Major HPC Development, Demolition of historic property, Relocation of historic property, Setback Variances, Residential Design Standard Variances, Hallam Lake Bluff Review, Stream Margin Review, and Amendment to approved Subdivision Development Order. DESCRIPTION: Background: 320 Lake Avenue is located in the R -6 medium density residential zone district. Them is no alley access: the house fronts Lake Avenue and the rear of the property overlooks Hallam Lake. Only one curb cut will be permitted for this parcel. The subject lot contains a 19th century designated landmark and is defined as Parcel I of the Marshall Lot Split. An unoriginal addition is evident on the north and rear (east) elevations of the historic house. The south and front (west) elevations appear to be in the original condition. No documentation has been found to indicate whether the house is in its original location and an inspection of the basemenUcrawl space has not been attempted. Staff suggests the applicant check the maps and photographs at the Aspen Historical Society to possibly determine the original location and appearance of the home. The Marshall Lot Split was approved by City Council in 1987 that created Parcel I and Parcel II. A plat was recorded, however an Ordinance was never drafted or recorded. The plat notes state the following: "1. An addition to the existing house will not encroach into the existing side and front yard for Parcel I; 2.14o decks or similar structures shall be constructed outside the building envelope: The plat indicates that the rear yard setback for Parcel I is 20' from the property line. The building envelope for Parcel I is defined on the plat as the footprint of the existing building, with the exception of the rear yard setback of 20'. As stated in the plat notes, no additions are permitted in the front and side yards. An amendment to the subdivision plat and envelope will be required to permit development in these areas of the lot. Mature vegetation exists on the site that will require approval from the Parks Department to remove. Staff understands that Parks granted approval to remove 2 of the 3 cottonwoods along the south property line, and the applicant is appealing the denial of the 3" tree removal request. Proposal: The applicant would like to relobate the historic home on Parcel 1 toward Lake Avenue, construct an addition that includes a two car garage and a two story living space, and apply for the 500 square foot FAR Bonus for landmark structures. HPC has purview over any development on Parcel I, Including landscape, and will assess the proposal's compliance with the Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for Landmarks (available at www.aspenpitkin.com.) The project is required to meet the Residential Design Standards. Due to the landmark status of the building and the confines of the lot, setback variances and Residential Design Standard Variances are probable for thls project, which can be granted by HPC. Hallam Lake Bluff and possibly Stream Margin reviews are required for development at the rear of this parcel, which will occur at HPC as part of a consolidated application. A recent survey should be undertaken to plot the areas on the parcel that are subject to these reviews. Setbacks: The combined side yard setback dimension for this property will be calculated based on the entire lot size, which excludes any slope reductions for the property. The HPC will review the requested setback variances for a property within the R -6 zone district; however, City Council review is required to amend the subdivision plat to redefine the building envelope for Parcel I, If the proposed changes are consistent with the approved plat, then the application will be processed as an "other amendment" by City Council. If the proposed changes are found to not be consistent with the approved plat, then the amendment is subject to review as a new development application for plat. PROCESS: 1. Worksession with UPC. 2. Submit application for HPC review for items listed in #3. 3. HPC Conceptual Review of mass, scale, height, location (public hearing.) a. Relocation of historic house. b. 500 square foot FAR bonus for a landmark. c. Residential Design Standard variances. d. Setback variances. e. Hallam Lake Bluff Review (and Stream Margin Review if necessary.) 4. After HPC grants approvals listed in 113 above, submit application for Subdivision amendment. 5. City Council Amendment to a Subdivision Development Order, "other amendment" (public hearing.) 6. Alter Council review is complete, submit application for HPC Final Review. 7. HPC Final Review of fenestration, materials, detailed landscape plan (public hearing.) Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.410 Residential Design Standards 26.415.070 (D) Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development 26.415.080 Demolition of historic properties. 26.415.090 Relocation of designated properties 26.415.110 (B) Dimensional Variances for Historic Properties 26.415:110.E Floor Area Bonus 26.435.040 Stream Margin Review 26.435.060 Hallam Lake Bluff Review 26.460.080 (B) Amendment to Sudivision Development Order 26.575 Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations 26.710.040 Medium - Density Residential (R-6) Review by: Staff for completeness, HPC for compliance with review criteria. HPC Conceptual Review generally addresses mass, scale, and height. Fenestration, materials, landscaping, and site lighting are addressed at Final Review. City Council will address the proposed amendment to the approved subdivision plat and the consistency of the proposed amendment with the original plat. Public Hearing: Yes at HPC (both Conceptual and Final) and City Council. Referral Agencies: None. Planning Fees: $2,940 Deposit for 12 hours of staff time for HPC reviews (additional staff time required is billed at $245 per hour); and $1,470 Deposit for 6 hours of staff time for City Council amendment to subdivision plat review. Referral Agency Fees: None. Total Deposit: $ 2,940 to submit application for HPC reviews; $1,470 to submit separate application for City Council review. To apply, submit the following Information: 1. Proof of ownershlp with payment. 2. Signed fee agreement (all applications) 3. Completed City of Aspen application form (all applications). 4. Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant, which states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 5. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 6. Total deposit for review of the application. 7. Copies of the complete application packet and maps: 13 for HPC reviews and 8 for Council review. HPC = 12; PZ = 10; GMC = PZ +5; CC = 7; Referral Agencies = 1/ea.; Planning Staff = 1 8. An 81/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. 9. Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, including all easements and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado. (This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived by the Community Development Department if the project is determined not to warrant a survey document.) 10. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing conditions as well as proposed. 11. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing. The GIS department can provide this list on mailing labels for a small fee. 920.5453 12. Copies of prior approvals. 13. Applications shall be provided in paper format (number of copies noted above) as well as the text only on either of the following digital formats. Compact Disk (CD)- preferred, Zip Disk or Floppy Disk. Microsoft Word format is preferred. Text format easily convertible to Word is acceptable. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. ATTACHMENT 2 - PROJECT: Name: 320 Lake Avenue Residence Location: 320 Lake Avenue, Parcel I, Marshall Lot Split Block 20, Page 54 (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 273512401002 APPLICANT: Name: Bill Guth, 320 Aspen, LLC Address: c/o 320 Aspen, LLC, 2850 E. Broad St. Columbus, OH 43209 970- 306 -8757 bguth @stagecapito =.com Phone #: Fax #: E -mail: REPRESENTATIVE: Name: E. Michael Hoffman Address: Garfield & Hecht, P.C. 601 E. Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 Phone #: 970 -544 -3442 Fax#: (866) 929 - 7870 mailmh offman @garfieldhecht.com TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): Amendment of Subdivision Plat EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) Historic home with several non - historic additions PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Remove restriction on south side yard to reflect removal of trees. ATTACHMENT 3 - Dimensional Requirements Form (Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.) Project: 320 Lake Avenue Applicant: 'onnie 'ars a 1 'spen, Project 320 Lake Avenue Location: R - Zone 7,075 SF District: Lot Size: 6,41_8 Se Lot Area: (For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: — Proposed: Number of residential units: Existing: 1 Proposed: 1 Number of bedrooms: Existing: 3 Proposed: 5 Proposed % of demolition _not calculated DIMENSIONS: (write n/a where no requirement exists in the zone district) Floor Area: Existing: 1, 657 Allowable.: 3,798* Proposed: 3,798* Height 20' mid point *With 500 s.f. FAR Bonus Principal Bldg.: Existing: 25 ' Ri dtjlewable: 25 ' Proposed: 25 ' Accessory Bldg.: Existing: N/A - - Allowable: Proposed: - - - On -Site parking: Existing: 1 Required: 2 Proposed: 2 % Site coverage: Existing: 24% Required: 48 . 5% Ma±roposed: 45% % Open Space: Existing: Required: N/A Proposed: ' 10' Front Setback: Existing: 2 5 Require 10 Proposed: Rear Setback: Existing.: 51.5' Required: 26 ' Proposed: 34 Combined Front/Rear: Indicate N, S, E, W Existing: N /A Required: - - - - Proposed: - - - - Side Setback: S Existing: 18 ' Required: 5 ' Proposed: 4 ' * Side Setback: N Existing: 1 • 5 Required: 5 ' Proposed: 1 • 5 Combined Sides: Existing: 19 • 5 ' Required: 17 ' Proposed: 5-5 ' * * *to face of covered porch (8.5' to building face * *10 Distance between Existing: N/A Required: Proposed: buildings: Existing non - conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed): stewart title Aspen Division 620 East Hopkins Avenue View your transaction progress 24/7 via SureClose. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 970-925-3577 Ask us about your login today! Fax: 866 277 - 9353 Date: August 22, 2011 Order Number: 949081 - -C3 Buyer: SC Acquisitions LLC, a Colorado limited liability company Seller: Ronnie Marshall Property 320 Lake Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 Please direct all Closing inquiries to: Please direct all Title inquiries to: Carolyn Ethridge Linda Williams 620 East Hopkins Avenue Phone: 970-766-0234 or 866- 932.6093 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Email Address: Iwilliam3@stewart.com Phone: 970-925-3577 Fax: 866-277-9353 Email Address: carolyn.ethridge@stewart.com SELLER: BUYER/BORROWER: Ronnie Marshall SC Acquisitions LLC, a Colorado limited liability 320 Lake Avenue company Aspen, Colorado 81611 LISTING BROKER: SELLING BROKER: Morris & Fynvald Sotheby's International Realty Alta Properties Attn: Tracy Eggleston Attn: William Guth 415 East Hyinan Avenue P.O. Box 1444 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Phone: (970) 925-6060 (970) 925 -6060 Phone: (970) 306-8757 Fax: (970) 920 -9993 Email Address: william.n.guth@gmail.eom Email Address: tracyaspen@yahoo.com • ALTA Commitment (6/17/06) ALTA Commitment Fonn COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Issued by s tewart title guaranty company Stewart Title Guaranty Company, a Texas Corporation ( "Company"), for a valuable consideration, commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the Proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest in the land . described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges and compliance with the Requirements; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions of this Commitment. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the Proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A by the Company. All liability and obligation under this Commitment shall cease and terminate six months after the Effective Date or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue the policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. The Company will provide a sample of the policy form upon request. This commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by a validating officer or authorized signatory. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Stewart Title Guaranty Company has caused its corporate name and seal to be hereunto affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A. Countersigned: stewart > ; x,/ . I •title guaranty company -. / , mo t` i*b - , � j � Senior Chairman of eBoard A abed Countraiputure Stewart Title 31oN:< Aspen Division r-r t 90 0 1p^ Chairman of the Board • 620 East Hopkins Avenue ri%'i.5 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 970- 925 -3577 President Fax: 866- 277 -9353 Order Number: 949081 -- ALTA Commitment (6/17/06) Title Officer: Linda Williams COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A 1. Effective Date: July 11, 2011, at 8:00 a.rn. Order Number: 949081 - -C3 Title Officer: Linda Williams 2. Policy or Policies To Be Issued: Amount of Insurance: (a) A.L.T.A. Owner's (Extended) $3,900,000.00 Proposed Insured: SC Acquisitions LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (b) A.L.T.A. Loan • 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Conmritment and covered herein is: Fee Simple 4. Title to the fee simple estate or interest in said land is at the effective date hereof vested in: Ronnie Marshall (SEE REQUIREMENTS HEREIN) 5. The land referred to in this Conunitment is described as follows: PARCEL I, MARSHALL LOT SPLIT, according to the Plat thereof recorded January 26, 1988 in Plat Book 20 at Page 54 as Reception No. 296875. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO Purported Address: Statement of Charges: 320 Lake Avenue These charges are due and payable before a Policy can Aspen, Colorado 81611 be issued: Basic Rate 2006 Owner's Policy: $6822.00 Owner's Extended Coverage: $150.00 Tax Certificate: $20.00 COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE J3 — Section 1 REQUIREMENTS Order Number: 949081 —C3 - The following are the requirements to be complied with: 1. Payment to or for the account of the grantor(s) or mortgagor(s) of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. 2. Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record. 3. Evidence satisfactory to Stewart Title Guaranty Company of payment of all outstanding taxes and assessments as certified by the County Treasurer. 4. Execution of Affidavit as to Debts and Liens and its return to Stewart Title Guaranty Company. NOTE: If work has been performed on, or in connection with, the subject property (architectural drawings, soils testing, foundation work, installation of materials), please notify the Company's escrow officer within 10 days of receipt of this title commitment. 5. Evidence satisfactory to Stewart Title of Colorado, Inc. furnished by the Office of the Director of Finance, City of Aspen, that the following taxes have been paid, or that conveyance is exempt from said taxes: (1) The "Wheeler Real Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant to Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979) and (2) The "Housing Real Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant to Ordinance No. 13 (Series of 1990). 6. THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENT IS FOR DELETION OF SURVEY EXCEPTIONS 2 AND 3 OF THE OWNERS POLICY: A SURVEY, meeting the minimum detail standards of the ALTAJACSM, Survey LOCATION CERTIFICATE, prepared by a registered Colorado surveyor, within the last TWO MONTHS, must be presented to Stewart Title Guaranty Company, for its approval prior to the deletion of any survey exceptions from the OWNERS POLICY. Stewart Title Guaranty reserves the right to take exception to any adverse matters as shown on said survey, or make further inquiry or requirements relative thereto. Said Survey, must be certified to Stewart Title of Colorado and/or Stewart Title Guaranty Company. 7. Trust Agreement for the Ronnie Marshall Living Trust Dated January 17, 2000 NOTE: The Agreement will not be recorded. • 8. Execution by Authorized Trustee of the Ronnie Marshall Living Trust Dated January 17, 2000, of Statement of Authority pursuant to the provisions of Section 38 -30 -172 C.R.S. 9. Deed from Ronnie Marshall, Trustee of the Ronnie Marshall Living Tntst Dated January 17, 2000 conveying fee title to Ronnie Marshall NOTE: This Deed is needed because subject property or a portion thereof was conveyed to Ronnie Marshall, Trustee of the Ronnie Marshall Living Trust Dated January 17, 2000 by Quitclaim Deed recorded April 5, 2002 as Reception No. 465999 Said Deed used the prior legal description (one prior to the Marshall Lot Split Plat) 10. Release by the_Public Trustee of the Deed of Trust from Ronnie Marshall for the use of Wells Fargo Bank N.A. to secure $450,000.00, dated April 29, 2004 recorded May 5, 2004 as Reception No. 497218. This Deed of Trust secures an equity line of credit and/or revolving loan. The Company requires a satisfactory written statement from the existing lender confining: (a) the payoff amount; (b) that the line of credit has been closed or frozen, and no further draws/advances will be permitted and/or the right to future advances has been terminated, and (c) agreement to deliver a full Release of Deed of Trust upon payment of the outstanding balance. 11. Release by the Public Trustee of the Deed of Trust from Ronnie Marshall for the use of Wells Fargo Bank N.A. to secure $200,000.00, dated September 12, 2008 recorded October 10, 2008 as Reception No. 553482. 12. ■ ► Release by Aspen Grove Associates LLC of the Promissory Note in the amount of $48,924.00 recorded August 22, 2011 as Reception No. 582119, 13. Relating to SC Acquisitions, LLC, The Company requires for its review the following: a) Copy of the Operating Agreement and the regulations of the limited liability company and any amendments thereof b) Execution and recordation of Statement of Authority pursuant to the provisions of Section 38 -30 -172 C.R.S. Note: The Colorado Secretary of State shows this company in good standing. 14. Deed from vested owner(s) vesting fee simple tide in the purchaser(s). Note: notation of the legal address of the grantee must appear on the deed as per 1976 amendment to statute on recording of deeds CRS 38 -35 -109 (2). • COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE B — Section 2 EXCEPTIONS Order Number: 949081 - -C3 The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession, not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the land and not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof, but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this commitment. 6. Unpatented ruining claims, reservations or exceptions in patents, or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof. 7. Water rights, claims or title to water. 8. Any and all unpaid taxes and assessments and unredeemed tax sales. • 9. The effect of inclusions in any general or specific water conservancy, fire protection, soil conservation or other district or homeowners association or inclusion in any water service or street improvement area. 10. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted, as reserved in United States Patents recorded June 5, 1880 in Book 55 at Page 2 and in Book 55 at Page 32. 11. Easements, rights of way and all matters as shown on Plat of Marshall Lot Split recorded January 26, 1988 in Plat Book 20 at Page 54 as Reception No. 296875. 12. NOTE: Exceptions 1 and 4 may be deleted from the policies, provided the seller and buyer execute the Company's affidavits, as required herein, and the Company approves such deletions. If work has been performed on, or in connection with, the subject property (architectural drawings, soils testing, foundation work, installation of materials), and the Company has not reviewed and approved lien waivers and indemnitor financials, Standard Exception 4 (mechanic lien exception) will not be deleted and no mechanic lien coverage will be furnished. Exceptions 2 and 3 may be deleted from the policies, provided the Company receives and approves the survey or survey affidavit if required • herein. Exception 5 will not appear on the policies, provided the Company, or its authorized agent, conducts the closing of the proposed transaction and is responsible for the recordation of the documents. • • • DISCLOSURES Order Number: 949081 - -C3 Note: Pursuant to C.R.S. 10 -11 -122, notice is hereby given that: A. The subject real property may be located in a special taxing district; B. A certificate of taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction shall be obtained from the county treasurer or the county treasurer's authorized agent; C. Information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the board of county commissioners, the county clerk and recorder, or the county assessor. Note: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 3 -5 -1, Subparagraph (7) (E) requires that `Every title entity shall be responsible for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed." Provided that Stewart Title conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal documents from the transaction, exception number 5 will not appear on the Owner's Title Policy and the Lender's Title Policy when issued. Note: Affimlative Mechanic's Lien Protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception No. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of the Comrnitmem from the Owner's Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following conditions: A. The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single- family residence, which includes a condominium or townhouse unit. B. No labor or materials have been fitmished by mechanics or materialmen for purposes of construction on the land described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 6 months. C. The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against unified mechanic's and Materialmen's Liens. D. The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium. E. If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased, within six months prior to the Date of the Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage for unrecorded liens will include: disclosure of certain construction information; financial information as to the seller, the builder and/or the contractor; payment of the appropriate premium; fully executed Indemnity agreements satisfactory to the company; and, any additional requirements as may be necessary after an examination of the aforesaid information by the Company. No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or agreed to pay. Note: Pursuant to C.R.S. 10 -11 -123, notice is hereby given: A. That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate and that there is a substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and B. That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner's permission. This notice applies to owner's policy commitments containing a mineral severance instrument exception, or exceptions, in Schedule B, Section 2. NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED WILL BE DEEMED TO OBLIGATE THE COMPANY TO PROVIDE ANY OF THE COVERAGES REFERRED TO HEREIN UNLESS THE ABOVE CONDITIONS ARE FULLY SATISFIED. STG Privacy Notice 1 (Rev 01/26/09) Stewart Title Companies WHAT DO THE STEWART TITLE COMPANIES DO WITH YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION? Federal and applicable state law and regulations give consumers the right to limit some but not all sharing. Federal and applicable state law regulations also require us to tell you how we collect, share, and protect your personal infonnation. Please read this notice carefully to understand how we use your personal infommation. This privacy notice is disbibuted on behalf of the Stewart Title Guaranty Company and its affiliates (the Stewart Title Companies), pursuant to Title V ofdhe Gramm- Leach - Bliley Act (GLBA). The types of personal information we collect and share depend on the product or service that you have sought through us. This infonnation can include social security numbers and driver's license number. All financial companies, such as the Stewart Title Companies, need to share customers' personal information to run their everyday business —to process transactions and maintain customer accounts. In the section below, we list the reasons that we can share customers' personal information; the reasons that we choose to share; and wbclher yon can limit this sharin iv - , . rt - mss �' Xt 0°°r> a „ at, e a jai - � x t r xw r ,, ., � _ r. , - 4 Rowealiate4 k s . _ . oalffii this aharing'r For our everyday business purposes —to process your transactions and maintain your account. This may include running the business and managing customer accounts, such as Yes No processing transactions, mailing, and auditing services, and responding to court orders and legal investigations. For our marketing purposes— to offer our products and services to yon. Yes - No For Joint marketing with other financial companies No We don't share For our affiliates' everyday business purposes— information about your transactions and experiences. Affiliates are companies related by common ownership or control. They can be Yes No financial and nonfinancial companies. Our affiliates may include companies with a Stewart name; financial companies, such as Stewart Tide Company For our affiliates' everyday business purposes — information about your No We don't share creditworthiness. For our affiliates to market to you Yes No For non- affiliates to market to you. Non - affiliates are companies not related by common No We don't share ownership or control. They can be financial and nonfinancial companies. We may disclose your personal information to our affiliates or to non-affiliates as permitted by law- If you request a transaction with a non- affiliate, such as a third party insurance company, we will disclose your personal information to that non - affiliate. jWe do not control their subsequent use of information, and suggest you refer to their privacy notices.) How often do the Stewart Title Companies notify me We must notify you about our sharing practices when you request a transaction. about tlteir practices? Flow do the Stewart Title Companies protect any To protect your personal information from unauthorized access and use, we use security personal information? measures that comply with federal and state law. These measures i nchmde computer, file, and building safeguards. How do the Stewart Title Companies collect my We collect your personal information, for example, when you personal information? - • request insurance- related services • provide such information to us We also collect your personal infomtation from others, such as the real estate agent or lender involved in your transaction, credit reporting agencies, affiliates or other companies. What sharing can I limit? Although federal and state law give you the right to limit sharing (e.g., opt out) in certain instances, we do not share your personal information in those instances. e If you have anyquestions about this privacy notice, please contact us at Stewart Title Guaranty Company, t;.`y " -erg �-- _ �- 1980 Post Oak Blvd., Privacy Officer, Houston, Texas 77056 Stewart Title DISCLOSURE The title cmmpany, Stewart Title in its capacity as escrow agent, has beet authorized to receive funds and disburse them when all Rinds received are either: (a) available for immediate withdrawal as a matter of right from the financial institution in which the funds are deposited, or (b) are available for innnediate withdrawal as a consequence of an agreement of a financial institution in which the funds are to be deposited or a financial institution upon which the funds are to be drawn. The title company is disclosing to you that the financial institution may provide the title company with computer accounting or auditing services, or other bank services, either directly or through a separate entity which may or may not be affiliated with the tide company. This separate entity may charge the financial institution reasonable and proper compensation for these services and retain any profits there from. The title company may also receive benefits from the fmancial institution in the form of advantageous interest rates on loans, sometimes referred to as preferred rate loan programs, relating to loans the title company has with the financial institution. The title company shall not be liable for any interest or other charges on the earnest money and shall be under no duty to invest or reinvest funds held by it at any time. In the event that the parties to this transaction have agreed to have interest on earnest money deposit transferred to a fund established for the purpose of providing affordable housing to Colorado residents, then the earnest money shall remain in an account designated for such purpose, and the interest money shall be delivered to the title company at closing. • • CONDITIONS 1. The term mortgage, when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. 2. If the proposed Insured has or acquired actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations. • 3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions and Conditions and Stipulations and the Exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly inodified herein. 4. This Commitment is a contract to issue one or more title insurance policies and is not an abstract of title or a report of the condition of title. Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company arising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment must be based on and are subject to the provisions of this Conunitment. 5. The policy to be issued contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of Insurance is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. You may review a copy of the arbitration rules at www.alta.org. s t ew art •title guaranty company All notices required to be given the Company and any statement in writing required to be furnished the Company shall be addressed to it at P.O. Box 2029, Houston, Texas 77252. e cn TR1 J w 4qy .5^trtybo SsrY.n Z. F 1 c S' S.' k 1 fn' 9[i 9 a- v a 3 g 5 :a Sr w U Nds's w a .4" ? C + b. a r. ., O ♦ : JP: 3r 4. S $tY s, per_ i N M N - .2 y } _ S ry:q 3, i C. en F - p rY 3 ?c F - • 4. ,. _ r n F «u i x__ • F r F `, a' HIV N :.C. 3 N: Z - _ Z o iei'" ys t .f 8 > c P- H { .> a ' ,e ; a t • a ; 4 P ^a S.• N s_ 11 I i F a y kIt ..K _ y 4 � e F S PROJECT LOCATION 320 LAKE AVENUE ASPEN COLORADO 14. ..,„ , F 04 ''. ::.• 1 .r:r'; ' 4 r 14 3 r•Tr ..:1 , .t ' . ".1• s • 4 i ''' $ 3 " - . - r^ 'i 4 '9 J , S 5,13i3; ' 1. 3 :71 4 1 3 7 ,' 4 3 A 7 A j 9 4' Ai 3 4 4t 3 54 I I I 2 UP, 5 1y , . I 3 35" ,, / 7 33.575 3 rct q•A "" 'f" '''''-‘ : i ' f.` J4 J.kk,k4t.kt 4 • ..t.' 2. i 7, t k:‘ 3 3 LI 53574 i ' I: 7 ,.., 14 . 7 4 3 3- , „ 2 t , r, i R p 6 3135 A 3 54 • 43 ' '' 4 53 i' \ 73, V-. 7 4 , ' 3 P. e. ?".. elr , g,„,E.:■1; 4 I4314 .-----.7. 5; P:A pA. ":3313I.: 9 .43 4 rp 7 3 ■:;„ r - 3: f k i ; t `,■*). I 10h1 ;:•-\!, ^- 9 ii•A f i rf t i ,'-',,, y SiC ''ql W; : g ; ,.; 8 I ...tr's IA f.t..0 fi5 , .; ;v, : !' '.-- - fle 4 „, r ris.r -,..,•,,, I": -P •:•#.".‘ f trV:P I IT: ..-- l■f'f:,•:: rI4.„ .,, I; .2rr , - - Cr ••1 / . I • ...-- -; 1 1 .. -"in i \ it \•_a•\ ' \ :.>-. Fir. \, - 1 ''' • X ki v — ._. a I 4 , 1 4/3 9 \ J; " 5 l c A 85. 4 7.. I Z I 1 C5 4 I` \ 999 1.7 '9 7 1 \ 7 AO 553 2. z --, c k„. 6 — c s - ..- tr,,--vrt: \ ,i . A.H . - \ ; k 7L S it 1 \ \ \ t , .1.- . r .: \ ( \■"\ — - at -- ---3 5 32 3 337 1.407 11371FWE , .4 Tr Exhibit F Ronnie Marshall 320 Lake Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 December 30, 2011 Ms. Amy Guthrie Historic Preservation Officer, Community Development City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Ms. Guthrie, I am the owner of 320 Lake Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (the "Property"). Please accept the enclosed application to amend the Plat for the Marshall Lot Split pursuant to Section 26.480.080 B. of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. 320 Aspen, LLC, represented by attorney Michael Hoffman, Esq., Garfield & Hecht, P.C., 601 E. Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611, is authorized to submit and prosecute this application. ncerely, 1 V -( ot 5L-._ Ronnie Marshall COMMLNI n DEv rLc»'IEN"r DEPARTMENT Land Use Review Fee Policy The City of Aspen has established a review fee policy for the processing of land use applications. A flat fee or deposit is collected for land use applications based on the type of application submitted. A flat fee is collected by Community Development for applications which normally take a minimal and predictable amount of staff time to process. Review fees for other City departments reviewing the application (referral departments) will also be collected when necessary. Flat fees are cumulative — meaning an application with multiple flat fees must pay the sum of those flat fees. Flat fees are not refundable. A review fee deposit is collected by Community Development when more extensive staff review is required. Actual staff time spent will be charged against the deposit. Various City staff may also charge their time spent on the case in addition to the case planner. Deposit amounts 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. A determination on the deposit amount shall be made during the pre - application conference by the case planner. Hourly billing shall still apply. All applications must include an Agreement to Pay Application Fees. One payment including the deposit for Planning and referral agency fees must be submitted with each land use application, made payable to the City of Aspen. Applications will not be accepted for processing without the required application fee. The Community Development Department shall keep an accurate record of the actual time required for the processing of a land use application requiring a deposit. The City can provide a summary report of fees due at the applicant's request. The applicant will be billed for the additional costs incurred by the City when the processing of an application by the Community Development Department takes more time or expense than is covered by the deposit. Any direct costs attributable to a project review shall be billed to the applicant with no additional administrative charge. In the event the processing of an application takes less time than provided for by the deposit, the department shall refund the unused portion of the deposited fee to the applicant. Fees shall be due regardless of whether an applicant receives approval. Unless otherwise combined by the Director for simplicity of billing, all applications for conceptual, final, and recordation of approval documents shall be handled as individual cases for the purposes of billing. Upon conceptual approval all billing shall be reconciled and all past due invoices shall be paid prior to the Director accepting an application for final review. Final review shall require a new deposit at the rate in effect at the time of final application submission. Upon final approval all billing shall again be reconciled prior to the Director accepting an application for review of technical documents for recordation. The Community Development Director may cease processing of a land use application for which an unpaid invoice is 30 or more days past due. Unpaid invoices of 90 or more days past due may be assessed a late fee of 1.75% per month. An unpaid invoice of 120 days or more may be subject to additional actions as may be assigned by the Municipal Court Judge. All payment information is public domain. All invoices shall be paid prior to issuance of a Development Order or recordation of development agreements and plats. The City will not accept a building permit for a property until all invoices are paid in full. For permits already accepted, an unpaid invoice of 90 or more days may result in cessation of building permit processing or issuance of a stop work order until full payment is made. The property owner of record is the party responsible for payment of all costs associated with a land use application for the property. Any secondary agreement between a property owner and an applicant representing the owner (e.g. a contract purchaser) regarding payment of fees is solely between those private parties. �rnihci =,sil l Ciiv tit:1,1'Ln ljLP (j l0n;i tii. itr (Hlthl)- -l ltril CoifyI( \ DEN ELOP jENT Dr P.AIT INMENT L Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen ( "City") and Property Phone No.: .1-0 ^ � Nun I f Owner CI "): SC Acquisitions LLC Email: Mir & p 9 t 4 dd) tLt, Conn Address of Billing 7 Property: 320 Lake Avenue Address: (subject of (send bills here) application) I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. , Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and the payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. 1 understand that these flat fees are non - refundable. $ flat fee for _ $ flat fee for $ flat fee for $ flat fee for For deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review, and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not retumed to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for non - payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render an application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $ 1,260* deposit for 4 hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time T a b ve the deposit amount will be billed at $315 per hour. he typical deposit for this type of land use application is $4,410 for 14 hours of work. Due to the limited nature of this project, the Community Development Director authorizes the acceptance of a lower deposit amount of $1,260 for 4 hours of work. Please not that any time over 4 hours will be billed at the regular rate of $315 /hour. $ 0 deposit for _ hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $265 per hour. \n,Linhr. 'l)', 1 i!vid \ T 1 ;ii N l LIICiii `,1 i`) y21l_;■I,M CO \1\11 \III DEVELOPS \II:AT 1)EP:112T\IE \T Li City of Aspen: Property Owner: (4 A 0 ■ 40' cp _pc Chris Bendon Community Development Director Name: r- kt -A v■ 7 LLC— City Use: Title: '/ C., 0 Fees Due: $ Received: $ \ovcmhcr_ Dill ( its n( A, I ;u ti (' Ic tii_ it) i i V'n. <U 1 vtll MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk DATE OF MEMO: January 17, 2012 RE: Ordinance #1, 2012, Code Amendment - Liquor REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff and the Liquor Authority request Council adopt this proposed amendment to the Municipal Code regarding the allowed age of liquor servers and the age for consumption of fermented malt beverages (beer). There have been no changes since first reading. DISCUSSION: Beginning in the 1970's the Aspen City Council adopted local liquor codes, as allowed by Colorado Statute. The Aspen Municipal Code incorporates the state liquor codes unless in conflict with the local code. In 1994 Council established a separate Liquor License Authority (LLA). One of the duties of the LLA is to recommend modifications of the liquor codes and adoptions of other rules and regulations to Council. It has come to the attention of the LLA that there is an inconsistency between the state liquor code and the municipal code regarding the age of employment in liquor licensed establishments. Because the City's ordinance is more restrictive it would be enforceable within the City. However, the LLA believes that it is appropriate that the City in this instance simply rely on the state code. C.R.S. 12 -47- 901(5) reads: "It is unlawful for any person licensed to sell at retail pursuant to this article: (a)(I) to sell an alcohol beverage to any person under the age of twenty -one years ... or to permit any alcohol beverage to be sold or dispensed by a person under eighteen years of age, or to permit any such person to participate in the sale or dispensing thereof. . . .Notwithstanding any provision of this subparagraph (I) to the contrary, no person under twenty-one years of age shall be employed to sell or dispense malt, vinous, or spirituous liquors unless he or she is supervised by another person who is on premise and has attained twenty-one years of age. No employee of a tavern license that does not regularly serve meals or a retail liquor store shall sell malt, vinous or spirituous liquors unless such person is at least twenty -one years of age ". The city code Section 5.08.030 reads, Employment of persons under certain age prohibited. No person under the age of twenty -one (21) shall be allowed or employed to serve alcoholic liquor on any licensed premises. No person under the age of eighteen (18) shall be allowed or employed to serve fermented malt beverages on any licensed premises. This Section does not prohibit the employment of a person under the age of twenty -one (21) or eighteen (18) Page 1 of 2 respectively for any lawful purpose on the licensed premises other than the service of alcoholic liquor or fermented malt beverages At the December 6, 2011, LLA meeting, the Authority discussed the difference between the city code and the state statutes regarding the legal age of serving food and alcohol. The city code requires one to be 21 to serve food and beverage; state statutes allow an employee to be between 18 and 21 as long as there is an employee of 21 or over at the establishment. This difference between the two regulations causes confusion and results in some establishments inadvertently breaking the law. Neither the LLA nor the staff believe that there is any compelling reason to maintain the present local restriction. The Aspen Chief of Police has been consulted as to the proposed change and supports maintaining consistency with the state code. Thus, the authority suggested Council change the city code so that it is the same as the state code. The motion was made and approved by the Liquor Licensing Authority to recommend the City Attorney bring to the attention of Council the inharmonious nature of Section 5.08.030 with state statutes. Thus, it is proposed that Section 5.08.030 of the Aspen Municipal Code simply be deleted in its entirety. This would mean that C.R.S. 12 -47- 901(5) would apply to all establishments within the City. In reviewing the discrepancy involving the age of servers, it was discovered that the existing Municipal Liquor Code, Sec. 5.08.010(a) still authorizes individuals between the ages of 18 and 21 to consume fermented malt beverages (beer) on licenses premises. This is contrary to current state regulations. Since this section is less restrictive than state code, it would most likely be deemed obsolete and preempted by the state code and various Federal mandates. Nonetheless, it is recommended that since the provision discussed above involving the age allowed to sell alcohol is being amended, that the second sentence of this Section 5.08.010(a) be deleted so that there remains no question regarding the age of consumption. FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: There are no financial/budget impacts. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: There are no environmental impacts. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends Council adopt Ordinance #1 on 2 reading . ALTERNATIVES: If Council does not want to change the city code, it can stay the same requiring all employees serving in liquor licensed establishments to be 21 or older. PROPOSED MOTION: "I adopt Ordinance #1, 2012, on second reading." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance #1, 2012 Page 2 of 2 ORDINANCE NO. 1 (Series of 2012) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING CHAPTER 5.08 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, GENERAL REGULATIONS. WHEREAS, Title 5, of the Aspen Municipal Code sets forth the City's regulations of Alcoholic Beverages as authorized pursuant to the State of Colorado Liquor Code, Article 47, Title 12, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, Sec. 5.04.020 and Sec. 5.04.030 of the Aspen Municipal Code incorpo- rates and adopts the terms of the State of Colorado Liquor Code, Article 47, Title 12, C.R.S., "relating to the definition of terms, licensing, sales, hours of sale, records, inspection, un- lawful acts..."; and WHEREAS, despite the adoption of the provisions of the State of Colorado Liquor Code regarding "unlawful" acts, the Aspen Municipal Code contains certain provisions that are inconsistent with the unlawful acts described in the State of Colorado Liquor Code. One provision is inconsistent with current federal mandates regarding drinking age. Another provision is inconsistent with the descriptions of ages in which individuals can serve and sell alcohol in licensed establishments; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Liquor Licensing Authority has requested that the munici- pal code be amended so that regulations regarding the age in which individual can serve and sell alcohol in a licensed facility is consistent with the statutory provisions of the State of Colorado Liquor Court; and, WHEREAS, the amendments to the Code are delineated as follows: • Text being removed is delineated with strikethrough. Text being removed looks like this. • Text being added is bold and underline. Text being added looks like this. • Text which is not highlighted is not affected; and WHEREAS, the City Council fords 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: The City Council hereby amends Section 5.08.010 to read as follows: Sec. 5.08.010. Sales prohibited. No alcoholic liquor and no fermented malt beverage shall be sold or served to any intoxicated person or to any person under twenty -one (21) years of age. Ns . _ :•:- _ _. (Code 1971, § 4 -25; Ord. No. 35 -1978, § 1) Section 2: The City Council hereby deletes Section 5.08.030 in its entirety. Section 3: 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 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. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after final adoption. Section 6. Notice A public hearing on the ordinance was held on January 23, 2012, in the Aspen City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, Colorado, prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published 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 2012. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2012. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk John Worcester, City Attorney \/1 I( MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planners: _ RE: AspenWalk (404 Park Avenue and 414 Park Circle): Subdivision, Final PUD Review, Second Reading, Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2011, continued from July 11, 2011, July 25, 2011, Aug. 8, 2011, Sept. 12, 2011, October 24, 2011 and November 28, 2011. MEETING DATE: January 23, 2012. APPLICANT /OWNER: PFG Aspenwalk, LLC (404 Park STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Avenue) and Aspen Pitkin County Staff recommends approval of Final PUD Housing Authority (414 Park Circle) Subdivision, and a Vesting period of five years. REPRESENTATIVE: SUMMARY: Stan Clauson, Stan Clauson Associates The Applicant requests City Council approval of Subdivision and Final PUD. LOCATION: Lot 3, Sunny Park Subdivision and Lot 5, Sunny Park Subdivision commonly known as 404 Park Avenue and 414 Park Circle, respectively. -- CURRENT ZONING & USE , 1 Located in the residential multi - family (R/MF) zone district with a Planned Unit _ * i!` Development (PUD) overlay. 404 Park ° _ • . Ave. contains 17,550 sq. ft. of lot area - ANL ,_ while 414 Park Circle contains 15,224 404 Park Circle sq. ft of lot area.'' PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant is requesting to merge lot 3 and lot 5 of the Sunny Park Subdivision, develop a residential multi- 1 ` 4 family building containing sub -grade • - parking, 17 affordable housing units and - 14 free - market residential housing units - x " for a total of 31 dwelling units. 414 Park Avenue Aspen Walk — 404 Park Cir. & 414 Park Ave. City Council — Staff Memo 1/23/2012 Page 1 of 8 SUMMARY: There are two major changes to the project since Council last reviewed the project on October 24, 2011: Pitkin County District Court appointed Cordes & Company to be the receiver of PFG AspenWalk's assets and Cottle Carr Yaw Architects Ltd. (CCY) was hired to address Council's architectural concerns. Financial/Ownership Questions: The City Attorney's office is addressing the financial and ownership aspects of AspenWalk in a separate memo to be issued to Council prior to the January 23` public hearing. The appointment of a receiver has allowed the project to move forward with more significant changes to the architecture in response to Council and the neighbor's concerns. In addition to more financial resources the overall future of the project is much more certain since the entitlements, if the project is approved, will ultimately be sold to a presumably more financially viable developer. Architecture: Throughout Final PUD review of the project Council has expressed concern about the compatibility of the proposed architecture with the existing eclectic neighborhood. The perceived mass of the building and the inability to separately distinguish the three proposed buildings were identified by Council and the Midland Park neighbors as issues that needed further development. CCY focused on changing the volume, architectural details and materials of the proposed buildings to better relate to the existing neighborhood. The density, size and interior design of the affordable housing units remains the same. All of the affordable housing units have private balconies or patios. The density of the free market component is unchanged. A strong horizontal emphasis using wood siding reduces the perceived mass and relates to the surrounding wood structures in the neighborhood. The third floor of each building is either set back or pushed forward to create interest along the streetscape and to reflect the vertical and horizontal elements found in the neighborhood. The mix of building materials and architectural elements distinguishes each building separately while simultaneously creating a cohesive project. The mass of the middle building was reduced at the rear (facing Midland Park) to provide a break in the proposed architecture to the residents of Midland Park by allowing more generous planting to shield the middle building. In addition the corner of the middle building facing Park Avenue was cut back 10 feet to create more space between the two free market residential buildings. The stairway corridors that were previously projecting off of the rear of the buildings have been integrated into the building mass and windows in the stairwell have been greatly reduced to address Midland Park's concerns about light pollution. The technical height variance requested for the portion of the affordable housing building located above the parking ramp increased slightly to 43' 9" from 41' 11" due to a change in roof pitch and style. Aspen Walk — 404 Park Cir. & 414 Park Ave. City Council — Staff Memo 1/23/2012 Page 2 of 8 The applicant presented the architectural changes to Midland Park Homeowner's Association on January 5 and indicated a positive reaction to the new design and its relationship to the neighborhood. Staff is supportive of the architectural changes. The ability to design a project that architecturally reads as three separate buildings while maintaining a cohesive architectural vocabulary is challenging and can result in a hodgepodge development or in an interesting and appealing addition to the streetscape. In this case it is the later. Staff finds that the proposed project is successful in enhancing existing neighborhood characteristics and developing an architectural vocabulary that may be the foundation for future improvements in the neighborhood. Smuggler Mountain Apartments Displaced Residents: APCHA has developed an agreement with the displaced tenants from Smuggler Mountain Apartments attached as Exhibit Z.6. The agreement outlines the ownership and rental options and process for qualified tenants. Section 8 of the draft Ordinance addresses the displaced residents and references the applicant's commitment to the agreement. HOA configuration: The HOA language presented on October 24, 2011 remains unchanged with the exception that the reference to "community workforce housing" has been changed to "affordable housing." PROJECT SUMMARY: Existing Conditions: The Applicants, Aspen Walk, LLC and the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) have requested approval to demolish existing buildings located at 404 Park Avenue (Lot 3, Sunny Park Subdivision) and 414 Park Circle (Lot 5, Sunny Park Subdivision). 404 Park Avenue is a 17,550 sq. ft. lot that contains 14 free - market residential multi - family dwelling units in one building. 414 Park Circle is a 15,224 sq. ft. lot containing 11 deed restricted residential multi- family affordable housing units in one building. Combined both lots contain 32,774 square feet of land, 17,665 sq. ft. of floor area and 25 dwelling units. In September of 2010 the applicant restudied the architecture and reduced unit numbers for both the free market and affordable housing components. A total of 26 dwelling units — 12 free market and 14 affordable housing - are proposed. The overall floor area is 40,734.5 square feet or 1.24:1 FAR. The project meets the underlying Residential Multi - family Zone District requirements with the exception of the technical height variation above the parking ramp entrance, as outlined in Table 1. The proposed dimensional requirements are noted below in Table 1. The proposal meets the underlying RMF zone district with the exception of height. Aspen Walk — 404 Park Cir. & 414 Park Ave. City Council — Staff Memo 1/23/2012 Page 3 of 8 Table 2: Dimensional Re' uirements. 3 X , f r 4,,' .. 6000 sq. ft. 32,774 sq. ft. no requirement for n/a multifamily = 26 units in total 12 free market residential 14 affordable @,,, units • housin• units 5ft. 5ft. -, k 3.33 ft. 5ft. ' , ,� $ u _ `t S ft. 5ft. r 5ft. 5ft. -r'� g ` 43 ft.9 in. height variation at the northwest fagade of 32 fi the affordable housing building. Refer to Exhibit B of the Ordinance for approved ' elevations for buildin_ hei:ht. � t no reqm't for multifamily (building and fire codes apply) n/a 1.25:1 or 40,936.25 1.24:1 or 40,734.5 sq. ft. An existing deficit of parking 47 spaces: may be maintained. 27 spaces 26 spaces for free market residential units; and are re•uired. 21 spaces for the affordable housin: units The affordable housing units are unchanged since October 24, 2011: Table 2: Affordable Housing Breakdown Unit Net livable Net livable Type Quantity Bedrooms Category proposed (sq. ft.) required (sq. ft.) A 1 3 4 1,213 1,200 B 3 2 2 @Cat.3 960 950 1 Cat 4 C 1 2 4 956 950 D 3 2 4 960 950 E 2 2 4 956 950 F 2 studio 3 560 500 G 2 studio 3 535 500 Totals 14 28 6 @Cat.3 12,031 8@ Cat. 4 Aspen Walk — 404 Park Cir. & 414 Park Ave. City Council — Staff Memo 1/23/2012 Page 4 of 8 STAFF COMMENTS: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: Final PUD review addresses specific criteria regarding site design and architectural character. Visual interest, engagement of pedestrian movement, compatibility with the neighborhood and representations of the intended use are some of the criteria for Final PUD review. Throughout the four hearings at the Planning and Zoning Commission and the seven hearings at City Council the applicant has continually revised the architecture, including two complete redesigns of the architectural style, to address concerns raised by Planning and Zoning, Council, Staff and the neighbors regarding context, mass and pedestrian scale. The applicant divided the free market building into two smaller buildings which reduces the mass on the site and provides a visual break in the architecture. The elimination of the roof top deck reduced the perceived height of the building. Most recently a new architecture firm was hired to take a fresh look at the architectural style and its compatibility with the neighborhood which resulted in a second redesign of the project. Staff finds that these changes help the proposed new buildings better fit into the neighborhood context and address the concerns raised by Council and the public. Compared to the original Final PUD application the applicant increased the size of the affordable housing units to exceed minimum thresholds, added extra private storage in the basement, and added private balconies for each unit. Larger units, extra storage and private balconies are consistent with the philosophy of the AACP which states, "Housing should be compatible with the scale and character of the community and should emphasize quality construction and design even though that emphasis necessarily increases costs and lessens production." Staff finds that the livability of the units has been greatly improved and is consistent with the AACP. Staff is supportive of the changes to the architectural style and finds that the materials, architectural details and massing help to individualize the buildings and successfully break down the mass of the project. Stafffinds that the Final PUD review criteria listed in Exhibit Z.5. SUBDIVISION: The application proposes to combine Lot 3 and Lot 5 of the Sunny Park Subdivision into 1 lot, renamed Lot 1 of the Aspen Walk Subdivision, and to redevelop the lot with 2 new buildings and 1 large subgrade parking area, as outlined above. Stafffinds that the Subdivision criteria are met, as outlined in Exhibit T. VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS: The Applicant is requesting a vested property right for the proposed development plan for a • period of five (5) years rather than the standard three (3) year period. The Applicant is requesting the longer vesting period "to allow them to navigate the dramatically different economic climate which has made securing funding difficult for multi - family residential projects." Vesting provides an Applicant a timeframe in which the Applicant can rely on the approvals granted in a site specific development plan. It allows the Applicant to undertake and complete the development and use of said property under the terms and conditions of the site specific development plan. Once vested, a development plan shall not be required to be amended as a Aspen Walk — 404 Park Cir. & 414 Park Ave. City Council — Staff Memo 1/23/2012 Page 5 of 8 result of "any zoning or land use action by the city or by an initiated measure" during the vesting period. If the vested rights expire, the project will be subject to any new regulations that may impact the approval granted. The Land Use Code provides for a three year vesting period and a variation from that period is at the sole discretion of the City Council. The City has a process for extending or reinstating vested rights (Section 26.308.101 C., Extension or Reinstatement of Vested Rights). The Applicant prefers to request five years of vesting now, rather than request an extension or reinstatement in the future. Staff recommends that the five year vesting period be granted at this time based on economic conditions and past precedent. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the review criteria are met and recommends approval of Final PUD, Subdivision, and a five year vesting period with the conditions listed in the draft Ordinance. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMITIVE): "I move to approve Ordinance No., Series of 2011, approving with conditions Subdivision, Final PUD approval and a five years vesting period on second reading." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Attachments: EXHIBIT A — Final PUD Review Criteria, Staff Findings. [refer to Exhibit S for revised staff findings based on revised proposal]. EXHIBIT B — Subdivision Review Criteria, Staff Findings. [refer to Exhibit T for revised staff findings based on revised proposal]. EXHIBIT C— Affordable Housing Unit Variance Criteria, Staff Findings. [refer to Exhibit U for revised staff findings based on revised proposal]. EXHIBIT D - DRC Comments [provided in June 13, 2011 packet]. EXHIBIT E- Background history of the project submitted by the applicant to the Bankruptcy Court on May 10, 2011. [provided in June 13, 2011 packet]. EXHIBIT F - Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 8, Series of 2011, recommending Final PUD and Subdivision approval to City Council [provided in June 13, 2011 packet]. Aspen Walk — 404 Park Cir. & 414 Park Ave. City Council — Staff Memo 1/23/2012 Page 6 of 8 EXHIBIT G - Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 9, Series of 2011, granting Growth Management approval and Residential Design Standard variances [provided in June 13, 2011 packet]. EXHIBIT H — Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes dated February 15, 2011; March 15, 2011, April 5, 2011 and May 3, 2011 [provided in June 13, 2011 packet]. EXHIBIT I - Council Resolution No. 74, Series of 2008, granting Conceptual PUD approval [provided in June 13, 2011 packet]. EXHIBIT J — Application [provided in June 13, 2011 packet]. EXHIBIT K - City Council meeting minutes dated October 27, 2008 regarding Conceptual PUD Review [provided on June 13, 2011]. EXHIBIT L — Supplemental information to the application, dated June 30, 2011. EXHIBIT M — Letter from Midland Park Condomium Association, dated June 28, 2011. [provided on July 11, 2011]. EXHIBIT N — Proof of Public Notice. [provided during the public hearing on July 11, 2011]. EXHIBIT 0 — Affordable Housing Unit Sales Activity dated 2005 to present provided by APCHA. [provided during the public hearing on July 25, 2011]. EXHIBIT P — Memo from the City Attorney [provided during the public hearing on July 25, 2011]. EXHIBIT Q - Supplemental information to the application, dated July 18, 2011 [provided during the public hearing on July 25, 2011]. EXHIBIT R — Letters from the public, presented on July 25, 2011 [provided during the public hearing on July 25, 2011]. Exhibit S — PUD Review Criteria (re- addressed for the proposal presented on October 24, 2010) Exhibit T — Subdivision Review Criteria (re- addressed for the new proposal) Exhibit U — Affordable Housing Unit Variance Criteria (re- addressed for the new proposal) Exhibit V— Memorandum from APCHA regarding HOA structure dated August 31, 2011 [provided in September 12, 2011 packet]. Aspen Walk — 404 Park Cir. & 414 Park Ave. City Council — Staff Memo 1/23/2012 Page 7 of 8 Exhibit W - Memorandum from Director of APCHA regarding HOA language [provided in September 12, 2011 packet]. Exhibit X — Letter from APCHA to Smuggler Mountain Apartment Residents [provided in September 12, 2011 packet]. Exhibit Y — Application dated August 31, 2011. [provided in September 12, 2011 packet]. Exhibit Z — Revised Table 3. [provided during the public hearing on September 12, 2011]. Exhibit Z.1 — Memorandum from applicant regarding legal structure of HOA. [provided during the public hearing on September 12, 2011]. Exhibit Z.2 — Application dated October 3, 2011. Exhibit Z.3 — HOA declarations for Aspen Walk dated October 7, 2011. Exhibit Z.4 — Updated drawings dated October 24, 2011. Exhibit Z.5 — Updated PUD review criteria Exhibit Z.6 — Agreement for the displaced tenants from Smuggler Mountain Apartments. Exhibit Z.7 — Application dated January 9, 2012. Exhibit Z.8 - Updated drawings dated January 9, 2012. * * * ** please contact Staff if you require additional copies of Exhibits A — Z.4 * * * ** Aspen Walk — 404 Park Cir. & 414 Park Ave. City Council — Staff Memo 1/23/2012 Page 8 of 8 ORDINANCE NO. 19, (SERIES OF 2011) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND SUBDIVISION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUB -GRADE PARKING, TWELVE FREE MARKET RESIDENTIAL MULTI - FAMILY UNITS, AND FOURTEEN AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 404 PARK CIRCLE AND 414 PARK AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 3 AND 5, SUNNY PARK SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737- 074 -04 -705 and 2737- 0741 -04 -701 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from PFG AspenWalk, LLC and the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority, as co- applicants, represented by Stan Clauson of Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., requesting approval of a Conceptual Development Plan for a Planned Unit Development (PUD); and, WHEREAS, the property is zoned Residential Multi - Family (RMF) with a PUD Overlay; and, WHEREAS, on August 11, 2008, the City Council at a public hearing, reviewed the land use application which included fourteen (14) market rate dwelling units and twenty -four (24) affordable housing units and continued the hearing to August 25, 2008, and again to September 29, 2008; and, WHEREAS, prior to the September 29 hearing date, federal felony charges were filed against Mr. Thomas Petters and Mr. James Wehmhoff who had an ownership interest in PFG AspenWalk, LLC creating concern over potential financial and legal risks associated with the project; and, WHEREAS, after the September 29 hearing the Applicant presented an amended application which included fourteen (14) market rate dwelling units and eighteen (18) affordable housing units and requesting a variation of the allowable Floor Area Ratio to 1.28:1; and, WHEREAS, the September 29 hearing was continued to October 14 and then to October 27 and, WHEREAS, at the October 27 hearing City Council considered the amended proposal and approved Resolution Number 74, Series of 20008 by a four to zero (4 -0) vote granting Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, on September 28, 2009, the Community Development Department received an application from PFG AspenWalk, LLC and the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority, as co- applicants, requesting a one year extension of the Conceptual PUD approval; and, Ordinance No 19, Series 2011 AspenWalk PUD /Subdivision Page 1 of 14 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445.030.D., Limitations, of the Land Use Code, Conceptual PUD approval may be extended by City Council, "at its sole discretion and for good cause shown;" and, WHEREAS, on October 13, 2009, the City Council approved Resolution No. 84, Series of 2009, granting a one year extension of Conceptual PUD approval to expire on October 28, 2010; and, WHEREAS, on October 13, 2010, the Community Development Department received an application from PFG AspenWalk, LLC, and the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority, as co- applicants, represented by Stan Clauson of Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., requesting approval of Growth Management review for the demolition of free market multi - family units, the demolition of deed restricted affordable housing units, Growth Management for the development of affordable housing, Residential Design Standard variances, and Subdivision and Final PUD to merge two lots into one lot to be redeveloped with two detached multi - family structures containing fourteen (14) market rate dwelling units in one building and seventeen (17) affordable housing units, with a shared below grade parking area; and, WHEREAS, at the May 3, 2011 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, continued from February 15, 2011, March 15, 2011, April 5, 2011, and April 19, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 8, Series of 2011, by a four to two (4 — 2) vote recommending approval of Subdivision and Final PUD to City Council with conditions; and, WHEREAS, at the May 3, 2011 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 9, Series of 2011, by a four to two (4 — 2) vote approving seventeen (17) Growth Management Allotments for the development of affordable housing, Growth Management review for the demolition of multi - family residential units, Growth Management review for the demolition of affordable housing units, and Residential Design Standard variances; and, WHEREAS, at the September 12, 2011 meeting of the City Council the Applicant presented an amended application which included twelve (12) market rate dwelling units and fourteen (14) affordable housing units and three separate buildings; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445, the City Council may approve a Final PUD, during a duly noticed public hearing after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission made at a duly noticed public hearing, comments from the general public, a recommendation from the Community Development Director, and recommendations from relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.480, the City Council may approve a Subdivision, during a duly noticed public hearing after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission made at a duly noticed public hearing, comments from the general public, a Ordinance No 19, Series 2011 AspenWalk PUD /Subdivision Page 2 of' 14 recommendation from the Community Development Director, and recommendations from relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, City Council's Conceptual PUD approval (Resolution No. 74, Series of 2008) was conditioned as follows: "Prior to the issuance of Final PUD approval by the City Council, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City: (1) the elimination of Thomas J. Petters and James Whemoff from any project ownership or involvement; and (2) the project is in no way subject to any closing liability or other legal or financial risks arising from the foregoing concerns over potential financial and legal risks associated with the project"; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant has satisfied the condition, described in the preceding paragraph, by demonstrating to the satisfaction of the City Attorney (as evidenced by an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota authorizing the Receiver to abandon the interests in PFG AspenWalk, LLC (September 22, 2010 - Case No. 08 -5348) that the court appointed Receiver of the assets of Petters Real Estate Group, LLC ( "PRG ") did abandon any and all membership interests PRG might have had in PFG AspenWalk, LLC, and PRG did resign as manager of PFG AspenWalk, LLC; and, WHEREAS, City Council's Conceptual PUD approval (Resolution No. 74, Series of 2008) was conditioned as follows: "Prior to issuance of Final PUD approval by the City Council, the Applicant shall provide evidence to the satisfaction of the City Attorney of the availability of sufficient financing to pay the total cost and completion of the project. Prior to issuance of any building permits and closing of the 414 Park Circle land purchase, Applicant shall provide evidence that sufficient financing is in place to pay the total cost and completion of the project. This may include, but is not limited to, a financing commitment, a general contract, letters of credit, escrow money or completion bonds, as determined by the City Attorney in his sole discretion"; and, WHEREAS, Pitkin County District Court has appointed Cordes & Company to be the receiver of PFG AspenWalk's assets. Under the Court Order, the receiver is authorized to represent PFG AspenWalk LLC in the continuation of the Final PUD application and the Applicant's ability to finalize and record the Final PUD /Subdivision Plat shall be subject to the approval of the Pitkin County District Court; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Parking Department, Transportation Department, Utilities Department, Fire Protection District, Environmental Health Department, Canary Initiative and Parks Department as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended the Applicant amend the proposal to better comply with the requirements of a Planned Unit Development (PUD); and, Ordinance No 19, Series 2011 AspenWalk PUD /Subdivision Page 3 of 14 WHEREAS, the Applicant made numerous changes to the proposal as submitted, including two complete redesigns of the building architecture and materials, relocation and elimination of elevators, increased landscaping in the direction of the Midland Park Townhomes, additional street - facing entrances, and patios for some of the garden -level affordable housing units; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby approves a Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Subdivision subject to the conditions described herein. Section 2: Subdivision/PUD Plat and Agreement The Applicant shall record a Subdivision/PUD agreement (hereinafter "Agreement ") that meets the requirements of the Land Use Code within 180 days of approval. The 180 days shall commence upon the granting of Final PUD approval by City Council. A final PUD /Subdivision Plat shall be recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office within 180 days of the final PUD approval and shall include the following: a. A final plat meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. b. An illustrative site plan of the project showing the proposed improvements, parking, and dimensional requirements as approved. c. A detailed landscaping plan. d. A drawing representing the project's architectural character, including building elevations. e. A final grading and drainage plan meeting all requirements of the City Engineer. The Applicant shall receive Engineering Department approval for their drainage plan prior to Engineering Department sign -off on the Final Plat. f. A final utility and public facilities plan. g. An easement for the public sidewalk where it crosses the subject property. The final plat shall depict the newly created Lot 1 of the AspenWalk Subdivision/PUD which replaces Lot 3 and Lot 5 of the Sunny Park Subdivision. The Applicant shall condominiumize the units after substantial completion of the project. The condominium plat(s) shall be reviewed administratively. The Subdivision/PUD Agreement shall require recordation of a condominium plat prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Ordinance No 19, Series 2011 AspenWalk PUD /Subdivision Page 4 of 14 Section 3: Homeowners Association Before any units within the project approved by this Ordinance are conveyed to any third party, Applicant shall record condominium declarations in substantial compliance with the "Condominium Declaration of AspenWalk" submitted to the City Council as Exhibit Z.3 to the October 24, 2011, Community Development Department memorandum. Prior to the recordation of the declarations, Applicant shall submit the declarations to the City Attorney who shall have an opportunity to review them for substantial compliance with the requirements set forth above. Any future amendments to the declarations shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney beforehand. Section 4: Dimensional Requirements The approved dimensional requirements are as follows in Table 1: Table 1: Dimensional requirements: `FINAL Pn tit mend _r mkrn lot lize 32,774 sq. ft. ea n/a per dwell 26 units in total maximum 12 free market 14 affordable allowable densit residential units housing units minimum lot as per PUD plat it t' minimum m 5 ft. l-. 1 L “ ullln e rg n 5 ft. 44- yard setback minimum side 5 ft. yard setback minimum rear 5 ft. Yard' setback 43 ft. 9 in. height variation at the northwest .1 - facade of the affordable housing building. m ditia n t to �:. Refer to Exhibit B of the Ordinance for t approved elevation for building height. 1.24:1 or 40,734.5 sq. ft. area ratio Ordinance No 19, Series 2011 AspenWalk PUD /Subdivision Page 5 of 14 a y 47 spaces: 9 a - 26 spaces for free market residential units; x 21 spaces for the affordable housing units Section 5: Financial Assurances Before the Applicant is issued any type of Building Permit, the Applicant shall provide the following: a. Cost Estimates. Applicant's General Contractor shall cause to be prepared, and certified as correct, cost estimates for all improvements or development for which a Building Permit is required. The cost estimates for the Public Improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. The cost estimates for the implementation and maintenance of the Landscape Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks Department. The cost estimates for all other improvements and development in the Subdivision or within the PUD shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Department. Cost estimates for the Landscape Plan and the Public Improvements shall be shown separately from the cost estimates for all other improvements and development of the Project. Owner shall be responsible for the implementation and maintenance of the Landscape Plan and construction and installation of all Public Improvements required by this Ordinance. b. Public Improvements and Landscaping Guarantees. Pursuant to and in conformance with the requirements of Section 26.480.070(C) & (D) and Section 26.445.070 (C)(3) & (4) of the Aspen Municipal Code; and, in order to secure the performance of the obligations of the Applicant to implement and maintain the Landscape Plan and to ensure the installation of the Public Improvements, Applicant shall provide a guarantee of no less than one hundred and twenty five percent (125 %) of the estimated cost of such Landscape Plan and Public Improvements, as determined in subsection (a), above. The guarantee to implement and maintain the Landscape Plan and to complete Public Improvements shall be made by depositing with the City an irrevocable letter of credit with provisions as hereinafter set forth. The irrevocable letter of credit shall be retained by the City until satisfaction of Applicant's obligations under this Section or earlier released by the City. The letter of credit shall be issued by a financial institution doing business in Aspen, Colorado, or such other bank as shall be approved by the City; shall have an expiration date no earlier than two years after its date of issue; and shall provide that it may be drawn upon from time to time by the City in such amount or amounts as the City may designate as justified, such amounts not to exceed, in the aggregate, the amount of the letter of credit. Draws under any such letter of credit shall be by a certificate signed by the City Manager of the City of Aspen, or his designee, stating that the City is entitled to draw the specified amount under the terms of this Section. c. Other Improvements and Development. With respect to all other improvements or development within the Project, the Applicant shall provide Ordinance No 19, Series 2011 AspenWalk PUD /Subdivision Page 6 of 14 evidence satisfactory to the Community Development Department and the City Attorney's Office that the Applicant has in place sufficient financing to accomplish and complete all the development for which a Building Permit is sought. Such financing may include, without limitation, a construction loan from an institutional lender or lenders and equity capital investments from the Applicant or third party investors. The City Attorney shall have sole discretion in determining if the proposed financing as advanced by the Applicant is sufficient to complete the development activity for which a Building Permit is sought. d. Financial Assurances for Completion of the Project. The Applicant further commits and agrees that before any Building Permit (including demolition, access /infrastructure, and/or site preparation permits) is issued for the AspenWalk development approved by this Ordinance, the Applicant shall provide to the City Building Department and the City Attorney for review and approval a copy of a Performance Bond issued or committed to be issued to the Applicant's General Contractor by an institutional surety company pursuant to which the surety agrees to provide the funds necessary to complete the construction of the . improvements covered by the Building Permit, and all public improvements required under the Subdivision/PUD Agreement. The Performance Bond shall name the Applicant and the City of Aspen as additional beneficiaries or insureds thereunder to grant to either or both of them a direct right of action under the Performance Bond in order to construct or finish public improvements, and to complete the construction of the improvements covered by the Building Permit. Section 6: Joint Development Agreement The Applicant shall provide a copy of the Joint Development Agreement with the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority and PFG AspenWalk, LLC to the City Attorney prior to submittal of any Building Permit (including demolition, access /infrastructure, and/or site preparation permits) application. Section 7: Affordable Housing a. The Applicant proposes 14 onsite deed restricted for -sale housing units, 25 bedrooms, and 12,031 square feet of net livable area with a mix of six Category 3 and eight Category 4 units meeting the mitigation requirements for the 100% replacement of the existing 14 free market units, as shown in Table 2. The affordable housing units shall be sold in accordance with the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. Any changes to the proposed Categories shall meet the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. Ordinance No 19, Series 2011 AspenWalk PUD /Subdivision Page 7 of 14 Table 2: Approved affordable housing units Net livable 1St lylro Quantity Bedrooms Category proposed (sq. A 1 3 4 1,213 B 3 2 2 @Cat.3 960 1@ Cat 4 C 1 2 4 956 D 3 2 4 960 E 2 2 4 956 F 2 studio 3 560 G 2 studio 3 535 Totals 14 25 12,031 b. Pursuant to City Council Ordinance Number 14 (Series of 2011), which allows a variation of the amount that an affordable housing unit is below grade, the net livable area of the partially sub -grade "garden level" affordable housing units is approved as presented and attached as Exhibit C to the Ordinance. c. In order to meet the mitigation requirements of the existing onsite affordable housing, the provision of affordable housing shall be such as to provide affordable housing credits equivalent to 17.5 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) to mitigate for the existing affordable housing units to be demolished. Affordable housing credits equivalent to 17.5 FTEs shall be extinguished according to Section 26.540 of the Aspen Municipal Code prior to the issuance of a Demolition Building Permit for the project. A bond or letter of credit may be submitted to the City equal to the cash in lieu payment for the 17.5 FTEs for Category 1, as listed in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, calculated at the time of building permit submittal. The bond or letter of credit is subject to approval by the City Attorney and shall be held by the City until affordable housing credits equivalent to 17.5 FTEs are extinguished. The credits shall be extinguished prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the free market units. Any change to the requirement to extinguish affordable housing credits as mitigation for the demolished affordable housing units requires review pursuant to Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System, of the Aspen Municipal Code prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the free market units. d. The Applicant shall record a deed restriction on each of the fourteen (14) affordable housing units in conjunction with filing a condominium plat for the property and prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the affordable housing units. The Certificate of Occupancy for the affordable housing units shall be issued prior to or at the same time as the Certificate of Occupancy for the free market multi - family units. Section 8: Smuggler Mountain Apartment Tenants The Applicant acknowledges that the adoption of this Ordinance by the City Council is specifically conditioned upon the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority's representations that it will provide certain protections and assurances to any tenants that are displaced or affected by Ordinance No 19, Series 2011 AspenWalk PUD /Subdivision Page 8 of 14 the redevelopment of the subject property. Accordingly, Applicant agrees to substantially comply with the terms of the "Agreement for the displaced tenants from Smuggler Mountain Apartments" appended as Exhibit Z.6 to the Community Development Department Memorandum to the Aspen City Council dated January 23, 2012. The method and procedures for protecting displaced or affected tenants may only be amended with the prior written consent of the Aspen City Council. Section 9: Building Permit Soils disturbance in the 414 site is regulated per the Smuggler Mountain Super Fund site. Appropriate measures will be required to manage this portion of the work for the proposed development. The project shall be subject to the Building Code in place at the time of Building Permit submittal. The project shall be subject to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.575, Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations adopted pursuant to City Council Ordinance numbered 27 (Series of 2010) on January 10, 2011. Changes subsequent to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy shall be subject to the Code in place at the time of proposed changes. A copy of the Development Order issued by the Community Development Department (see Section 26.304.075(A)(2), City of Aspen Municipal Code.) and a copy of the final City Council Ordinance and P &Z Resolution shall be submitted with the building permit application. The conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover page of the Building Permit set. Section 10: Engineering The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21, Title 28 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. A construction management plan must be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. A completed drainage report/plan as outlined in the Urban Runoff Management Plan shall be submitted and approved prior to Building Permit issuance. Failure to meet the standards in Title 21 and Title 28 may result in a physical change to the project and possible review by City Council and /or Planning and Zoning to amend the PUD. Park Avenue /Park Circle Intersection Alignment Applicant agrees to pay their proportionate share of the improvements to the Park Avenue and Park Circle intersection and roadway alignment. The prorata share shall be further defined in the PUD/ Subdivision Agreement but generally will be based upon linear feet of frontage along Park Circle and Park Avenue as compared to the total amount of property frontage along the streets of the affected intersection. Section 11: Parks Landscaping in the public right of way (ROW) shall be subject to landscaping in the ROW requirements, Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 21.20. All plantings within the City ROW must be approved by the City Parks Department prior to installation. An approved tree removal permit shall be required before any Building Permit (including demolition, access /infrastructure, and/or site preparation permits) is issued. Mitigation for Ordinance No 19, Series 2011 AspenWalk PUD /Subdivision Page 9 of 14 removals shall be paid cash in lieu or on site. The Building Permit shall be compliant with Aspen Municipal Code Section 13.20. Section 12: Landscape Plan The Applicant shall implement the Landscape Plan appended hereto as Exhibit E in the manner and within the time frames as set forth therein. See Section 11 regarding planting in the City's right of way. Section 14: Fire Mitigation Before the Applicant is issued a Building Permit, the Applicant shall obtain the approval of the Fire Marshal of a Fire Protection Plan which shall include the following elements: • Compliance with all codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District, including, but not limited to Fire Department Access, International Fire Code 2003 Edition Section 503, Turning around of fire apparatus, depending on site configuration (IFC Section 503.2.5). • Sprinkler, fire alarms and carbon monoxide alarms. (IFC as amended Section 903 and 907). • Evidence that the proposed development has sufficient volume and pressure of water for the sprinklers or other fire suppression system adequate to satisfy the District's standards for the type of structures proposed by the approved development. This requirement may be satisfied by an analysis acceptable to the Water Department which demonstrates system delivery capacity of existing wafer distribution system at the Water Departments' main water to the approve development of no less than 3,000 gallons per minute. • A Wildfire Mitigation Plan for both landscaping and structures. • An overall access plan for the site. Section 15: Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. Section 16: Exterior Lighting Pursuant to Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting, the Applicant has submitted an Outdoor Lighting Plan as appended hereto as Exhibit D. The Outdoor Lighting Plan is hereby approved with the exception that street lighting (listed at F4 on the Lighting Plan key) is subject to review and approval by the City. All outdoor lighting shall comply with the Outdoor Lighting Plan and meet the requirements of Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. The approved Outdoor Lighting Plan shall be submitted with the Building Permit application. Section 17: Residential Design Standards Pursuant to Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution number 9, Series of 2011 variances are granted for the Residential Design Standards listed in Section 26.410.040.D, Building Elements for multi - family residences as represented in the application. Ordinance No 19, Series 2011 AspenWalk PUD /Subdivision Page 10 of 14 Section 18: School Lands Dedication Before the Applicant is issued a Building Permit, the Applicant shall pay a fee -in -lieu of land dedication pursuant to Chapter 26.620, School Lands Dedication. The amount of the fee shall be calculated by the Community Development Department using the calculation method and fee schedule in effect at the time the applicant submits a Building Permit. Section 19: Impact Fees Before the Applicant is issued a Building Permit, the Applicant shall pay a Parks Development fee and a TDM /Air Quality fee pursuant to Chapter 26.610, Impact Fees. The amount of the fees shall be calculated by the Community Development Department using the calculation method and fee schedule in effect at the time the Applicant submits a Building Permit. Section 20: Site Protection Fund The Applicant hereby commits and agrees that before any Building Permit (including demolition, access /infrastructure, and/or site preparation permits) is issued for the AspenWalk development approved by this Ordinance (the `Project'), the Applicant will deposit with Pitkin County Title, Inc. ( "Escrow Agent ") the sum of $100,000 in the form of cash or wired funds (the "Escrow Funds ") and will execute an Escrow Agreement and Instructions with the Escrow Agent which recites and agrees as follows: "In the event construction work on the Project shall cease for sixty (60) days or longer (`work stoppage') prior to a final inspection by the City of the work authorized by the Foundation/Structural Frame Permit on the Project, then the City in its discretion may draw upon the Escrow Funds from time to time as needed for purposes of protecting and securing the Project site and improvements from damage by the elements and /or from trespass by unauthorized persons, and for purposes of improving the Project site to a safe condition such that it does not become an attractive nuisance or otherwise pose a threat to neighbors or other persons." The Escrow Funds or any remaining balance thereof shall be returned to Applicant upon completion by the City of a final inspection of the work authorized by the Foundation/Structural Frame Permit on the Project. Section 21: Public Improvements The Applicant has agreed to perform certain Public Improvements and completion of said Public Improvements is hereby made a specific condition of the approval of this Ordinance. Applicant shall faithfully complete the Public Improvements listed below before the Applicant is issued a Certificate of Occupancy or a Conditional Certificate of Occupancy by the Building Department for any subdivided parcel or any parcel within the PUD. The determination of satisfactory completion of the Public Improvements shall be within the sole discretion of the City Engineering or Building Departments. Applicant shall confirm its agreement to complete all Public Improvements in the Subdivision/PUD Agreement. The following are the Public Improvements the Applicant has agreed to complete: • the Park Avenue and Park Circle improvements set forth at §10 herein, Ordinance No 19, Series 2011 AspenWalk PUD /Subdivision Page 11 of 14 • the affordable housing described in § 7 herein, • compliance with the parks improvements referenced in §11 herein, • the sanitation district requirements set forth at § 15 herein, • the school land dedication requirement set forth at § 18 herein, and • the impact fees set forth at § 19 herein. Section 22: Vested Rights The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site - specific development plan and a vested property right attaching to and running with the Subject Property and shall confer upon the Applicant the right to undertake and complete the site specific development plan and use of said property under the terms and conditions of the site specific development plan including any approved amendments thereto. The vesting period of these vested property rights shall be for five (5) years which shall not begin to run until the date of the publications required to be made as set forth below. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050, Void Permits. Zoning that is not part of the approved site - specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to Chapter 26.308, Vested Property Rights. Pursuant to Section 26.304.070(A), Development Orders, such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of five (5) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 404 Park Circle and 414 Park Avenue with a legal description of Lots 3 and 5 of the Sunny Park Subdivision, by Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Aspen. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the Development Order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this Ordinance of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this Ordinance. The vested rights granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. The period of time permitted by law to exercise the right of referendum to refer to the electorate this Section of this Ordinance granting vested rights; or, to seek judicial review of the grant of vested rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development Ordinance No 19, Series 2011 AspenWalk PUD /Subdivision Page 12 of 14 approval as set forth above. The rights of referendum described herein shall be no greater than those set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Section 23: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 24: This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 25: 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. 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 26: A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 11 day of July, 2011, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. [signatures on following page] Ordinance No 19, Series 2011 AspenWalk PUD /Subdivision Page 13 of 14 INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 13` day of June, 2011. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of , 2011. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Exhibit A: Approved site plan. Exhibit B: Elevations with approved height. Exhibit C: Section depicting approved garden level affordable unit variances. Exhibit D: Approved lighting plan. Exhibit E: Approved landscape plan. Ordinance No 19, Series 2011 AspenWalk PUD /Subdivision Page 14 of 14 EXHIBIT T SUBDIVISION Chapter 26.480, SUBDIVISION Section 26.480 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements. A. General Requirements 1. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. 3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. 4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. Staff Finding: Staff addresses these criteria in Exhibit S, PUD Review. Staff finds that the proposed development is consistent with the character of the existing land uses in the area and will not adversely affect the future development of the area. The proposed development requires affordable housing allotments, which are unlimited. The project requests GMQS review concurrent with final PUD review. B. Suitability of Land for Subdivision a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. Staff Finding: The proposed project is a scrape and replace. As such, Staff finds that the land is suitable for development and that this criterion is met. b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. Staff Finding: The proposed subdivision is located in a developed neighborhood where utilities and public facilities already exist. The applicant represents that utility extension are not be required. Staff finds that this criterion is met. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: Exhibit T — Subdivision Review Criteria 10/24/1 1 Page 1 of 2 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of the community. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. Staff Finding: The applicant represents that this standard is met and does not request any variations. D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. Staff Finding: The Planning and Zoning Commission found that the application met affordable housing mitigation requirements and granted growth management approval via Resolution Numbered 9, Series of 2011. The applicant proposes to mitigate on -site with 14 affordable housing units and off -site through purchase of housing credits. Staff finds that this criterion is met. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Staff Finding: The applicant agrees to comply with the School Land Dedication Standards in Chapter 26.630. Staff finds this criterion is met. F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH -PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44 -2001, § 2) Staff Finding: The proposed project only requires growth management allotments for affordable housing units, which is unlimited. The project requires growth management approval for multi - family replacement for the demolition of both free market residential units and affordable housing units, and approval for the development of affordable housing units. The Planning and Zoning Commission granted Growth Management approval via Resolution Number 9, Series of 2011. Exhibit T — Subdivision Review Criteria 10/24/11 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT U AFFORDABLE HOUSING Section 26.430.040.I. Affordable housing unit standards. Whenever a Special Review is conducted to reduce the required percentage that the finished floor level of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, a recommendation from the Housing Board shall be obtained and all of the following criteria shall be met. The criteria below address only the affordable housing units that require a variation from the standard. 1. The proposed affordable housing units are designed in a manner that is compatible with the character of the neighborhood. 2. The proposed amount that the affordable housing units are below natural or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive, is an appropriate response to unique site constraints, such as topography. 3. The proposed affordable housing units are designed in a manner which exceeds the expectations of the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, and promotes the unit's general livability by demonstrating compliance with as many of the following conditions as possible: a. Significant storage, such as additional storage outside the unit. b. Above average natural light, such as adding more window area than the Building Code requires. c. Net livable unit sizes exceed minimum requirement. d. Unit amenities, such as access to outdoor space or private patios. Staff Response: The character of the immediate neighborhood can best be described as eclectic multi - family buildings. The project site is located at the base of Smuggler Mountain and as such is sloped with a significant bench between the two subject properties. The grade proposed subgrade spaces, which are about 3' below grade, seem to be an appropriate response to the topography. The proposed garden level affordable housing units have additional storage spaces in the parking garage located above the parking spaces and in a separate storage area. The window areas of the units are larger than required by Building Code and they all have private patios. All of the garden level units are larger than required by the APCHA guidelines. Staff finds that the criteria are met and recommends approval of the variance. Exhibit U — Affordable Housing Unit Variance 10/24/11 Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT Z.5 Planned Unit Development Final PUD Review Criteria Sec. 26.445.050. Review Criteria conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD. A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited issues associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. Chapter 26.445.050 Review Standards: Final PUD A development application for Final PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. • A. General Requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Findings: Staff believes that a number of the goals in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) are met. The proposed development contributes to the overall goals of the comprehensive plan by locating development within the Urban Growth Boundary, improves transit options by installing sidewalks, is located near public transit, and adds quality affordable housing units to the City's inventory. Specific elements of the AACP (in italics) and staff's response to the project's compliance is noted below. Managing Growth Chapter: • "Contain development with the creation of the Aspen Community Growth Boundary...to ensure development is contained and sprawl is minimized. " (Goal D, pg 18) • "Foster a well- balanced community through integrated design that promotes economic diversity, transit and pedestrian friendly lifestyles, and the mixing of people from different backgrounds." (Goal E, pg 19) Staff finds that the proposed project is located within the Aspen Community Growth Boundary. The location in the Park Avenue/ Park Circle neighborhood at the base of Smuggler Mountain encourages pedestrian friendly lifestyles and public transportation. The proposed mix of both affordable housing and free market residential units meets the goals of the managing growth section by promoting economic diversity and integrating people from different backgrounds. Transportation Chapter: Exhibit Z.5 — Final PUD Review Criteria 1/23/2012 Page 1 of 12 • "The community seeks to provide a balanced, integrated transportation system for residents, visitors, and commuters that reduced congestion and air pollution. Walking, Bicycling and transit use is promoted to help us reach that goal." (Intent, pg 21) • "Maintain and improve the appeal of bicycling and walking...by adding sidewalk connections, replacing sidewalks, and requiring sidewalks as part of development approvals, where appropriate..." (Goal C, pg 22) • "Consider other innovative transportation modes." (Goal L, pg 23) The applicant proposes to construct sidewalks along Park Avenue and is working with the Engineering Department to potentially contribute money to upgrade to the Park Circle/Park Avenue - intersection. A bicycle storage area is proposed in the subgrade parking garage and the project is located near a RFTA stop. The project is required to pay Transportation Demand Management (TDM) fees and as such, does not propose a TDM plan at this time. A traffic study is included in the application. Overall, Staff finds that the project is consistent with the Transportation goals in the AACP. Housing: • "Create an affordable housing environment that is appropriately scaled and distributed throughout existing and new neighborhoods... " (Intent, pg 25) • "Housing should be compatible with the scale and character of the community and should emphasize quality construction and design even though that emphasis necessarily increases costs and lessens production." (Philosophy, pg 25) • "Consideration should be given to minimize the development footprint of all affordable housing projects without compromising the appropriate density or the livability of the project. " (Policies, pg 26) • "The public and private sectors should work together to ensure success in providing affordable housing. " (Goal C, pg 27) Staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the Housing Policy to minimize the development footprint of all affordable housing projects without compromising the appropriate density. The applicant has revised the design of the units to increase livability and quality. The addition of balconies for each unit, additional basement storage and larger unit sizes then required are consistent with the AACP. The affordable housing residents have access to a small patio located in the northeast corner of the lot above the entrance ramp to the parking garage. Design Quality • We favor diversity tempered by context, sometimes historical, sometimes not, as opposed to arbitrariness. 'Context' refers first to region, then town, neighborhood, and finally the natural and manmade features joining a particular development site. Decisions regarding scale, massing, form, materials, texture, and color must be first Exhibit Z.5 — Final PUD Review Criteria 1/23/2012 Page 2 of 12 measured by context. Contextual appropriateness transcends `style' alone." (Philosophy, pg 42) • "We wish to encourage creativity that results in design solutions that are fresh and innovative, yet are net additions to the built environment by being contextually appropriate and harmonious without being copies of that which already exists." (Philosophy, pg 43) The Park Avenue neighborhood represents a diverse mix of architectural styles. In response to the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff comments the architects redesigned the proposed buildings from heavy timber and stone buildings (similar to the rendering presented during Conceptual PUD review) to a more contemporary style with lighter materials. The redesign and lighter materials contribute to the neighborhood context. The applicant has responded to Staff concerns that the proposed buildings lack architectural features (i.e. one story elements, creating a pedestrian relationship with front porches, etc.) that reduce the perceived scale of a building. A few street facing entrances and walkways were added to the design in an effort to meet these concerns. Most recently, the applicant divided the free market building into two separate structures to create a visual break, setback the middle building from the rear property line and removed 10 feet from the corner facing Park Avenue. The redesign of the architecture, setting the third floor back significantly and alternative vertical and horizontal elements reduce the mass and scale of the project. Staff finds that the goals of the AACP are met regarding design quality. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of the existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The existing land in the area is primarily residential: it is zoned Residential Multi - Family (RMF) around the proposed project and Medium Density Residential (R -6) to the south. Staff finds that the proposed multi- family project is consistent with the existing land uses. The majority of the proposed project complies with the underlying RMF zone district with the exception of height of the affordable housing building. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The future development of the surrounding areas will not be adversely affected by the proposed subdivision. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the proposed subdivision is in compliance with the applicable requirements of Title 26. Exhibit Z.5 — Final PUD Review Criteria 1/23/2012 Page 3 of 12 B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. Staff Finding: The proposed project complies with the underlying Residential Multi- family (RMF) zone district in terms of FAR, density and setbacks. The proposed height requires variations from the underlying RMF zone district. The northeast facade of the affordable housing building measures about 43 feet 9 inches, which does not comply with the 32 foot height requirement in the RMF zone district. The remainder of the project complies with height requirements. Staff finds that the height variation for the northeast elevation of the housing building is an appropriate trade -off to providing adequate subgrade off - street parking for the units. There are two aspects to the proposed parking on this property. The Code allows redevelopments to maintain an existing deficit of parking and as such the project exceeds the parking requirements. The second aspect of the parking discussion pertains to the allotments of the spaces between the free market and the affordable housing and was raised by Council as an issue for Final Review discussion. The Planning and Zoning Commission also voiced concern about the proposed allotment of parking and brought up concerns about guest parking. The applicant proposes the following dimensional requirements: Table 1: RMF zone district requirements com•ared to .ro.osed PUD dimensional re' uirments r et en t 3, 1 minimum lot size 6000 sq. ft. 32,774 sq. ft. minimum no requirement for area per ry l ii t4, nla multifamily =x 26 units in total "B } . -12~ 12 free market 14 affordable residential units housing units +rl t front" ` 5 ft. 5ft. iatil*Thack m allaraettat 3.33 ft. 5ft. yard Satratak intifinita'itt 5ft. 5 ft. . yard:setback Exhibit Z.5 — Final PUD Review Criteria 1/23/2012 Page 4 of 12 5 ft. 5 ft. About 43 ft. 9 in. height variation at the northwest facade of the affordable housing � � 7 ; € 6 i 32 ft. building. Refer to Exhibit B of the Ordinance for -° ap.roved elevations for buildin: height. - _ no regm't for multifamily " :, (building and fire codes n/a ii .r: a. .1) � , 1.25:1 1.24:1 or 40,734.5 sq. ft. (� t - An existing deficit of 47 spaces: z '= parking may be 26 spaces for free market residential units; Ann E li - xx maintained. 27 spaces and are re uired. 21 s.aces for the affordable housing units 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a. The character of and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b. Natural or man -made hazards. c. Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d. Existing and proposed man -made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Staff Findings: The proposed dimensional requirements are appropriate and compatible with the surrounding area. The character of existing and expected future land uses is consistent with the proposed development. The applicant proposes to construct a sidewalk on the property to improve the pedestrian circulation on Park Avenue and Park Circle. The applicant submitted a traffic impact analysis that predicts a total of 20 to 25 more vehicles per day on Park Avenue. The Environmental Health and Transportation Departments raised questions about the traffic impact analysis report, as mentioned in the DRC comments. The applicant agrees to pay the TDM /Air Quality fee pursuant to Land Use Code requirements. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Exhibit Z.5 - Final PUD Review Criteria 1/23/2012 Page 5 of 12 Staff Findings: Staff finds that the proposed dimensional requirements, in terms of quantity of open space and site coverage, are consistent with the surrounding area which features a mix of multifamily buildings and diverse architecture. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The appropriate number of off - street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non - residential land uses. b. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. Staff Findings: The project is located on a RFTA bus route and is reasonable walking distance from a bus stop (located at Centennial). The pedestrian/ biking bridge over the Roaring Fork River that connects Park Avenue to Hopkins Avenue is in close proximity and provides direct access to downtown. The Land Use Code requires 27 parking spaces be provided for this residential project which recognizes the ability for a redevelopment to maintain an existing deficit of parking. 47 spaces are proposed. The applicant appears to have maximized the number of spaces that could possibly fit in the proposed sub -grade garage in addition to providing extra storage space for the affordable housing units. Staff finds that the proposed number of spaces exceeds the Code requirement and is appropriate for the proposed development. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if. a. There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b. There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if. a. The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c. The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. • Exhibit Z.5 — Final PUD Review Criteria 1/23/2012 Page 6 of 12 d The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. 6. The maximum allowable density with in a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the sites' physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased it: a. The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b. The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated c. The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. Staff Findings: Staff finds that the proposed density of Aspenwalk is consistent with the underlying RMF zone district. The proposed project is located on land and in an area that is already developed. As such, the infrastructure is sufficient for the proposed project and there are no natural hazards or critical natural site features that would warrant a reduction of the proposed density. Staff finds that the criteria above are met. C. Site Design 1. Existing natural or man -made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: n/a. The existing buildings proposed for demolition are not local landmarks and there are no significant features of the site that provide visual interest or reference to the past. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. Staff Finding: The proposed project is not located in a designated viewplane. The applicant proposes three detached buildings to break up the mass of the project with a courtyard between the buildings. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. Exhibit Z.5 — Final PUD Review Criteria 1/23/2012 Page 7 of 12 Staff Finding: The lot is located on a peninsula with three street - facing sides: Park Avenue, Park Circle, and Midland Avenue, as shown below. The proposed buildings are appropriately oriented toward the street. The building provides a number of decks along the street to contribute towards visual interest. Staff recommends that the applicant use the proposed materials differently on each building to create individuality between the structures on the site to further reduce the perceived mass of the development site. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Staff Finding: Staff finds that this criterion is met. The Fire Marshal reviewed the proposal and included requirements for building permit in the DRC comments. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access if provided. Staff Finding: Staff understands that the applicant is revising the proposed floor plans to provide adequate handicapped access to the buildings to meet this criterion. . 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Finding: The applicant represents that the project is able to meet storm water drainage requirements, and is working with the Engineering Department to further develop the preliminary drainage analysis submitted with the application. 7. For non - residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Staff Finding: n/a. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. Staff Finding: The applicant included a proposed landscape plan in the application. The proposed planting and landscape is appropriate for the neighborhood and the proposed project. The Parks Department's comments on the proposed landscaping, tree removal and proposed street trees in the right of way are included in the DRC comments. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Exhibit Z.5 — Final PUD Review Criteria 1/23/2012 Page 8 of 12 Z Significant existing natural and man -made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: n/a. No significant natural or man -made features have been identified on this site. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding: The applicant is working with the Parks Department to comply with this standard. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Architectural Character. 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. Staff Finding: As mentioned previously, the applicant redesigned the building to better relate to the neighborhood and to more accurately reflect the multi - family residential use of the buildings, rather than a lodge use (large architectural features, minimal entrances, large scale). Staff finds that the project is in compliance with this criterion. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or less- intensive mechanical systems. Staff Finding: The proposed buildings are oriented to the best extent practical for solar gain. Some of the free market residential units have balconies that will provide shade from the sun. The applicant does not specify the type of mechanical systems proposed for the project. The application mentions the possibility of solar arrays and/or green roof technology but these elements are not specified. Staff finds that the criterion is met with the orientation of the building. Staff encourages the applicant to look into providing balconies for the affordable housing units where possible and to continue to look at the possibility of green roof technology for this project. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Finding: Staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Lighting. Exhibit Z.5 — Final PUD Review Criteria 1/23/2012 Page 9 of 12 1. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up- lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Findings: The application states that the project will comply with the lighting requirements listed in Section 26.575.150 of the Land Use Code. The applicant has committed to eliminate lights from the stair towers facing Midland Park (east elevation) and to provide landscape buffering between the project and Midland Park to address residents' concerns about light pollution. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Staff Findings: There are no common parks proposed as part of this application. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. Exhibit Z.5 — Final PUD Review Criteria 1/23/2012 Page l0 of 12 Staff Findings: The project site is already developed and as such is already served by municipal water and sanitary sewers. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. Staff Findings: The application includes a traffic impact analysis that determines a minimal impact on public streets. The applicant proposes to construct sidewalks and curb and gutter to meet Engineering standards. The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) has indicated potential sanitary sewer capacity improvement may be necessary and the Engineering Department identified improvements to the Park Avenue /Park Circle intersection. The applicant agrees to pay a proportionate share of these necessary improvements. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff Findings: The application states that it will comply with required Engineering, ACSD, and Utilities Standards. L Access and Circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. Staff Finding: The lot and associated structures are located on Park Circle and Park Avenue. There is adequate access to public streets, and a new sidewalk is proposed as part of this project to improve the current pedestrian way. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. Staff Finding: The proposed location of the parking garage ramp is adequate and should not create traffic congestion. The application includes a traffic analysis for the proposed project that concludes a minimal impact on the surrounding roads, The Transportation Department raised some concerns regarding assumptions in the study, but agrees that the applicant is paying the required TDM /Air Quality fee to mitigate for traffic impacts. Currently, the existing buildings have haphazard on- street, off - street parking arrangements that cause pedestrian and traffic issues. The applicant proposes a sub -grade parking garage to clean Exhibit Z.5 — Final PUD Review Criteria 1/23/2012 Page 11 of 12 up the existing condition and to provide off - street parking for residents. Staff finds this criterion is met. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. Staff Finding: The proposed development will not require any trail easements. Staff finds this criterion to be met 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: The Applicant has agreed to provide sidewalks along the property. There are no specific trails or paths that are required. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. Staff Finding: There are no internal streets proposed as part of this PUD. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. Staff Finding: There are no gates or guard posts proposed as part of this PUD. Staff finds this criterion to be met. J. Phasing of Development Plan. (does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criterion is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. Staff Finding: The development is proposed to be constructed in one phase. The applicant represents that all aspects of the project will be developed concurrently. Exhibit Z.5 — Final PUD Review Criteria 1/23/2012 Page 12 of 12 er AV ki n C ousing Office • ,.) 7 City of Aspen /Prtkm County 4 r 530 E. Main St., Lower Level if Aspen, CO 81611 ij i 970.920.5050 a Fax: 970.920.5580 y 0 — --H S www.aspenhousingoffice.com ` S_ ng Au �� o Agreement for the displaced tenants from Smuggler Mountain Apartments The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Board of Directors, as a partner in this development, have agreed to find replacement accommodations for each - of the originally affected tenants, that remain as tenants at Smuggler Mountain Apartments (SMA) at the time the development approvals are granted. If no development approval is granted or if the development is otherwise abandoned, there is no further obligation by APCHA to provide replacement accommodations. In keeping with the provisions of the APCHA guidelines, the Special Review Committee has determined that these households will be offered an opportunity to purchase or rent a studio, 1 bedroom or two bedroom units (as applicable and described below) without going through the lottery for ownership units or the rental wait list for rental units. The rental rate for a replacement apartment shall begin at the Category determined by APCHA for that tenant at 60 days prior to the demolition of the SMA, and updated annually per APCHA Guidelines. The replacement units can be either rental or ownership units at the option of the SMA tenant. A two bedroom SMA unit will be replaced with a two bedroom replacement unit and a studio SMA unit will be replaced with a studio or one bedroom unit. Gladys Moreno and daughter Dianna Platero are a two person household and they are currently in a two bedroom SMA unit. Jason Evitt is a one person household in a studio unit. Kimberly Hay is a one person household in a studio unit. David McCoy is a one person household in a studio unit. Dion Milliman is a one person household in a studio unit. Jennifer Clark is a one person household in a studio unit. If an SMA household wishes to upgrade from a studio to a one bedroom for purchase or rental it will be permitted for replacement purposes at the option of the tenant. It is understood that if chosen, such a unit type change will likely increase the rental rate. Page 1 of 2 56.1tAt 1•4 *qu • Upon final development approval and before demolition, the above identified SMA tenants can opt to purchase or to rent any available APCHA unit of applicable size and Category and immediately leave SMA. They can also temporarily transfer to another- available APCHA rental unit while they wait until a suitably sized and categorized ownership unit becomes available for their purchase. They can exercise this temporary replacement option immediately following the final development approval by the Aspen City Council. Upon demolition of SMA they will have three years to exercise either the final replacement ownership or rental option. The rent during this time will be at the applicable Category rate as published in the APCHA Guidelines. If any of the SMA tenants cannot obtain financing for the entire purchase price of their APCHA replacement housing, APCHA will purchase the unit and resell it to the SMA tenant for an amount that is consistent with their Category at that time. Based on the information provided by the SMA tenants, APCHA has the funds needed to accomplish this for any or all of the SMA tenants covered by this agreement. APCHA will replenish the funds so expended upon future resale of these units at the full Category price in effect at the time of the sale. When SMA tenants exercise their option to purchase or to rent a unit, APCHA's obligation is fulfilled. In other words, the SMA tenants can bypass the lottery process /wait list process one time only. 1../ Tom McCabe, Executive Director, APCHA January 13, 2012 Page 2 of 2 LO t �� \) P ) to CI CI | [ ,r „ ea \ ° - 8 _ 17 � 8 R f N § 0 § } \ V \ /2 © onVs- ¥ },, „ } - !/! _ 0;4 ° !!!§° „ { — � •- 7 7 : : ;,| «! 2 ! ! © so - | \� co mo s 0 c 3 CI 7 ! co ! ! . - !! \ ! ! ! CC m U. tri N 45 = \ \ \ CO - - ; ! c \ - : 0. \ J2 !$ ±! H !) | § \ \ ! ! \ -- ) o \ \ 0 & \ 0 se ( \ y , . - ! k ! k 0 I 7 STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES INC landscape architecture. planning. resort design CITY 1 r L vED u C t 8161.1 t. f. 412 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 8i6 97o/9z5 g7o /9zoa6z8 r y, info @scaplanning.com wwwscaplanning.com iA1\I 0 9 2012 9 January 2012 COMMUNITY OEVELOPien Ms. Sara Adams Senior Planner, City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street, 3 Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Re: PFG AspenWalk / Supplemental Submission Dear Sara: On behalf of our client, PFG AspenWalk, please accept the enclosed supplemental submission which amends and replaces the Final PUD application and previous supplemental submissions made on behalf of PFG AspenWalk. General Overview This submission follows the November 17th appointment by Pitkin County District Court of Cordes & Company to be the receiver of PFG AspenWalk's assets. Under the Court Order, the receiver is instructed to stand in for PFG AspenWalk LLC in the continuation of the Final PUD application and to satisfy continued responsibilities to the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority ( "APCHA ") under the Joint Development Agreement. The appointment of the Receiver has made available additional financial resources that have enabled PFG AspenWalk to continue to respond to the concerns expressed by the Council in past hearings. Subject to the final approval of the Court, the receiver will be able to enter into whatever agreements are necessary to complete and record documents formalizing a Final PUD approval, should the City of Aspen rind the application acceptable. In addition to the appointment of the Cordes & Company as receiver, the architectural firm Cottle Carr Yaw Architects Ltd. ( "CCY ") has been engaged as architect. Benefits of Proposed Redevelopment As the approvals for this property are recorded and run with the land, the Final PUD Approval is a blueprint of development of this property no matter who owns it and is based upon the individual merits of the property and its benefits to the neighborhood. These benefits include: • The removal of dilapidated buildings and replacement with modern, energy efficient affordable and free - market housing inventory in a public /private partnership; • The increase of deed restricted affordable housing in Aspen (14 affordable housing is provided onsite with additional affordable housing provided through the purchase of 17.5 FTE's); • Funds for the relocation of existing tenants will be provided; • Improvement of safety and appearance from the provision of the subterranean parking structure which will replace the very informal parking condition which currently takes place on the street. The subterranean parking exceeds the parking requirements for the site; and • With the redevelopment of the site, the surrounding neighborhood will enjoy increased property values. 0 r Sara Adams, Senior Planner Supplemental Submission / AspenWalk 9 January 2012 Page 2 Architecture Much has been invested in the refinement of the architecture to match the neighborhood conditions and concerns. The architect has worked closely with the neighbors, staff, and the receiver to prepare the enclosed design. CCY has spent significant time in the neighborhood attempting to capture the eclectic nature of the neighborhood. The redesign has been reviewed by members of the Midland Park Homeowner's Association at a meeting held on Thursday, January 5th. The HOA generally provided very complimentary comments, both for the architecture, as well as for CCY and their concern for capturing the character of their neighborhood. Integral to the development of the revised architecture has been the review and comments provided by City Staff and members of the City Council, cooperation with APCHA as co- applicant and input provided by the Applicant and the consultant team. Generally, the revised architecture represents a further development of the previous architectural style and attempts to minimize the perception of mass and scale. The more modern and "light" style supported by Staff continues to be employed. Roof -top decks are not provided for and the architecture has a very quiet character. The development remains divided among three buildings built over a subterranean garage. Access to the garage is still provided via a ramp along the northern side of the affordable housing building. The affordable housing building has several new exterior architectural treatments but still provides the exact amount of affordable housing floor area as previously provided. Balconies or patios are still provided for all affordable housing units. The provision of ample storage as well as access to dedicated outdoor amenities for the affordable housing residents remains unchanged. The middle free - market building has a smaller footprint than the previous design. This reduction was accomplished through the pulling back of the facade on the southwestern corner as well as along the eastern facade. The pulling back of these facades has created additional space for a landscape buffer to be created between the proposed development and the Midland Park open space. The modified facades has also allowed for a wider corridor through the buildings which will ensure that pedestrians perceive the buildings as distinctive elements and help diffuse the appearance of mass. Both free- market building facades have been varied to break -up the mass of the structure while providing for a very unique and attractive view of the development from the intersections of King Street and Park Circle. The new view from King Street combines two story elements, with elements which create interesting focal points, creating a distinctive landmark for the neighborhood. Techniques have been incorporated by the architect to accentuate the lower two levels of the buildings, further helping to minimize the perceived height of the structures. Receivership /Foreclosure The recent appointment of Cordes & Company does not affect the merits of the application, nor the way this application has been refined during the review process. The parties with a financial stake in this application have not changed with the recent appointment of a receiver and the involvement of Cordes & Company ensures that there is now greater financial certainty and that the ultimate transition of ownership will result in a more financially viable owner. A Final PUD Approval on this application will set the expectations for the buyer of how this property can be developed. iw ' � Sara Adams, Senior Planner Supplemental Submission / AspenWalk 9 January 2012 Page 3 The Court has instructed the receiver to continue the process in its Order Appointing Receiver. Refusal to move forward with the application based upon the installation of a t :`„ Receiver will delay the eventual replacement of the old buildings, result in new expenditure .4 fr of resources to get the application to this point again, and open the door for a new developer to bring the starting point of the development of this property back to a much larger building, as allowed under the current zoning and city ordinances. We look forward to presenting the enclosed materials to City Council. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. Very truly yours, � II Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment cc: Michael L. Staheli, Cordes & Company John Cottle, CCY Architects : E F — N I-- O �- 8 Y Y�LLI ri Y ro J J W m �mNm S <z‹,.... 0 m . < z = . - , Li, V 4T H S aOYQ > w U z DO O W S =g C >-73� U a° U Y` F; mU f v) CC , au n F f 0. Z > ar- Z °o I O w w- m w W a 0 V . � g < . D °) 0) a 0 z Z O F 0 U J 4 z z z U g s g z aaa X '' zz O zz z w W O O N O J = 1=1=0 Z = S = 0 WW ° W w U 7 0 J = Z J a N N J J W K¢ w n i V Z Y Z U Q W W N D O O Z Z F- h o o o K K K° w z 4 K o W °zz5g n ° ,,zzzzz www w 5 g a w J w w °o°NN 1 ru a wzwrcW(75< 7agw wzYY���g5>»' (n = a i�cc CC a C1,' m m a a J J J> M • o _ _< , � 3 Wi- <Q c w w , ww000 » O z a' Z K p } N O O O N JJ � W tr > >$ W W a a s =_ <Q < U K O 5 aaYaa� 6F f. V)OWU' U' JJ LL Ta as a ad wl- ° r .- N M V N M Q O �- 'L.:, M O O N M O O O N M • � N tV N Cl lV M M M V .fl N .(I N f° l0 m� O. O. 07 a 5 a a a a a a a a a aa<aaaa<aaaaaaaa c .e w LLI 0) ! I . Q a w (V I. H f .K 0 NZ r -^ n < e z < F K S (0 O a rr mDco 0 �F • ~ O N Ovb z m • Z 0 < � a LL < Ro W ^ %$ t Z Ow u � w z z_ , s2 LL 1 ,' ,_ w S f z U a °u za S vJ Y W Hr ` F�'" Mil ° 'm— u Lrl $ U� Wa Q Ys . r : � azw`�' o cezo go ° Qy a a0K w.. � , o If Pd ° zo CO �" I M P po woo FI ux 1- ° > H WZ W °N W 4 H JH Z Om I� , t. 0 S OW -, W C Sf w �K, . N Q., � Z- Z C cc S, . �' g"W '4 ,04 rc3 § m z O 6 A° /� ,^ 0 F2 w m� �/� a J` m CI L° waA' j� V .....[ Jr ! )' w w z w VJ oJ p� y z y = w U°V U w °n p � F > m Z 00 F- O 4146— f 1, LL T V'z H gEl 20 AV, fie -' 0 6 4= Al Z - `— ?� Q U p ° ng� $ y 6 Y s 14040 R ,i Z .B $ °w > t i w Y om o° Z w Y z u ox M . . ... ; . y v ,,* tiehp 1m Wm WU = OSaZ q ¢W g m , l � - e) r l '' t a w u tM °im wozr�im w 1008. im ° W f U % ¢ <Z I I E L Jr I uz�� za 3wuu �oz °wm >i=zw yF ° k �q m S °� �r w owu or�wmd ¢w S�zd >uzN x�w I'�ui f e w J Fa° y W 62 -. w m ° ` , F"Zm ° m x w ycir 5 143 Si W aOUw 3�wrcF xi P z www iF w f W3 w 3 zw�i g u o ?z W LL° 7F F m i d °md w� m q Y `' ,;2' o ) 0 .m KK T ox° WO w m3q i p u d mii� o mwz ° w ux Z z N 6 RW6O," UVU8p o0 N wwf ° ° t U ?'';- r T F, °K nZ U y h mw u�Q mdo >W>om ' r - v >m` w_ - ma' o U S s w0 m ° U m ! - N W ¢a nag °$c S 4�o�rcw 3 3 � �zdu>o° so W ° i �i W O ° w o 333 u G & w� w wo g8q- < y . go m °s 9 zd Sri FRgFF ac 3 G rc bath' 2 `-'2C ow j5jY .% Z � p U2'u =WS uooaoi % "firm PMz oimo Hildi mm°o g zu aU ° a 0 uu z°?uw �o�uwia °�oc°i a .x- rc� °uaa ma a �.mo : °a� $S 0 0 s aU Ms m ti 0 W � _ a` 99 � Yg 6 � p g g i s — I ZW ^d V III 1�. .i :w tl $ S d 2 5 SR S Z •- 7 fo Q d ` . ° ° oa ° o4 z 8 LL O E' w °° z> q $ a$ R re z z ° a Y a , - 3 $m Ya °z g � 0 w o w ° �� W w �Em..'ek €ezF Y4 Z 'I ,t w 3 w 5� �� ° ` » o ° ° a z FA LL w z' m ° fr1 v ° i LL ai`? w - rcs 3 u S - cai O g g �s 0 0 0 9W m § z V 8 Y § w S �� a J J g . 3 1¢� a p g g g g aryyl€€ 33 m � � J � 4'Y���B�� 3E��s��s4i i FP8�88b��� '����0 & & & &�3�'�'��N�3 J Q w C) z A a 7� � �� (:), ~ I I m e e $s. is a o..a AggialiVR agg8888$1: edii.g it as€ i3lias» a Q c °z °z o I i — _ C _ iii�i. I I �i _ § s z z - J i i F °F I I rc w s y i g N g E H 1 j 2 sW lii i ll li ill l 11 1 1iai i ifil /11111111111 5 U 5 J r r W 3 Z' J y 4p O Z a V g i J U �� S a '6 w ° o n F m of 1 u S my 3y 3g i-mn9s da°a93hdal$ #ffi9Asaesd$a h:e63saltEE 820%.24 F- a wo=•�u uueldex• M w031UIUueIde3s0o�ui „ � Y gz9 /oL6•) £z£z•Ce6 /oL6•i 0. o „ i D_ g Y o o w,4 5•3: a Y tt 9t8 opeiolop 'uadsy laailS mw 4PON zth i1 a Y ee V u i gl o Ba ~w ° < � u8!sap UosaJ•8u!uue!d aJn »a1! »e ade'spue! !, ` '13 y J V< p m ' ¢ �; „, 3 N 1 S31b13 OSSV N OS(lV13 NV1S i PROPERTY L!NE _ -',-. —R / VA ----- 'i z li ... viiiiiirk ,ir ( 7110 4 - - KA- O. -. I ®® = tip __ �.. ♦+ice + : ♦y :3,3, :::::::::„,, M ° :' . _ + _ ••r •iii • : ice. f 1 Oils MEM 6:::'- "- 4 "Via•.:• ✓ :. 0 BOO 1 1.14 111 �� t•• ♦r••.�r!♦ OW ~ Apt • . . e� • q fi• ......................„..... .+••..` A, r ; i•••.• ,.- , .mssP:•iiii ♦ii•�iiii . •♦�•e•�•iiiiiiiii.... •.• ..+ ?+�.. . •• . i . • ,,,,.. ( 4,6 t i o - -- r ■ . + O ♦; W 0 T ' %i• %i ii i+i i i• +� 1 40 4y ..- •J.L +.•.+•► M. a• ' , • • U pi _ z •' ,,• o p ,i.:, , 44.40 . 2 -,.--_,-(1) _ . . F < ( ,..... „ IL W 4 `�� ,.,,, :::,„::::::::._.„ ® ,,,,,, ..„,......,::::: _ — �\ , .,'.: : ::.:. ::: ::.;:::» a . 4.1.1 •iiii0O:∎`•i•• , /fi` • • •iii�•i ♦ii• . ?�ii• ♦►J i el ;x 6 d i 4 $ 1 b 1 i �i i: � . ns, tt .., ......■......1 i A L.,„ r e . - 1 ill tel •.+ T - N tC) 0 ' 74; 1 ; i li ilW dIg i Ns 1 ii, ..:: ..:.:::.f.... Y E §'s` W1i .1 i••O. • ❖i iD t G . di � AlliPiitS0- 2 M1461iigg4d4PIIIP ms,...... .„,,,,,,,, ir ,/' ',,,,,4i,‘ : II) 1 \\ ] Cr A 1 I itt CQ211. 2 21 , � , Z $ ® u_ �1 i i 4 4 4 A 4 4 4 ,4 41 I I i k 1.:.,' :: .. z i . ( N 1 !i,,, , i R -' ____Alt, to ,, Re p...., c 1 , , , r- 1 -:Yj -- ICI! _ � . i' a ono ce• I Y •R, r N W ; O § @��pN c0 c Z > > w CO z� 6 OZ e V a' $V? Oa.0a di- m§ od DO no - w � N �_ UW N 1 I- 0) 8� a) Z5au) oo g a ' w� v- N� Y Z w�@ a Zo ad w 0 U o - U � �W V � r§ Q CO U) < v a � Et 8 CO < ......:,: 1 1 , a ) -t- ". '' , e .mo • y u�• t . Iii ; f.., a. el 7..-.1.... f . 4 .i I 4: - iry Z I/ foe. LU Et ' '3. . _ .",--: " ro ll fr . -r e ' ...,... fi tk y y 1 • • al Y r CL • .. ... ''''VtliiTt. I f 4 i ' �.�.. i, sum .r.. .... 1 0 r� smog t,i .y'^�a' � Y .1 I - E �'+► - ;arm � ' .ss k : J . Nile III .1 ' I �ws• yam 1 'e .f ?. .. 1 i l 1 ..'"*" i ' • ' i :1-01)11'. a ! �� Ai ' x rte, ` �� ''''4‘,,,Z.... �A f • 3 i'; . .. .-ter- r t e ,-,,i4 . y , 5 4..1 L„,.. i ..,..,..__. s ... >' N_ E N N �� Y +y _Juj�cp • w Z r : ;Hli m � N m pY j Z � w 77 aoY�� W' W 2v v71 N ' Z 5 au) Da *Q W L U" r4 V m Z Z O W p Q o V Y Q D LO a co 0. N Q i - • i ts, - ••�• _ , - - _ - •.. -- • t • - p " . 4 ' ammo t i _ ` > � �� F� sue* 1 F til I • Ai Lr M, r , .,, , • T .. - - • !,., r w N:� ,^ �` *,pie Y j ;0i - 1 r `� r ii _ � ' i ~'1 � .i s ` 1I 1 t 0 F . may v JP )4. a _ _ 'i j C' 6 • i Y Z • •' ''..- - ••• ..- ' i NI • 0 _ _.- - I ' . l e ' , 0 W r,-. _ 1311.,: 4 ` +i LLI .„, _. ,'-- • , ,, i'''. ' 1.- - . • - ! . • Ai M CC • -la - _. " -- A . -•r -t. *` � . . -- •• s:.-- 4 - ••• i ar ' . 9 R 11 • . ,...: _ ,1- . f w . i ^ _ , . _r. r.-.,....r ,-i 4. i4 ,.. :, IR I S, --...../..A, • _ I - {4 y pf . I ` 01 .!>'/ . ( '' Ali AI. 4l A4Y M!: # .. + /���{�' •may � f i .1 -..; ci i'i Al ./ IlIl fr • 7.,,1 a /yam 1 _ y , . 0 w J • LLj� ``J m J J N � Q Z Q ' m Y Z a Z > V i_ < ®$° > d Oy�p w Z w Z °v �O Y w N gmuorv`� °S. C }(n2 p ao 3 U r F _ cnU Q R T a p Z?a o q w w- n m w CL 6 V ••2" Q j m °6a d V K U d w / r CO < 0. • . fir, - - . , / , .....„,.. .. .... „:„...,.., . ,......„.....„.„,...„, . , • ,.� '.,` '� �r ' � f /" y ,. / r . . e ' r 1!'4""'r- ..rte - tea'` r,,� � '? - _. • 1 i T � -' m .,, t�yyyy • a • � � �.'� 1 ;1 •�C • �l A ' �l j A R • S' • f • i „,,i •••- / - r-404 ., .t......0: -.4‘.-,,, ... - „ , r : , e„ 4 . :r,�t” "^ w . s • r r ` tY `_ 7, i Y - .. j i a ^ 1 ,•.. I . .7,.." 1 + -. �x; o . �, r 1. .- • S � ./ ors I . j R Q Z .rli''+ f. "Y y F ib. � • 1 r . < ,� 4 1 0 ' 4 }{ : s Y ... i ii.., - % , • CL +! vl ,M b a y �.._ ice= • • �: t' • . • Z 0 r I / 1 ham. {� i . t • _ s' ....�... W Z . •- " .. 1 O • LL ct r �� .- _ 3 _ . ._ a .. O O • ii it -' • Fi • � ^r1 RRR f • �'' • T ` y Cr o > J ¢� e U mry m Y W w _ CO m N ;- m m U Q r '6 0_ Z ry t > z Q , U ` m Z a' B $ ^W` > a di z w 2.7 � 8 o Z W N' 1. V = OUomldl z5.Q (n Z lJ o a ,I W e N } J Z N I CI Ili m Q . D � u) a 2 a ,n a �r z. • s . „,,•;” . y,. 1 K r r .4 r . NI. * , * ' ..,...- • .,...:011: • • i'll,roirtd- - - . L.,4 Rp ,,,. ,.;..!'". , d' ,, N--- ' .• ..., -: l 4. •r, , ,,.., _,... ... / ' .. ' . ' .. ' ' ' ,;. P . r r ‘. .. ,... I •� ` . T 4.. . A. �"'are .r ..w11! . • • .'.` % .s " • �.._ ' ,.' '7 w .. sue' f ~ g` • S �.. 1Q{ Jla !.; ill .- .0 i • 4,...4,'' r�ll � �� 1 .� , 3111 : -0- A7L may 4". ' w.l •.! ' 111.118.0".0.0•111116 r . ,�,.- 1 - • ••••- . r : � ' r rte_ - �,,,�.�_•"' - • °P � . y '7"y7t:, Z • p _ ' f •ti' w D ■ _ ter'• • ..,....r -� _.. '..' `�'_ •• ;1` - 1 r r - • y+� c . � 1. •^� « i . . I .. ... Q .41. ' A . 1 • :r" ' � d . r -,..f Sr , et• , , ` ..f :. - - r..`r. ! --. • • s • r �X ' , r / / fit Vii • ^v $ ::' M 0-, • ..r 4. ice-. t - 104. '+ r, _ ;`•ti Z ■ t • ' 111..%#*1 . ' ......} ‘ ,.. , 0 5 \ - • ' .,.. V ...- ,„ .... 1 ti y am ' � ..._.. _ ` , 'i, r •7- •,- .+^.•.±a+r , _I J y r 0' I` ,. r r• n :� . • o ` ♦..f i t . - `.Pf;f 1 . - C t ` 1.1"... ••. G e. lr; fie ' - � : .:0 le' ' iv, s`; .• , ' O • Li- UJ ... ,01 .i-"I"'"' '. .;...- 1• T 1 ix:f ■ # " • . s. _ ,. ` MM . y, � .. -i..... .1k• _ `7 • '/"" . _ ,! , Ir~,ir •f , . i •... .,; r. ♦ + •4.., J` i ! Y} y cwt' �C(. ' ^ .i%Y 4M.. _ 1 - 7w f' s q. . ,•/ +s.. .r...+ 1 , ,,,7 - .. r9 y r 440,1•• ii }- - E 1- w 0 e i X Y Y2. iv.- m ( n f, C i- lik 1 3 i Q NjmaN n N Q " ' 0 S 52° 00'00 E �1 vs p M S at ^'^' n ILL ' . 9 ti ° n =that nr e _ ° I Z lib IIIIIIIII LB ;� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII N Z E. II NO rn rd di 0 0 CO II ° o Nn w 8 11 96.4 • oQ • ' 4' 738:, li ° t A 2 q (J CI z J3‘6 e L ' J � so k � � C ' I. Fe a ��► p�- , I ��er I � S57 00 00 , - +� "mom` z_= �, + 11. "' h C q2 �� _- .n_���nlllll 120.62 6 7 �; / � r� ,,4111-- 24.5 \ c - 2i4 �J�e Q °fie issi a ° N Le �"' 7 7 • p !% °J C � o nq� assi H1. ` \\ N O 24 5 �.I O R.1� " :::,1'1 "' 22 c 5. J LI .1 o G < Gc, o N 9' vi `o I II r •V { o 4 ill ® e-° �� ,,d 111.111 \ n ° i 40 j , O • , 0 o ,T °' e 24.2 •� a `� 1 6.7' G - 0 �oQ vr, MI • , � � V, �� e^ . a ,y0 0a i ;i - N �I Niiikenr'>406., ° h 9 I e 1 : 1 . \ol tF J h n cc Plir D Ertl _ _ g �� A. \ ° e e n G° %-i ® ° D : 1p1y7p j . , e v o f e G `[ �y � 9 ' kL Q / F ° AIL \, ,F`/y/(`^ < / // e r l At . ve ig LP N a Z > - w m f Z .. z �z ..h sg� .3.(2 rm > w za rE, o S 88 o i >a F i ° 8 � � w U � `-' Ow N 1 A- it N .5.N ° a° ON aN Q V CO • 7.____,.. PROPERTY..d ∎`.Sw _ diia•• 4 I ,b, = I _ — - -- -- ii Lic. Aria ? 9 , 1 g O Ari4 r____ 444..01 i t ilkiti . 0 d® Irti rE ltfio r� � il� 1 p i u \. P l O �_�I Ei:{�zo Z 11 li r es .4 a , ': : ::: t ,.:,.,.:.:aiv i- Y�4 4 11.1=-- 1, .. 1 1 t . , . . ... 4 14 Mki le'II' t a .41 416,040'ya +^, mcmq .. lir $ I u 1,,Ittis, r ,:.,,......,...,::::::::„.,, ,,:..„4„,.:.::...,,,k, .:.:.:.:.:.,.:.......,::::::,:, r., a�' * 1 i ' p I ''� lin CIP> "ff tr. pi a. il kw.! 7, 0, .._ 0 ii Ilkyl■ I am .,,...* . =4.i. / (/ EEti Plea lir il 1 0 .-s-,.1 of _.,..00 i O i ram b iltrAP LI , ,,..„, I -, 6 A pi --LL:z - sap 41) . ``" ' ,i N � 1.(4.4.:: / , , 7 ! Prilli \ k, :tr&I ‘ 41r /\\\) I \ N ., ! ,‘ , k / i It A I . „,„.....,,, 4 /4r.„. \ \ ie \ i V.,, li1 ik + � � /� lid a,..„..,„,,...t...,„_______. .. ", �\ yy �wqq r cf 7.,11r v -�;;. to _ `i \Irc ` �' x s m w N e Y� 1 , ii ° 20 G o V A p p a ,° „ °° <o .1 t57. '429 o� ” s n z5 ° s e 'I' w" Nbw N � g 0 Q �N N a F N a 7 1 PROPERiYuNE :W.`Y �� PROPErm � ' .. . _ _ ���\ is ,, ` ��\ ,, i i ,. � 0� may: \� i i iii Pi r a B ' 'l � n ot� «' I' °. fRt � IMMI 114 i =' •� /ice $ 4 11r .‘ � � r pi? ^ �� 1 I , to, , : , ..„,:tit„,,...,....„„„„::::.. • oa f, C � i , I`, 0 . �„ .� 9 a I • 1 /II\. /� e'1 �aQ:o�\�� ��.\ \ \ \ \ \ \at. \\\ \\uw � cL a lls4,1110 on 7:411 IFIE "OW In io lir. r l al 111. - — �� ,111 0�� a I �° / / ; � d R!I I DS ,e / A'',\ fr r It l ,d 'frari -44a a illiaj**,it , / •, \\,, r .:.::i 4 / 4 , , / / I :_ p_ 1 , lii) (_ ...._.„, 7_,,-„,,, !v. 1, , , _,/ , t)„,„ # a . ,,, .‘ \ , al1/44/061/4 OP 41 „....._..." \ ■th. ir fro \ 1 N tittiN illi -gilt haitha 1-, 1 b .'r 1 zi 0 9 Y y w ZZ CO m w D. "8k o N 'v $n a0 ui r zv xxa k N V in do N Z o$ g T w ' D " W W - 2- z?afri ti 1 ��� s Q yms¢a O a 0 u . 0 N 0 U t iOr"M : 1;1\ , , . ‘11# sizi_.,pc,—..; i Cr \�\ )11111111V \\"„ POI \ Z \ \ \ ` w . „ \ WI r ' \ 41 \ y \ w • • \ \u 1_ K:_ •� ::: \ \ \ \ \ O ,/, \ J \ Is la — 1.11 , , \ , , / 7 I/ , Inlie■allall , , I �- \ / , . () 1111 . \ �" �t \ , , I 1) 1 \ \ , , , , , _ \ \ i 1 0, \ \ k\ tri 1 ----N1 � riv , .41" lir ■ 4 , r \ I ti . , tl Y Y � jlj`O m m � °6O 6 g g Ii I �� C N Q N NNQd K Wdg Q 1 V coo \ \ _\ _ �- -- - - -� - 1� \ I w. r — — � — IT—. — 1 � I ( z 1* II I \ (41 V A V °i. ��•I �� / g i s g i\ \ �, ' �i1 i 2 40, \ w \ c ` \ � i ' e C7 \ k \ 6 \ — / I" u/ w a 1 1 \\ 1 ) : \ • I ( F - I V \ R g :\ -� \ 3 \w 3 co 1 / ` g 9$ k' / of re \ § \\ \ z /g E i ' / / z Z \ \\ a \ \ \ R e , k ai a: / Nu T R ■ Oi c si fiv... 1 1 e . Nk 1 1 1 1 5 i i ii ut' a o. �I Pa : 99 a I 14 Willignir / ' 2 ___ is i o S ��a \ b g g \ R o W ,- \ M A \ \ o (U \ \ ...g ' / \ g $i — g 1 / I / \ \\ I g °' 3 / c ./ .1a \ `__. \ / 'F \ \ —/ Li' f° / P IL G \ (iii ¢/ g m \ ` ..•••••••..... 816 i ' �k \ / I F /..( \ \ 1 \ ` / I I I r 1 I R \ k \\ \ \ O _ I` / I 1 k / .. I k g 5 _ _ : ( 8 I \ lic../\22g VI I . \ o i \ g / \ 9 .IW k, A \ b p g$ 1a i' 8 S / 4 \ Ma N \\ • � /, 'I IIIIIIII I Im 1. _ _ n V R / / \ % \ , — 99 • \ \�: _ �I III ¢ \ � , � of 1 / / � o11 \ I \ iiiiIiiii _ ° r w g __ rt y V pp y L > ni N�� Q 0 L0 55 - V 6 UN K Q n 0 N Q J W W WI i W II a o \I 14 rail i 1d2 gtl Z S e a b 1 `C R F y 5 o a T i N 3 w Ill o i � ' ���� w 'i K e 1 1 ae X i 3 3 R 1 ROMENO L b E p b b \ • s T e • .\ T RS ; i g �' o i0 MI ii r \ O ; ti 7 4 4 i ,„, , , _5„, L. NC _1111 S ° � d z¢ rm m a k o W ® a0 O 6/,-: m w J j o_ z J tit V �� 8 m =o w ° o m � m m rc z a m ' = " m a 6 I I I I: I I I I I I I I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1 11111111111111; — ' 1 I 1 W I W W4 (414 1 I 11111 ME I re O , 1 i I __ I al a II '� 1 I I I I • 1 ^ •I 11 I 1 I 1 I I I 1 It'll _.1 I • I I I I 1 1 I IC ■ I _ 0111 � I I .a I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I I E, I / L 7 illar , / F• I I / \ ' 1 . 1 4 II ,. Hi < !iI'I I II ,I III \ I m', \ I I w I , 1 .. . 1 I „ , \ 1 I I I \ I I \` \ I 4 J 1 • • <° -. N I n N 7�baW Q 1 N AN1P111 l � IIliIIl IIIJI'lli!�II'1111 lI . IIL 11411 1. Ila •. 1 iilll��l iuNI I IL�gy-IuI 1 111 I �ll 1 1 1 �1III.�ll P..111 1 .. h W MB ' All � W i ill. Illl l Z 4 w 1 11 N 1 m t a a II -, li�llllllllllllll a 10111 11111111111 111 y , III I I' a ~ I LL J IFNI t o f , all 1 Ili ■�Illllfi ;101 /- i i tir ccl 2 ;I�I LL / ��\ 7 \ LL �Il 1 �� I 1 • w C &i q m �zarm. r , m is i ilA k ' o b g' u $ i g w M x di j i Lo) Q w y • _.. 'illlllllllllll VIII mr= II 17 • • / IC! ' 011 0 I - 2 . Z !1111 1 QIIII[ h Ill ° z ?, G hOla AT I 1 I I il Ir LI L1111 9 IIII ��!III,III,IIIh°� � I il \, , 4 /\, 1 1 100 11 110011 � IOOO��,,, ��IIII 1 1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII • >- E I- W z o tl Y Y�u rom P0 ° a na l -a+ > m 9 .. a ° in z o (LI-z °°s g>. � k �' I C J rc K 41 y. ( ° U p U Q 6 a Nib Q 6 V N F ---- • I I I I , I I I - g I I! LL Q h 1 K 1 I 0 n 1 I Et i 1 0 z I1 / I 1 _ _____ , i 1 I I ini I 1 I 1 t 111 I I I I 1 • _ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i i I 111111110111""P .IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII O /I \iii0111111 �' I illlllllllllllllllllll 'I , . N \ I I N. !!p F N Cid � � > . m ITJ J w z O V . t .$ x , . { Y a OQ f- 0, m m Z ej Z I 'F N r(nced Qo 8 r 7 co w IU w Q �� ¢a o. CC W LL I. , Ts Wo 1:. r ' ligi F i ›.. $1 �1� or, o s° 5 I o , I g lk l'i ,P ;; a 'I 1IIIJu11l ie°I:lli!I ,• 1 I , ' f' _ 1 111 1 110111 . 111101141 II - 1111 .., - ■1111 1 • !B ■I _ i t o ��i�� Illil IIIJI -- _ w c � o in I i; -0 � 1 1 w Y b. I I , 1 �= i ) 1 i Q g§ I I! ! an ! : . . � ws i '' . swa tl i i, L L �, 1 I it we I � r' � � � CC � • is i 10his�, -jilt rI 28 o I , \ , , fi e , N � 12 • i III _ � 111111111h IIIIII1I �I I Iii o 11111111 ; '6o. �3 11 011 1111111111 011 1111111111 d ca � i 1,...,,r Z Wo Wo Wo • ILI' 1 � 11 _ � I� � V kW LLh LI �Im �I° I ® kill NM ill" � w H s Ir T Z r W N �' ' dial i!i! I I 111 i O l!li1s .1i� 1.9: /'' i it MINIM Iliiiililill I�IIIIIIImn ii,iv 4 ' ,, mi n i I 1 , I illll @! I II : ,-, 3 1 „Ismail I _ Imo ' 8 Ng g I 1 ' I`� �. 1 , r I!1UI II 1 _ � o � . _ I � � • III I IIIIIIII o 1 0 w = � II IIIII ��d�; Nay 1 � —� ��'� I � b III 4> 11111111ftj 8 Oa 1 ° a :g. I ..a • ��i�N I_ I ;!;N�li� i j 1111 j I � FP I i 1 : � MN MIN.! . .I � - - -- - I 1111011 IIIIII I 11111111 11111111 I it MIN Ms' 1 ri � I IIIIIIII I111III11 O xm l W M i �� =W — N '2 1 1 it I 11 IIII11II',,., a 1 i i llmo uno , ro: I._ u) "' 1 E I M 0411 . imisir i_ ° " 1 ' I. ...pli o LL tc0 60 6V L N 1 I ;,1 mit_ o to 11 I ,g . w 4 � : • , � 111 .1 I b CD ,■, li 1 I i . NN . Eli ! I: 1 1 1 1 i 1 ... , 11; 1 1 i1 III L1L.J. ...L. . i _ 1_ I I 1 , -- ---•• • .._. -- ®®➢I Y • 1 - J.... t 1 1 1 1 1 vl ~ g Y O N a H W l c <Z <}- > m m v 4 uj YZ V''''' g '1 g < AB C , 0_ 0,0 a; -. m w i u i 2 k p a0 4 - . _ .., C }fn 0_' U ti g! 3U YS) r.- y 0 E m D. 2 — a <e '' 7 sil QtA '3° U U ' U L � U 2Q �+/ U co � m � Q d U K U N '` w J - co < ET Q 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I H I ' 6 .1�.it. J 5. i -- — 1 III I i a ° rc l "w _ iFI'IIi'i Jutarinr 1 _ _ i 1 1211 ■ 1 11 1 111 0.1 ;9,1 i � � 0i11�1.1 _•3 .111 ! ■ 1 I I 1 I. ' i i I 1 i Y .! I I I � _ i IZ '1 1 1 _ ryry -p 1 I i s N ` 1 \ ' 1' i I. nt I w lit 4I* i _I 1 NMI 1- _ • d } I II O °x3 _ I i r j l Y IIMR: ' �� IVI `' Ilil w :- I 11111 Ce � i 11111111111IE u 1 i i l��� imm dg il . �:�11i1,91 wo • . I iiii 1t er �• �c , i. . i �� 1111111 1�) VIII! `j��, .z i,-;?; II i s �. I. _ 1 11 VA 11.1 11 II _ : 1 I I 3p ' ti l I II I�! I U!I 4. Lo I ;1 111 7 4 i 1' ! !a INMi H ., i mom 4 i1iii 11 11 1 1 .4" ;1111 1 � I IN 1 111 III I h i __ I1 .. 01 i -,i i IIIIIII��IIIIII1 1. , ,ICI i� , III I �u ill �I�I P ei 1 :' III _Ifni] I 13 1 1=11rl [1111111111 11 I �� I I� i Im 1 I I w w '�J l i W . �1 J z. OY°, zic O ZI' 0 �. � N a Ic=7,' -. 1- N ee L m � f6 CC O > e' oo } m W U _1 ii W 0) %. N 2 a88q�5 apYO w � °°} °wa w j k o QZD § \ V V = N Zj Q fl1 U oo ' ~ W ci � N�m �' 1 u -m �o a aw o = - N O V Q = � a � U a U � a rn ¢ Q w !. 11-.) w . 1-.! . '1 7 :. Iv W I m W IN I LL r Z A W n I w 4 RI a l QI = 1 1 = a l ¢ I I 1 1 2 .. '. ' 1 1 I c. ; 14 1 F 1 ! I Q i < • j j i ! • I I ! 1 I i h H \ ! 1 1 I 1 ! 1 I I' 41 e11 1 1 e g 1 1 ' • I i it 1 1 u6 1 1 1 1! Ill i 1 �IiI�IIk' 2Q � 1 jjijr I _ I !III Ji I I � � 1i 1 i II ' _4. =, d b I I I I E iiII ImII ' 1!" g . , .. :. 1 _;� 1 1111 1111 II a�!i l.a I n iiiu s l ..,i {lilt + I�rI, .6 - I 11M111 ! IIII IIN_ I I �� Ism LL I ;' b sItiiL , , ` SPh�i Al, • rue - • - -----''. I IIIIII.H....1.•""' ''''l .' . I , II I I i �� 1 U LL ! 1 : y .:. Ruin! I{Illllltll ' f ' I 3 o 3o I I I, _. ju te I I I i � I 'z• co H* Ei i • one,.... d 111111111 I 1 e ll H I I N a 1� 11,1.III � 5 w I jl r II Y I W :. ":,� l�_l ` S I • $ I I CSI • ' y _ II G'N.'11 - i H I ! 1 4 t R II z ce rx �I w �� i� m i 1 1 � � �,��� �ie a ; 1 ,56 2 j I 1. p j 1 I r 1 in W ,'99" o I I IMG 11■il . _ L i W0g zo .<6 gg ! 4 g i(iiii1 �mi l Ito 1 r ' h j 1 oZ I 14 u- ° ;� i �1 ! : !I , ` I.I � i_j n ',!g o I 1 q I I.. " i ° �'� � i ¢ br, INN N i r 1 1 3 I I III -r r.. , pp • r ! j ii . L. -1 : t6Lik X101 ®' .... i I �>• I ,.. / I i 1 11111 4 1 ■r • W i 1 .1•lili.il�■ - W ! I — 1163 I w ! _ I _ ❑ z j I z O o K �I o j > w - - ?F..; Z.: t:°.; C¢7 ! I I o I I 1 i i t i l r F I— N V N Y Lu M :!q ao V Z� `rV U a Q Q v) m Q a O U V N O LI- O J L, W a Q a < ' I l k 4'� - J J J,F_ 0 �n Zn Wl � ZZQQ I O 1.),. l { `O K S O 0 Ec LL R M N J � a� � � N� of O K 1,- Z en War < a x cn aI a IA' ...,".., \IDA , i 1 I 1 11 . ii' ' 11 ' w /fit= %r. , 1 1 I•% c �_�. T _i. . i li z Iim ;� . 1�e u .. � i. 1 +_ �I� II I !‘i! I,. .. . ° 1 i s w 11111 !I, IR,, ��I , w1 I ` �' p I � � 3 ��u,w i I �1 @ • , ti I li III . — �,. ( :4 1 -111 11 I. I1Ii I1Ii!!IIIIU ��� '• R te ~ i. ii III! Illili��illlll dg ; a .�' iriJIlI Ii I IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIhI..:., - 0 . 111 � j -- WWII a niuw„ I jI II Ij; 1 up iIiIIHO o a 1 ;� ll f 1 I m� .r� 1 1 v _ o i ' W LL I I 1 L P ! l II I ' l9w EL S ��I ; S 11 � ll IIIIWIANOIII D '1,4 : IN ., mil .1 r52 I li _, ILI F "r I ,, dIIIIII h • � � a I ■ I: Q u) \, _ , ;�IIII� o u _ ., 11111101111111111111111 0;_ 7- , 1 e 1II ' IiiimI imii iII S k, , ) Ail 1111, IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII! mil ak ' • 4 • ii ill* e r : 1' .- 4 A g H N Y O w .,m w W O i in RI � za �aO m m � 6 m�z CO Z;p o_O . w > w zS 1 O o QZO a O r z j ¢v� U Oov �' U: �vm N � y fl- Z -al_Z g _ -q, (.J Urn Q y O U a U LLO(n V ., Q a _ Ow p N iii l z, = 0 o 0 0 7 o os LL W o V 1 m _ 1 L J 1 \, Y W Lu J I Q Q '= - H .. Z - '�., 0 ill; I �ll11111' I v � it . � ■1 . � • ;III ... a „,H 1 . i = L." ..1.1..1 �.�1 I�� ��1� I��i �1�� Ii�� I �� i � II !." h, 1 " III I I� q � q�� III — JLI - I I — I I l U • - �1 „� 1 ILI 41 i� Bibli ! 1r9��! I iI :l l hL ill� i I ll� ' I L: 1TI=11 I - 1 I I� I I= I� I I-1 I I =1 I I -III -71-1 I 1 111= 11 ri l l -111 -I I 1 -11- 'H11=111=111 IT- -u f - -i a -III-II-II= II -IT- 111 - 11 i �.- 1TI- T 1 1F -1Tf I I1= 1- 1I1= -0 J lilri. III 1 =T rf —i1T III 1T ITT -1_I,T U I Ti-. O H a 2 O 0 alb,: C7 _ ' J 1— W I W ii 16 - 2 ,� II J \ Z I W ti 7 1 1 �1 Q Lam- U a 7,.i n=om z 1 U.. ---- -'P,,' �1 , rpoi ;�l;�i' i ' h�i 41 lrpjlihi = I — I I- � :;I „��� �>I' ��.ii 0 Is!.‘ �ll it 0.111 lT I I - 1 I l il l 0 . ,I � III 1I- ,. ,..,1 ,.. n1!w - 111 - 1 I I I NIOU __ — = - T 1iI —Iii —I1 — L — �- 111 =1M 1111 -1 ,l1l 11' � 1 �41, 1= 1TKIIK III —I 1 � I I ;�IIIII1111 , n 1,0 I^ I I I I I I I 1 II - � :1 ilo I 111 =1 r� =m —m =i . ....._. ........................ ` i O N_ O E T i Y cc • Q > >- m UJ Z • v M 63m ,r , f0 QZh°° N m m P Z' o � � ° ui� Z W i 8 Ie 0 .. + , 8 C } ( O cg O c) ¢o aa 65 70 ' W �OPJ Z > ° o K = m = a. a W x (r co < 0- ° 0 o 0 m Q Q V pa Q y to (0 a 8 Q ■_'■ E1 ■ I ;ra ❑ 1 1 - L--1--°E) l'i 1 117— 1 m w co 1-----1 2 w 00w o W I 0 Z El o II . m U o O u_ H __ la I b -- I II LL p co Q to _ M 4 __1 ill Q‘ �2 pQ PO NN • II i (nQ riU 1 11 0r 1 1) FJ FJ i 0 --•-• IIMMEllir • 0 MI OE 0 I 6 [ W ? WU) (----, ti 0 D _ ° 0 w 1-Ow >- CI ) w r- - I o U U Q J M 1_ I-I- — W d ~~ E- L « — — ❑ w g Q i T 0 4 (/) 03 OU w Q ° 0 P --1 ] ¢ Q 1= N �-.'1 U ' O to 1___± a N cn Q N ....7— (n rcm e I t ❑ II■‘ HIL ?) n Nr _ C - [1 1 IT T I=1-1- 71 1 ,==i i i ._ _ il 1=1 ,z, 4 U Z W (I) o w ,w ❑ co w° ct 0 o�z UD lL� �-1 4� I i � � Q � � � C1W m IE 8 i ; Q c�i U f-----0/ I= NQ 0°_Lo _ 1 (n u) N- rn AL _I= i mira 0 ■1 ��� •I > 1.1 ,_ 9 g y : Y _ LL I �� W - 8glOp�8 f6 Q ZQH°° ) m li 6 1y� < °° p z °v ti i p Z y g -� Q z z o = - xa = 1 D CO a I . • ni F • , Q - o s - r. ' -I ..„, �,: — 0 I _ MI 0 _A r T m 0 L ` Y IaI .111M• Z rE 01. Z : I x r —, w i w s il / CC4 —� ' oq 6-r�_LL — 11 Xir, r i i'iii I '' 1 lal lijik , MI 0 . — 710H q s w w L LU _ 0 0z ■ - 1 (ij O O O fL (�0 lL1-H ,_ O dui" . P D w ` Qc i wM Qu)� i. W Q , O H , �`.a drn0 Ur (A U u) in 1p O w HOW O H UW a O • Hm W.. Q0) H N < 0 oc ° o _= (/) <4 ciO CO am i pm En ■ no •• j-- r e f'_ _ ■•_•.!� O _. C 1 r I'I o _ a-r- 711. A 7,_p_ w � e I I/ O 2 1 ( � � ^n z I g z I I 1 .-1— - w r U w J m f ¢ oa a A. : , . Q • , LL Q� .z._c_ , , .. ,.._ Li___ ,, a , 1 r w r^ cn i (1) V 1 W HO�w ■` �■ t �o } Oc�z U p O O I- ~ LL U- - HD co H w M .fits w� Q= u�H ,00 00 H cvQ U'r�M 0 W H f w U) ¢ 1- O v) to uo O w O 0 >- u_ Wm 2� . � d H N W a� (n • = N Q L O Q) c\IO 0)'-o) i >" F N ��o k N Y O > 1O � m J wo o_ O R, V € �� . ° Q F m ° ' z� " w a /�� LP >> YOp > ° z e o T. � K� m� & o n Z °o �° on w' `�-'� °wZ g V/ ! V Q mm N w ° ° �_ y N a LL Q JC (.7 < 1 ' -;:i U' J F x (7 J • 5 ' w LL IL � 1I &Q Z & F g \ 1 w O 1 \ a J 0 w m To 1 w y W = p LL" ` c •\ O - b LL �i , ® ® ®® r w cc C ® \I W 1 - - - -- I i iiiiiii Y W o a g I,` m l ip! \ ..- _ c M }'a w k" "1 li 11 r - 5 : C A 0. w�� o qh i w , R o P. w 3 $ w > A • 0 0 5' i p°, ,,,,, AVA13NO g P a _ a T 3 a (7 P g a- 0 11 a LE II M 3 } \I °7 a , J e y 3 Ow O • \,. g i 9 SE / F % tl � 9 Y Y -I W --•(.0 m w —/ Z r Po'mn > Sad 2 r oao m m ° W v wK � O a 5 T L o) 6 C >(n��OU ra 8 x° °os g Zo V/ a� n Z� a Fi °S i' w� �� W WH Y 0 co .t5 N 7�b a�11 ° U O UN 1] 2 Q et o J 1 , LL LL LL 1 4 I MI I , ■ I* emir I I l i' z I LL I 1 "BSI V d a .. .41-2.} ms! ;' 1 H ri ri I z - • I if K MI % .. en ir 4 j et ,+ * I IL, W 79 Zp - W 1 ° I 1 I Z. �. - r 1. I 1 W 4 ''' " AL , e t', - - 4 I 1 r 0 ,c2 ,,.:..s7,, ::::C * iv" CI� - 1 l �` 1 >. > �� s�z I ` 1 I d l - 'r►, I I 111_•. 1 I J 11 W LL , 1 U I I W Z ''1.1I 1 1 J U N d J ■' 0. F w `I0 ii' - -- i 1 I W Z r ::, 111 i j ]. Q O 7 e 2 W W 5 J W ' 710 i LL V ' 1 1 W m 3 I- I / J % I Oo _ .. ::LL O 1 LL I 1 I I I LL � I I I j I I / _ O � , ; 0 / . 1 /I. i L 4 1„..- ., i -ki* ,,,:‘ LL .,./\--> . 71 l lt 4 i '' ‘k 4 4 1, / / te 4 t / t \4 . I ' 2 \ . \ I I \?..(,.,,, o s]a � 1 • I 1 N ® ' e 1 1 Lt -If 1 I F - J LT1 Z p ? hi 0 >m St) r`;', 8 r F$ wog y o 0C7 Y • i 8 _ m w z _ ` p k ? N j0, � � o v o'.. �iUN ppZx~ 4 V � � a cn na a 0. 0. a Uwe w co J j ( IIIIII II II I � I� a II UL z F o J J III �� ��Illl lllll11 , 1� o 1 0 w LL 0 I - minllIIlIIII 1 1 1 LL o II r U a r o ~ ~ 1. Z 0 0 III N K 2 CO J i_.. ili - Iripi m Z LL LL y S �� 1 (l 1 IIIIIIIIII N J II S / • i t <411\1101. / \\,,,/ I 4Io�Ii` J Illilll L _ i I f N Y Y� n w J Z s m J wig fig Qz n ' o D w o ��U $ V z odm� o h ' G y m wz � a s ! I V p coomaw o � m C7 I x c J r-res a z z ce h. Eli o LI II 5, i w . . 1 hi I ■al Lu> e I j.i _ ,s, n J PI U I_I 1- = O I _�II III I, w = o ■ '� ii I S _ ° w o 0 I • I ill al _1 L i el cc m 3 j p!, o!i " s // 11 , 11111t 1 . , 00 44 8 / / :J III ,, 11111 1 11 11110 , 000011,,,, ulih IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Products» Steplites » 1 58 Series » L158, F158 I 's F1 Description The 158 Series of Steplites is a low- profile, "brick size" site fixture with incandescent, fluorescent, and LED lamp options. It is appropriate in a variety of interior or exterior locations. The rugged construction, engineering excellence, and quality make these fixtures ideal for specification in most public areas. Construction • Fixture housing is constructed from dieformed 16 gauge steel finished with a white polyester coating • Faceplate is cast aluminum with metallic aluminum polyester coating, gasketed and retained by stainless steel screws • Diffuser (omitted in non - weatherproof louver faceplate models) is frosted tempered glass, set in silicone sealant in weatherproof models • Reflector is constructed of die - formed semispecular aluminum • Optional junction box is cast aluminum with polyester coating • cETLus listed • Incandescent type IC models, furnished without glass diffuser, suitable for dry or damp locations only in any wall construction • Nontype IC incandescent models suitable for wet locations in concrete pour /block wall construction only • Fluorescent and LED models suitable for wet locations, any wall construction Electrical • Fixture is wired for either 40W T10 incandescent (25W for IC application), one 7W, 9W compact fluorescent lamp, or LED. Ballast is standard 120V (277V optional), low- ambient • Pivoting fluorescent socket eases relamping • Low - voltage model provides single contact bayonet socket for use with low voltage circuit (transformer not included) • Optional junction box allows 8 wire thru- wiring, four in and four out. Provided with two 1/2" tapped conduit entrances in the bottom and one W conduit entrance in each side 39 amber or white color LEDs in three rows JOB NAME Type CATALOG NUMBER Steplites 158 SERIES 8112' (216mm) $ 6 i/2' (165mm) Specifications 33/4' y Construction J (95mm) T d - -- o • Fixture housing is constructed from die- ( 4' i 0 — — — — T 33/8' (86mm) formed 16 gauge steel finished with a while ( (1o2mm) i t polyester coating • Faceplate is cast aluminum ( i ll 7 3/4' (197mm) 0 o L with metallic aluminum polyester coating, gas - . 1 , 1 keted and retained by stainless steel screws 4 P • Diffuser (omitted in non - weatherproof louver L - - I- J 1 5/16. faceplate models) is frosted tempered glass, set (33mm) 37/8• 1 in silicone sealant in weatherproof models (98mm) • Reflector is constructed of die - farmed semi - specular aluminum • Optional junction box is cast aluminum with polyester coating • cETLus listed • Incandescent type IC models, furnished without glass diffuser, suitable for dry or damp locations only in any wall construction • Non - type IC incandescent models suitable for wet locations in concrete pour/block wall construc- tion only • Fluorescent and LED models suitable for wet locations, any wall construction Electrical • Fixture is wired for either 40W T10 incan- descent (25W for IC application), one 7W, 9W compact fluorescent lamp, or LED. Ballast is standard 120V (277V optional), low- ambient Catalog Numbers Faceplate • Pivoting fluorescent socket eases relamping Lamp Louver Glass • Low - voltage model provides single contact One 25W T10 medium base incandescent (type IC) ❑ T 158 -IC bayonet socket for use with law voltage circuit One 40W T10 medium base incandescent ❑ T 158 ❑ T 158G (transformer not included) • Optional junc- One 7W or 9W (G23 base) compact fluorescent ❑ F 158 ❑ F 158G Lion box allows 8 wire thru- wiring, four in and One low- voltage SC bayonet base incandescent ❑ T 158 -LV ❑ T 1586 -LV tour out. Provided with two Y' tapped conduit LED ❑ LA 158 (Amber) entrances in the bottom and one Y" conduit * Electronic ballast requires CFT7W /2G7, and CFO13W /G24q -1 ❑ LW 158 (White) entrance in each side • 39 amber or white color LEDs in three rows Options Mounting Junction Box: Bottom or back mounted junction Bronze Faceplate: Satin finished, red brass Housing has flange with hales for mounting. box for feed -thru. Add suffix ❑ -J. faceplate. Add suffix ❑ -B. Weatherproof: For exterior applications. Not for Alternate Faceplate Color: Black or white. -10 models. Add suffix 0-W. Add suffix ❑ -BLK or ❑ -WHT. COLE L Sharp Cutoff Louver (except L158): Reduces Ballasts: 277V ballast. Add suffix ❑ -277. �,r �,J illumination pattern. Add suffix ❑ -SCL. Electronic ballast (fluor.). Add suffix ❑ -EB. Tamperproof Screws: Tamperproof alien head faceplate screws. Add suffix ❑ -TP. C. W. Cole & Company, Inc. 2560 N. Rosemead Boulevard South El Monte, CA 91733-1593 Fax (626) 443 -9253 Tel. (626) 443 -2473 inlo @colelighting.com www.colelighting.com F10 Y . • 1 F ro;ettName Tye Ocean Walk -Round 0 Catalog Number CF/HID p l r p� Dimensional Drawings B F 2.- __ __ _ .. _ Fixture A B Max. Watts Lbs OWK - 6" or 8" 36" or 42" 100 W 40 c Ous OWK - 6" or 8" 36 "or 42" 100 W 40 'OWK -2 / COG LISTED The OceanWalk - Round series of architectural bollards combines Finish: Durable Quali- Guard° textured thermoset polyester powder contemporary styling with durable, vandal- resistant construction and coat, available in a selection of architectural or custom colors. Finish is smooth, low - level, 360 -degree symmetrical illumination with available guaranteed for two (2) years. cutoff optics; and is an excellent choice for walkways, entrances, promenades, plazas, courtyards, driveways and landscaped areas. Optics: Choice of specular aluminum paradine reflector, aluminum stack louver, prismatic glass refractor or 45 cutoff grill. Lens: Clear, high- impact- resistant acrylic, with silicone gasketing fora Lamp:A selection of Compact Fluorescent (26 to 42 watts) and HID light weather -tight seal. An internal light shield is available. sources (50 to 100 watts) are offered; including Pulse Start Metal Halide Housing: Extruded aluminum housing in 6° and 8° diameter sizes. for superior efficiency, lumen maintenance and color rendition. Heavy -duty cast aluminum base plate concealed within shaft is Ballast: HID HPF regulating autotiansfolm in i er ,, available High designed for standard anchor bolt mounting to a concrete base. 3/8" x Pressure Sodium or Pulse Start Metal Halide. CF A high-perf n H e, 1 galvanized anchor bolts come standard. Optional Vandal- Resistant electronic transformer operates at 120 thru 277 volts, 50 to 60 Hz, with Base se available. a 90% power factor, and is rated for -20 °C operation. Model Size Optics Wattage Source Voltage Mounting Finish Options .. OWK - 6" Round Paracline H12 PS HPS 120 Anchor Base Bronze Round *Specify height Reflector 50 (P) (S) (1) (AB) (B2) •speci Flat Top 36" (PR) (50) Single (S fuse (6R36) 208 Black (SDawl) �2e7) 70 (2) (BK) (OF208) (DF240) (DF480) 42" OWK -2 (6R42) i T I (70) 240 White Internal Light Shield Dom op Stack Louver 100 ( 3) (WH) (ILS) Reflector (100) Emergency Battery Pack 2 77 F Green *C r Only. Gives 90+ minutes of Illumination (Lit) during power oteages 8 " Round Compact CF (4) (FG) (EBP) *Specify � 81gh` Fluorescent (CF) 480 Gre Cold Weather (8836) 120 -277 v y Universal voltage (5) (Gl� Battery Pack 26 •CF on Gives 90F minutes of illumination 42" Type V Glass (2607) during power wages. Rated to -20 8R42 Refractor M -Tap Silver Metallic (CLDPK) ( ) (GR5) 26x2 •Multi (SL) *COG only 'Multi `cored at Vandal - Resistant Base 1 T 1 277 V unless •g• only (26D7xz) a (s'ed Custom Color (Nits) (CC) (3271) 347 Base Template Gaze Template 45° 32X2 (6) 6• Round Bogard 8" Round Bollard Cutoff (COG) ill *COG only �— e6• , - 08• •8" round only (3277x2) Un / ./ . n -• \ / ' is z9 \ -277 voltage 1 ( I / ,; tt \ 42 (UNV) I I 1 a8• <s (42m uw Pulse \\ lot % I j 4 < A' 1 42x2 ryes - ulgn Pressure \ - 01% / C+ / Sodem . :tC - / *COG only CF- Compact 'Opadnal Internal. \ S / (4277X2) Fluorescent cast-mn ded , var.:wis°ad ens UisIONIA p pIlnn f/ -. -1 � , a ,l ■ - Pnrtarmartce In A Whole New Lrgbt * - tf 1. �• t Visionaire Lighting, LLC Page 1 of 2 ® !R Home Rep Utilities Find a Rep Contact Us 9ISIONAIHE ',HATING Performance In A Whole New Light About Us Products Projects Phetometrics Literature Visionscapes • • • PRODUCTS /BOLLARD$ r`s- ` ^• r i x - ' ' r' ' sd es h 44)S". °, � - Il*}i t Aria • � '� a; l Pavilion 9 Sahara y ` i Sonus tff ! S T • Santa Maria ! OceanWalk Round OCEANWALK ROUND OceanWalk Square • Specification Sheet Endurascape The OceanWalk - Round series of architectural bollards LED combines contemporary styling with durable, vandal- resistant Catalina construction and smooth, low- level, 360 - degree symmetrical illumination with available cutoff optics. Torneo The OceanWalk - Round Is an excellent choice for walkways, CONTACT US / entrances, promenades, plazas, courtyards, driveways and a ind out how Visionaire landscaped areas. •• -- Lighting can customize your s -� lighting solutions. Contact us Lens: Clear, high - impact - resistant acrylic, with silicone `' gasketing for a weather -tight seal. An internal light shield is available. _.. '.., ° Housing: 8" diameter extruded aluminum housing. Heavy -duty cast aluminum base plate concealed within shaft is designed for standard anchor bolt mounting to a concrete base. 3/8" x 12" Specification Sheet galvanized Anchor bolts. Optional Vandal- Resistant Base CF /HID available for 8" model. Finish: Durable Quali- Guard® textured thermoset polyester powder coat, Available in a selection of architectural or custom colors. Finish is guaranteed for two (2) years. � Optics: Choice of specu ar aluminum paracline reflector, -- aluminum stack louver, or 45° cutoff grill provides symmetrical -: Type V light distribution. Lamp: LED — High lumen output VisionBar`" LEDs are utilized, offering a minimum estimated life of 60,000 hours. CF — Compact Fluorescent source available in 26 to 42 watts. HID — 50 to 100 watts offered; including a Pulse Start Metal Halide option for superior efficiency, lumen maintenance and color rendition. Ballast: LED — A high - performance LED driver operates at 120 thru 277 volts, 50 to 60 Hz, with a 90% power factor; and is rated for -40 °C operation. CF — A high - performance, electronic transformer operates at 120 thru 277 volts, 50 to 60 Hz, with a 90% power factor, and is rated for -20 °C operation. HID — Premium HPF regulating autotransformer, available in High Pressure Sodium or Pulse Start Metal Halide. IES FILES: httn- / /xuamu vicinnaireliohtino rnm/ nrnrinrtc /hnllardc /nrpnnwalkrnnnrl htm 2 /14/2011 LAMPS PLUS: Print Product Photos Page 1 of 1 LAMPS PLUS, F3 _ _ Bayport Collection Dark Sky 10 1/4" High Outdoor Wall Light (M5913) The Bayport Collection of exterior lighting offers subtle, handsome styling. This design was created according to Dark Sky standards for preserving the nighttime environment. Bayport lights offer casual charm with a seaside feel. This outdoor wall light features a bronze finish. Illuminate your outdoor spaces with this simple, distinctive fixture. • Bronze finish. • Dark Sky compliant. • Takes one 100 watt bulb (not included). • 10 1/4" high. • 11" wide. • Extends 13 1/2" from the wall. Compare at $134.99 In Stock - Item Ships in 1 to 2 Days - This Item Ships FREE * LAMPS PLUS Price: $89.91 http: / /www.LampsPlus.com 1- 800 - 782 -1967 * Offer applies only to shipments made to the 48 continental US States. THIS IS THE NEW TYPE B FIXTURE WHICH REPLACES THE PREVIOUS TYPE B FIXTURE THAT IS SHOWN EARLIER IN THIS .PDF THIS IS ALSO TO BE USED AS THE NEW TYPE J FIXTURE http: / /www.lampsplus.com/htmis/ printoutproduct /PrintProductPhotos.aspx ?ShortSKU =M5... 6/24/2010 Wall downlight luminaire Type: BEGA Product: Project: Housing: Three piece die -cast aluminum supplied with universal Voltage: mounting bracket for installation over a 3'V? or 4" octagonal wiring box. Color: A round "rotation" plate allows the housing to be precisely leveled (or rotated) after installation. Swivel arm allows for up to 12° tilt Options: adjustment from horizontal. Modified: Enclosure: Tempered clear glass, Y" thick, retained by one piece die - cast aluminum step baffle frame, secured by stainless steel screws threaded into stainless steel inserts. Internal full semi - specular optical system. Fully gasketed for weather tight operation using a molded silicone rubber "U- channel" gasket. Electrical: Lampholders: Incandescent are medium base porcelain with nickel plated screw shell supplied. Incandescent rated 600V. Available 120V only. Finish: Available in four standard BEGA colors: Black (BM; White (WHT); Bronze (BRZ); Silver (SLV). To specify, add appropriate suffix to catalog number. Custom colors supplied on special order. UL listed, suitable for wet locations. Protection class: IP54. ya i o e Wring RK Lamp Lumen A 6 C 0 box'" 6535.538 1 75W PAR - 30 1050 4% 73/4 6 3% 538 'Small opening wiring box included. BEGA - 1000 BEGA Way, Carpinteria, CA 93013 (805)684 - 0533 FAX(805)566 - 9474 www.bega us.com © Copyright BEGA - US 2010 Updated 7 /10