Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20120709 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA July 9, 2012 5:00 P.M. I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Scheduled Public Appearances Proclamation - 50 years of Aspen Physics 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 #65, 2012 — City/County Community Development IGA b) Resolution #66, 2012 — Contract Amendment Rio Grande Restrooms c) Minutes — June 25, 2012 VII. First Reading of Ordinances VIII. Public Hearings a) Ordinance #19, 2012 — Pitkin County Library SPA Amendment b) Ordinance #18, 2012 — South Aspen Street PUD c) Ordinance #17, 2012 - AspenModern Negotiation —Aspen Athletic Club IX. Action Items a) 602 E. Hyman P&Z Approval Conceptual Commercial Design X. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting July 23, 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. VI lam MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: City/ County Community Development Departments IGA Resolution No. C2Series 2012. DATE: July 9, 2012 SUMMARY: The City and County Community Development Departments have operated under an Intergovernmental Agreement since 2002. Prior to 2002, the Building Department was a joint department. The agreement outlines reciprocal services, shared expenses, and one joint position —the Electrical Inspector. The agreement was re-written in 2009 and it has worked well since. Pitkin County is adjusting labor budgets to better align with their service needs and notified the City of its desire to terminate the joint electrical inspector position. The change is effective August 1St (90-day notice period). Proposed is an update to the 2009 IGA. Changes reflect elimination of the joint position and updates to other provisions for clarity and ease of administration. Both City and County staff believe the IGA is beneficial and want it to continue. The cross ,coverage allows both jurisdictions substantial savings and better ability to handle changing service needs. The amendments have been jointly drafted and are jointly supported. Pitkin County Risk Management is still reviewing the agreement. County staff assures us that their amendments, if any, will be to the form of the agreement, not the substance. If any changes to the substance of the agreement are proposed, city staff will review those with the City Attorney and with the Council. Staff is requesting approval of the ComDev IGA amendment. BACKGROUND: Prior to 2002, the City and County shared one Building Department. The Chief Building Official reported to both Community Development Directors and served both the City Council and the BOCC. Starting around 2000, both ComDev Departments re-structured processes,work functions, office layout, etc. and made wholesale changes to the day-to-day operations of the departments. The biggest change was splitting the building division into two departments. This change went through the City and County Managers and elected officials and was implemented mid-2002. Page 1 of 2 At the time of the split, an IGA was developed to address reciprocal aid. The agreement was overly complex in some areas and too general in others. After several years of agreement by operation, the City and County updated the IGA in 2009 and it has worked well since. The "joint" electrical position has been a city position (City benefits, City HR, etc.) with a 50/50 split on all costs, including overhead. Services provided included all inspections, not just electrical. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: City ComDev is amending its operation and budget to absorb the additional 20 hours of Combination Inspection service through 2012. (A Combo Inspector can inspect all types of improvements — building, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical.) Several scenarios were contemplated and reviewed with the City Manager. Existing and expected workload, continuity of customer service, staff resources being allocated to software conversion, and the potential to outsource some professional inspection service to other jurisdictions factored into the decision. These issues can be reassessed during the 2013 budget review. Costs associated with reciprocal aid are not expected to change by updating the agreement. The needs of each jurisdiction will continue to vary from year to year, but the agreement will generally provide a more cost-effective solution than outsourcing. Some financial benefit from aligning vacations and reciprocal coverage may be realized. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council approve the proposed IGA by adopting Resolution No.(.25 Series of 2012. CITY MA GER COMMENTS: 67&(..44 Ott ,S O S Q 7 ci.r, `'Ofe-infr, 1 .= __.1 . 01`-•i�: � e . - A•# ..t" ' . 0. _ .i- .. __/r��" !� it 62 x -87 eQ QJ )fie An Pi^) ` ,-s ev. if G� RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No.( ? , Series of 2012." ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Resolution with attached IGA—clean text IGA text showing changes 2009 IGA Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION (Q5 (Series of 2012) A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, REGARDING BUILDING SERVICES OF THE CITY AND COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTS. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council an Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Aspen and the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County regarding building services of the City and County Community Development Departments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves the Intergovernmental Agreement with the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners regarding building services of the City and County Community Development Departments, a copy of which is attached hereto, and does hereby authorize the Mayor and the City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen. Dated: Michael C. Ireland, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held , 2012. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Attachments A— Intergovernmental Agreement with Pitkin County BOCC INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY AND THE CITY OF ASPEN REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF THE MUTUAL COVERAGE SERVICES AND COSTS BETWEEN THE , COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTS PARTIES THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made this day of , 2012 by and between the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY (hereinafter referred to as "County"), and the CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter referred to as "City"). AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements of the parties and other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: I. Termination of October 13, 2009, Intergovernmental Agreement. The parties hereto terminate the prior Intergovernmental Agreement dated October 13, 2009, regarding the joint operations of their respective Community Development Departments. II. Purpose. The purpose of this Intergovernmental Agreement is to continue to provide the best customer service to the public of both the City and County Community Development Departments. This Intergovernmental Agreement is designed and intended to: • Improve the economic efficiency, staff productivity, and overall services of the individual Community Development Departments of the City and County. • Facilitate clear communication and efficient planning and building functions among all staff assigned to the City and County Community Development Departments. • Strive for uniform interpretation and implementation of laws, rules and regulations of the City and County when appropriate and feasible. • Facilitate the Building Departments'joint long range goals. • Establish clear guidelines for the sharing of certain employees and resources of the individual Community Development Departments. City/County ComDev IGA-Page 1 The parties hereto intend that the staff members of each Community Development Department shall continue to cooperate with each other to implement policies and procedures that shall advance the purposes set forth above. III. Reciprocal City and County Community Development Department Services. In order to continue to provide the best customer service possible by ensuring that personnel from each Community Development Department may provide services to each other jurisdiction's customers when feasible and reasonable, the parties hereto agree to provide reciprocal coverage of professional services as set forth below. The Governments shall make requests for reciprocal coverage 48 hours in advance, when possible. The City and County Chief Building Officials shall determine the method for request and reconciliation of billing in accordance with the following guidelines: A. Inspections: Upon request by either the City or County and subject to availability and workload, the City/County may provide inspection services to the requesting jurisdiction. Service shall be billed at an hourly rate commensurate with the market, including but not limited to rates contained in annual professional service contracts for inspections. The inspection time shall include all travel and administrative time. Reciprocal inspection costs shall be tracked bi-weekly and reconciled between the City and the County on a quarterly basis. 1. The City and County shall coordinate Electrical Inspector out-of-office schedules to the extent practicable to maximize reciprocal coverage. 2. The City and County shall coordinate annual professional service contracts for inspection services and shall coordinate contract inspection needs to the extent practicable to minimize overhead costs. The contracts shall be with each jurisdiction separately. Contract Inspectors' payment shall be made by each jurisdiction directly to the Contactor. B. Plan Review: Upon request by either the City or County and subject to availability and workload, the City/County may provide plan review services to the requesting jurisdiction. Service shall be billed at an hourly rate commensurate with the market, including but not limited to rates contained in annual professional service contracts for plans review or inspections. Reciprocal plan review costs shall be tracked bi-weekly and reconciled between the City and the County on a quarterly basis. C. Chief Building Officials: Upon request by either the City or County and subject to availability and workload, the City/County may provide Chief Building Official services and mutual aid. Service shall be billed at an hourly rate of$100 per hour; or as otherwise adjusted no more than once per year and with mutual consent of City/County ComDev IGA-Page 2 the Directors. Reciprocal Chief Building Official costs shall be tracked bi-weekly and reconciled between the City and the County on a quarterly basis. IV. City and County Cooperative Efforts. It is the intent of the parties hereto to continue to create a working environment for all personnel of the individual City and County Community Development Departments which is conducive for harmonious, cohesive and unified team work whenever practical for the provision of services to the public and other departments of the City and County. Accordingly, the parties agree to continue to work cooperatively in the provisions of services by the individual Community Development Departments and specifically agree to cooperate and coordinate in the following areas of joint interest: A. Building Codes. The Chief Building Officials may co-author Building Code and Building Code-related adoptions and amendments when appropriate and feasible. This is intended to serve the contractor and design community by helping the plan review and field inspection process to be as consistent between the City and County as possible. The City and County shall strive to coordinate the timing of building code and building code-related change adoptions so that the effective dates are as concurrent as possible. B. Joint Code Sales and Licensing Program. The Chief Building Officials shall establish, with the approval of the Directors, a method to handle the purchase and sales of code books and the contractor licensing program. This method shall address the administration of such program and sales and how revenues and expenses shall be shared and reconciled. C. Office Equipment. For the purchasing of office equipment used in common, the actual costs shall be shared 50/50 by the City and County. The supplies and maintenance on the office machines, printers, and the plotter will be split 50/50. If an accurate tracking method is possible, then the plotter, copier, and printers will be charged out according to copier codes for all expenses including paper and maintenance. Costs of other shared office incidentals and supplies will be split 50/50. D. Office Space. The City shall provide office space, at no charge, to the County Community Development Department on the third floor of City Hall in the current amount and general configuration on the condition that microwaving fish sticks is strictly prohibited. Each party shall maintain one or more conference rooms within their respective space. Conference rooms may be used by either party as needed and according to administrative policies for reserving the rooms. Overflow office needs shall be the responsibility of and direct costs to the individual party. The City shall pay for general upkeep and maintenance of the third floor office space. Costs for office furniture shall be the direct responsibility of the individual party unless otherwise agreed to by the Department Directors. City/County ComDev IGA-Page 3 E. Office hours. The third floor of City Hall shall be open to the public during the hours of 8 AM to 4:30 PM Monday through Friday, except holidays. Each jurisdiction can set internal hours of availability for services, but recognizes 8 AM to 4:30 PM Monday through Friday as the hours the public can access the department by the front door and elevator. V. Workers' Compensation and Indemnification. A. Workers' Compensation. The employer of the respective employees shall provide workers' compensation coverage for their employees. For the purposes of this Agreement, Pitkin County shall name the City of Aspen as additional insured on its general liability policy and the City shall name Pitkin County as additional insured on their general liability policy. B. Indemnification. 1. Neither the City nor the County waive the defenses or limitations on damages provided for and pursuant to the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (Sec. 24-10-101, et seq., C.R.S.), the Colorado Constitution, their respective home rule charters or under the common law or the laws of the United States, State of Colorado, City of Aspen, or County of Pitkin. 2. It is expressly acknowledged and understood by the parties hereto that nothing contained in this Agreement shall result in, or be construed as establishing an employment relationship not intended by the express terms of this Agreement. Personnel identified as County employees shall be for all purposes Cou n ty employees. Personnel identified as City employees shall be for all purposes City employees. It is anticipated that City and County employees will be assigned to work on projects or assignments for the both governmental entities in accordance with this Agreement. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to make such sharing arrangements as evidence of an employee/employer relationship. No agent, employee, or servant of one party shall be, or construed to be, the employee of the other party. Each party to this Agreement shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of its employees during the performance of this Agreement. VI. Financial Reconciliation It is agreed that the following elements shall be reconciled quarterly by both City and County Finance Departments: A. Contractor licensing program B. Code book sales and purchase C. Inspections, plan review, and CBO coverage City/County ComDev IGA-Page 4 D. Office Equipment and Supplies Any additional expenses that will cause an unforeseen financial burden or incur a cost impact on the IGA participants must be agreed upon and receive prior written approval to proceed from both Community Development Directors. VII. Effective Date, Modification, Annual Renewal, and Termination of this Agreement This agreement shall become effective August 1, 2012. It is agreed that both jurisdictions shall re-evaluate the terms of this agreement at the end of each calendar year to determine whether or not changes need to be made. This agreement shall automatically be renewed, if changes are not made, for successive one-year periods thereafter. Either party hereto may modify any part of this Intergovernmental Agreement for any reason with the written agreement of the other party or terminate all or part of this agreement with 90 days written notice. VIII. Notices. Any formal notice, demand or request provided for in this Intergovernmental Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed properly given if deposited in the United States Mail, postage prepaid to: City of Aspen, Colorado c/o City Manager 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado c/o County Manager 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 [signatures on following page] City/County ComDev IGA-Page 5 APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 2012. ATTEST: CITY COUNCIL: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Date: APPROVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County on the day of , 2012. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Jeanette Jones, Michael Owsley, Chair Deputy County Clerk Date: MANAGER APPROVAL: John Peacock, County Manager Steve Barwick, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Ely, County Attorney James R. True, City Attorney City/County ComDev IGA-Page 6 xti cif/414f 4.‘44 ao ...flieoe: INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY AND THE CITY OF ASPEN REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF THE MUTUAL COVERAGE SERVICES AND COSTS BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTS PARTIES THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT(the"Agreement")is made this day of , 20122999 by and between the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY(hereinafter referred to as"County"),and the CITY OF ASPEN(hereinafter referred to as"City"). AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements of the parties and other good and valuable consideration,the adequacy and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,the parties agree as follows: I I. Termination of October 13, 2009,April 27, 2002, Intergovernmental Agreement. The parties hereto terminate the prior Intergovernmental Agreement dated October 13, 2009,April 27, 2002, regarding the joint operations of their respective Community Development Departments. II. Purpose. I The purpose of this Intergovernmental Agreement is to continue to provide the best customer service to the public of both the City and County Community Development Departments.This Intergovernmental Agreement is designed and intended to: • Improve the economic efficiency, staff productivity, and overall services of the individual Community Development Departments of the City and County. • Facilitate clear communication and efficient planning and building functions among all staff assigned to the City and County Community Development Departments. • Strive for uniform interpretation and implementation of laws, rules and regulations of the City and County when appropriate and feasible. • Facilitate the Building Departments'joint long range goals. • Establish clear guidelines for the sharing of certain employees and resources of the individual Community Development Departments. City/County ComDev 1GA-Page 1 The parties hereto intend that the staff members of each Community Development Department shall continue to cooperate with each other to implement policies and procedures that shall advance the purposes set forth above. III. Reciprocal use-o€-City and County Community Development Department Services.Eenployees In order to continue to provide the best customer service possible by ensuring that personnel from each Community Development Department may provide services to each other jurisdiction's customers when feasible and reasonable, the parties hereto agree to I provide reciprocal coverage of professional services as set forth below. The Governments shall make requests for reciprocal coverage 48 hours in advance,when possible. The City and County Chief Building Officials shall determine the method for request and reconciliation of billing in accordance with the following guidelines: A. Inspections: Upon request by either the City or County and subject to availability and workload,of staff timc, the City/County may provideperfer-m airy inspection services -- .. . • . .: .. ---. _. . . -- ' . ..•-. to the requesting jurisdiction. Service shall be billed at an hourly rate commensurate with the market, including but not limited to rates contained in annual professional service contracts for : :: • , -- .. --. inspections, for the City for $65 per hour of inspection time. The inspection time shall include all travel and administrative time. Reciprocal inspection costs shall be tracked bi-weeklybc logged daily during the calendar ycar and reconciled between the City and the County on a quarterly basis. 1. The City and County shall coordinate Electrical Inspector out-of-office schedules to the extent practicable to maximize reciprocal coverage. 2. The City and County shall coordinate annual professional service contracts for inspection services and shall coordinate contract inspection needs to the extent practicable to minimize overhead costs. The contracts shall be with each jurisdiction separately. Contract Inspectors' payment shall be made by each jurisdiction directly to the Contactor. B. Plan Review: Upon request by either the City or County and subject to availability and workload, the City/County may provide plan review services to the requesting jurisdiction. Service shall be billed at an hourly rate commensurate with the market, including but not limited to rates contained in annual professional service contracts for plans review or inspections. Reciprocal plan review costs 1. The Electrieal Inspector shall be a City employee subject to City of Aspen City/County ComDev IGA-Page 2 work 20 hours per week for each jurisdiction. The inspections shall be will pay overtime at 100%. An annual joint top set shall be placed on the • - a . •-• •-- - ---- • • -•- ••- •--- -• , -.. .. -.- - •- (City Inspection)7 x$37.50-$262.50 (County Inspections)9 x$37.50-$337.50 3. The Cost associated with 1 4 above shall be tracked bi-weekly e etsand• (Formatted:Indent:Left: 0.25" reconciled between the City and the County on a quarterly basis_ the Chief Building Officers. C. Chief Building Officials: BPlan-Reviewl—Upon request by eithe -- .. . •:•-• . • •• :: • staff-time:.the City or County . .- . •• . - -- -. •- .. . -- • and subject to availability and workload, the City/County may provide Chief Building Official services and mutual aid. Service shall be billed at an hourly rate of$100 per hour, or as otherwise adjusted no more than once per year and with mutual consent of the Directors. Reciprocal,the-Coun►t-y . . -- . •e .. -- -- -:.- -- C h i e f Building Official costs: _.. ' . , --- - . ' • .. . - - : : 1. The plan reviews shall be logged daily during the calendar year and the -- • - -- • - • - : - shall be tracked bi-weekly ^wets• Formatted:Normal,Justified,Indent:Left: and reconciled between the City and the County on a quarterly basis_ ee the di t en 0.25" of the Chief Building Officials. City/County ComDev IGA-Page 3 C. Chief-Building-Officials: Upon request by tither the City or County and - _ .. . -- ' .-. • .. --- .—°-- —__ -:--:--- _—::_ .- {Formatted:Font:Not Italic •--_:.- - : —e::a s—e= _--.—.----e -----— ----- ------- — ------- - Formatted:Indent Left: 0.25" - - — -- Formatted:Font Bold,Font color:Auto IV. City and County Cooperative Efforts. It is the intent of the parties hereto to continue to create a working environment for all personnel of the individual City and County Community Development Departments which is conducive for harmonious, cohesive and unified team work whenever practical for the provision of services to the public and other departments of the City and County. Accordingly, the parties agree to continue to work cooperatively in the provisions of services by the individual Community Development Departments and specifically agree to cooperate and coordinate in the following areas of joint interest: A. Building Codes. The Chief• . . .•. • . . : ; • , . . • •. . : {Formatted:Indent:Left: 0.25" j Regulatiees. Building Officials may co-author uildiitg Code and Building Code- {Formatted:Font:Not Italic 1 related adoptions and amendments when appropriate and feasible. This is intended to serve the contractor and design community by helping the plan review and field inspection process to be as consistent between the City and County as possible. The City and County shall strive to coordinate the timing of building code and building code-related change adoptions so that the effective dates are as concurrent as possible, _ - {Formatted:Font:Bold,Font color:Auto B. Joint Code Sales and Licensing Program. The Chief Building Officials shall establish, with the approval of the Directors, a method to handle the purchase and sales of code books and the contractor licensing program. This method shall address the administration of such program and sales and how revenues and expenses shall be shared and reconciled. City/County ComDev IGA-Page 4 C,& Office Equipment. For the purchasing of office equipment used in common, the actual costs shall be shared 50/50 by the City and County. The supplies and maintenance on the office machines. printers,.and the plotter€ax :ehin oil - will be split 50/50. If an accurate tracking method is possible, then the plotter, copier, and printers will be charged out according to copier codes for all expenses including paper and maintenance. Costs of other shared office incidentalsAir Freshener and bathroom supplies will be split 50/50. . .--- -... •- • • 3 - : • ' ' - : -- -- D.€ Office Space. The City shall provide office space,at no charge,to the County Community Development Department on the third floor of City Hall in the current amount and general configuration on the condition that microwaving fish sticks is strictly prohibited.: Each party shall maintain one or more conference rooms within their respective space. Conference rooms may be used by either party as needed and according to administrative policies for reserving the rooms. Overflow office needs shall be the responsibility of and direct costs to the individual party. The City shall pay for general upkeep and maintenance of the third floor office space. Costs for office furniture shall be the direct responsibility of the individual party unless otherwise agreed to by the Department Directors. E.D: Office hours. The third floor of City Hall shall be open to the public during the hours of 8 AM to 4:30 PM Monday through Friday, except holidays. Each jurisdiction can set internal hours of availability for services,but recognizes 8 AM to 4:30 PM Monday through Friday as the hours the public can access the department by the front door and elevator. • - {Formatted:Indent:Left: 0.25" V. Workers'Compensation and Indemnification. A. Workers' Compensation. The employer of the respective employees shall provide workers' compensation coverage for their employees. For the purposes of this Agreement,Pitkin County shall name the City of Aspen as additional insured on its general liability policy and the City shall name Pitkin County as additional insured on their general liability policy. B. Indemnification. 1. Neither the City nor the County waive the defenses or limitations on damages provided for and pursuant to the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (Sec.24-10-101,et seq.,C.R.S.),the Colorado Constitution,their respective home rule charters or under the common law or the laws of the United States,...-er—State of Colorado.City of Aspen,or County of Pitkin.Eelorade- City/County ComDev IGA-Page 5 2. It is expressly acknowledged and understood by the parties hereto that nothing contained in this Agreement shall result in, or be construed as establishing an employment relationship not intended by the express terms of this Agreement. Personnel identified as County employees shall be for all purposes County employees. Personnel identified as City employees shall be for all purposes City employees.It is anticipated that City and County employees will be assigned to work on projects or assignments for the both governmental entities in accordance with this Agreement. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to make such sharing arrangements as evidence of an employee/employer relationship. No agent, employee, or servant of one party shall be, or construed to be, the employee of the other party. Each party to this Agreement shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of its employees during the performance of this Agreement. VI. Financial Reconciliation It is agreed that the following elements shall be reconciled quarterly by both City and County Finance Departments: A. Contractor licensing program B. Code book sales and purchase C. Inspections,plan review,oveftifftc and CBO coverage D. Office Equipment and Supplies Any additional expenses that will cause an unforeseen financial burden or incur a cost impact on the IGA participants must be agreed upon and receive prior written approval to proceed from both Community Development Directors. I VII. Effective Date, Modification, Annual Renewal, and Termination of this Agreement This agreement shall become effective August 1,2012. It is agreed that both jurisdictions shall re-evaluate the terms of this agreement at the end of each calendar year to determine whether or not changes need to be made.This agreement shall automatically be renewed, if changes are not made, for successive one-year periods thereafter. Eitherlg—any party hereto may modify any part of this Intergovernmental Agreement for any reason with the written agreement of the other party or terminate all or part of this agreement with 90 days written notice. VIII. Notices. Any formal notice,demand or request provided for in this Intergovernmental Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed properly given if deposited in the United States Mail,postage prepaid to: City/County ComDev IGA-Page 6 City of Aspen,Colorado c/o City Manager 130 South Galena Street Aspen,Colorado 81611 Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County,Colorado c/o County Manager 506 East Main Street Aspen,Colorado 81611 [signatures on following page] City/County ComDev[GA-Page 7 APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of .2012. ,2009. ATTEST: CITY COUNCIL: Kathryn S.Koch,City Clerk Michael C. Ireland,Mayor Date: APPROVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County on the th day of .2012. ,2009. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS I Jeanette Jones, Michael Owsley,Patti-Kay-C er,Chair Deputy County Clerk Date: MANAGER APPROVAL: John Peacock,Flilary Fletcher,County Manager Steve Barwick,City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: I John Ely,County Attorney James R.True,Jehn".m—. City Attorney City/County ComDev IGA-Page 8 10.7 f#A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY,COLORADO,APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF THE MUTUAL COVERAGE, SERVICES AND COSTS BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTS RESOLUTION NO. j)3". -2009 . 1. The City is authorized by article XX. Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution and City. and County are each authorized by article XIV, Section 18 of the Colorado Constitution, and Section 29-I-201, et seq.., Colorado Revised Statutes to contract with each other to enter into intergovernmental agreements for the purpose of providing any service or performing any function which they can perform individually;and, 2. The Governments are duly constituted governmental entities governed by Boards or Councils elected by qualified electors of the County and City mentioned above, all of which are located in Colorado; and 3. The jurisdictions of the City of Aspen and Pitkin County provide personnel for administration, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, building inspections, and building permit plan review. These services are required during personnel's vacation, illness, or excess work demands; and 4. The Board and Council of the respective Governments are authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Governments;and 5. The parties hereto previously entered into an intergovernmental agreement dated April 27, 2002, regarding the joint operations of their respective Community Development Departments which the parties now desire to terminate, and 6. The Governments have determined it is in the best interests of the citizens of Pitkin County and the City of Aspen to enter into this Agreement. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County,Colorado that: the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County and the City Council of the City of Aspen regarding the Community Development Departments is hereby approved. INTRODUCED.FIRST READ.AND SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON f`' , 2009. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY ON / 2 , 2009. AD PTED AFTER FINAL READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON ��-�t'y ,� . 2009. PUBLISHED BY TITLE.AND SIIORT SUMMARY,AFTER ADOPTION,IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY ON /7- �j' _ 2009. ATT.ST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Imo) I , , of By. _ , , G: . L� By:/. Jeanett• Jones Patti Kay-Clappef, Chair t Deput County Clerk J Date: /j ''� APPROVED AS TO FORM: MANAGER APPROVAL John Ely.County Attorney Hilary Fletchfr,County Manager RESOLUTION (Series of 2009) A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN,COLORADO,AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, REGARDING BUILDING SERVICES OF THE CITY AND COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTS. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council an Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Aspen and the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County regarding building services of the City and County Community Development Departments. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO; Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves the Intergovernmental Agreement with the Pitkin County Board of County,Commissioners regarding building services of the City and County Community Development Departments, a copy of which is attached hereto, and does hereby authorize the Mayor and the City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen. Dated: / C -/ AO 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 October 13, 2009. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Attachments A—Intergovernmental Agreement with Pitkin County BOCC • INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY AND THE CITY OF ASPEN REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF THE MUTUAL COVERAGE SERVICES AND COSTS BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTS PARTIES THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made this i 3 day of Lfi , 2009 by and between the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY (hereinafter referred to as"County"), and the CITY OF ASPEN(hereinafter referred to as "City"). AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements of the parties and other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: I. Termination of April 27,2002,Intergovernmental Agreement. The parties hereto terminate the prior Intergovernmental Agreement dated April 27, 2002, regarding the joint operations of their respective Community Development Departments. II. Purpose. • The purpose of this Intergovernmental Agreement is to continue to provide the best customer service to the public of both the City and County Community Development Departments. This Intergovernmental Agreement is designed and intended to: • Improve the economic efficiency, staff productivity, and overall services of the individual Community Development Departments of the City and County. • Facilitate clear communication and efficient planning and building functions among all staff assigned to the City and County Community Development Departments. • Strive for uniform interpretation and implementation of laws, rules and regulations of the City and County when appropriate and feasible. • Facilitate the Building Departments'joint long range goals. • Establish clear guidelines for the sharing of-certain employees and resources of the individual Community Development Departments. City/County ComDev IGA -Page 1 The parties hereto intend that the staff members of each Community Development Department shall continue to cooperate with each other to implement policies and procedures that shall advance the purposes set forth above. III. Reciprocal use of City and County Community Development Department Employees. In order to continue to provide the best customer service possible by ensuring that personnel from each Community Development Department may provide services to each other jurisdiction's customers when feasible and reasonable, the parties hereto agree to provide reciprocal coverage of certain employees as set forth below. The Governments shall make requests for reciprocal coverage 48 hours in advance, when possible. The City and County Chief Building Officials shall determine the method for request and reconciliation of billing in accordance with the following guidelines: A. Inspections: Upon request by the County and subject to availability of staff time, the City may perform any inspection the County may need for $65 per hour of inspection time. Upon request by the City and subject to availability, the County may perform any inspections for the City for $65 per hour of inspection time. The inspection time shall be logged daily during the calendar year and reconciled quarterly. 1. The Electrical Inspector shall be a City employee subject to City of Aspen personnel policies and procedures. The Electrical Inspector position shall be paid 50/50, including overtime, vehicle,travel expenses,office space rental, computers and all related expenses, by each jurisdiction. As a guideline, the inspector shall work 20 hours per week for each jurisdiction. The inspections shall be comprehensive and not limited to electrical inspections based on the needs of the Chief Building Official. In order to verify hours spent for each jurisdiction the inspector shall maintain daily logs. If one jurisdiction is seeking work to be completed beyond the regular 80 hours bi-weekly by a staff member from the other jurisdiction, then the jurisdiction that is seeking the completion of this work will pay overtime at 100%. An annual joint top-set shall be placed on the Electrical Inspector's expenses based on the City/County expense policies with prior joint director approval. Both Chief Building Officials will have input regarding employee evaluations for the Electrical Inspector. 2. Contract Inspectors' payment shall be calculated by the dividing the daily cost of services by the total number of inspections performed (to establish a cost per inspection) then multiplying the cost per inspection by the number of inspections for each jurisdiction. Example: $600 for a full day of contract services and 16 total inspections performed=$37.50 cost per inspection. (City Inspection) 7 x $37.50= $262.50 (County Inspections) 9 x $37.50=$337.50 City/County ComDev IGA-Page 2 Each jurisdiction shall pay the Contractor directly. Contract Inspectors shall submit separate invoices for each jurisdiction. 3. The Cost associated with 1-4 above shall be tracked bi-weekly on timesheets and reconciled between the City and the County on a quarterly basis at the direction of the Chief Building Officers. B. Plan Review: Upon request by the County and subject to availability of staff time, the City may perform any plan review the County may need for $60 per hour. Upon request by the City and subject to availability, the County may perform any plan review for the City for $60 per hour. If plan review is completed beyond the regular 40 hour work week at the request of the Chief Building Official or Supervisor, then the jurisdiction that requested the completion of this work will pay 100% of the overtime at 1.5 times the hourly inspection rate. ($90 per hour) 1. The plan reviews shall be logged daily during the calendar year and the difference settled quarterly. 2. The Cost associated with item 1 above shall be tracked bi-weekly on timesheets and reconciled between the City and the County on a quarterly basis at the direction of the Chief Building Officials. C. Chief Building Officials: Upon request by either the City or County and subject to availability, the City and County Chief Building Officials may perform typical tasks and functions as required offering mutual aid according to workload. The Chief Building Official shall keep records for estimated time spent out of jurisdiction. These records shall be tracked bi-weekly on timesheets and reconciled quarterly, if deemed necessary by the Directors. 1. In compensation for this, the Chief Building Official shall log his time for this work and shall submit these records on a bi-weekly basis, to be paid $100 per hour for actual hours spent working on behalf of the other jurisdiction. 2. The City and County Building Officials may co-author Building Code and Building Code-related adoptions and amendments when appropriate and feasible. This is intended to serve the contractor and design community by helping the plan review and field inspection process to be as consistent between the City and County as possible. The City and County shall strive to coordinate the timing of building code and building code-related change adoptions so that the effective dates are as concurrent as possible. IV. City and County Cooperative Efforts. It is the intent of the parties hereto to continue to create a working environment for all personnel of the individual City and County Community Development Departments City/County ComDev IGA-Page 3 which is conducive for harmonious, cohesive and unified team work whenever practical for the provision of services to the public and other departments of the City and County. Accordingly, the parties agree to continue to work cooperatively in the provisions of services by the individual Community Development Departments and specifically agree to cooperate and coordinate in the following areas of joint interest: A. Joint Application and Interpretation of Regulations. The Chief Building Officials shall establish, with the approval of the Directors, a method to handle the purchase and sales of code books and the contractor licensing program. This method shall address the administration of such program and sales and how revenues and expenses shall be shared and reconciled. B. Office Equipment. For the purchasing of office equipment used in common, the actual costs shall be shared 50/50 by the City and County. The supplies and maintenance on the fax machine, mail machine, the HP printer, the plotter and the color printer will be split 50/50. If an accurate tracking method is possible, then the plotter, copier, and printers will be charged out according to copier codes for all expenses including paper and maintenance. Air Freshener and bathroom supplies will be split 50/50. Kitchen supplies will also be split 50/50, with agreement between both department directors prior to purchase. C. Office Space. The City shall provide office space, at no charge, to the County Community Development Department on the third floor of City hall in the current amount and general configuration. Each party shall maintain one or more conference rooms within their respective space. Conference rooms may be used by either party as needed and according to administrative policies for reserving the rooms. Overflow office needs shall be the responsibility of and direct costs to the individual party. The City shall pay for general upkeep and maintenance of the third floor office space. Costs for office furniture shall be the direct responsibility of the individual party unless otherwise agreed to by the Department Directors. D. Office hours. The third floor of City Hall shall be open to the public during the hours of 8 AM to 4:30 PM Monday through Friday, except holidays. Each jurisdiction can set internal hours of availability for services, but recognizes 8 AM to 4:30 PM Monday through Friday as the hours the public can access the department by the front door and elevator. V. Workers' Compensation and Indemnification. A. Workers' Compensation. The employer of the respective employees shall provide workers' compensation coverage for their employees. For the purposes of this Agreement, Pitkin County shall name the City of Aspen as additional insured on its general liability policy and the City shall name Pitkin County as additional insured on their general liability policy. City/County ComDev IGA-Page 4 B. Indemnification. I. Neither the City nor the County waive the defenses or limitations on damages provided for and pursuant to the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (Sec. 24-10-101,et seq., C.R.S.),the Colorado Constitution, their respective home rule charters or under the common law or the laws of the United States or State of Colorado. 2. It is expressly acknowledged and understood by the parties hereto that nothing contained in this Agreement shall result in, or be construed as establishing an employment relationship not intended by the express terms of this Agreement. Personnel identified as County employees shall be for all purposes County employees. Personnel identified as City employees shall be for all. purposes City employees. It is anticipated that City and County employees will be assigned to work on projects or assignments for the both governmental entities in accordance with this Agreement. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to make such sharing arrangements as evidence of an employee/employer relationship. No agent, employee, or servant of one party shall be, or construed to be, the employee of the other party. Each party to this Agreement shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of its employees during the performance of this Agreement. VI. Financial Reconciliation It is agreed that the following elements shall be reconciled quarterly by both City and County Finance Departments: A. Contractor licensing program B. Code book sales and purchase C. Inspections,plan review, overtime and CBO coverage D. Office Equipment and Supplies Any additional expenses that will cause an unforeseen financial burden or incur a cost impact on the IGA participants must be agreed upon and receive prior written approval to proceed from both Community Development Directors. VII. Modification,Annual Renewal and Termination of this Agreement It is agreed that both jurisdictions shall re-evaluate the terms of this agreement at the end of each calendar year to determine whether or not changes need to be made. This agreement shall automatically be renewed, if changes are not made, for successive one- year periods thereafter. During any one-year period, either party hereto may modify any part of this Intergovernmental Agreement for any reason with the written agreement of the other party or terminate all or part of this agreement with 90 days written notice. City/County ComDev IGA-Page 5 VIII. Notices. Any formal notice, demand or request provided for in this Intergovernmental Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed properly given if deposited in the United States Mail,postage prepaid to: City of Aspen, Colorado c/o City Manager 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado c/o County Manager 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 [signatures on following page] City/County ComDev IGA-Page 6 APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the /3 th day of Q c , 2009. ATTEST: CITY COUNCIL: Z • e Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk -N. Mic ael C. Ireland,Mayor Date: / lb wog APPROVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County on the r;9, trr day of C- , 2009. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 ette Jones, I Patti Kay-Clapper, C air Duty County Clerk Date: V) MANAGER APPROVAL: I-A (A Hilary Flit er, County Manager Steve Barwick, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Ely, County Attorney John Worcester, Cit Attorney Y City/County ComDev 1GA-Page 7 . „ Nrib MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Scott Chism, Planning & Construction Manager ; Stephen Ellsperman, Director of Parks and Open Spac _�� THROUGH: Jeff Woods, Manager Parks and Recreation DATE OF MEMO: July 2nd, 2012 MEETING DATE? July 9th, 2012 RE: Rio Grande Park Restroom Architectural Services SUMMARY: At this time we are requesting: • Council authorization for a $7,800.00 change order increase in the Professional Architectural Services Agreement with Charles Cunniffe Architects for design modifications to the proposed Rio Grande Restroom building and; • Council authorization for a $7,700.00 contract amendment of the Professional Architectural Services Agreement with Charles Cunniffe Architects for architectural design services necessary for the proposed Irrigation Pump House building. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION The last Council Action specific to Rio Grande Park occurred on May 29th, 2012, when Council reviewed and approved a small change order increase to the supply cost of the Rio Grande Park Pedestrian Bridge #1. Prior to that bridge cost review, Council reviewed and approved the proposed public restroom building and development of a non-potable irrigation system infrastructure on April 16th, 2012 with a unanimous vote. Council also reviewed and approved Ordinance 16, series 2012, on May 29th, 2012 which allows compostable toilets to be constructed on public or private property within the City of Aspen in excess of five (5) acres. BACKGROUND: The City entered into a $21,170.00 Professional Architectural Services.Agreement with Charles Cunniffe Architects on January 5, 2012 for design services associated with the proposed restroom building at Rio Grande Park. During Council review of the proposed restroom building design at worksessions on March 27th, 2012 and April 16th, 2012, Council directed staff and the consulting architect to make modifications to the building design primarily associated with building size reductions. As a result of that Council direction,the proposed restroom building design solution includes a smaller building housing women's and men's public restroom facilities with a basement space for a compostable toilet system. The restroom building size reduction was achieved by removing the irrigation pump system space requirements from the restroom building program. A separate building (pumphouse) structure to house the irrigation pump system will be created on the northwest section of the park, between the Theatre Aspen tent and river. (Attachment D) The proposed $7,800.00 Change Order (Attachment . B) and $7,700.00 Contract Amendment (Attachment C) increases the Professional Architectural Services Agreement value to $36,670.00, which requires Council review and approval based on the City's procurement code. Page 1of2 DISCUSSION: The Architectural Consultant, Charles Cunniffe Architects, has delivered necessary design consultation on a timely basis and has established a thorough knowledge of the site requirements of any structure that will be located within Rio Grande Park. The proposed $7,800.00 change order is the result of restroom building design modification requests issued to the consulting architect from Council via staff. The proposed $7,700.00'Contract Amendment is the result of separating the proposed irrigation pump system into a second building. The Contract Amendment will allow the separated irrigation pumphouse building to be fully designed to acquire building permits. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The project budget for the comprehensive Phase 2 Rio Grande Park environmental enhancements can sustain a negotiated $7,800.00 additional change order cost and $7,700.00 additional contract amendment cost for additional architectural design services for the proposed Rio Grande Restroom and Rio Grande Park Irrigation Pumphouse structures. The values of the change order and contract amendment were both heavily negotiated between city staff and the consulting architect for the best value to the public. Staff believes that the requested increase is appropriate for the anticipated construction costs of both the restroom building and the proposed Irrigation Pumphouse building. Final cost estimates for either building cannot be completed until the design work for each building is completed. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no significant environmental implications with proceeding with the additional recommended design services for the subject building structures. RECOMMENDATION: Staff suggests Council approval of the $36,670.00 modified Professional Architectural Services Agreement for the Rio Grande Park Restroom and Pumphouse buildings with Charles Cunniffe Architects. ALTERNATIVES: City Council could choose not to provide direction to staff to proceed with the $7,800.00 Change Order increase and $7,700.00 Contract Amendment to the Professional Architectural Services Agreement with Charles Cunniffe Architects. Staff would be required to re-negotiate a reduced cost from the Architectural Consultant for design services provided to date and the anticipated needs for building design services. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS.- Q cp koseQ ATTACHMENTS: A. Agreement for Professional Architectural Services with Charles Cunniffe Architects B. Change Order#1: increase in value of$7,800.00 C. Contract Amendment: increase in value of$7,700.00 D. Park Site Plan-locations of restroom building and irrigation pumphouse building Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION # (I (Series of 2012) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS FOR RIO GRANDE PARK RESTROOM ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for Rio Grande Park Restroom Architectural Services, between the City of Aspen and Charles Cunniffe Architects, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; 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 that Contract for Rio Grande Park.Restroom Architectural Services, between the City of Aspen and Charles Cunniffe Architects a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 9th day of July 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 July 9, 2012. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Attachment A ,., I T1to City or pa. I AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES This Agreement made and entered on the date hereinafter stated, between the CITY OF ASPEN, Colorado, ("City") and Charles Cunniffe Architects, Colorado ("Architect"). For and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Scope of Services. Architect shall perform in a competent and professional manner the Scope of Services as set forth at Exhibit"A" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. 2. Completion. Architect shall commence work immediately upon receipt of a.written Notice to Proceed from the City and complete all phases of the Scope of Work as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care and.the orderly progress of the Work in a timely manner. Upon request of the City, Architect shall submit, for the City's approval, a schedule for the performance of Architect's services which shall be adjusted as required as the project proceeds, and which shall include allowances for periods of time required by the City's project engineer for review and approval of submissions and for approvals of authorities having jurisdiction over the project. This schedule, when approved by the City, shall not, except for reasonable cause, be exceeded by the Architect. 3. Payment. In consideration of the work performed, City shall pay Architect up to $21,170.00 in the event that all Phases are performed as requested by City. The City shall have the option of asking Architect to perform any number of Phases of the Project. Payment shall be based upon the Fee Proposal, for phases performed. The City shall notify Architect of phases it wishes to have performed via formal written Notices to Proceed. Fees including any additional services shall not exceed the following amounts for each given phase: Planning Phase: $0 Schematic Design Phase: $5,630 Design Development Phase: $4,240 Construction Document Phase: $9,375 Bidding and Negotiation Phase: $0 Construction Phase: $0 Reimbursable Expenses: $1,925 (in addition to services amounts r and shall not exceed stated amount without prior approval of City) AG1-981 Page 1 • ' `4. Contract Documents. The following documents are agreed to constitute the Contract Documents. In the event that any provision of one Contract Document conflicts with the provisions of another, the provision in the Contract Document listed first below shall govern, except as otherwise specifically stated: a. Agreement b. Request for Proposals & Scope of Services c. Proposal/Cost estimate and attachments,including all written representations of Architect d. Instructions to Proposers e. Supplemental Conditions, if any f. City's Standard Terms and Conditions for Professional Architectural Services. 5. Compliance With Procurement Code. The Architect acknowledges that this Agreement is entered into subject to the requirements of the City of Aspen Procurement Code, Title 4, of the Aspen Municipal Code. As such, the Architect agrees to comply with all requirements of said Procurement Code, and such requirements are incorporated herein by this reference (copies of the code are available upon request to the City for a nominal charge). Architect shall immediately notify the City Manager in writing of any violation of said Code by the City's employees or agents, which violation(s) shall be considered a breach of this Agreement. Further, failure to notify the City of any violation of the Procurement Code shall be deemed as a waiver of any action or defense that the Architect may have against the City by reason of such violation of the Procurement Code. • 6. Nori-Assignability. Both parties recognize that this contract is one for specific services and cannot be transferred, assigned, or sublet by either party without prior written consent of the other. Sub-Contracting, if authorized, shall not relieve the Architect of any of the responsibilities or obligations under this agreement. Architect shall be and remain solely responsible to the City for the negligent acts, errors, and omissions of any of his consultants, agents and employees, each of whom shall, for this purpose be deemed to be an agent or employee of the Architect to the extent of the subcontract. The City shall not be obligated to pay or be liable for payment of any sums due which may be due to any sub-Architect. 7. Termination for Default or for Convenience of City. a. Termination by City. The performance of services under this Agreement may be terminated by the City: 1. Whenever the Architect shall default in performance of this Agreement in accordance with its terms, and fails to cure or show cause why such failure to perform should be excused within ten (10) days (or longer as the City may allow or shorter, but not less than three (3) days, for failure to provide proof of insurance or maintenance of any dangerous condition) after hand-delivery or mailing to the Architect of a-notice specifying the default. If mailed, said notice shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the address specified herein for Arch itect. AG1-981 Page 2 The Architect shall not be in default be reasons;of any failure in performance of this Agreement in accordance with its terms if such failure arises out of causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Architect. Such causes may include, but are not restricted to, acts of God, natural disasters, strikes, or freight embargoes, but in every case the failure to perform must be beyond the control of the Architect. Upon request of the Architect, the City shall ascertain the facts and failure, and,-if the City shall determine that any failure to perform constituted a valid commercial excuse, the performance shall be revised accordingly arid notice of default withdrawn; or 2. Whenever for any reason and in its sole discretion the City shall determine that such termination is in its best interest and convenient. b. Notice of Termination. In the event of termination for the convenience of the City, the City shall deliver to the Architect a written notice of termination, specifying the reasons therefor, and the effective date of such termination. The effective date shall not be earlier than the date of hand-delivery or the date of mailing of the notice, plus three (3) business days. The notice of termination shall be sent regular first-class mail to the, address of the Architect herein provided. The Architect or the City may terminate this Agreement, without specifying the reason therefor, by giving notice, in writing, addressed to the other party, specifying the effective date of the termination. No fees shall be earned,after the effective date of the termination. Upon any termination, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, reports or other material prepared by the Architect shall become the property of the City. Notwithstanding the above, Architect shall not be relieved of any liability to the City for damages sustained by the City by virtue of any breach of this Agreement by the Architect, and the City may withhold any payments to the Architect for the purposes of set-off until such time as the exact amount of such damages due the City from the Architect may be determined. • c. Termination Procedure. After the effective date of the notice of termination for default or for the convenience of the City, unless otherwise directed by the City, the Architect shall: 1. Stop work under the Agreement on the date specified in the notice of termination. 2. Place no further orders for materials, services or facilities. 3. Terminate all orders and subArchitects to the extent that they relate to the performance of work terminated by the notice of termination. t AG1-981 Page 3 — 4. With the approval or ratification of the City, settle all outstanding liabilities and all claims arising out of such termination on orders or reimbursable in whole or in part in accordance with this Agreement. d. Termination Payment. After the effective date of a notice of termination for the convenience of the City, the Architect shall submit to the City his termination claim in the form of a final invoice in accordance with the provisions in Section 3 hereinabove, including costs incurred and profit to the date of termination (but,not for future profit, which shall not be paid), and costs incurred because of termination, which termination costs shall not exceed 10% of the total amount of proposal; provided, however, that in the event of default by the Architect, no extra costs incurred because of termination shall be paid to the Architect and any costs paid shall not be a waiver of any claim, counterclaim or setoff by the City against the Architect on account of any default. Such claim must be submitted promptly, but in no event later than thirty (30) days from the effective date of termination, unless one or more extensions are granted in writing by the City. Upon the Architect's failure to submit a claim in the time allowed, the City may review the information available to it and determine the amount due the Architect, if any, and pay the Architect the amount as determined. e. Termination Settlement. Subject to Paragraph 5.d, the Architect and City may negotiate the whole or any part of the amount or amounts to be paid, upon termination for default or the convenience of the City. f. Remedies. The Architect shall have the right of appeal from any determination made by the City under this termination section; except that if the Architect has failed to submit his claim within the time provided in Paragraph 5.d, above, and has failed to properly request an extension, he shall have no right of appeal. In any case where the City has made a determination of the amount due under Paragraph 5.d. or 5.e., above, the City shall pay the Architect: (1) the amount the City has determined if there is no right of appeal or if timely appeal has been taken, or (2) the amount finally determined on such appeal if an appeal has been taken. g. Method of Appeal. If the Architect disagrees with the City's determination under Paragraphs 5.d. or 5.e., he can appeal this decision in writing to the City. Such appeal must be made in writing within twenty (20) days of receipt in writing of the City's determination. The City shall have twenty (20) days in which to respond in writing to the appeal. The City's response shall be final and conclusive unless within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of such response the Architect submits the dispute to a court of competent jurisdiction. 8. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Architect warrants that s/he has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working for the Architect, to solicit or secure this contract, that s/he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract. For a breach or violation of AG1-981 Page4 this contract without liability, or in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee,)commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or , contingent fee. 9. Independent Architect Status. It is expressly acknowledged and understood by the parties that , nothing contained in this agreement shall result in, or be construed as establishing an employment relationship. Architect shall be, and shall perform as, an independent Architect who agrees to use his or her best efforts to provide the said services on behalf of the City. No agent, employee, or servant of Architect shall be, or shall be deemed to be, the employee, agent or servant of the City. City is interested only in the results obtained under this contract. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the sole control of Architect. None of the benefits provided by City to its employees including, but not limited to, workers' compensation insurance and unemployment insurance, are available from City to the employees, agents or servants of Architect. Architect shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of Architect's agents, employees, servants and subArchitects during the performance of this contract. Architect shall indemnify City against all liability and loss in connection with, and shall assume full responsibility for payment of all federal, state and local taxes or contributions imposed or required under unemployment insurance, social security and income tax law, with respect to Architect and/or Architect's employees engaged in the performance of the services agreed to herein. ARCHITECT, AS AN. INDEPENDENT ARCHITECT, SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO WORKERS' COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND SHALL BE OBLIGATED TO PAY FEDERAL AND STATE INCOME TAX ON ANY MONIES EARNED PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT. 10. Indemnification. Architect agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, insurers, and self-insurance pool, from and against all liability, claims, and demands, on account of injury, loss, or damage, including claims arising from bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or damage, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this contract, if such injury, loss, or damage is caused in whole or in part by, or is claimed to be caused in whole or in part by, the negligent act, omission, error, Architect error of the Architect, any subArchitect of the Architect, or any officer, employee, representative, or agent of the Architect or of any subArchitect of the Architect, or which arises out of any workmen's compensation claim of any employee of the Architect or of any employee of any subArchitect of the Architect. The Architect agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense for and defend against, any such liability, claims or demands at the sole expense of the Architect, or at the option of the City, agrees to pay the City or reimburse the City for the defense costs incurred by the City in connection with, any such liability, claims, or demands. The Architect also agrees to bear all other costs and expenses related thereto, including court costs and attorney fees, whether or not any such liability, claims, or demands alleged are groundless, false, or fraudulent. If it is determined by the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction that such injury, loss, or damage was caused in whole or in part by the act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or its employees, the City shall reimburse the Architect for the portion of the judgment attributable to such act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or employees. 11. Architect's Insurance. (a) Architect agrees to procure and maintain, at its own expense, a policy or policies of insurance sufficient to insure against all liability, claims, demands, and other AG1-981 Page 5 — obligations assumed by the Architect pursuant to Section 8 above in amounts and aggregates as stated below. Such insurance shall be in addition to any other insurance requirements imposed by this contract or by law. The Architect shall not be relieved of any liability, claims, demands, or other obligations assumed pursuant to Section 6 above by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance, or by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance in sufficient amounts, duration, or types. (b) Architect shall procure and maintain, and shall cause any subArchitect of the Architect to procure and maintain, the minimum insurance coverages listed below. Such coverages shall be procured and maintained with forms and insurance acceptable to the City. All coverages shall be continuously maintained to cover all liability, claim's, demands, and other obligations assumed by the Architect pursuant to Section 8 above. In the case of any claims-made policy, the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting periods shall be procured to maintain such continuous coverage. (i) Workmen's Compensation insurance to cover obligations imposed by applicable laws for any employee engaged in the performance of work under this contract, and Employers' Liability insurance with minimum limits of no less than the state of Colorado statutory minimums. Evidence of qualified self-insured status may be substituted for the Workmen's Compensation requirements of this paragraph. ,(ii) Commercial General Liability insurance with minimum combined single limits of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($300,000.00) each occurrence and SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($600,000.00) aggregate. The policy shall be applicable (z to all premises and operations. The policy shall include coverage for bodily injury, broad form property damage (including completed operations), personal injury (including coverage for contractual and employee acts), blanket contractual, independent Architects, products, and completed operations. The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision. (iii) Comprehensive Automobile Liability insurance with minimum combined single limits for bodily injury and property damage of not less than THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($300,000.00) each occurrence and THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($300,000.00) aggregate with respect to each Architect's owned, hired arid non-owned vehicles assigned to or used in performance of the Scope of Work. The policy shall contain a severability of interest provision. If the Architect has no owned automobiles, the requirements of this Section shall be met by each employee of the Architect providing services to the City under this contract. (iv) Architect Liability insurance with the minimum limits of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($250,000) each claim and TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($250,000)aggregate. (c) The policy or policies required above shall be endorsed to include the City and the City's officers and employees as additional insureds. Every policy required above shall be primary insurance, and any insurance carried by the City, its officers or employees, or carried by or provided through any insurance pool of the City, shall be excess and not contributory insurance to that provided AG1-981 Page 6 — by Architect. No additional insured endorsement to the policy required above shall contain any exclusion for bodily injury or property damage arising from completed operations. The Architect shall be solely responsible for any deductible losses under any policy required above. (d) The certificate of insurance provided by the City shall be completed by the Architect's insurance agent as evidence that policies providing the required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits are in full force and effect, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to commencement of the contract. No other form of certificate shall be used. The certificate shall identify this contract and shall provide that the coverages afforded under the policies shall not be canceled, terminated or materially changed until at least thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to the City. (e) Failure on the part of the Architect to procure or maintain policies providing the required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits shall constitute a material breach of contract upon which City may immediately terminate this contract, or at its discretion City may procure any such policy or any extended reporting period thereto and may pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, and all monies so paid by City shall be repaid by Architect to City upon demand, or City may offset the cost of the premiums against monies due to Architect from City. (f) City reserves the right to request and receive a certified copy of any policy.and any endorsement thereto. (g) The parties hereto understand and agree that City is relying on, and does not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this contract, the monetary limitations (presently $150,000.00 per person and $600,000 per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and protection provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101 et seq., C.R.S., as from time to time amended, or otherwise available to City, its officers, or its employees. 12. City's Insurance. The parties hereto understand that the City is a member of the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA) and as such participates in the CIRSA Property/Casualty Pool. Copies of the CIRSA policies and manual are kept at the City of Aspen Finance Department and are available to Architect for inspection during normal business hours. City makes no representations whatsoever with respect to specific coverages offered by CIRSA. City shall provide Architect reasonable notice of any changes in its membership or participation in CIRSA. 13. Exemption From Sales and Use Taxes. All purchases of construction, building or other materials for any agreement shall not include Federal Excise Taxes or Colorado State or local sales or use taxes. City is exempt from such taxes under applicable federal, state and local laws. Owner's State of Colorado tax identification number is 98-04557. City's Federal Tax Identification Number is 84- 6000563. 14. Ownership of Design Materials and Documents. a. The copies or other tangible embodiments of all design materials, whether or not such materials are subject to intellectual property protection, including but not limited to AG1-981 - Page 7 — documents, shop drawings, computer programs developed for the Project or if such programs are not the property of Architect or SubArchitect, data, plans, drawings, sketches, illustrations, specifications, descriptions, models, as-built documents, and any other documents developed, prepared, furnished, delivered or required to be delivered by the Architect or SubArchitect to City under the Contract Documents (collectively "Design Materials") shall be and remain the property of the City whether or not the Project is commenced or completed; provided, however, that City makes payment for the documents in accordance with this Agreement. During the term of the Agreement, the Architect shall be responsible for any loss or damage to the Design Materials, while the Materials are in the possession of the Architect or any of its SubArchitects, and any such Design Materials lost or damaged shall be replaced or restored at the Architect's expense. The intellectual property rights, if any, to the contents of or concepts embodied in the Design Materials shall belong to the Architect or its Design SubArchitects in accordance with their contractual relationship and may be copyrighted by them in the United States or in any other country, or be subject to any other intellectual property protection. b. As to those Design Materials subject to copyright or as to which patent or trademark, or any other form of intellectual property protection has been, is or will be obtained, the, Architect grants to City as of the date that the Design Materials are delivered or required to be delivered to the City, a world-wide,paid-up,nonexclusive, nontransferable (except as provided) license for the term of intellectual property protection, for the City to use, reproduce and have reproduced, display and allow others to display and to publish and allow others to publish, in any manner, at any time and as often as it desires, with or without compensation to the Architect or any third party subject to the following restrictions: (a) All copyright and other intellectual proprietary rights in or relating to any of the Design Materials, shall remain the property of the Architect or Design SubArchitect whether or not the Project is constructed. It is understood that, except as provided in this paragraph, the Architect and Design SubArchitect shall have the right to use any detail, part, concept or system(s) shown on, specified in, or inferable from the Design Materials on any other project and to retain copies for the Architect's or Design SubArchitect's future use; (b) City shall not, without prior written consent of the Architect or Design SubArchitect use Design Materials or documents, in whole or in part, for the construction of any other project. If, however, City agrees to indemnify the owner of the intellectual property rights against liability arising from the misuse or incorrect use of Design Materials by City, City shall be entitled to, at no additional cost to the City, use such materials and documents for additions, improvements, changes or alterations to the Project after completion. If Architect is in default under this Contract and the Contract is terminated, City shall be entitled to use the Design Materials for completion of the Project by others without additional compensation, or a release, indemnification or other action by City; (c)Any reproduction of the Design Materials or part of them shall be faithful and accurate to the original and of good quality; (d) City shall not remove or alter, and shall reproduce and prominently display on all copies made by City, the copyright notice and other proprietary legends appearing on the Design Materials when delivered to City. The restrictions set forth in (c) and (d) above AG1-981 Page 8 — shall be imposed by City on any third party to whom the City allows to display or publish the Design Materials. i c. It is understood that City considers the Project's aggregate architectural expression (that is, the overall combination of the Project's visually apparent design features) and any distinctive individual features, to be unique and of commercial value, and the Architect and its Design SubArchitects agree not to design or build, or allow other third parties the use of the Design Materials to design or build another structure(s) having a substantially similar architectural expression so that an average person would relate the structure(s) to the Project. Architect and its Design SubArchitects shall, however, be free to use individual features from the Project or combinations of features in other projects, so long as the Architect complies with the first sentence of this paragraph. Architect shall include this provision in its contracts with its Design subArchitects and provide copies of these agreements to City. d. As of the conclusion of the Project,-or in the event of termination of the Agreement, Architect shall turn over to City any of the Design Materials referred to in above which have not yet been submitted to City. Architect shall submit the Design Materials to City within ten days of the conclusion of the project, or date of termination. In the event of the failure by Architect to make such delivery as provided above, Architect shall pay • City any damages City may sustain from the failure. 15. Annual Appropriations. If the Agreement awarded as a result of a bid or request for proposals extends beyond the calendar year, nothing herein shall be construed as an obligation by the City beyond any amounts that may be, from time to time, appropriated by the City on an annual basis. It is.understood that payment under any agreement is conditional upon annual appropriation of funds by said governing body and that before providing services or materials for which funds have not been appropriated. 16. Completeness of Agreement. It is expressly agreed that this agreement contains the entire undertaking of the parties relevant to the subject matter thereof and there are no verbal or written representations, agreements, warranties or promises pertaining to the project matter thereof not expressly incorporated in this writing. - 17. Notice. Any written notices as called for herein may be hand delivered to the respective persons and/or addresses listed below or mailed by certified mail return receipt requested,to: City: Architect: City Manager Charles Cunniffe City of Aspen Charles Cunniffe Architects 130 South Galena Street 610 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen, Colorado 81611 18. Non-Discrimination; penalty. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, AG1-981 Page 9 — handicap, or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform services under this contract. Architect agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, Section 13-98, pertaining to non-discrimination in employment. 19. Waiver. The waiver by the City of any term, covenant, or condition hereof shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term. No term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement can be waived except by the written consent of the City, and forbearance or indulgence by the City in any regard whatsoever shall not constitute a waiver of any term, covenant, or condition to be performed by Architect to which the same may apply and, until complete performance by Architect of said term, covenant or condition, the City shall be entitled to invoke any remedy available to it under this Agreement or by law despite any such forbearance or indulgence. 20. Execution of Agreement by City. This agreement shall be binding upon all parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein,this agreement shall not be binding upon the City unless duly executed by the City Manager or Mayor of the City of Aspen (or a duly authorized official in his absence) following a Motion or Resolution of the Council of the City of Aspen authorizing the City Manager or Mayor(or duly authorized official in his absence)to execute the same. 21. Illegal Aliens-CRS 8-17.5-101 & 24-76.5-101. a. Purpose. During the 2006 Colorado legislative session,the Legislature passed House Bills 06-1343 (subsequently amended by HB 07-1073) and 06-1023 that added new statutes relating to the employment of and contracting with illegal aliens. These new laws prohibit all state agencies and political subdivisions, including the Owner, from knowingly hiring an illegal alien to perform work under a contract, or to knowingly contract with a Architect who knowingly hires with an illegal alien to perform work under the contract.-The new laws also require that all contracts for services include certain specific language as set forth in the statutes. The following terms and conditions have been designed to comply with the requirements of this new law. b. Definitions. The following terms are defined in the new law and by this reference are incorporated herein and in any contract for services entered into with the Owner. 1. "E-verify program"means the electronic employment verification program created in Public Law 208, 104th Congress, as amended, and expanded in Public Law 156, 108th Congress, as amended,that is jointly administered by the United States Department of Homeland Security and the social security Administration, or its successor program. 2. "Department program"means the employment verification program established pursuant to Section 8-17.5-102(5)(c). 3. "Public Contract for Services"means this Agreement. AG1-981 Page 10 — 4. "Services" means the furnishing of labor, time, or effort by a Architect or a subArchitect not involving the delivery of a specific end product other than reports that are merely incidental to the required performance. c. By signing this document, Architect certifies and represents that at this time: 1. Architect shall confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for employment to perform work under.the public contract for services; and 2. Architect has participated or attempted to participate in either the e-verify program or the department program in order to verify that new employees are not illegal aliens. d. Architect hereby confirms that: 1. Architect shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under the Public Contract for Services. 2. Architect shall not enter into a contract with a subArchitect that fails to certify to the Architect that the subArchitect shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under the Public Contract for Services. 3. Architect has confirmed the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for employment to perform work under the public contract for services through --. participation in either the e-verify program or the department program. 4. Architect shall not use the either the e-verify program or the department program procedures to undertake pre-employment screening of job applicants while the Public Contract for Services is being performed. 5. If Architect obtains actual knowledge that a subArchitect performing work under the Public Contract for Services knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien,Architect shall: ' i. Notify such subArchitect and the Owner within three days that Architect has actual knowledge that the subArchitect is employing or subcontracting with an illegal alien; and • ii. Terminate the subcontract with the subArchitect if within three days of receiving the notice required pursuant to this section the subArchitect does not stop employing or contracting with the illegal alien; except that Architect shall not terminate . the Public Contract for Services with the subArchitect if during such three days the subArchitect provides information to establish that the subArchitect has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien. AG1-981 Page 11 v 6. Architect shall comply with any reasonable request by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment made in the course of an investigation that the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment undertakes or is undertaking pursuant to the authority established in Subsection 8-17.5-102 (5), C.R.S. 7. If Architect violates any provision of the Public Contract for Services pertaining to the duties imposed by Subsection 8-17.5-102, C.R.S. the Owner may terminate this Agreement. If this Agreement is so terminated,Architect shall be liable for actual damages to the Owner arising out of Architect's violation of Subsection 8-17.5-102, C.R.S. 22. General Terms. (a) It is agreed that neither this agreement nor any of its terms, provisions, conditions, representations or covenants can be modified, changed, terminated or amended, waived, superseded or extended except by appropriate written instrument fully executed by the parties. (b) If any of the provisions of this agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of any other provision. (c) The parties acknowledge and understand that there are no conditions or limitations to this understanding except those as contained herein at the time of the execution hereof and that after execution no alteration, change or modification shall be made except upon a writing signed by the parties. (d) This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado as from time to time in effect. • • AG1-981 Page 12 J e • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed,or caused to be executed by their duly authorized officials, this Agreement in three copies each of which shall be deemed an original on the date hereinafter written. Dated: Z ATTESTED BY: CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: �i�0 *. Lam__ �`/ By: . / — ARCHITECT: WITNESSED BY: CA4AgLES Gs nj I TS By: T1LLC. 4L .. APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: REVIEWED BY: Adir tett CA./421 4' Plir :rney ject Manager • JPW-1/3/2012-M:\city\cityatty\arch\ag 1-981.doc n (. AG1-981 Page 13 — 5 CIE ® A CHARLES, UNNIFFE ARCHITECTS January 3, 2012 Mr.Scott Chism Project Manager/Parks Planner City of Aspen Parks Department - 585 Cemetery Lane Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Rio Grande Park Restroom/Pump House Architectural,Proposal Dear Scott, Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our involvement with the Rio Grande Park Restroom/Pump house building. It is an interesting project and one we believe has the potential to be distinctive, memorable and a great addition to the Rio Grande Park, Theatre Aspen and John Denver Sanctuary development. The sustainable attributes of the project mess well with and expound upon the City of Aspen's sustainability goals and the redevelopment of the adjacent storm water ponds. In preparing this proposal we had to make a number of assumptions in terms of program, scope of work, as well as schedule based on the concepts and building programs developed to date and our recent discussions with you. We have broken down this proposal into scope of work, schedule, and an estimate of professional fees. Scope of Work As we discussed, at this point we are planning on developing a conceptual architectural design package for approvals purposes. Once approvals are completed,we are assuming we will provide full architectural design and documentation as well as Construction Administration services. Restrooms approx. square footage (interiorl - Men's (1 stall, 1 HC stall, 2-3 urinals, 2-3 sinks) - 12'x 16' 192 s.f. - Women's (2 stalls, 1 HC stall, 2-3 sinks) - 12'xl 6' 192 s.f. Covered Lobby (dog trot) - 10'x12' 120 s.f. Pump House- 13'x 23' 299 s.f. Total 803 s.f. Specific spatial requirements for composting toilets undetermined at this time. EXHIBIT `A' • Schedule In terms of schedule,we will initiate conceptual design work as soon as possible for your anticipated mid-January City Council review. Assuming no unforeseen changes or circumstances, we would be able to complete the design development and construction documents for a Spring 2012 construction start, should the pump house need to be online by then. Professional Fees Given the above-specified scope of work, budget and schedule, we estimate the following fees for our professional services: Schematic design: Estimated fee $5,630.00 During this phase we will develop the initial concepts for the project, and by its conclusion,will have a relatively established floor plan, building area, building sections and exterior elevations at a scale of 1/4"= 1 foot. Develop a computerized 3D model of building as a design tool and for necessary approvals. We will also solicit requests for proposals to applicable consultants, such as Structural Engineers. Design Development: Estimated fee $4,240.00 During this phase we begin to coordinate consultant information and building systems while continuing to develop the overall design at a larger, more detailed level. Interior character is developed and we begin to collect finish materials samples for review with Owner. At the conclusion of Design Development the Owner will be able to sign-off on • the majority of design decisions and the General Contractor can provide a more • detailed construction cost estimate. Construction Documentation: Estimated fee$9,375.00 Drawings and specifications are coordinated and finalized for a building permit and construction. Construction Administration: Hourly as required Throughout the building process we monitor the progress of construction attending regular site meetings, coordinating and clarifying any issues that arise as well as reviewing shop drawings and approving finish samples. We also typically review contractor pay requests. One day a week through the construction phase. The Architect shall be compensated by the Owner for services provided at our standard hourly rates; provided however, that the total cost of Architectural services shall not exceed the amounts specified above for any phase or a total of$ 19,245.00 for the Project,without prior written authorization from the Owner. Any Reimbursable Expenses such as telephone, fax, plots, copies, mail, travel expenses and travel time will be billed in addition. Reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $ 1,925.00 without prior approval from the Owner. Any consultants such as soils, civil, structural, and mechanical and electrical engineering, landscape architecture, and/or lighting design are not included and are in addition to the fees listed here. EXHIBIT `A' • This proposal shall be valid for 45 days from date hereof, if the owner does not authorize the commencement of services within six months from the date hereof, this proposal shall be deemed terminated, and a new proposal shall be negotiated. Upon your approval of this proposal we will draft an AIA B 104-Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner - and Architect for the project. • We are pleased to answer or clarify any questions you may have,we thank you for requesting this proposal, and look forward to working with you. Sincerely, Charles Cunniffe EXHIBIT `A' • Attachment B PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER City of Aspen Parks and Recreation Department CO No. 1 PROJECT: Rio Grande Park Restroom Architectural Services DATE OF ISSUANCE: 06-22-12 OWNER: City of Aspen CONSULTANT: Charles Cunniffe Architects OWNER's Project No. 2012-004 You are directed to make the following changes in the professional architectural services scope of work: Description: Complete additional revised design services necessary for separation of irrigation pump system structure from restroom structure in order to reduce size and footprint of restroom building. Purpose of Contract Amendment: Reduce size of restroom building by separating the irrigation pump system space requirements from the primary restroom building structure. Attachments: Contract amendment correspondence from Charles Cunniffe to Stephen Ellsperman, dated June 21, 2012 CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE: CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIME: Original Contract Price: $21,170.00 Original Contract Time: Complete by September 28,2012 Previous Change Order Net Change from previous to No. Contract Amendments +0 days Contract Price prior to Contract Time prior to this Change Order this Change Order $21,170.00 Complete by September 28,2012 Net Increase(decrease) Net Increase(decrease) of this Change Order of this Change Order +$7,800.00 +0 days Contract Price with all Contract Time with all approved Change Orders approved Change Orders $28,970.00 Complete by September 28,2012 • RECOMMENDED: APPROVED: APPROVED: by: by: by: Project Manager Owner Consultant CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS June 21,2012 City of Aspen Parks and Recreation Department ATTN: Mr. Steve Ellsperman, Director of Open Space 585 Cemetery Lane Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Architectural Services: Rio Grande Park Restroom Bldg. Project # 1136 Dear Steve, . Based on recent discussion,and in an effort to maintain and strengthen our valued working relationship with the City of Aspen,we are submitting this revised services addendum,which reflects discounted fees, as outlined below. We.are submitting this contract addendum for design revisions for the above project. The addendum is based on architectural services beyond the scope of our original agreement (1/5/12) and Proposal (Exhibit 'A'; 1/3/12).' The design revisions include adjustments made to the scope, program, and site changes. These revisions involved adjusting the site and building design to accommodate the Restroom building relocation;building program adjustments,(building size and configuration),and revisions to the building location on the site due to updated survey information and program adjustments. At your request,we studied several alternative design options as requested by the City Council for presentation at the following council work session.Work incurred in the Construction Document phase was in an effort to maintain the desired construction schedule initially anticipated,as well as providing contractors`with drawings and specification of enough detail to obtain preliminary 'pricing. We appreciate your consideration of the following fees for revisions beyond our original agreement,which reflect total amounts to complete this project based on the current scope: Schematic Design: $1;900.00 (16:5 hours) Design Development: $2,600.00 (22;5 hours) Construction Documents: $3300.00 (56 hours) (Reflects current courtesy discount of$3,200.00 plus previous services discount of$4,500,00 on prior invoice) Total : $ 7,800.00 (95 hours) Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this or sign below and return a copy for our files. We are looking forward to finalizing the design and construction drawings, and assisting with the completion of this quality project for the City of Aspen. Best Regards, • Charles L. Cunniffe, AIA Principal Approved: Attachment C • PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT AMENDMENT City of Aspen Parks and Recreation Department CA No. 1 PROJECT: Rio Grande Park Restroom Architectural Services DATE OF ISSUANCE: 06-22-12 OWNER: City of Aspen - CONSULTANT: Charles Cunniffe Architects OWNER's Project No. 2012-004 You are directed to make the following changes in the professional architectural services scope of work: Description: Complete architectural design services necessary for irrigation pump system structure. Purpose of Contract Amendment: Design documentation of irrigation pump system building necessary for building permits. Attachments: Contract amendment correspondence from Charles Cunniffe to Stephen Ellsperman, dated June 21, 2012. CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE: CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIME: Original Contract Price: $21,170.00 Original Contract Time: Complete by September 28,2012 Previous Contract Amendment Net Change from previous to No. Contract Amendments +0 days Contract Price prior to Contract Time prior.to this Contract Amendment. this Contract Amendment $28,970.00 Complete by September 28,2012 Net Increase(decrease) Net Increase(decrease) of this Contract Amendment of this Contract Amendment +$7,700.00 +0 days Contract Price with all Contract Time with all approved Contract Amendments approved Contract Amendments $36,670.00 Complete by September 28,2012 RECOMMENDED: APPROVED: APPROVED: by: by: by: Project Manager Owner ( Consultant 1 ?AI CHARLES.CUHHIFFE ARCHITECTS_ June 21,20.12 Mr.Steve Ellsperman Director of Open:Spate City of Aspen Parks Department • 585 Cemetery Lane Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Rio Grande Park Pump House Architectural Proposal Dear Steve, Based on Our recent conversation we are re-submitting this revised services addendum fix'the Ri6 Grande Pumphouse.This reViSion iS:based on the stope,belOw and assumes location, program and design criteria will not be changing. We are assuming this will be be basic drawing information;as required for building permit and construction with a minimum amount of detailing required. While this is a fairly small stand alone strOctOre.„ there are design elements that will require careful attention such as an earth sheltered Structure,with a planted roof and coordination of site, structural, mechanical/electrical/plumbing issues with other consultants: As discussed at out last meeting we have revised the drchitettOral addendum to reflect the recent evolution of project into two separate buildings. Given the decision to separate the pump house from the restroom building we have prepared a.separate proposal for the pump house as the addendum reflects work incurred,in developing the rest room building. In preparing ithiS,PrOposal'We have had make-sorne assumptions in terms of program, scope of work; and schedule based on our recent discussions with you We have broken down this proposal into scope of work, schedule; and an estimate of professiOnal fees. Scope of Work Due to the proxiMity Of the John:Denver Sanctuary and ThOdtrO Aspen brief on-site design meeting to reVieW Site constraints and deSigninterit WOUld be very benefidiOlitO establishing an efficient design process. Complete and accurate site information as well as a design program/narrative will be required. As discusted,we are planning on developing -a conteptUal circhiteetural design package for approvals PUrpoSeS. Once approvals are completed,we will provide full architectural design,documentation and coordination with other consultants to obtain a City of Aspen building permit. In an effort to keep the fees to a reasonable minimum we have assumed that the review process will be fairly Straight forward not requiring numerOus revisions or alternate COnstrOdtion Administration services will be as required throughout the construction phase. approk. square footage (interior) Pump House- 1x23' 2949.s.f. EXHIBIT 'A' Schedule With regard to schedule,we will initiate conceptual design work upon finalization of the pump equipmentsizing and site discussion. Assuming no unforeseen changes or circumstances;we would be able to complete the schematic design, design development and construction documents for a late Summer/early Fall 2012 construction start,should the pump house need to be online sooner please let us know. Professional Fees Given the above-specified scope of work; budget and schedule,we estimate the following fees for our professional services: • Schematic design; Estimated fee$1,100.00.00 (approx. 1 week) During this phase we will develop the initial concepts for the project, and by its conclusion,will have a relatively established floor plan, building area building sections and exterior elevations at a scale of 1/4"= 1 foot. Design Development: Estimated fee$2,900.00 (approx.2 weeks) During this phase we begin to coordinate consultant information and building systems while continuing to develop the overall design at a larger; more detailed level.At the conclusion of Design Development the Owner will be able'to sign-Off on the majority of design decisions and the General Contractor can provide a preliminary cost construction cost estimate. Construction Documentation: Estimated fee$3,700.00 (approx.3 weeks) Drawings and specifications are coordinated and finalized for a`building permit and construction. Construction Administration: Hourly as required Throughout the building process we monitor the progress of construction attending regular site meetings, coordinating and clarifying any issues that arise as well as reviewing shop drawings and approving finish samples. We also typically review contractor pay requests. One day a week through the construction phase. The Architect shall be compensated by the Owner for services provided at our standard hourly rates; provided however; that the total cost of Architectural services shall not exceed the amounts specified above for any phase or a total of $ 7,700.00 for the Project,without prior written authorization from the Owner. Any Reimbursable Expenses such as telephone, faX, plots,copies, mail, travel expenses and travel time will be billed in addition. Reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $ 1,252.00 without prior approval from the Owner. Any consultants such as soils,civil, structural,and mechanical and electrical engineering, landscape architecture, and/or lighting design are not included and are in addition to the fees-listed here. EXHIBIT 'A' This proposal shall be valid for 45 days from date hereof,if the owner does not authorize the commencement of services within six,months from the date hereof, this proposal shall be deemed terminated, and a new proposal shall be negotiated. Upon your approval of this proposal we would enter into the City of Aspen's Standard Agreement for Professional Architectural Services. We are pleased to answer or clarify any questions you may have,we thank you for requesting this proposal,and look forward to working With you. Sincerely, C...".■••••44 Charles Cunniffe 0.) c.) I=) = o E o o ,..o. .. ■■1 1■) PIO $■1 cid E 5 ci) o a) o ,...§ _ . .. ... , , , ,.. $ eivoge4k ..,,,e0t _ 1 lAkr,1 -@:1 A g 1,. 4, t... Ct ..r.,,,,. ' -- , "-;":-.rItAillitigr ...... .., . 1 ..4■A '40' ', .. - if.4,..,,„. 4,,,.,„ „Ai . , 11A:45•0„Soar ' - • -Ri■ *.ck‘ . r 6... 4iNsA -n , a ,...._ - • -- .- *17."- 4111 0 tO °A‘ „„ - ,, ..----41,1",:e. . 4 • ..-- - - . v.- of ■Ill 01110' ...,, ,9 ' , . . C4 '- '' ... ...9' A6 .4• / 9-0P• , r -, -- '*, .. ' N t. - - - . I. , 1 '. . ..0 ,„,- 4ft'. ' 10 4 ' '" „ - ,e -10,11, ., - , , ..".? • , - —.:,„ ,4 ,,, _. - - , - , .. , i ' // ia • „. ,'9 ; 9 • 4 , ,-,-.,,,t, - , 111V0 .4 • -;* • cT • i. k ,', • .,. ' ;r'- '*.kiPi,;IN ik. . , „..,„::,., .,..,0* , vo......v 4.,.. -,711, S''' •''' ' - ' . .1.116"& , km / . ,p• • lo 1 / ,:...t ,, ...... A 4 • ,.-. V . ,..11/ '91 .." ..9 Ir. , ‘•i X"''''' ..■ V, 4 WV ■1119 4 - •- -- , • '- ,...... \\,,, _,. .„.., , v „ - ,t. , Ago ' ,4 „ . , - , - , t. r ' tr, ...,, .. A,,,.. x in ,/ * 0••• , 7 Veil' 'k '' C.3 0 >. .........21.0 ft, , . .. , m 'P S 1 / , .■ r,:• 4,10,1 it Cr jii 741/ 1' IP .". A . ,,. p /4-it ,,. 1, .7# 1.7.-!.A. O' J i i s - .., ‘- ig- 47, . - 4 7 f -,..• ,if v - ''''' •e".'s '-'. tr Naie r .4 0\ i st t ; '441/ it ' , V...",, .71 : 1, 4 0 't 1 IL l' .,,, 0 ;, 7 - 1 t ' • .,,,, 4 < „..., _... . ...e. , .., , • • Air / a f0 -` ,- '', • , • ' *.....,,,, ',Gt 4 . . , , , 4 „ . • ,e, ..., - J . • a Z ;, i ''7; I , 1., jt ''4%1..7 - } -.Y. ;A 4 '' -... I + AO°' s ,o1C i; I i , ,--i. i •, . t'l,', / ' .2 ',. .:,,—4•„„„ •., I 1 i'4l4,i r_i1t1,oii,11. #• A ' I.• ‘, _. i'li..6 r..- -•.,N;1, ....'.•' ,,t• • N 4 . N , ` 4a.4• a.) , ., . ...4 ,..,...„, .... 1 , - • , -.f.,- .i.. k , 0 3 .-■ . I 4• 4•" +. s• ... iik, ."-- ----1 .— , .1 M .413t le 0 * ,„..--- ••■■■ Z 4 (0 0 ' ...._ ( \ ;IC C' ' 0 4••A (1.1 ...■ 1 f- 40, . Alk 00 k NM' ' k , ' — NV 'al •".0-4 iiii‘'' 4- 1( • . 4.) cc w ' ''''.'‘,- ,„••••. 'NI.. Ur ift,74 % e,l, , 110 ' '., g w i.• Cl.) , • ..- ,,,,,,, ,, .•_„.%.. „: ',', • ' "- ,,-* C.A.. 411r: -,a■ ,iii -, Ar''‘7. 124 , •1.4 "I • , t " ,'`A , r"0 - • „., ••-- , ,- .... X ' , i I i• 11 , ,=2 0■1 - - ' ''''-.1.40111#,' • kl MI-''' t ',AP,' . ,*. ;, ` s , o ,, .0,. —tot,, ''` .\ . ,. ', , 0, r• • i 0 .1% ' ' •, - -N, IV.." . CC i , ,•'' 1-1 • - 0 as i ' t' CL4 04 —_, . p / ' el.\it , et Ct cn i, c'E 41{11k. iit If 4,4" 01 '0 40 41V1 , it; :•:40t,,Api .., tizt t 'tii . c, i e g sir P. 0 /,_, _.... ...„,. ,.., ..... .,. ... e dit4 if .L......._ ..„ ..._ il )5 4 rtiatip / ■'! ,..- yr 4** , , ,..t4' '...tk.....--***.-*- -........"--...s.'N's.s..*NN..,. ...... %tip 111, ----‘1 — g-0 '‘. ' •1■4 4.011111.1111-:-.."----.. .44P 40k . ;00. , ,,,_".„, ,' CI 11■11 ci.) .-ci f:14 4111141* - , It , / ' I-1 CI (1) E /I i ( ' 0 Mr. 0 .*... 1111111111,•1101–_,, , y 4-4 0 = U A..,C) _ ._,...... ..........„..............................., ..-4 •1.1m) ..--- , ,,_ 1.■I 1.."4 •Im•I 0 ..._. , 0 0 $••4 , r.! $1 4-1 0 p4 Cl•■ ---______....., 0 c) .....„ •,—, „, ,•,0 r• -- CI,) o VIII alio MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director OJAI FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Directot�� RE: 120 N. Mill St., Pitkin County Library - SPA Amendment, 2"d Reading of Ordinance No. 19 (Series of 2012), Public Hearing MEETING DATE: July 9, 2012 At the June 25th hearing, City Council continued the public hearing on the library expansion and remodel to July 9, 2012. Staff will be recommending a continuation date for the library hearing to be continued to at the July 9th meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds the hearing be continued to a future date certain for further deliberation. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to continue the hearing for an Amendment to the Pitkin County Library SPA and an Essential Public Facility Growth Management Review to , 2012." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: I Page 1 of 1 VIII b MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director %kJ FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD—Amendment to existing approvals, 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 18 (Series of 2012) MEMO DATE: June 18, 2012 MEETING DATE: July 9, 2012 (the following memo is a duplicate of the June 25th meeting) SPECIAL NOTE: On first reading of the application (May 29, 2012), City Council members noted their preference for some form of a lodge to be developed on the subject site and encouraged the Applicant to reconsider their development options. Since that meeting, Staff has been meeting with the Applicant on a weekly basis to discuss that potential option. As of the date_ of this memo the Applicant is considering whether.a lodge discussion is(feasible. Staff suggests the following items be considered by City Council for points of discussion with the Applicant at the June 25th hearing. • Vested Rights. Extension of the existing vested rights for the townhome project. The existing entitlements will expire on March 1, 2013 unless a complete building permit is submitted by that date. Construction detail drawings can take months to coordinate and develop, by extending the vested rights of the existing entitlements Council can provide some additional time before the Applicant would need to start developing the construction documents and potentially allowing additional time for negotiation. • Set Timeline. Council may consider developing a set timeframe, with Applicant consent, for an alternative plan to be reviewed and potentially approved. This will provide a clear timeframe and end date that both parties commit to if moving forward with an alternative development scenario. • Main Priorities. Council should be ready to articulate their main priorities for an alternative proposal. This would provide the Applicant with a clear idea of the City Council's objectives and whether the objectives can be feasibly met. • Multi-Family Proposal. Council should also be prepared to review the current proposal if the applicant is not interested in discussing alternatives. THE MEMO OF MAY 29TH IS PROVIDED BELOW FOR REFERENCE APPLICANT/OWNER: area will be increased, while some of the on-site ASV Aspen Street Owners, LLC affordable housing with be sub-grade. do David Parker STAFF RECOMMENDATION: REPRESENTATIVE: . Staff recommends that the City Council require Mitch Haas, Haas'Land Planning,.LLC the Applicant to substantially revise the plans. LOCATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission as well as Parcels 1, 2 and 3, South Aspen Street the APCHA board recommended approval of the Subdivision.(adjacent to Aspen Street project. between Dean and south of Gilbert Street) �si , r �� �`. bt �ci "�i°7 H ^4` CURRENT ZONING & USE I Located in the Lodge (L) zone district with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay. z ., Parcel I +r 0* ; g';7144--,„.4`g-4 + x s ` ax PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant is requesting to amend the 4 � existing entitlements for the properties , Parcel 2 from a total of 31 on-site residential multi-family units (14 free- market units re r and 17 affordable housing units) to 24 W� r x Parcel 1: on-site residential multi-family units (14 "" 0 free- market units and 10 affordable housing units) and 8 off-site residential xl ;, "° multi-family affordable housing units. * E The off-site units are proposed to be � x A; F �► . 4 located at the Airport Business Center. ;'6*� Yh The free-market component's net livable ty � r ,.r fi. � . . ' Vicinity map of the site LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant has requested a combined review, in which all final decisions are granted by City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission provides a recommendation to council. The following land use recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission are being requested: • Resident Multi-family Replacement requirements for the amendment of the approval granted pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.530 (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). • Growth Management Review — Substantial Amendment for the amendment to a development order authorizing development allotments pursuant to Land Use Code Page 2 of 10 Chapter 26.470 (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). • Subdivision - Other Amendment for the amendment of the subdivision approval pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.480 (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). • Planned Unit Development — Other Amendment for the amendment of a site specific development plan pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445 (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) reviewed the application on January 4th and 24th of 2012. The minutes from these meetings are attached as Exhibits G and H. The Applicant received the following recommendations of approval from the Commission: Planned Unit Development ,(PUD) — Other Amendment, Subdivision — Other Amendment, Growth Management Review— Substantial Amendment and resident Multi-family Replacement pursuant to Resolution No. 2, Series 2012 (Exhibit F). Special Note: The existing townhome project is entitled under the October 1, 2000, Land Use Code which means the land use regulations in effect are from 2000 unless otherwise noted. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant, ASV Aspen Street Owners, LLC, was granted approvals to develop thirty one (31) residential multi-family units on parcels 1, 2 and 3 of the South Aspen Street Subdivision via Ordinance No. 32 (Series of 2003). Since the initial approval, the vested rights associated with the project have been extended on a number of occasions as the property owner worked towards entitling a lodge project (Lodge at Aspen Mountain) on the site rather than the townhomes. The latest extension, Resolution No. 96 (Series of 2009), permits the vested rights to be extended until January 28, 2016 with the caveat that the purpose of the extension is to enable the development of a lodge project and that "a six month period of inactivity shall constitute a withdrawal of the application." Since passage of the resolution, new ownership has taken over the property and the six month period of inactivity has occurred (March 1, 2011), resulting in a vesting period that will expire on March 1, 2013. As a result of the upcoming 2013 vested rights expiration date, the present owners are proposing to amend the existing approvals. The new proposal reduces the number of dwelling units on the property from 31 to 24 residential multi-family units by reducing the number of affordable housing units on the site, locating additional affordable housing units off-site at the Airport Business Center (ABC) and proposing a cash-in-lieu payment. In summary, the new proposal contains: • A free-market building containing five (5) dwelling units and one affordable housing building containing ten (10) dwelling units on Parcel 1. Additionally an underground garage to accommodate SkiCo parking (per an agreement with SkiCo) and some parking for the affordable housing is located on Parcel 1. Page 3of10 • • Three (3) free market triplexes containing a total of nine (9) residential units on Parcels 2 and 3 are proposed with an underground garage accommodating parking for one of the triplexes. Additionally, the Applicant is proposing to merge Parcels 2 and 3 into one lot. • Eight (8) affordable housing dwelling units at the Aspen Airport Business Center. • A cash-in-lieu payment for 3.5 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) Table 1, below, outlines the proposed dimensional requirements for the project. The highlighted cells are the proposed standards that exceed permitted requirements for the underlying zone district based upon the 2000 code. Table 1: Comparison of Proposed vs. Required Dimensional Requirements Dimensional Approved Proposed Dimensional` Dimensions x �q J Requirements Requirements J `(2000) (2011) Minimum Lot 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft. Parcel 1: Size 42,549 sq. ft. Parcel 2: 61,969 sq. ft. Lot 1,100 sq. ft. per 1 bedroom per 3,000 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. ft. per Area/Dwelling bedroom (81 1,000 sq. ft. (free-market bedroom (54 Unit bedrooms on residential) bedrooms on 89,127 sq. ft. of 89,127 sq. ft. of lot area for net lot area for density) density calc.) Minimum Lot 60 Feet 60 Feet 30 Feet Parcel 1: Width 60 Feet Parcel 2: 60 Feet Minimum Front 10 Feet 10 Feet 5 Feet Parcel 1: Yard Setback 15 Feet Parcel 2: Minimum Side 5 Feet 5 Feet 5 Feet Parcel 1. Yard Setback 2 Feet Parcel 2: • 1'-6" Minimum Rear 10 Feet 10 Feet 5 Feet Parcel 1: Yard Setback 5'-7" Parcel 2: 10'-4" . Maximum 28 Feet 28 Feet 28 Feet 28Feet Height Page 4of10 Dimensionalx A roved` L/TRN L Proposed ---,1:',--'.Requirement : Project Dimensional Dimensional Dimensions Requirements Requirements 3 £,u.,_3 E i 2oo 1 cx e 0) 2011) Percent Open 27% 25% N/A > 27% Space Floor Area .83:1 1:1 1:1 < .83:1 Ratio (FAR) Max. Multi- N/A N/A 1,500 sq. ft. N/A Family Unit • Size Minimum Off- 30 2 spaces per 1 space per unit 12 Street Parking Affordable dwelling unit or Affordable housing 1 space per housing 28 dwelling unit if 28 Free Market a studio or one Free Market housing bedroom housing 30 SkiCo , Land Use Reviews: The following land use reviews are the reviews that were required in 2000 and under which the townhome project is currently vested. Current standards are provided as background information and, in some i rr nstances, to provide a basis for evaluation. Demolition or Replacement of Multi-Family Housing: For approximately twenty years, the City has required a certain amount of affordable housing to be developed when existing free-market multi-family residential dwelling units are demolished. The basis for this requirement was the observation that as existing multi-family units (which had often served as housing for local working residents) were demolished and replaced, the new units no longer housed local working residents. At the time of the original application only Parcel 3 contained multi-family residential units (the Mine Dump Apartments). In 2000, when this project was originally submitted to the city, the multi-family replacement requirement was somewhat different than today's standards: The , regulation required that fifty percent (50%) of the bedrooms be replaced, fifty percent (50%) of the net livable area be replaced, and that fifty percent (50%) of the replacement net livable area be above grade. Today's standards provide two options for mitigation with the one closest to the 2000 standard requiring the same replacement of bedrooms and net livable area, but today fifty (50%) of the dwelling units must also be replaced. • Page 5 of 10 Table 2: Multi-Family Replacement Requirements Net Livable Area Above Grade Net Units Bedrooms: �� (sq.'ft) ;Livable=Area, , Mine Dump 23 7,722 N/A 16 Apartments 2000 12 3,861 1,930 N/A Requirements Existing 43 19,538 17 Approval Proposal: Onsite 12 6,630 4,308** 10 Proposal: AABC 24 9,656 9,656 8 Proposal Total 36 16,286 13,964 18 Notes: ** Staff has estimated the above grade'net livable area square footage by subtracting 3 of the on- site affordable housing units from the total due to the location of grade in comparison to finished floor. - Staff Comment: As outlined above in Table 2, both the existing approval and the new proposal meet or exceed the minimum mitigation required in the 2000 Land Use Code by providing on- site affordable housing that meets or exceeds the minimum required 12 bedrooms, exceeds the 3,861 sq. ft. of net livable area and exceeds the 1,930 sq. ft. of above grade net livable area required. The 2000 code required multi family replacement units to be located on-site unless it was determined that units "on-site would be incompatible with adopted neighborhoods plans or would be an inappropriate planning solution due the site's physical constraints. " The 2003 approval provides all of the required replacement multi family units on site including affordable housing units on site that exceed the mitigation requirements. Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing: The proposal is to amend the existing approvals by reducing the number of affordable housing units on- site, provide some affordable housing off-site at the ABC, and provide a cash payment in lieu. Overall, the proposed eighteen (18) affordable housing units will house 42.5 employees as outlined in Table 3, below). Since the total number of Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) housed under the new proposal is less than the entitled project, the Applicant is offering to pay a cash-in- lieu fee between the difference in FTEs which is 3.5 FTEs or $475,356.00 at a Category 4 fee rate (which is the current income category used when calculating cash in lieu). Table-3: Affordable Housing, Employees Housed Unit Type Approved Approved Proposed Proposed AH Units Employees AH Umts Employees e Housed Housed.. 1 bedroom 4 7 8 14 (4 x 1.75) (8 x 1.75) 2 bedroom 0 0 2 4.5 (2x2.25) Page 6 of 10 Unit Type Approved Approved; , Proposed Proposed AH Units Employees- 4,,AH Units Employees �� � Housed .:Housed 3 bedroom 13 39 8 24 (13 x 3) (off-site) (8 x 3) Totals. 17 46 18 42.5 The existing entitlements permit the 17 affordable housing units to be rentals rather than for-sale units. These 17 units were deed restricted at a mix of Category 1, 2 and 3 and permitted to be rental units. The bulk of the units are 3 bedroom units whereas the current proposal provides a more even split of one bedroom to three bedroom units. Categories of the new units are proposed ` to not exceed an average of Category 3. APCHA, which supports the proposal, has requested that all units be no higher than Category 3; however, all of the on-site units are smaller than the minimum net livable area required for Category 3 and 4 (700 s.f./ 1-bedroom & 950 s.f./ 2- bedroom), rather the on-site units meet Category 1 and 2 size standards (700 s.f./ 1-bedroom & 950 s.f./2-bedroom). All of the units are proposed to be for sale rather than rental unit. Table 4: Net Livable Area of the proposed Affordable Housing L1nrtNo F Unit Type Net':Livable Area Category Allowance 1 . On-Site 1 2 bedroom 852 1 and 2 2 2 bedroom - 854 1 and 2 - 3 1 bedroom 602 1 and 2 4 1 bedroom 602 1 and 2 5 1 bedroom 628 1 and 2 6 1 bedroom 602 1 and 2 7 1 bedroom 608 1 and 2 8 1 bedroom 634 1 and 2 9 1 bedroom 604 1 and 2 10 1 bedroom 630 1 and 2 Off-Site 4 units 3 bedroom 1,200 3 and 4 4 units 3 bedroom 1,214 3 and 4 The 2003 approval found the addition of 17 on-site affordable housing units met both the city's • needs for affordable housing and, at the time, APCHA found that the proposal met their guidelines. In determining the need for and type of affordable housing preferred, the current APCHA guidelines have a number of policy statements with regard to preferred mitigation options with the development of deed restricted housing that include: • The board has prioritized the following mitigation options in order of preference: 1) on- site housing — where affordable housing used for mitigation purposes with regard to the construction or redevelopment of a site be either next to or attached to the development, • 2) off-site housing, and 3) cash-in-lieu. • Page 7of10 • • With regard to the types of units to construct, APCHA's priorities for the private sector are: For-sale units with an average sales price no higher than Category 3, consisting of one and two bedroom units; as well as Category 3 and 4, for sale, 3 bedroom units. Staff Comment: There is little guidance in the 2000 code with regard to permitting affordable housing units outside of city limits or for providing a cash payment in lieu of housing; however, the current code in effect does provide additional guidance in the form of two growth management reviews: Provision of required affordable housing units outside city limits (section 26.470.090 (2) and Provision of required affordable housing via a cash-in-lieu payment (section 26.470.090(3). For off-site housing the standards include ensuring that the housing is within the Urban Growth Boundary, that the proposal furthers APCHA 's priorities with units, and that any off-site units have all necessary approvals. With regard to accepting a cash-in-lieu, consideration is given as. to whether providing housing on—site is impractical, whether a good faith effort to construct off- site housing was made and whether the proposal furthers APCHA 's priorities with units. APCHA 's listed priority for private sector development is to provide on-site housing, something the existing entitlement provides and the proposed entitlement reduces: Subdivision: Subdivision review was originally required due to the development of multiple affordable housing units on the three parcels. Additionally, the Applicant is requesting to merge parcels 2 and 3 into one lot. Staff Comment: In general, the Applicant meets the subdivision criteria. Planned Unit Development: All three parcels currently have a PUD overlay on them. Any development (or redevelopment) is required to be reviewed and approved prior to development being allowed to commence. The purpose of a PUD, as noted in the Land Use Code "is to encourage flexibility and innovation in the development of land which: A. Promotes the purposes, goals, and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan. B. Achieves a more desirable development pattern, a higher quality design and site planning, a greater variety in the type and character of the development, and a greater compatibility with existing and future land uses than would be possible through the strict application of the underlying zone district provisions. C. Preserves natural and man-made features of historic, cultural, or scenic value. D. Promotes more efficient use of land, public facilities, and governmental services. E. Incorporates an appropriate level of public input to the planning process to ensure sensitivity to neighborhood and community goals and objectives." A PUD allows variation in the site's dimensional requirements to encourage flexibility and innovation, but does not allow variation in the permitted uses of the site. The Applicants are requesting to amend the vested approval to reduce the number of dwelling units on the site and change the configuration of improvements on the site. The dimensional requirements that are Page 8 of 10 requested to be varied from the underlying zoning are related to the Minimum Setback requirements. Staff Comment: Staff is supportive of affordable housing development within Aspen and recognizes the importancefand need for it within the community; however, staff believes that the Applicant does not go far enough in meeting some elements of the PUD criteria. Staff is concerned that the new design does not relate well to the traditional townsite grid, particularly with regard to the triplexes. The subject property is part of the traditional townsite grid and should better relate to it and the grid pattern that is present. The proposed curvilinear townhome pattern along Aspen Street is a development form in suburban neighborhoods and does not reflect a traditional development pattern, nor does it establish an appropriate relationship "between front facades of buildings and the streets they face. By orienting buildings parallel to the street and maintaining a certain consistency in front setback patterns, there is interaction between residents and passersby and the built environment. " The additional curb cuts and meandering "street" do not reinforce a traditional circulation pattern that is common for lot and block development and may compromise pedestrian and vehicular safety. Additionally, the `delivery access lane' being proposed is not typical of grid development and increases potential conflicts between people and automobiles by having more curb cuts on the sidewalk. The City Engineer does not support the additional curb cuts being proposed. Although on-street parking along Aspen Street has been removed, leaving concern for where visitors or delivery vehicles may park, public parking will be provided underground, as part of the lodge development across the street, to compensate for the removal of the existing on- street parking, A PUD allows the density of a project to be increased when it "serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the AACP", when the site's physical capabilities can accommodate the density, and when it results in a development pattern compatible with the area. A PUD can also be reduced when there are insufficient public facilities or critical hazards present. In 2003 the City Council approved a project with more density (number of units) than what is currently being proposed. Although providing affordable housing units on-site meets the intent of the AACP, the removal of density does not. The city has limited sites available for infill development, and proposing to locate some affordable housing off-site at the ABC does not encourage infill projects to integrate more housing into the traditional townsite and does not reach the optimum development potential that a previous council approved on the site. Although within the Urban Growth Boundary, the provision of affordable housing at the ABC does not assist in lessening a resident's reliance on the automobile or develop a project in a more compact form. Staff is supportive of the Applicant potentially changing the exterior architecture of the development as well as amending the unit types (studio, one-bedroom, etc.) of the affordable housing; however, staff is not supportive of moving density from this site to the Airport Business Center. Staff recommends the Applicant consider adding density back onto the site, specifically more affordable housing. Being located in town removes one's dependence on the automobile by Page 9 of 10 providing a pedestrian environment to get to work, recreation, and commercial opportunities. The subject parcels essentially back onto National Forest Service lands and have easy access to nearby parks and trails. The original density approved for the property encourages a more "lights on" neighborhood. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: The City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Water Department, Aspen Sanitation District, housing authority, building department and the Parks Department have all reviewed the proposed application and their requirements have been included as conditions of approval when appropriate. RECOMMENDATION: Both APCHA and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the proposal; however, staff cannot support the removal of affordable housing from site and relocating in the county. At this point and time, Staff recommends the City Council require that the applicant make substantial revisions to their plans .before returning to Council. Changes should maintain affordable housing on-site or within the neighborhood and the site plan should better relate to the town grid. With this present configuration, Staff recommends denial of the proposal if no changes are made. • PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment for the South Aspen Street PUD on first reading." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: • ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A— PUD Review Criteria (provided 5/29/12 and 6/25/12) EXHIBIT B— Subdivision Review Criteria (provided 5/29/12 and 6/25/12) EXHIBIT C- Affordable Housing (GMQS) Review (provided 5/29/12 and 6/25/12) EXHIBIT D— Resident Multi-Family Replacement Program Review Criteria (provided 5/29/12 and 6/25/12) EXHIBIT E— Development Review Committee Comments,November 2011 (provided 5/29/12) EXHIBIT F— Planning and Zoning Commission, Resolution No. 2 (Series of 2012) (provided 5/29/12) EXHIBIT G— Planning and Zoning Commission minutes, January 4, 2012 (provided 5/29/12) EXHIBIT H— Planning and Zoning Commission, January 24, 2012 (provided 5/29/12) EXHIBIT I- Application (provided 5/29/12) EXHIBIT J— Proposed Architectural Drawings (provided 5/29/12) Page 10of10 • ORDINANCE NO. 18 (SERIES OF 2012) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OTHER AMENDMENT AND ASSOCIATED LAND USE REVIEWS FOR THE SOUTH ASPEN STREET SUBDIVISION/PUD LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS PARCELS 1, 2, AND 3 SOUTH ASPEN STREET SUBDIVISION/PUD, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel IDs: 273513139001, 273513139002, 273513139003 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the ASV Aspen Street Owners, LLC (Applicant), represented by Mitch Haas of Hass Land Planning, requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of a Planned Unit Development — Other Amendment, Subdivision - Other Amendment, Growth Management Review — Substantial Amendment and Resident Multi-family Replacement to amend the existing,entitlements associated with the South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD via a combined review; and, WHEREAS, an application was submitted for an amendment to the existing entitlements for the South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD, which proposes on Parcel 1 a free-market fiveplex residential building, an affordable housing building containing 10 dwelling units and an underground parking garage. While Parcel 2 and 3 are proposed to be subdivided into one lot containing three free- market triplexes or nine residential dwelling units. Additionally the Applicant will provide eight affordable housing units off-site at the Airport Business Center and provide a cash payment-in-lieu; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire Protection District, Parks Department, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, and Public Works Department as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies reviewed the proposed amendment and provided recommendations; and, WHEREAS, after reviewing relevant section of the land use code, the Community Development Director recommended denial of the land use requests; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on December 6, 2011 the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing and continued it to January 3, 2012, and on January 3rd continued the public hearing to January 4th to consider the project; and, WHEREAS, during a special meeting on January 4, 2012 the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing, took testimony and continued the hearing to January 17, 2012 at which point the hearing was continued to January 24, 2012; and, WHEREAS, during a special meeting on January 24, 2012 the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing, took testimony and recommended City Council approve the PUD Amendment and associated land use requests by a four to two (4-2) vote, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on June 25, 2012 the City Council opened a duly noticed public hearing, took testimony and approved the PUD Amendment and associated land use requests by a to (_- ) vote, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, Page 1 of 9 • 1 • WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development review standards for PUD - Other Amendment and related land use reviews are met. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council finds approves the PUD — Other Amendment and associated land use reviews with the conditions listed below. Section 1 General Approval: The City Council approves the following land use reviews: Planned Unit Development — Other Amendment, Subdivision - Other Amendment, Growth Management Review — Substantial Amendment and Resident Multi-family Replacement requirements to amend the South Aspen Street Subdivision/ PUD. The amended development plan permits Parcel 1 to be developed with a free-market building containing five (5) dwelling units and one affordable housing building containing ten (10) dwelling units. Additionally an underground garage to accommodate SkiCo parking (per an agreement with SkiCo) and parking for the affordable housing is provided on the lot. Parcels 2 and 3 are combined to create one lot. On this newly created lot three (3) free market triplexes containing a total of nine (9) residential units with an underground garage, accommodating parking for one of the triplexes, is permitted. Additionally eight, three-bedroom affordable housing units, known as the Pacific Avenue Condominiums, will be developed at the Airport Business Center as part of this amendment. A cash payment-in-lieu for 3.5 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) is approved as well as a waiver of a traffic impact fee of$147,500.00. Section 2: Subdivision and PUD Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the Aspen City Council hereby approves Subdivision of the property described as parcels 1, 2, and 3 of the South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD from 3 parcels into 2 parcels: Parcels 1 and 2, as well as a site specific development plan via the PUD review process. A final Subdivision/PUD plat and agreement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code chapter 26.480, Subdivision, and chapter 26.445, Planned Unit Development (PUD), shall be recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office within 180 days of the approval of this ordinance. Subdivision/PUD Agreement shall include at a minimum the following information: 1. An illustrative site plan of the project depicting the proposed improvement and the approved dimensional requirements. 2. A grading and drainage plan for the property. 3. Approved landscape plan. Section 3: Financial Assurances Before the Applicant is issued a Building Permit the Applicant shall provide.to the Community Development Department 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 Page 2 of 9 required. The cost estimates for the Public Improvements described herein at Section 7 (as well as typical improvements such as sidewalks, street improvements ,etc.) shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. The cost estimates for the implementation and maintenance of the landscape plan described herein at Section 14 shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks Department. The cost estimates for all other improvements and development in the Subdivision shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Department. 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§ 26.480.070(C) & (D) and § 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 and approved 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, or by providing such other security that may be acceptable to the City attorney. If an irrevocable letter of credit is used, 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 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 Project 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, or by providing such other security that may be acceptable to the City attorney. If a Performance Bond is used, the Performance Bond shall name the Applicant and the City of Aspen as additional beneficiaries or insureds thereunder to grant to Page 3 of 9 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 4: 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 Project approved by this Ordinance, the Applicant shall deposit with Pitkin County Title, Inc. ("Escrow Agent") the sum of $250,000 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 5: Dimensional Standards The building as presented in the plans dated June 25th public hearing and attached as Exhibit A to this Ordinance comply with the effective dimensional allowances and limitations of the Lodge (L) zone district except as modified below. Compliance with these requirements shall be verified by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer at the time of building permit submittal. The following dimensions are approved: Dimensional Approved Requirement x ' Dimensions Minimum Lot Parcel 1: Size 42,549 sq. ft. Parcel 2: 61,969 sq. ft. Lot 1,650 sq. ft. per Area/Dwelling bedroom (54 • Unit bedrooms on 89,127 sq. ft. of net lot area for density calc.) Minimum Lot Parcel 1: Width 60 Feet Parcel 2: 60 Feet Page 4 of 9 Dimensional Approved Requirement Dimensions Minimum Front Parcel 1: Yard Setback 15 Feet Parcel 2: 9'_6" Minimum Side Parcel-:1.: Yard Setback 2 Feet Parcel 2: 1'-6" Minimum Rear Parcel 1: Yard Setback 5'-7 Parcel 2: • 10'-4" Maximum Height 28Feet Percent Open > 27% Space Floor Area < .83:1 Ratio (FAR) Max. Multi- N/A Family Unit Size Minimum Off- 12 Street Parking Affordable housing 28 Free Market housing • 30 SkiCo Section 6: Building The applicant may not submit a Building Permit Application until the requirements in Land Use Code § 26.304.075.A, Building Permit Application, are fulfilled. The building permit application shall include the following: 1. A copy of the Development Order issued by the Community Development Department (see § 26.304.075(A)(2), City of Aspen Municipal Code.) 2. A copy of the final City Council Ordinance. 3. The conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover page of the Building Permit set. 4. A construction management plan (CMP) and drainage report pursuant to Engineering and Building Department requirements. Page 5 of 9 5. Accessibility and ANSI requirements shall meet adopted Building Code requirements. Section 7: Engineering Final design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department inclusive but not limited to the Urban Runoff Management Plan Requirements (URMP), snow and mudslide impacts. The project is located in a landslide hazard area, as a result the project must not impact any slope movement as analyzed by inclinometers. To ensure there has been no impact, the project must continue to measure the inclinometers until 1 year after the project completion. Section 8: Affordable Housing All of the affordable housing units shall meet the APCHA Guidelines. All the units shall be `for sale' units sold through the lottery system, unless the "protected" tenants from the original Mine Dump Apartments have a priority for the on-site units. The Applicant may choose three purchasers for the affordable housing units that qualify via APCHA's guidelines. A cash-in-lieu payment of 3.5 FTEs, at a Category 4 income level is accepted by the city and will accessed using the calculation method and fee schedule in effect at the time the applicant submits a building permit. In the alternative, Affordable Housing Credits may be purchased. Following are the number and type of units approved. Each unit shall meet the minimum net livable area required per category. Location Umt NosUmt Type Category f Allowance On-Site 2 2 bedroom 1 and 2 (Parcel 1) 8 1 bedroom 1 and 2 Off-Site 8 3 bedroom 3 (Parcel 2) The Certificate of Occupancy for the free-market portion shall not be issued until the Certificate of Occupancy for all of the deed restricted units have been executed (both on and off-site). All deed restrictions shall be recorded coincident with the recordation of the condo plat and prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy At a minimum the deed restriction shall include: A. If there are protected tenants form the former Mine Dumps apartments that have a priority for a new unit, the list of those tenants will need to be provided to APCHA and each of the tenants will be required to qualify under the Guidelines at the time of marketing the units. B. To allow the developer the priority to pick three owners of on-site units as long as they qualify in the top priority per Part VII of the Aspen/Pitkin County Employee Housing Guidelines. C. All of the units, on-site and off-site, will be ownership units. D. Due to the mix of free-market and affordable housing units on-site, APCHA recommends that the condominium declaration for the on-site units be modeled after the documents provided for the Aspen Walk free-market/affordable-housing project. The condominium documents shall be reviewed and approved by APCHA prior to recordation. Page 6 of 9 E. The existing Pacific Avenue AH housing units include a playground that will be adjacent to the new Pacific Ave units. The developer must explore the provision of cost sharing for the maintenance and insurance of the playground and if an agreement can be reached, to include it in the new condo declarations. F. The applicant and APCHA staff shall meet prior to deed-restricting the on-site and off-site units to determine categories for the units. All AH units shall be no higher than Category 3. G. A capital reserve study shall be provided for both on site and off site affordable housing projects at the time of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. H. All AH units shall include a complete suite of standard appliances; i.e., refrigerator/freezer, stove/oven, microwave, garbage disposal, dishwasher, and clothes washer and dryer hookups. Section 9: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not limited to access (International Fire Code.(IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907). Section 10: Utilities The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards. Section 11: Sanitation District Requirements • Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. A "Line Extension Request" and a "Collection System Agreement" are required for this application. Section.12: Exterior Lighting All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 13: School Lands Dedication and Impact Fees The Applicant shall pay all impact fees and the school lands dedication assessed at the time of building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance. Section 14: Parks A formal vegetation protection plan shall be required with building permit application. An approved tree permit will be required before any demolition or access infrastructure work takes place. Final layout of plantings requires Park Department approval. Section 15: Vested Rights The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan and a vested property right pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.308.011 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 Page7of9 ' plan including any approved amendments thereto. The vesting period of these vested property rights shall be for three (3) 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 § 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. For purposes of this provision, the submission and acceptance of a building permit application for the subject project that is deemed complete by the Chief Building Inspector pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.304.075 shall prevent the expiration of the vested rights of the applicant and any related development orders under Land Use Code Section 26.304.070.D. 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 § 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 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: Parcels 1, 2, and 3 South Aspen Street 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 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 16: 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 Historic Preservation 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 17: 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. Page 8 of 9 Section 18: 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 19: - A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 25th day of June, 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 29th day of May, 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: James R. True, City Attorney ( Page9of9 EXHIBIT A Chapter 26.445, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 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. A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). Staff Finding Staff does not believe the development is consistent with the AACP. While a number of general elements related to the location of development are met, the project does not meet some of the AACP's overarching goals. Specifically, staff is concerned about the proposal to relocate some of the affordable housing to the Airport Business Center (ABC). The 2000 AACP states that "development of affordable housing within the traditional town site should be encouraged" and notes that "when employees have the ability live near where they work, their reliance on the automobile lessons and they have greater opportunities to become a part of the town's social fabric." The approved project places all of the housing on-site, while the new proposal moves many of the units outside City limits. Staff does not find that this meets the intent of the AACP. In addition, the proposed site plan, curb cuts, and landscape retaining walls do not promote the kind of pedestrian feel that is called for in the land use code or the AACP. Staff believes that a number of the goals in the Aspen Area Community Plan are met, but that the Applicant does not go far enough in meeting some elements of the AACP. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding The neighborhood consists of a variety of multi-family residential development and some lodging. The proposal is for multi-family residential development with a mix of free-market units and affordable-housing units. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Exhibit A—PUD Review Criteria Page 1 of 13 Staff Finding Staff has serious concerns related to the number of curb cuts and the curvilinear nature of the street being proposed on parcels.2 and 3. The proposal, particularly parcels 2 and 3, does not relate well to the traditional townsite grid, nor the approved Lift 1 Lodge. That project is well related to the traditional street grid, and staff believes that pattern should be carried through the rest of the area. While the area is relatively built-out, staff is concerned that an approval which increases setbacks and fails to relate to the street could negatively impact the future streetscape and set an inappropriate precedent. Staff finds this criterion is not met. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding The Applicant has received approval for the development by meeting city requirements with regard to demolition or replacement of multi-family residential dwelling units. Under the current proposal, the application requires fewer allotments for the affordable housing component (from 17 to 10), as less units are being proposed on the site. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 PUD development plans establish dimensional requirements for all properties in a PUD. The proposed dimensional requirements are listed below: Dimensional 3 Approved L/TR L Proposed <Requirement g '. Project ; Dimensional Dimensional Dimensions Requirements Requirements 200) (201,1) Minimum Lot 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft. Parcel 1: Size 42,549 sq. ft. Parcel 2: 61,969 sq. ft. Lot 1,100 sq. ft. per 1 bedroom per. 3,000 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. ft. per Area/Dwelling bedroom (81 1,000 sq. ft. (free-market bedroom (54 Unit bedrooms on residential) bedrooms on 89,127 sq. ft. of 89,127 sq. ft. of lot area for net lot area for Exhibit A—PUD Review.Criteria Page 2 of 13 Aamense nal Approi d 1 L/TR L ,4 0 Proposed Requirement r..Project .` = Dimensional; ,, Dimensional Dimensions Requirement`s Requirements (2000) (2011) density calc.) density) Minimum Lot 60 Feet 60 Feet 30 Feet Parcel 1: Width 60 Feet Parcel 2: 60 Feet Minimum Front 10 Feet 10 Feet 5 Feet Parcel 1: Yard Setback 15 Feet Parcel 2: 5 Feet Minimum Side 5 Feet 5 Feet Parcel 1: Yard Setback 2 Feet Parcel 2: 1'-6" Minimum Rear 10 Feet 10 Feet 5 Feet Parcel 1: Yard Setback 5'-7" Parcel 2: 10'-4" Maximum 28 Feet 28 Feet 28 Feet Height 28Feet Percent Open 27% 25% N/A > 27% Space' Floor Area 83:1 1:1 1:1 < .83:1 Ratio (FAR) Max. Multi- N/A N/A 1,500 sq. ft. N/A Family Unit Size Minimum Off- 30 2 spaces per 1 space per unit 12 Street Parking Affordable dwelling unit or Affordable housing 1 space per housing 28 dwelling unit if 28 Free Market a studio or one Free Market housing bedroom housing 30 SkiCo • 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: 1 Exhibit A—PUD Review Criteria Page 3 Of 13 a. The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding There are examples of multi-family residential development within the neighborhood. Staff finds'this.criterion is met. b. Natural or man-made hazards. Staff Finding The project is located within the Blue Mudflow Zone. As a result, prior to Council, the project will need'analyze and mitigate any mudflow impacts as outlined in city standards. The Applicant has agreed to meet these requirements. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c. Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. Staff Finding Most of the development proposed is within areas of the site that have already been impacted by development and/or previous grading. However, the . proposed development includes many retaining walls that are the result of the development not working with the topography. Staff finds this criterion not to be met. d. Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as 'noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Staff Finding The applicant proposes to relocate much of the affordable housing to the ABC. Staff believes this is inappropriate, and could have the effect of increasing traffic in the general Aspen area. The property is near the commercial core, making it well within walking distance for the project's residents. This allows a resident to have less reliance on the automobile. Staff finds this criterion is not 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. Staff Finding Under the Parks, Open Space & the Environment chapter of the AACP one of the Policies notes that the city should "encourage infill projects that integrate more housing into the existing urban fabric." Adding open space to this project contradicts Exhibit A—PUD Review Criteria Page 4 of 13 the policy of encouraging more infill housing. In addition, more open space is inappropriate given the general neighborhood character. Staff believes the previously approved project meets this standard, but that this proposal does not. Staff finds this criterion is not 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 Finding The current proposal of off-street parking exceeds the land use codes parking standards. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a. There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities or other utilities to service the proposed development. b. There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance to the proposed development. Staff Finding Adequate public facilities exist to serve both the proposed development and the entitled development that was approved in 2003. Staff finds this criteria not applicable. 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. Exhibit A—PUD Review Criteria Page 5 of 13 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. Staff Finding At this time, Staff does not find that significant natural hazards on the site are present that would necessitate a density reduction. The property had existing development on it prior to demolition and is vested with an approval that permits higher density on the site. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. a. The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b. The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as 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. Staff Finding No increase in the maximum density is proposed, rather a reduction in density is requested. In 2003 the City Council approved a project with more density (number of units) than what is currently being proposed. Although providing affordable housing units on-site meets the intent of.the AACP, the removal of density does not. The city has limited sites, available for infill development, and proposing to locate some affordable housing off-site at the ABC does not encourage infill projects to integrate more housing into the traditional townsite and does not reach the optimum development potential that a previous council approved on the site. Although within the Urban Growth Boundary, the provision of affordable housing at the ABC does not Exhibit A—PUD Review Criteria Page6ofl3 assist in lessening a resident's reliance on the automobile or develop a project in a more compact form. 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. Staff Finding There are no significant natural or manmade features on the site. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. Staff Finding The parcels currently proposed to be redeveloped are located within the original townsite. There are no significant view planes, or open spaces adjacent to the property that should be considered as part of the redevelopment. 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. Staff Finding The proposed development is moving away from a more traditional grid development design and creating a more suburban design with the site plan of the free-market component along Aspen Street. The additional curb cuts and driveway along Aspen are not typical of traditional block development. Staff does not find this criterion met. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Staff Finding The City of Aspen Fire Marshal has reviewed the proposal, and has noted that additional information will be required to show appropriate fire department access. The Applicant will meet this prior to council review. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. Exhibit A—PUD Review Criteria Page 7 of 13 • Staff Finding According to the Application, the project will comply with all applicable requirements. This has been included as a condition of any approval. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Finding According to a letter submitted by the Applicant's engineer, site drainage will be handled) to maintain historic runoff. Staff finds this criterion will be met. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Staff Finding Staff finds this criterion to not be applicable. 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 has provided a landscape plan for the site. The Parks Department has requested some changes to the plan. As part of the review before City Council, an amended landscaping plan will be submitted. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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. Staff Finding There are no significant natural or man-made features that require preservation. Staff finds this criterion to not be applicable. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Exhibit A—PUD Review Criteria Page 8 of 13 Staff Finding The Applicant will provide a final landscape plan prior to City Council review, incorporating Park Department comments. This will ensure existing landscaping is preserved or mitigated for if it is to be removed. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Architectural Character. 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 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. 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 Aspen's "design history ranges from Victorian to Bauhaus, from 50's "ski instructor" to postmodern, to contemporary." Staff believes the proposed architecture is an improvement over the heavy timber design approved in 2003. Both the entitled development and the proposal under consideration are subject to the Residential Design Standards. As noted in a staff memo in 2003, the proposal did "not meet all of the residential design standards. However, because the proposal is being reviewed as a site specific development plan by means of going through the PUD review process, a waiver from the Residential Design Standards may be granted as part of the PUD." It was also noted that a waiver was appropriate as the design standards were geared towards single family and duplex development rather than the multi-family development that was being proposed. Since that approval in 2003, the design standards have been modified to have only certain design standards be applicable to multi-family development. Multi-family development is required to meet: • Building orientation. This standard requires the front facade of a building to be parallel with the street. The middle and upper triplexes do not meet this standard. • Garage setbacks. This standard requires a garage accessed from the street to be set 10 feet behind the front facade of the building. All garages provided at grade meet the requirement. Staff is concerned with the garage access to the upper triplex as it is forward of the building along Aspen Street. • Street oriented entrance and principal window and First Story element. Multi- family units are required to have one street facing door for every four units and front units must have a principal window as well as have a first story element (often provided in the form of a porch). Additional review of these two criteria is required as some of the porch elements are unclear on the plan. Exhibit A—PUD Review Criteria Page 9 of 13 • Windows. Only one non-orthogonal window per façade of each building is permitted. Only the affordable housing building meets this standard. • Lightwells. Light wells are not permitted beyond the frontmost wall of the street facing facades of a building. The fiveplex does not meet this standard. Staff finds this criterion not to be met. F. Lighting. 1. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. 2. 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 Finding The PUD will comply with all lighting regulations in place. A more detailed plan will be provided as part of the Final PUD. 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 fora 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 Finding Exhibit A—PUD Review Criteria Page 10 of 13 Parcel 1 will contain a landscaped park area as was approved in the original approvals. The applicant is proposing that it be managed by the HOA. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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. Staff Finding The Water, Sanitation, and Electric Departments reviewed this application and determined there is adequate service for this development. 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 Finding At this time no adverse impacts are anticipated. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff Finding No oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are proposed. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. 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. Staff Finding Staff believes that all structures and uses have access to a public street. The application proposes to install sidewalks along the property. However, staff is Exhibit A—PUD Review Criteria Page 11 of 13 concerned about the access drive proposed and the number of curb cuts in the project. 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 original application proposed one driveway access for Parcel 2 and 3 off of Aspen Street, the proposed application now proposes 3 driveway access points. Staff believes a reduction in access points is important and will improve the safety and pedestrian accessibility of the area. Additionally, three driveway access points are not consistent with the purposes, goals and objectives and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). In the AACP, it discusses "improving safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, mass transit riders, and automobiles in the Aspen area." The spacing of driveways is an important element in roadway planning, design and operation. Access points are a major source of accidents. Their location and spacing affects the safety and functional integrity of the roadway. Too many closely spaced driveways increase the accident potential, not only for the roadway but also for any sidewalks in the area. Research has shown that accident rates generally increase with both the frequency of access and the average daily traffic; however, the greatest increases resulted from increasing the number of access points per mile. Staff finds that this criterion is not 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. Exhibit A—PUD Review Criteria Page 12 of 13 Staff Finding The Applicant has agreed to provide sidewalks along the property but 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. 1 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 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. Staff Finding No phasing is proposed as part of this development. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. Exhibit A—PUD Review Criteria Page 13 of 13 EXHIBIT B SUBDIVISION REVIEW Section 26.480.050 of the City Land Use. Code provides that development applications for Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements. A. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding Staff does not believe the development is consistent with the AACP. While a number of general elements related to the location of development are met, the project does not meet some of the AACP's overarching goals. Specifically, staff is concerned about the proposal to relocate some of the affordable housing to the ABC. The 2000 AACP states that "development of affordable housing within the traditional town site should be encouraged" and notes that "when employees have the ability live near where they work, their reliance on the automobile lessons and they have greater opportunities to become a part of the town's social fabric." The approved project places all of the housing on-site, while the new proposal moves many of the units outside City limits. Staff does not find that this meets the intent of the AACP. In addition, the proposed site plan, curb cuts, and landscaping do not promote the kind of pedestrian feel that is called for in the land use code or the AACP. Staff believes that a number of the goals in the Aspen Area Community Plan are met, but that the Applicant does not go far enough in meeting some elements of the AACP. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Staff Finding The neighborhood consists of a variety of multi-family residential development and some lodging. The proposal is for multi-family residential development with a mix of free-market units and affordable-housing units. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Staff Finding Staff has serious concerns related to the number of curb cuts and the curvilinear nature of the. street being proposed on parcels. The proposal, particularly parcels 2 and.3,does not relate well to the traditional townsite grid, nor the approved Lift 1 Lodge. That project is well related to the traditional street grid, and staff believes that pattern should be carried through • the rest-of the area. While the area is relatively built-out, staff is concerned that an approval Exhibit B—Subdivision Review Criteria Page 1 of 3 which increases setbacks and fails to relate to the street could negatively impact the future streetscape set an inappropriate precedent. Staff finds this criterion is not met. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. Staff Finding At this point in the review, staff does not believe the application is in compliance with all of the requirements of Title 26 (such as the Residential Design Standards). Staff finds 'this criterion is not met. 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. 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 . Staff believes that the property is suitable for subdivision. The sloped site contains no overly steep topography and no extreme geologic hazards that may harm the health of any of the inhabitants of the proposed development. The engineering department is requiring additional study with regard to any,mudflow impacts and slope movement. In addition, Staff believes that there will not be a duplication or premature extension of public facilities because the property to be subdivided is already served by adequate public facilities. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion to be 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: 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. Exhibit B—Subdivision Review Criteria Page 2 of 3 Staff Finding The Applicant has consented in the application to meet the applicable improvements pursuant to Section 26.580. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 26.530, 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 Applicant is providing the required multi-family replacement affordable housing units as required by the Land Use Code in effect in 2000. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Staff Finding The proposed subdivision is required to meet the School Land Dedication Standards pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630. The Applicant has proposed to pay cash-in-lieu of providing land, which will be paid prior to building permit issuance. Thus, staff finds this criterion to be 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 is has already been entitled and the amendment proposed requires less allotments than what was originally granted. Staff finds this criterion met. Exhibit B—Subdivision Review Criteria Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT C Section 26.470.070 (J), Affordable Housing Growth Management Quota System Exemption Section 26.470.070 (J), Affordable Housing, of the regulations provides that, "All affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines of the City Council and its housing designee shall be exempt [from the GMQS scoring and competition procedures]." Review is by City Council. The section goes on to state that: The review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this section shall include a determination of the city's need for such housing, considering the proposed development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of dwelling units proposed, specifically regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit, the size of the dwelling unit, the rental/sale mix of the proposed development, and the proposed price categories which the dwelling units are to be deed restricted. Staff Finding The 2003 approval found the addition of 17 on-site affordable housing units met both the city's needs for affordable housing and, at the time, APCHA found that the proposal met their guidelines. These seventeen units were deed restricted at a mix of Category 1, 2 and 3 and permitted to be rental units. The current proposal requests to develop 18 affordable'housing units, with 8 of the units located at the Airport Business Center. Categories of all of the units are proposed to not exceed an average of Category 3. AP,CHA has requested that all units be no higher than Category 3; however, all of the on-site units are smaller than the minimum net livable area required for - Category 3 and 4, rather the on-site units meet Category 1 and 2 size standards. All of the units are proposed to be for sale rather than rental unit. Additionally a cash-payment in-lieu is proposed. In determining the need for and type of affordable housing preferred, the current APCHA guidelines have a number of policy statements with regard to preferred mitigation options with the development of deed restricted housing that include: • The board has prioritized the following mitigation options in order of preference: 1) on- site housing — where affordable housing used for mitigation purposes with regard to the construction or redevelopment of a site be either next to or attached to the development, 2) off-site housing, and 3) cash-in-lieu. Exhibit C-GMQS for Affordable Housing Review Criteria Page 1 of 2 • • With regard to the types of units to construct, APCHA's priorities for the private sector are: For-sale units with an average sales price no higher than Category 3, consisting of one and two bedroom units; as well as Category 3 and 4, for sale, 3 bedroom units. Today's affordable housing standards provide more specificity with regard to the development of affordable housing, both in form and location. With regard to form the units need to meet the ACHA guidelines, be designed so that 50% of the finished floor of each unit is above grade, and be deed restricted as for sale units. There is little guidance in the 2000 code with regard to permitting affordable housing units outside of city limits or for providing a cash-payment in lieu of housing; however, the current code in effect does provide additional guidance in the form of two growth management reviews: Provision of required affordable housing units outside city limits and Provision of required affordable housing via'a cash-in-lieu payment. For off-site housing the standards include ensuring that the housing is within the Urban Growth Boundary, the proposal furthers APCHA's priorities with units and the off-site units have all necessary approvals. With regard to accepting a cash-in-lieu consideration as to whether providing housing on —site is impractical, that a good faith effort to construct off-site was made and that the proposal furthers APCHA's priorities with units. APCHA's listed priority for private sector development is to provide on-site housing, something the existing entitlement provides and the proposed entitlement reduces. Staff does not find this criterion met. Exhibit C-GMQS for Affordable Housing Review Criteria Page2of2 EXHIBIT D Chapter 26.530,Resident Multi-Family Replacement Program • Section 26.530.050, Housing replacement requirements A. Minimum Replacement requirement. In the event of the demolition of resident multi- family housing, the owner shall be required to construct replacement-housing consisting of no less than fifty (50) percent of the square footage of net residential area demolished or converted. The replacement housing shall be configured in such a way as to replace fifty (50) percent of the bedrooms that are lost as working resident housing by demolition. A minimum of fifty (50) percent of the replacement housing shall be above natural grade. The replacement housing shall be deed restricted as affordable housing int accordance with the requirements of section 26.530.060, below. Staff Finding Both the existing approval and the new proposal exceed the minimum mitigation required in the 2000 Land Use Code by providing more affordable housing than the required 12 bedrooms, 3,861 sq. ft. of net livable area (total) and 1,930 sq. ft. of above grade net livable area. Staff finds this criterion from the 2000 code to be met. Since 2000, the Demolition or Replacement of Multi-Family Housing standard has been amended, allowing multiple options to meet the mitigation requirements. Under today's code the on-site affordable housing would not mitigate the proposed free market residential; however, the combined on-site and off-site affordable housing proposal meets the current Demolition or Replacement of Multi-Family Housing standard by providing 100% replacement of bedrooms, dwelling units and net livable square footage of the former Mine Dumps Apartments. B. Location of replacement housing. Multi-family replacement units shall be developed on the same/site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner shall demonstrate that replacement of the units on-site would be incompatible with adopted neighborhood plans or would be an inappropriate planning solution due to the site's physical constraints. When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum number of units on-site which the City Council determines that the site can accommodate and may replace the remaining units of-site,within the Aspen Metropolitan Area. When the owner's housing replacement requirements involves a fraction of a unit, cash in lieu may be provided to meet the fractional requirement only. The amount of acash-in-lieu shall be computed using the formula set fourth at Section 26.620.020. Staff Finding • The 2000 code required multi-family replacement units to be located on-site. The 2003 approval provides all of the required replacement multi-family units on site in addition to the extra affordable housing units on site. The current proposal of on-site affordable housing meets the minimum multi-family replacement requirements. Staff finds this criterion from the 2000 code to be met. Exhibit D—Multi-Family Replacement Review Criteria Page 1 of 2( C. Timing and quality of replacement unit. Replacement units shall be available for occupancy at the same time as the new unit or units, regardless of whether the replacement units are built on-site or off-site, and shall contain fixtures, finish and amenities requires by the housing designee's guidelines. When replacement units are proposed to be built off- site, the owner shall be required to obtain a development order approving the off-site development prior to or in conjunction with obtaining a development order approving redevelopment on the site on which demolition is proposed to take place. Staff Finding As outlined in the 2003 approvals for the townhome development and included in the draft resolution, no Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) shall be issued for the free-market component of the project unless C.O.s are issued for all of the affordable housing units both on-site and off- site. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Section 26.530.060, Rental and resale restrictions Replacement units shall be deed restricted in a form and substance acceptable to the City Council. Such deed restricted units may only be rented or sold to tenants or buyers who meet the city's qualifications in effect at the time of sale or rental, and at sale process or rental which are also in compliance with the city's current regulations. The owner shall be entitled to select tenants or purchasers subject to the aforementioned qualifications. The mix of affordable housing units, as between category affordable housing and resident occupied, may be determined by the owner, provided that no less than twenty (20) percent of the bedrooms qualify as category 1 and 2 and no more than twenty (20) percent of the units are available as resident occupied units. Staff Finding In 2003, the approved PUD permitted all of the affordable housing units to be rental units and are required to have a deed restriction on the units meeting APCHA guidelines. Today, the Applicant is proposing that the units be for-sale units meeting APCHA guidelines. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Exhibit D—Multi-Family Replacement Review Criteria Page2of2 r1 79. r4 [-}Sk\NI Jennifer Phelan From: Chris Bendon Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 9:32 AM To: Jennifer Phelan Subject: FW: South Aspen Street PUD amendment Cheers, Chris. From: Steve Falender [mailto:falender @comcast.net] Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 2:54 PM To: Mick Ireland forward; Derek Johnson; Adam Frisch; Steve Barwick; Steve Skadron; Torre; Chris Bendon Cc: Steve Falender Subject: South Aspen Street PUD amendment Dear Council, You are scheduled for a first reading Tuesday to amend the Aspen Street PUD. The new proposal is still a townhouse project, which in my opinion, is a poor use for the largest, best located vacant site in Aspen for a hotel. I urge the Council and staff to make every possible effort to entice the owners to re-study the possibility of a hotel on the site. I urge the city to seriously consider waiving traditional requirements, including but not limited to on-site (or even off-site) employee housing, application and processing review fees, etc. to encourage a new application and increase the chance that a new hotel could be built with a mass and height that most of the community can support. This site is the best opportunity we have for a new, significant, hotel to be built in town, and, as the Viceroy has proven in Snowmass, a new hotel will add to the vitality of the A-1 side of the mountain, help sustain our local economy, boost the promotion of our town as a year round resort, and add to our tax revenue. Also,while some of you might dream of a moderate priced hotel, a Four Seasons level property would be a much more valuable asset to Aspen long term than a few condos. Yes, the concessions I ask you to consider might set a precedence, but this size of vacant land in town is unique and worthy of special concessions. Thanks for your consideration. Steve Falender 603 W. Gillespie 920-1616 Email secured by Check Point 1 • Page 1 of RFCFJVED CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT South Aspen Street PUD 6/25/12 Dear Mayor and Council, We agree this location is an appropriate site for a hotel, fractional or lodge with some type of hot bed inventory. If this cannot happen for whatever reason then we prefer the modified design as shown in the applicants current submission. This design preserves the quality of life that we and our neighbors have enjoyed for over 15 years.Juan St Homeowners is comprised of 6 family units with 10 children currently being raised.The proposed design will also improve the caaality of life for the occupants of the new project over the one currently entitled. The currently entitled design simply does not speak to our cemrnra:ities values or beliefs.The entitled project removes open space, dramatically increase traffic on Juan St. and reduces views We w•oe d like some sense of finality. This development has been looming over us for 1S+years. We deserve some sort of resolution. Our children talk about • the uncertainty of their yard, street and homes frequently. An entire generation has groan up believing their home lives may dramatically change at any !-homent. The development process needs some finality. COWOP 1, 2, Left side of the street right side of the street the community needs to move forward. Outside of our small corner of paradise and the surrounding neighbors the proposed site has been a wasteland for a very, very long time. Many trees have `-pen me down and have now actually re-grown. The site is frequently used as a staging area for other development projects in town. The City itself has had the Deep P--w,.° der cabins stored for years now. Fencing of the area falls in and out of if you cannot find away to have a positive conversation with the developer about a lodge product while preserving some of the quality of life benefits we have er' yed ?lease pass the currently proposed project. Thank void Sf.lan St n,ffor dable Homeowners Association httos://owa.asp .-sin':- mags.cozy/owa/WebReadyViewBody.aspX?t=atrt&id=RgAAAACiOd... 6/25/2012 7/9/2012 r 1 1 Lodge at Aspen Mountain COWOP - 2009 07.09. 12 ".' GOLUB PUSS ;sr "'. Haas 86 Next Steps: la ill"II -..„,_ . ,__ _....i--- .pia: ....,L..R_- _- ___ - 9 1IiiI1h12L_ {. `ri, ;. f. irk !;, I' _ i ',• ....�. Iii . . _ 07.09.12 _? GOLUE3 PUSS ® ,: Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 13,7 1 7/9/2012 Next Steps: —44.r 40.r f1A' 311.0' R 42.r r 461' 11142, 46.4. sor 42.7. 66.6• 43.4 ISp 64.0 41.4 26,0 122 60.0 �!'. 46.6• 7017 / 21A' .•of �/ 236'— ,�°�. 280 "cam '44 . .: 410P� t.=rte 114.0 ` 17.6' 1 22A' '' 113.0 44.5' 239' 26.6' 26.0 23.0. 07.09.12 s; r Goa_ue ROSS c Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 88 Next Steps: AIL - Hotel II Amenities ®BOH Circulation Parking IIIFractional ■Whole Ownership 07.09.12 cCLL© ROSS ®;;: Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 9 2 i 7/9/2012 Next Steps: ENOMMI- WI Hotel ▪Amenities ▪BOH Circulation Parking Fractional !4 Whole Ownership 07.09.12 !p ccowa FOSS ® Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 90 Lodge at Aspen Mountain COWOP - 2009 IMENEMEooLuB FOSS ( Haas 07.09. 1 Z _...__......_---........ ....._____. .- .-._____ __------. ..91 3 wooisrop South Aspen Street Townhomes Amendment Pons ® 07.09. 12 Fp, Gown Haas Meeting Goals Vision: Who are we? and Why are we doing this? Proposal: Context Fit Street Safety & Pedestrian Experience Livability & Sustainability Next Steps: What are we asking for? and Why? Respond to City Council Information Requests 07.09.12 GoLL pass r7 Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment la 1 7/9/2012 Vision BALD MOUNTAIN ' rY; ; DF_ VELO PMENT *rrl/dt'fit r ' - '. who we are... what we are doing... 07.09.12 !', .! GOLUB JOSS Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment l } D 4 Proposal: Context ' ,y ' 4,44 s' g is . { 1 "4 t y ' 1 'y� rt,t 44.44 - t r _} ...r- 4 iF iirdart .,EE , Ma l `- e(e �,r,n� r,� it kll,✓ 1 J G� t. s AL:'t,.'t'� :�+ 11 S#' '1#'JtlR A ftpp ff 'A :" • i, 1 �' w Tff? .._-� 07.09.12 ,,;;.,'; GOLUB puss ®:!!s' Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment141 2 7/9/2012 "r tug Proposal: Context ,k,c.4:0, 4 ` A 1. } �1 '' e,„,- ,� ,3�fi 4 ,� -; g ` ' r l i ,i` f , ,31 'If wee _ .5.*.3r i ,t.: ,, -; It 0 pi:" 'r ',' s , �* ¢ L t :`N yip •••-- 1 - V _ S1w{ �� 07.09.12 Go,Lue pQSS asr,e:: Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 1 Proposal: Context ' `, -1 s q, � ;: .� P : . PlIril°1 , t . " '' lab . „3.....Y. 'Z-A.;774.1-tt.21' _ .,,t,,, ems . . v.„..,_ .....„ ...k.-: , .,,,' Oyu w ` xrY t •f �` �F • .lair •£ !;(1‘ , , _, „ , ,. - 4 1*, , 07.09.12 9 ammo Foss Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 16 3 7/9/2012 .' � � . q Y *`Proposal: Context , a.3 , , r S a it ,- „ �� ° , "` ' , 3 „ ,`` hadow I {4 ` 40" 'Mountain r_� -.., r ` a.R�... , MI - ': .4,,,, sir' Lift One <' E' Lodge ~ Juan Street l i.• ,.;,a Baf,bee V'0 .a°r. s'', Timber Ridge•AT_ v:. t J wirlf, ,_;�• ICI s,AT_ "-` �xk Trcrinor's ,is erns' 1 : ! is i �` ne Landing A ,hero* . `, 4:4 :Al , f '`.-4. . ; . T _ " , 07.09.12 LT A GOLUB pOSS Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment in Proposal: Context ,,,,4*' , < SkiCo Parking Mitigation • "' �+ ASPEN SKIING COMPANY i _ 1 Barbee View Plane I 1 } +'"rt 99 Year Lease s "130 Spaces " \`rNo Above Grade Development i j1 16'Above Juan Street Ys' : t A,, F.d} -_ `5 07.09.11 AP I GoLue pass ® Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 8 4 7/9/2012 Proposal: Context f- s , ,-�` 4 .� 4 y •� �jr.g, Y_ r,A l y'i, -s y 4 1' ' ,A=,.,,,,, t 4i°'l , _M.9 1,'")i�n YF4 �Ys .,'c .„ / PM f$ 9 `14 3 °'j• A• 4 f '161 a.f}, i � #",•� q, � Z � A, f "i F s: kct (4r ff L 07 09.12 Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment ■ �a��B pons ,,; P a 1 Proposal: Context , - Existing a Site .+twee ae y rs 't �' 3 $ rY2 fir �..t I' - .:..olt:-..:"-,...41,,, , .4_' ... '([ GM M 1 f a. ` . • rs 1 (r � lit a 5 Garmisch St. 9 �� 1' - c •A^std�f" 'y� ,.'. .. - 07.09.12 —, POSS _, „ litl;p Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment�L 5 7/9/2012 Proposal: Context Approved 111 - -'-gout -f., .. • ..ri - Site Plan 1 ..- ■-• 11-4 7 eilrat li, ik t. ....f.,,.." .. , b 1 - .. 4ii 121"FA110$—", '' ..."'• - -- , '• ,_. i ,i:-..*11.1"". ,,,- .•:,..- 4+, `0,.e,'"'.'','F.1*•'III te,i r- ;7'."1 at, 3.,. ,,, ;..;:...,-.-„,: , '01*,: Filvallifeta-; - ,i!=:,, C, ' ... :t.*:ati.,.4 sf 41' : ti '7".'''-'7, i i• " '' 14--_—:,:-r-fir,--"-. 4,M1,,,.11 ,,;4, , "' Ng '',ti' ,r1",,,ril .-- , . I u''., .. . m.,. ,..,...,. _il ._. 0, . r, , ' '' '-'1 ..r.,' --: - ', .4-4- ,, IF tir i I i'a' % : , ■;.:,- **-.' ,,, .4 •1_64Var$41.,• $ • V., $. 19. ) i". 'ii-'4,16 ,___.,-_,- , . Rip- •;.1,- '141112''' illikr .%.v.. : i I • ' 7,, 1 • ' 1 W--- , ,10`77., ' ----e, ;?:•-'7"-'--.' - agillr ' 'LK '4,--' " aiadamt...: - * - - ,:i.4- -- , .. - ' ..' Eril . .- . --.. ,, Free Affordable ' Ili it' -— . . Market Housing ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,-,/•./a- , 10) 4. A • ,• p p roved 14 Units ' 17 Units t4,41411_ 1 , I I .t. '47,? re ,,f; 1 ,4e -S• . ,'7.'" -,',.1` Gar ch St. , '\ -- 07.09.12 pass ral 4 Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment la Proposal: Context Approved Site Plan - ,..,$• k.4 4,ii, ,, - „il Lp fp initJais Nrot.. 4 A s-,,- -. ,,,, - -,-. ,-,:ii, Free Affordable Market Housing -' ,../-,...,4A-•-, ‘ Approved 14 Units 17 Units lot- -- I l 1 — 07 09 12 Tr. CRZW113 puss II , South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment h.-2 6 7/9/2012 Proposal: Context Approved Site Plan a s �Y e7 'kl • . i1-A . r Free Affordable ;. is Market Housing NNW Approved 14 Units 17 Units iii 1 07.09.12 4p GaLu@ ROSS 11 South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment€.3 Proposal: Context 4 I V Proposed iq _ 1 0 , s i Site Plan s uth ` "%i 1- , -"f -7 f ,r y . ` ty 62-.! 1 '1 I �, I,'t _ q p , I•4 3 � _ Z I 't a �t: 'ti '"y • . \�• _ 1j�r.� :rw�a _ ue. �L." ".1 a,.4' . 1 ` L' .. Free Affordable ra, a { ,� ,�, ,. I S fir,. Market Housing 4 a `-t.-, 3 -- .•. Approved 14 Units 17 Units I Garmisch St. ° ''4 t , iiittittt. ‘.-.,.,-• s, - - `.r t,:f., . 07.09.12 `? GOLUB FOSS n-- H „ South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 7 7/9/2012 Proposal: Context Proposed Site Plan tgliam l l ! J, ;KU: 1 .1 r...-i .1PIP r Free Affordable o d Market Housing Approved 14 Units 17 Units Proposed 14 Units 18 Units 07.09.12 Isis • GOLUB JOSS FL Has South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment ka Proposal: Context -- Proposed :' r y < 7 CI',i ..,, i„ y i `T;Y Free Affordable Market Housing ,s; g�, Approved 14 Units 17 Units ■1Y r I ^�Y➢ . r .; • Proposed 14 Units 18 Units 1 07.09.12 =um poss I South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment h. 8 7/9/2012 Proposal: Context __-- `j ai c,° •■ • , ' r':xs , . , i i�, ma Existing ; h G 11, �.-re- 2,T - ' i. . ..Y,..,,,,,,-- `,� •` � 4 t Y YS ! 4 - Garmisch St. 07 09 12 . :WT.'''.t,-,--,-.:.711 00".../13 poss r Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 17 Proposal: Context l iI ►�Stoud • h , Juan Street AHU $ 4 41i .• ',N 1% t 7rg q 1I T 4 H xi . .. 4,� _ i 1iY ns: • I b CC d`Y ,�., Yi NIPlii �. v „: AV . ' - ,. -0 ,. .- - , , , - .. ,..-:e4/". ig',a ,4:g-=.** -. \.._ ... �Garrnisch.St. . '.. - . : to t,. �%: . '� l . {'�•:..Xr 07.09.12 Lowe Goss m ':, Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 18 I 9 7/9/2012 Proposal: Context I Approved Juan Street AHU I I ! 1 od fi fk r 07.09.12 _{' �i GOLUB ROSS Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment la Proposal: Context I Proposed Juan Street AHU ' � � = e* 6 I wti t „std* " f �F r 4 s 07.09.12 , n« + GOLUB poss ®'_;t;! Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment pa 10 7/9/2012 Proposal: Context — U � ; ' Approved I I ' "i± ` y " Landscape/Retaining Walls r-- - q.;:gd zWil rte' ..' ^ ; r if,4 i p s- + . 4,4 0 � G4• �:,ka K.01 4'1 •if a%i -11 P r Alp t- ' , �[Y y .1,'5.-1 V C 1 Lt."- F j - 07.09.12 V cal.uc' FOSS r"' H", South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 2.1 Proposal: Context Proposed Landscape/Retaining Walls 1 r ' ^ I . 1 ....13 07.09.12 ma GoLue POSS ;b Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment kl I 11 7/9/2012 Proposal: Context Approved Access/Retaining Walls v. p i , �' vaF: t, , rryltl r , „5 i f „�1 X01 o �. t . 0'1��W ,N as 7I x t_ ��lD 999., y v. '0 ,"< I7 6'\ „. eE• tea g∎ i..� t ie . -::-_—_-.. _ 6 . • - - .---: .2 - -IP _-- ,,, ..4 r- 16' 07.09.12 Gowa ROSS El _ Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 2'3 Proposal: Context Proposed Access/Retaining Walls 1 �,,l� ,. c ' Q Cdr f�14/ 4 07.09.722 . OSS _... p � Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 24 12 7/9/2012 Proposal: Context ��°' -L ,►L�S < . ;' e..4° .� ii Proposed r of —� " JF+' Access/Retaining Walls ttiii�. JAS�� i; �s!'� .T����s / r� , , -+ ear. ,r I " I r i ' l • pi d _ n f..9 4, L tt !F 7 itS rk .At.__ _ P',I 07.09.12 a GOLuB pOSS Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 25 Proposal: Context Approved Access/Retaining Walls 1 }��yV;4 I I ' T T ~ a ass ;..,6 ' 4 - NR.11011., ,, .._ , '1 51WOGW MGUNlMI r-. 0 , 6 ;i 1 ,WIXMGLOT } I ,E mSTING RETNNiNG WALL :-PROPOSED RETUNNG { WALL y 1 I I IP8 4 07 09.12 a; GoLu9 pOSS 92::o1 Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 26 13 7/9/2012 Proposal: Context I Proposed Access/Retaining Walls y .. A. i +fir. inn. _ PROPOr w / i i ® MANHOLE .Vi N er Vail BOLDING , ,7T . ^_r--Tr- i/ J - . ° L O OTNTMI a it" l � �^[ I. F :: � ' . EWSTNG RETAINNG WALL h wui PROPOSED RETAINING I rr 07 09.12 Ross E::;: Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment Proposal: Context I Proposed Access/Retaining Walls � s TowN aN a M a EXISTING RETAINING I �T WALL lj 1 i --1- PROPOSED RETAINING - wu1 +rr 07.09.12 ma Foss Ell . Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 14 7/9/2012 Proposal: Context a.°: i .-, • Y `' . ,_rzfi A ';> \ Proposed __11,17.2. . ` �� ' i .,, � \\ Access/Retaining Walls S, 1{,. 'a# -moo :7 litP . t ym I , :, �". 4 t '8 f' - ms's .....•..y".- - - + 07.09.12 GoLua pass [ Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 0 Proposal: Context Approved Access/Retaining Walls r r I . , ! . - • w n ,4--,, f v } 1. I Y • F 1 ,-,,s 21 Y ' %r h ; 1 .itrilt ' ruwn + mevwx :, I 07.09.12 !R3 GOUJB pOSS 0 Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 15 7/9/2012 Proposal: Context Proposed Access/Retaining Walls Ir° " I I i 6 I 's fl 4I MOS 6RIMMt I •10lA0110 AMID I MEOSI MINIMA 07 09.12 !49 i aOLua JOSS 0 •;: Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment le Proposal: Context Proposed Access/Retaining Walls) K wt l Ir! ` .. i i 1s 'i` �_ I 'r i 6T. s,A I 4 I ■° , .oA .m II AMASIIEE� ! MOM IVWC6I 07.09.1 t GoLLIQ ROSS Eti'<:c Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 2 16 7/9/2012 Proposal: Context Approved Br #:. ri Streetscape , "r ?? l , ° � wy nt ' d � ; F r k aJ 'is , 1 1 /W ' it 3� i . ,t ' 4',::' "- 1 r "^ 1- , , t "I Oil 1 1 1 1 'if il' i;1141: ; ' 0, till y i +'[ 07.09.12 GoLue 1OSS r,, Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 33 Proposal: Context Approved Streetscape d \ 1------- . CAE :: ."� 4 ,0 '4 ' i i, is { ii ti 1 01,, '' 07 09.12 4!! GO.UB pass r Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment s 17 7/9/2012 Proposal: Context Proposed Streetscape y ° 9 y w rm : 07.09.12 v Bowe FOSS ® ' Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 35 Proposal: Fit -� -' ,� l. 111 ; 4' r Ct Q (: a., . ss 1" „$ a } 11 ia 3''.'i 1. 7:-- 1E4 i I;it. ..- , '....if i ■ rea ' , v.*, _ '" d C ro ns 07.09.12 * acLuo ROSS Illim Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 18 7/9/2012 Proposal: Fit , a ; 4 2V 4;,, Wit;'. Ru'� •sLy fa ',l .5. a t� ,(• .i } 10 la .y ` �T"` i ter,;tai. � ,axe '''f �.tp 1.. , V, .' f-!.,"7 l,�j i` ..1,...#4 t1' iiiii .Ar ti___s5.+ h u 7G 111, aAY4 4 a p. '' ni - i rea p 4. 07.09.12 IV esou.an pons ®?:!P Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 13• Proposal: Fit 4,, r� 1- r ' . ^ 4 _ i , �i è;rFy. '"r. \ -- Eames & South Additions er . a� * 6.L t3 > r ; 1 a$ msp�erTGwnst `-�.-1,„....J rr 1 r ' ,, '7, a -ate^ "`a 'i Q a. .5 a ekr 1.. r` f'..z ` 4 ;-+ • v Yee► \ ~ • N. ,ac j' ft a b4' • .Y• Z t +f-. t �...k+_.. -.. ... m' F1 07.09.12 AC! K GOLUII Pass E =s Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 08 1 19 7/9/2012 Proposal: Fit �.;. ■ , !'m ■� p'' �_ �� Eames &South Additions • isilit I/ 'FAIrilL..14i11111 11111 4111110111 1111:11k 711.:.' 11: ■ - , As `' er ®�`IN alt nos I ■■■MVO L .l Aspen Townsite 07.09.12 GoLue ROSS v. Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment l Proposal: Fit .;. r r,. ■N 11 , al IF \ w !IWIi NB it 1111111111.01 vial ■NU 11111 win L �::, 07.09.12 4 =we ROSS Eti Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 20 • 7/9/2012 Proposal: Fit « . NM or 4topi al 111 )6 , ti • ! t -1: I i illit • f , EIJI ■ „ al NE 'IL. #: 11/111/ 11Nei IA 1il is■■ 07.09.12 niatilti= rain JOSS Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment fil I Proposal: Fit ,* Er ,,,...?g-- 1 Ni cAtti. 4. ss4401 ' 1121 al -Ir. I 7/ 11/2 J II _ _ 07.09.12 4 % GoLuo JOSS (m Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 21 7/9/2012 Proposal: Fit _--- _ `—.x ;"ram LX.... r^ • ,.� , r"C. r 7G ;. r' ,:mac R � r 07.09.12 gl 504-ue pOSS ri s Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment k3 Proposal: Fit . _._mil •�c � 1 �' ry �� i � �- ' 7' . tl`;, +te r..V«' ,, v - y •1i V �' 1 A a` V 41101 07.09.12 '...7 puss 1 a> South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment Ill 22 • 7/9/2012 Proposal: Fit Existing I Streetscape �.•R ti .�,�^- _- Z ''C•5°"'- 07.09.12 GOLL/B ROSS a Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment ft! Proposal: Fit CDS lie in 1116 no Nom• Illtitio go IIIII i ,i" k Approvedr = Streetscape II - . ,• I li -w.A.,1,,At , en 3, I ; ii 11M .. Ind iii %iii IIIIIIN IN > 07.09.12 00!1 - GOLUB pOSS 0 Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 46 23 7/9/2012 Proposal: Fit I Proposed ° .{y� ' �.ay Streetscape °F {{P@ II ET . mot, tk 'GuA" 'ass ,, ,.I. iill* _.,---- '''' /11.° : I 541;11 , .::, ,. NI age M MINI ai 11111 1111111 Ilk& Mg ma 07.09.12 iffla mows FOSS Fa. Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment ittl Proposal: Street ..s _ :-v:A , 1 4F'µ1 . i s i '} +,,'- t1_ -„ " ,s • .*.. 75' of Rise �'_t ' y , .z- 07.09.1 t Pii,._, mows poss . South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 48 24 • 7/9/2012 Proposal: Street Safety ` �•. rt � '° e4•. rt\ 4' . :ti L -y Fos 1� i ;"' '! `, e '* 'I r Y n' -,,:, ••,, A 1'4 4' i y ' a 9 _ ' -,Y � , • ' ; # 440...........:00.0000090.•••••••"......#.4e.° Approved �. Street Section 07.09.12 aowe pOSS ®,>,, Has South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 49 Proposal: Street Safety rw y �i, 4' ': o' )) P.0 '.t .` ! g. .1, , ?F i .0." . 3 2 a(� Y i. 4. `� " ; fir. - r.i.' ,4 ,K f, f ' J iw , ice ' yis• f -44 - I q _j . -4 x , ' r .gip , . .... [ . -_;l 17,100i ,.�1.11 -ihril-e Ay i { i'�1 r //- 4'+ r— w `—__- Approved Street Section 07.09.12 a?y Gown p0ss f' H a; South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment l 25 7/9/2012 Proposal: Street Safety �? i ,, ' r � N r: � � �'Y ,'''',4,i r � P � 7 ' ; �� t a ,r�� T1 1'' ' � c, tt „v. „ ,: ;,, , 1,`/'r+` ,"`,bi,'`, F , ,fi r9 eta �. � �,ai,4. 'F "i 5 • < a. , 1L. 43c • Proposed Street Section 07.09.12 l u pass ® y Haas m South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 51 Proposal: Street 5- ' F , ii' w Pedestrian Safety ”' _ ! n ^ '' FIt ' 1 ate, ` !' 1� Pd + e•ill, y.Nit .. .. '..,'"06 , t: :;r �:liirdp 4 . "1 4 l';5 -6:w0- Fs- tyre` rga 3.: , -. R!�iP� # JR 07.09.12 GoLue pass sw Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 52 26 7/9/2012 • --. ao I I : -' - ': '.. .''. Li( " • v. Proposal: Street Sa zYi; .1 4,11.6, , ' ,-,---":-- ',,,, - . i Pedestrian Safety R.4"'-*-.,,,Lifo-. ..'' '1.`- ' ' -t:'-1' "st ' - ' ' °..""- 1, 111:, '- k - ' - , •-,_ - - , .. - ' -' `.,.!, 'i 4'•* -- . ' * - ,...0‘..,1 it •,,' , . - t... ,,,,-- , _„ I" , - 1 j # tr.' V`410 7: 1 % - A 144 •.■ w r• - 1, r _;_____;,_, , . ........—,..—, - , .. , . ....a "r * ,,.. - , i. 's- LI-r , if;:r t ii.. , 4- -t ,it 1 "'"-`,..',.. -Iti.....— .t.r.r.'• .,,, 4**"....."...,t)., •• t.. • L , ' )- ,. - = _........ ... .,'-irk-Zz-,-.4` 4-, . . - - - • --,-,1 , , .= . -?„-,..;. .4;4,, ;...0-; .t... t" k ■ •-, ler-; ,..7.,- . ...---- .., :I. ,' - r,-,,,..-• .7"4. ' I's, 4,..`_,•.., . :- „ -,„., . , ,,.. •• i 1,...2.,, ..e._„...„.„ „„,„„4 , ..tr' •-•„,..s.c 1,,,..Pt„ ikt---..--,k,- s'- -... .,• ....- ., .,P , :( ."k Vel"'''-' ' V" Iii` ',: ' • ,i -" ''.:-.,. .• ‘, Ptif 07 09 12 GOLUB poss r Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 3 NT , Proposal: Street Safost'ilp4L-- ie., Pedestrian Safety --- - ,r,'. :t... A, i . '--k,if ',. . ,',--1,,,,, , -.... ,_ ■ - --. . ,4_ 4. : , ,i— t. 1,,,......„ ,---':". '"" Ilil',It .r. 4 rtli L▪ : ,-i -,--, - - -1,-- ..-vt. 1 , 0... \ , -A, *97-.„.---....-.4,, k7, • .,.- ' . -,•`*4'"-' - '''-' ' eld j4:r IP:7-"...• ■'-'-=,-e------,-;.-''k ,f-4t .. , " • — tI f. (,..) 1r i- ' 'tll' ^A' _ ..._itil,' ,. i.f._•...,- '0114,ittr''ag_ ■ '' A ".1-- . . , , -- h-- . - . _ ,--11_it, _ , ,.,- . , -c..:--,..,, i , k.4 -, eel w 1▪ r 0 , , ,, ,,,,,i,..,, ,, -.1 Is . 4 • `•• - • -.... 4 ' - - ' r I- `u..k • ' - ...3--- t 14 . 1 . . c*-4, .7*-- :'4 •'' . i",4° ■.' A 'if',"..e.1'1 ., ... ■•' '...‘ - ....Z'' . :' , .' °el. " '• -opt .1 't,if ..,,ttkrk.' % '.. -- c-: , PI I.: • 1 — It ,.,..--;,-t,-...',.. 4''1,41:',.;-..1.0t?"r",,P ,. •;', .••• - ,- — .... , ,,,,, 4:41i ,' '''.-:---- .• ?" — - .-7`. ' .,,,,, , --• '`"- —, • •:- i ;, - ri:g-161zaztrottwt/**-:-.... /SI N .... 07 09 12 UJEI ,_...._, 111 • Pm Go JOSS Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment p1 27 7/9/2012 v , .-,.....- , it . Proposal: Street Sattiu,' 0 `,. -- t , - f.„ pitt -4 -_ . . .4... -4 - ..t ioit . — i•4 " ', Life Safety —- Ar.' \ di ..,:' ;:s.ii_,i. ,eip 1 J - _ •r: "..- ' p ' ' -3:b.e. • ''.-.. ,_ i ' :41..--...4- ii.1. __,• ---AM A.- ,,,r, ,"*. -%< --_:-Ov ' , --7014314"12 - - . 7•11' it-.11kts 4 ,.-,4 '-;- ;" t,,,.._, • 11 ,., .i,,r'.- P ',i4e Iii.eit.# 1 ow A.,- ill ,1 - .1 1 - , . , . 4 • ,6.";.evii ■, !ip tt; r, "`„--I,. ,,,' _ ..,4::.-,e."' . a ,,,' 0,* : _x — :-. i Dit. 41,1141? ' ' - '''' , 1g .. letvit , . ... rr' ", ---*'■ ',:.--.41.....".."IP . y'l.. - ''.e or ''. ' 444.. , ' ''' ' ■ I Aeltiiii,Ahe ,S2 g vail!VA, , . ' . I, . 'r , ,w .0 .".-.41111 P. .. I, , •''' -I , "..- , beitlikItt •,..,-,. it$-,15'.-- ' 1 ,7 1 i ""' Ofits N. ... ... , ... - k ' I or- -.4,-, ,:,c,,,tr-.,?,- Ahroslargi -'• .- - - ,'", '• , = - ' „ -yz,:f - 07 09.12 11 ' GOLUB pass E Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment ! Proposal: Street Safety - , i r t , - -1" _, - i I '■ t r t 1 I j -- HMI 6. •■—.). IIIPI , „..,.,.-- Approved — Streetscape % > , 07 09 12 ,_ I GOLUB poss r Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment RS 28 rm. • 7/9/2012 Proposal: Street Safety Reduction of Traffic Ranges Seasonally from 5 to 14% at Peak with an average reduction from 15 to 22% R� rj mod', Proposed Streetscape s § 07.09.12 GoLue ROSS m Has South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 01 Proposal: Street Safety Approved 07.09.12 !kit' meows POSE ®: : Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment VI 29 7/9/2012 Proposal: Street Safety SkiCo 3` Parking Mitigation i\ ` ASPEN SKIING COMPANY a 9 :08 • Proposed 07.09.12 GOLUB PASS 0=s_ Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 559 Proposal: Pedestrian Experience ° % .33 ` :1 ,az1k', 4, rill 1FFnn. ,'p'R gU tr L. it ORel - . . i ;,..-._„!, s .+.11:,.i4 :,,oigl',,,,,,,i..i?,4,;;?1,13 ,..,,,...I.:),,-," -_, t', 4,4 x7 i e } + l'''■ 07 09.12 G'ow© POSE ; ` , ® Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 30 7/9/2012 Proposal: Pedestrian Experience Approved Pedestrian View Plane 07.09.12 coLue ROSS E Has South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 01 Proposal: Pedestrian Experience Proposed Pedestrian View Plane _2 ' e. t L 07.09.12 coLuo Ross E' r Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 62 31 7/9/2-312 Proposal: Livability + �z °; y„ zh. ,, �v ' t4.` .e :.\-.42A__. Z:{�� y��y1p , Irl y Z. s^/ -'144 .r 9 r; y e , + h ' a3, 4 A fh l e f rK., 1 4i t rifigtr 50 -r __n w� 1 <a_• 07.09.12 „,V:.,:;!; GOLUB P OSS ®-� Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 61 Proposal: Livability - Employee Housing ; ti }- f,1 —~ �` ��� ,.-, ...,;,___Y--.1114°' .m`-y. 3 1 t e GIs �A ai�� ; l - + ‘ ,, Juan Street `` � Lift One Lodge 61t,.i t.. (Proposed) .,; _ t Trainor's Landing El ' - K y” • 07.09.12 lAil Gown p'3`.s Elvee Haas South Aspen Stree ow am ndment 03 32 7/9/2012 Proposal: Livability - Employee Housing On Site Off Site Total Units Units ,Approved I 17 0 17 r all ■ • `" „me 07.09.12 9!” GOLUB FOSS r Haas � South Aspen Stree o 'omeS',r-Artee-ndment 65 Proposal: Livability - Employee Housing On Site Off Site Total Units Units Approved 17 0 17 ■ . m- 07.09.12 4!� caws i0SS Haas South Aspen Street ow 'o A ndment 33 7/9/2012 Proposal: Livability - Employee Housing On Site Off Site Total Units Units LApproved 17 0 17 Proposed 10 8 18 • Unit Mix: Updated to Reflect Current APCHA Recommendations . #1. • Providing More than 3 Times the , '/4 Amount of Required Housing • Exceeding by 35% the Amount of ■ OP Required Housing on Site. }* • Approved by APCHA Board ' ��fr 07 09.12 e�; IJ GoLB ROSS 0 Haas South Aspen Stree ow "om '-Amendment ta Proposal: Livability - Employee Housing ° ar.as e as 0s.. _ Airport Busir,. --1/ -- --- /iit ,--/ --, / -- . ....._„,,,_ f r x? 2.i t• ir,n ,r-r`,csr } .k - tit t \ 4\1 '' b� � 1 E - '/y .✓' i t °a N ,,,:- 4 �_ p ?,ti, _ parr s - w G ‘� a -- ....m I '—� COI ■ t,� �'�6.' I s '. �! ' • Irt Elliiiiiiiiiimaiik .. C STREET 07.09.12 GOLUB ROSS .. € Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment la 34 7/9/2012 Proposal: Livability - Employee Housing _ _ ,, i ., . .,„ 4.,..,1 ,,. ., „..., A -P4' 4- ?fti ♦ t F.`" j le i M .44,.'t ` 1� /\ . + it 7 3 4 °'a r r '= Mx4 sr...,,„/ 1 7 ,; 1 •qWl e. 07.09.12 tr cows pass am Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment n Proposal: Livability - Neighbors & Pedestrians 1 r ;.i p x W: a` LAS {/j, -, . • ` rte �. a'�,.,; i, Vy Existing Juan Street Pedestrian Experience 07.09.12 pym =owe pOSS ®r.: Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment lei 35 7/9/2012 Proposal: Livability - Neighbors & Pedestrians , S 9 r z x'" t 1 m Approved Juan Street Pedestrian Experience 07.09.12 pr, ,. ac... JOSS ® ;: Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment`71 Proposal: Livability - Neighbors & Pedestrians '*0«'•� i 1 �,. rdµ iippAA f , . r ..�_ . t €>'� d E i �/6 T - - _ k �. -fin+. - ^rvhl°"rn"•woMW .�..ylylN" - r J Proposed Juan street Pedestrian Experience 07.09 12 GOLUB JOSS El Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment l 36 ► 7/9/2012 Proposal: Livability - Neighbors & Pedestrians • 4 44! ` eVS ♦. ;.` 1 Icy 44 07 09.12 aoLue ROSS Has South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment v" Proposal: Livability - Neighbors & Pedestrians ams I , S 'r. • r� • _. I:7 L ' r. °�F r '-` 6 a a-�$ 'ice � � , e r.0 07.09.12 GOWN posy r Haa, South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment p 37 rMIN. r 7/9/2012 Proposal: Livability - Neighbors & Pedestrians or • ti' d A ¢ ak r}Ii. Qd u 07.09.12 GOLUB ROSS "''®9:1 Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment Proposal: Livability - Neighbors & Pedestrians • 07 09.12 GoLIJ6 ROSS s;w<''; Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment a 38 7/9/2012 Proposal: Livability - Neighbors & Pedestrians 07.09.12 Are coLue pOSS [A''s Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment V3 Proposal: Livability - Neighbors & Pedestrians t A F f••c • ..- / 1 f+l:.`^ i ;1. 07 09.12 OSS Ms GOLUB p ®,,,,, Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment la 39 7/9/2012 Proposal: Livability - Neighbors & Pedestrians . .,--Ai O o R• 1 I , al, -"'-n----.--------"--.---'-------,...................................._.......=aa.........L............,...___...._._......u..........-Mk -1--/'N--r.----.----'-----/. 07.09.12 r 4 GOLUB POSS E•u :;: Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment l9 Proposal: Livability - Neighbors & Pedestrians _ _ *:, L'''''''''te a4 .l 4 •, p+. 4 •:. 5 _ .. ., ..... ,,, ,,,„.., .. . .. , ,,,,,..,, _ _ ,,, .r. ., ......,,,,,_ , .. - t t = ! 1�, ..,,,. . t..,_ .. __ ._„.__ .. , : ‘,..,_„,„.... 4'I A ' ...,, 2 , ----- 07.09.12 vat GoLum ViSS r Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment t.I 40 , 7/9/2012 Proposal: Livability - Sustainabilityy• , 4141M f 1 . � ■, Et. i? , c 1 CITY OF Asrr a CANARY INITIATIVE .: Efficient Construction a' Daylighting °9`.'; °~.j / Green Roofs ' 8094-1 infiltration Reduced Impervious Surfaces 07.09.12 IP ;; GoLua ROSS m Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment til Next Steps: Not Asking No increase in: Height No increase in: Floor Area i No reduction in: Setbacks No reduction in: AHU Mitigation 07.09.12 ,+ emus ROSS 0 Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment 62 41 7/9/2312 Next Steps: Asking modification of : Planning Layout modification of : Architectural Character modification of : AHU Mix and Location 07.09.12 ,,;,, GOLUB ROSS ®;;: Haas South Aspen Street Townhomes: Amendment Next Steps: Resulting In Better Fit to the Neighborhood Safer Pedestrian Oriented Street Scape Better AHU Units Better Sustainable Design and Construction 07.09.12 ; /C■ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Aspen City Council FROM: Sara Adams, Senior PlannerSW THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director QAv' RE: 720 East Hyman Avenue, the Aspen Athletic Club (Block 104, Lots Q, R, and S) — Second Reading of Ordinance #17 Series of 2012 - AspenModern negotiation for Landmark Designation and benefits, Subdivision, Growth Management for the creation of a free market residential unit and for the development of affordable housing. Continued public hearing from June 11, 2012. MEETING DATE: July 9, 2012 REQUEST OF COUNCIL: City Council is asked to approve Ordinance #17, Series of 2012 including an AspenModern negotiation for 720 E. Hyman Avenue, in addition to Growth Management for the creation of a new free market residential unit and Subdivision. SUMMARY: 720 E. Hyman Avenue, aka the Aspen Athletic Club, is located on the east end of downtown at the corner of Hyman Avenue and Original Street on a 9,000 square feet lot in the Mixed Use Zone District. The property a _ is included on the Aspen Modern _ map. The applicant proposes to ____---- ----- voluntarily designate the existing Robin Molny designed building r in exchange for benefits through the AspenModern program. The applicant proposes to convert a portion of the second floor office space to an affordable housing Photograph 1:720 E.Hyman Avenue unit and to convert the third floor office space into two free market residential units. The majority of the changes are internal to the building; however a few minor exterior changes are proposed. A 675 square feet roof deck and stairway access is proposed in the center of the roof; the removal of 5 existing skylights and the addition of 3 new skylights on the roof; and the replacement of plywood "hoppers" with glazing. HPC reviewed these changes on May 23, 2012 and granted Minor Development approval with conditions. 720 East Hyman Avenue AspenModern Negotiation—Second Reading July 9,2012 Page 1 of 11 BACKGROUND: The Aspen Athletic Club was built in 1976 by local Aspen architect Robin Molny with Art Yuenger assisting with construction drawings and some design details. Molny is a significant local architect who was part of the local Frank Lloyd Wright trained constituent. Similar to other Wrightian trained local architects, Molny worked for Fritz Benedict when he first arrived in town. In his practice, he designed the Mason and Morse Building on Hyman Avenue (designated in 2012), the Hearthstone House on Hyman Avenue (designated in 2006), the pedestrian malls and local area residences including a home that was listed in the 1975 Architecture Record publication. The existing building is located in the Mixed Use Zone District. It comprises 5 floors with 3 floors above grade and is entirely commercial. According to the current Land Use Code the building greatly exceeds the FAR allotment for commercial uses (the maximum by-right is 6,750 square feet and the existing condition is 17,026 square feet) and it is over the height limit (maximum limit is 28 feet up to 32 feet, and the existing condition is between 33 feet 3 inches and 35 feet 6 inches). HPC reviewed the project on May 23, 2012 and recommended unanimously that City Council negotiate for landmark designation. During the same meeting, HPC granted Minor Development Review for minor changes to the exterior of the building and denied the request for setback variance to accommodate a brise soleil above the street facing windows. The minutes from the HPC meeting are included as Exhibit I and the adopted HPC Resolution is included as Exhibit H. As part of the AspenModern review Council is asked to grant Subdivision Review and Growth Management Review. QUESTIONS DURING FIRST READING: During First Reading Council had questions about the requested incentives, housing and impacts that the rooftop deck has on the community and the historic integrity of the building. To date this is the third AspenModern negotiation that Council has reviewed. This project is unique in that it proposes very minor exterior changes (a rooftop deck and some windows) where other projects have proposed mass and scale additions. AspenModern has been in place for 18 months. ComDev consultant Ben Gagnon has written a brief whitepaper about how AspenModern evolved from two split camps of citizens, voluntary vs. involuntary, to a case-by-case negotiation process. The recent challenging projects make it easy to overlook how much ground has been covered. The whitepaper reflects upon how we got to where we are and why we are able to have a community conversation on a case-by-case basis about these buildings. The white paper is attached as Exhibit G. 1) Does the loss of net leasable area impact the community? The loss of net leasable area in this location brings the building into closer conformance with Code requirements and better reflects the existing neighborhood context. The existing building does not meet current Code requirements- there is much more commercial than permitted in the Mixed Use Zone District (17,062 sq. ft. existing and 6,750 maximum allowable). Reducing the net leasable area of the existing building will bring it into closer conformance with the 720 East Hyman Avenue AspenModern Negotiation—Second Reading July 9,2012 Page 2 of 11 requirements of the Mixed Use Zone District. The surrounding buildings adjacent to and across the street from 720 are all residential buildings. Adding a residential component to the building reflects the purpose of the Mixed Use Zone District and better relates to the existing context of the block. This reduction lowers the building's impact on the community by providing affordable housing. It also reduces the space for businesses to locate. It is a matter of judgment as to the net impact on the community. 2) What is HPC's opinion on the effect of rooftop decks on historic structures? During their regular meeting on June 27th, HPC discussed the effect of rooftop decks on historic structures and concluded that they generally have a positive impact by contributing to vitality and livability, and should be considered on a case by case basis. There are certain characteristics that contribute to a successful rooftop deck: a setback from the building edge makes the deck less intrusive; a taller building makes the deck less visible; the size of the deck should be proportionate to the size of the building and the roof; and the use of the deck should be considered — for example a residential deck should be more screened than a restaurant deck that could add vitality to the street. HPC voiced concern over visual impacts of accessories that are placed on decks (lights, light poles, large furnishings, etc.) and the challenge to control these items after a deck is built, which factors into whether a deck is appropriate. 3) Do rooftop decks impact Aspen's community dynamic? Staff was unable to find information in other communities on the impacts of rooftop decks on community dynamics. 4) More information regarding APCHA's opinion on onsite housing in a mixed use building. Housing Department staff plan on attending the July 9th hearing to address any questions about the onsite housing. A referral memo from Housing was included in the first reading packet as Exhibit E. The referral from the APCHA Board recommended denial of the proposed affordable , housing unit due to its placement in a mixed use building. The Land Use Code allows onsite affordable housing'mitigation units in mixed use buildings. 5) Why allow an extra 250 square feet of net livable area? The applicant requests an additional 250 square feet of net livable area to allow one of the free market residential units to be 2,750 square feet of net livable area in size. The applicant plans to address this question during the July 9th public hearing. 6) Why grant a parking waiver for the cash in lieu payment? The existing building is unable to accommodate onsite parking, therefore a cash in lieu payment is required. As part of the AspenModern negotiation, the applicant requests a waiver of the $90,000 cash in lieu payment. The applicant plans to address this question during the July 9th public hearing. A representative from the Parking Department, and possibly the Transportation Department, plan to attend the July 9th meeting. 720 East Hyman Avenue AspenModern Negotiation—Second Reading July 9,2012 Page 3 of 11 7) Include all of the benefits that 720 E. Hyman is eligible for as a landmark, not just the benefits that are outside of Land Use Code allowances. Many of the landmark benefits in the Land Use Code are only applicable to, residential development. There are 3 landmark benefits of which the proposed project is eligible. Landmark designation of 720 E. Hyman is required as part of the AspenModern negotiation. The AspenModern requests are listed after the landmark benefits in the Land Use Code. The proposed project could not without outside of the AspenModern negotiation process due to the free market residential component exceeding Code requirements. For example, the free market component would be need to be smaller. This makes it challenging to analyze the project as if it was not participating in the AspenModern process as a potential landmark structure. a) Growth Management Exemption for up to one free market residential unit for the enlargement of a historic landmark. This is a cumulative benefit; any additional free market residential units require growth management review. The proposed project includes.two free market residential units for a total of 5,250 square feet. The mitigation requirement is a total of 1,565 square feet of affordable housing - either onsite, housing credits, or cash in lieu. The applicant is providing an 825 square feet unit onsite. The remainder of 750 square feet of affordable housing is waived with the landmark status. Without this benefit, the applicant would be required to build a unit, provide 1.88 FTEs in housing credits, or pay$262,993.20 cash in lieu. b) Impact Fee Exemption for Parks Dedication Impact Fee and Transportation Demand Management/Air Quality Impact Fee. This exemption applies only to the historic resource. It does not apply to new structures on.a historic property. Both of these fees are calculated based on new residential floor area (free market residential and affordable housing). Parks Dedication Impact Fee: $43,463.75 (7,975 sf* $5.45/sf) This fee is used for acquisition of open space and development of parks and recreation facilities. Historic Structures are exempt from paying this fee. Staff has notified the Parks Department about this fee. TDM/Air Quality Impact Fee: $4,864 (7,975 sf* $0.61/sf) This fee is used for the expansion of capital facilities to maintain the current level of service as it relates to traffic levels and clean air for the community. Historic Structures are exempt from paying this fee. Staff has notified the Transportation Department and Environmental'Health Department about this fee. c) Parking fee waiver or reduction in requirement. HPC is authorized to reduce the parking requirement or waive the cash in lieu fee "upon a finding ...that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district.', Rather than piecemeal the negotiation at HPC and City Council, the requested waiver of 720 East Hyman Avenue AspenModern Negotiation—Second Reading July 9,2012 Page 4of11� the cash in lieu parking fee was included as part of the negotiation package that is under Council's purview. It is addressed below. ASPEN MODERN NEGOTIATION: The applicant requests the following incentives in exchange for landmark designation: 1) Grant 250 square feet of net livable area (NLA) to be added to one of the free market residential units to allow it to exceed the maximum residential unit size cap after the addition of a Transferable Development Right (TDR). There are two free market residential units (Unit A and Unit B) proposed on the third floor. The Mixed Use Zone District has a 2,000 square feet (sf) NLA cap for free market residential units with the ability to increase to 2,500 sf NLA by landing 1 TDR per residence. This calculation deals with net livable area (NLA) as opposed to floor area. Net livable area is the area within a building that are used for habitation and human activity. Floor area is includes a calculation of space above grade that is attributable to a specific use. For example, a stairway that is accessed by commercial and residential will be allocated as a percentage to each use as part of the floor area calculation for the use. The shared stairway is not included in the net livable calculation. The applicant proposes to purchase and land 2 TDRs - 1 per residence for each unit to meet the 2,500 sf NLA cap allowed by Code. The AspenModern request is to allow one of the units to further exceed the cap by 250 sf NLA for a total of 2,750 sf NLA. Table 1: Free Market Residential Units measured in Net Livable Area Free Market -Maximum unit size Land 2 TDRs, one per AspenModern request for Residential Units cap ( sf NLA) residence(sf NLA) 250 sf NLA Unit A 2,000 2,500 2,750 Unit B 2,000 2,500 2,500 2) Ability to exceed the allowable floor area ratio for free market residential use. The increase in the free market residential unit sizes exceeds the maximum floor area ratio of 0.5:1 allowed in the Mixed Use Zone District. The maximum allowed free market residential floor area is 4,500 sf and the proposed floor area is 7,014 sf (0.78:1). The overall building complies with the total overall maximum allowable floor area ratio of 2:1. The uses are broken down below: 720 East Hyman Avenue AspenModern Negotiation—Second Reading July 9,2012 Page 5 of 11 • Table 2: Existing Floor Area vs.Proposed Floor Area by Use Allowable floor Difference Amount the area in Mixed Existing floor Proposed floor between Use is over Use Existing and the allowable Use Zone area (sf) area (sf) District(sf) Proposed floor area (sf) floor area (sf) Commercial 0.75:1 or 6,750 17,026 9,061 (7,965) 2,3111 • Free Market 0.5:1 or 4,500 0 " 7,014 7,014 2,514 Residential Affordable No limitation 0 961 961 - Housing Overall Total 2:1 or 18,000 17, 026 17,036 10 3) Waiver of$90,000 parking cash-in-lieu fee for 3 parking spaces. The Code requires one parking space per residential unit with the ability to pay cash-in-lieu for the parking spaces by right at $30,000 per space. The 3 new residential units (2 free market units • and 1 affordable housing unit) require 3 spaces for a total of $90,000. The cash in lieu fee is used "solely for the construction of a parking facility, 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." Transportation and Parking Departments are not in favor of waiving this fee. A representative from the Parking Department will attend the July 9th meeting to answer any questions about how the fee relates to the department mission. 4) Slight height variance for new skylights and deck on the roof. The applicant proposes to remove 5 small skylights and add 3 small slightly convex skylights on the roof. The rounded form allows positive drainage for snow and water from the skylight. The property is already over the height limit, so the new skylight extends above the height limit. The applicant represents that the skylights will be 1 ft. in height, which is about 6" shorter than the existing 5 skylights proposed to be removed. The applicant proposes a roof deck that will be about 1 ft. above the existing roof. The building is already over the height limit, so the proposed roof deck needs a height variance to exceed the 42 ft. height limit. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from City Council. As noted, many of the reviews below typically fall to either the P&Z or HPC for final review or a recommendation. AspenModern allows the consolidation of reviews at City Council which provides Council with the entire proposal for review. The amount of existing commercial floor area is an existing non-conformity that is allowed to be maintained or reduced.The proposal is to bring the commercial component closer to compliance by removing almost 8,000 square feet of floor area. A variance is not required for the commercial floor area. 720 East Hyman Avenue AspenModern Negotiation—Second Reading July 9,2012 Page 6 of 11 • Aspen Modern Ninety-Day Negotiation (Section 26.415.025(C)(1)) for preservation benefits in exchange for historic landmark designation. City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission. The ninety days expires on February 29, 2012. • Designation of Historic Properties (Section 26.415.030(C) for landmark designation of the Aspen Athletic Club. City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from,the Historic Preservation Commission. • Subdivision Review (Section 26.480) this is a technical subdivision that the Land Use Code requires for mixed use properties to divide the building into separate interests. City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. AspenModern allows the consolidation of reviews at City Council; as such the P&Z has not reviewed the application for a recommendation of Subdivision. • Growth Management Review for new free market residential units within a mixed use building (Section 26.470.080(2) for the creation of a new free market residential unit. This is a Major Growth Management Review at the Planning and Zoning Commission. AspenModern allows City Council to have review authority over other Board's purview. City Council is the final review authority. • Growth Management Review for the development of affordable housing (Section 26.470.070(4) for the creation of an onsite, affordable housing unit. This is a Minor Growth Management Review at the Planning and Zoning Commission. AspenModern allows City Council to have review authority over other Board's purview. City Council is the final review authority. PROJECT SUMMARY: The proposed project is mostly interior changes to the existing building that includes converting a portion of the second floor commercial space to an affordable housing unit and converting the third floor commercial space to two free market residential units. A new rooftop deck is proposed that meets the requirements of the Code regarding the height of the stair access to the roof and the height of the guardrail. The affordable housing unit meets the mitigation requirements for the 2,750 square feet net livable market residential unit. The 2,500 square feet net livable free market residential unit is exempt from affordable housing mitigation due to the building's landmark designation that is part of the application. The proposed changes bring the building into closer Code conformance with the allowable commercial floor area allotment; however the proposed changes exceed the allowable free market residential floor area allotment for the Mixed Use Zone District. The program is: Sub-basement level: mechanical and commercial space(gym) Basement level: commercial space (gym) First level: commercial space(office) and open atrium Second level: office and affordable housing unit Third level: two free market residential units Roof: a rooftop deck, access stairway, skylights and mechanical equipment 720 East Hyman Avenue AspenModern Negotiation—Second Reading July 9,2012 Page 7 of 11 Table 3:Dimensional Table MU zone district Proposed dimensional requirements Existing dimensions requirements No change, with the Maximum 28 ft. up to 32 ft. through 33 ft. 3 in. at the front of exception of a slight height height commercial design review the property and 35 ft. 6 in. increase of 1 ft. for the new at the alley rooftop skylights and 1 ft. for the rooftop deck Maximum Allowable 2:1 or 18,000 sf. 1.89:1 or 17,026 sf. 1.89:1 or 17,036 sf. Floor Area: Maximum 0.75:1 or 6,750 sf. Commercial (up to 1:1 or 9,000 sf.through 1.89:1 or 17, 026 sf. 1.01:1 or 9,061 sf. Floor Area: Special Review) Maximum Net Leasable n/a 21,474 sf. net leasable 15,754 sf. net leasable Commercial commercial area commercial area Area: 0.5:1 or 4,500 sf Maximum (up to 0.75:1 if.affordable Free Market housing equal to 100%of the 0 sf. 0.78:1 or 7,014 sf. Residential free market residential floor Floor Area: area is developed on the same parcel) • Maximum 5,250sf. total: Residential 2,000 sf. net livable, up to 2,750 sf. —Unit 1(with 1 Net Livable 2,500 sf. with TDR 0 sf. TDR landed and extra 250 sf.) and 2,500 sf. —Unit 2 (with Area: 1 TDR landed) Free Market Residential n/a 0 2 Units: Affordable Housing No limit 0 0.11: 1 or 961 sf. Allowable Floor Area Affordable Housing net No limit 0 825 sf livable area Minimum 1 space/1,000 sf. commercial 3 new spaces required for Off-Street net-leasable; and 1 space per the 3 residential units. Parking residential unit. Ability to 0 Request waiver of required Spaces: pay cash in lieu payment by $90,000 cash in lieu right. payment. 720 East Hyman Avenue AspenModern Negotiation'—Second Reading July 9,2012 Page 8 of 11 STAFF RESPONSE: AspenModern Negotiation and Landmark Designation: The designation criteria are stated in Exhibit A and the integrity score sheets, which evaluate the physical changes to the building over time, is included as Exhibit B. Staff is supportive of landmark designation of 720 East Hyman Avenue and finds that all of the designation criteria are met. The applicant requests 4 incentives in exchange for landmark designation, 2 of which relate to the free market residential)component, 1 relating to a waiver of the parking requirement and 1 relating to a height variance-for skylights. The project meets Code requirements for affordable housing mitigation. Staff sees great value in the voluntary designation. In Staff's opinion the request to change the use of the second and third floors to accommodate residential use is more consistent with the purpose of the Mixed Use Zone District and brings the property into closer compliance with commercial floor area requirements by reducing the commercial component. The proposed changes are mostly internal to the building and do not impact the historic significance of the architecture. The size of the free market residential units does not add mass or height to the existing building, which is typically a concern on other AspenModern projects. In addition, the applicant commits to purchase TDRs to reduce the,magnitude of the AspenModern requests. Although the individual allowance for free market residential floor area is being requested to increase from 0.5:1 to 0.78:1, the project is still within the overall allowable Floor Area Ratio for the site. There is no onsite parking available on the site and, considering the scope of the project, no ability to add parking without removing a portion of the building. The applicant requests a waiver of the parking cash in lieu fee of$90,000 which is a policy decision for Council. The height request is a policy decision for Council. The new skylight is central to the building and is so small that it will not be visible from the street. Subdivision: The Subdivision criteria are stated in Exhibit C. Staff is supportive of the technical subdivision to create separate legal interests in one parcel. Staff finds that the review criteria are met. Growth Management for new free market residential units within a mixed use building and Development of Affordable Housing: The review criteria are stated in Exhibit D. As a landmark, the project is only required to mitigation for the larger of the 2 new free market residential units. All landmark properties are eligible to create 1 free market unit without affordable housing mitigation. The project includes an 825 sf NLA affordable housing unit that is proposed to be a Category 4, one bedroom rental. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) recommends that the onsite housing unit 720 East Hyman Avenue AspenModern Negotiation—Second Reading July 9,2012 Page 9 of 11 be denied and that the applicant provide housing credits to fulfill the mitigation requirement. APCHA stated that if the unit is approved a Category 3 or 4 "for-sale"unit is requested. The affordable housing unit meets Land.Use Code requirements as outlined in Exhibit D which promote mixed income buildings by permitting onsite housing units to fulfill mitigation requirements. Staff finds that the review criteria are met. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: The City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Water/Utilities Department, Aspen Sanitation District, Parking Department, Transportation Department, Building Department, Housing Department, Environmental Health Department and the Parks Department were notified of the application. The City Engineer, Parking Department, Transportation Department, Building Department, Parks Department and Housing Department all commented on the application. Applicable requirements have been included as conditions of approval when appropriate. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed landmark designation and associated land use reviews are consistent with the goals of the historic preservation program and the requirements of the Land Use Code. Ensuring that the important 1970s buildings designed by locally significant architects are preserved for residents and visitors to experience is tantamount to Aspen's story. RECOMMENDED MOTION(ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMIT IVE): "I move to approve Ordinance No.17, Series of 2012 on second reading approving an AspenModern negotiation for landmark designation, Landmark Designation, Subdivision, and Growth Management Reviews." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: • • EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT A— Landmark Designation Criteria. EXHIBIT B— Integrity Score sheet.. EXHIBIT C— Subdivision Review Criteria. EXHIBIT D—Growth Management Review for new free market residential units within a mixed use building Review Criteria and for the development of affordable housing Review Criteria. EXHIBIT E— Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority referral memo dated May 7, 2012. 720 East Hyman Avenue AspenModern Negotiation—Second Reading July 9,2012 Page 10 of 11 EXHIBIT F—Application dated March 27, 2012. EXHIBIT G—AspenModern White Paper EXHIBIT H—HPC Resolution#12, Series of 2012, approving Minor Development for exterior changes and recommending in favor of negotiating for Landmark Designation to City Council. EXHIBIT I—HPC meeting minutes from May 23, 2012. EXHIBIT J—Supplemental information to the application dated June 29, 2012. • 720 East Hyman Avenue AspenModern Negotiation—Second Reading July 9,2012 Page 11 of 11 ORDINANCE # 17 (Series of 2012) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION, SUBDIVISION, GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW, AND BENEFITS THROUGH THE ASPENMODERN PROGRAM, AND A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 720 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB BUILDING CONDOMINIUMS, LOTS Q, R AND S, BLOCK 104, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID NUMBERS: • 2737-182-11-008 through 2737-182-11-031, and 2737-182-11-801. WHEREAS, the applicant, CM, LLC, represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects, submitted an application, pursuant to Section 26.415.025(C), AspenModern Properties, of the Aspen Municipal Code, to voluntarily participate in the AspenModern ninety-day negotiation period for the property located at 720 East Hyman Avenue, legally described as The Aspen Athletic Club Building Condominiums, Lots Q, R and S Block 104; and WHEREAS, 720 East Hyman Avenue is included on the Aspen Modern Map; and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a letter dated March 7, 2012 requesting voluntary landmark designation in exchange for specific benefits through the AspenModern negotiation; and WHEREAS, pursuant to §26.415.025.C(1), the ninety day AspenModern negotiation commenced on March 7, 2012; and WHEREAS, §26.415.025.C(1)(b) states that, during the negotiation period, "the Community Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation Commission, during a public meeting, regarding the proposed building permit and the nature of the property. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting;" and WHEREAS, the property owners' representative met with the Historic Preservation Commission (the HPC) on May 23, 2012; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on May 23, 2012, the HPC considered the application; found that 720 East Hyman Avenue was a "best" example of Organic/Wrightian style and, found that the policy objectives for the historic preservation program stated at §26.415.010, Purpose and Intent are met, and recommended City Council ("Council") approve Historic Landmark Designation, requested benefits and fee waivers as stated in HPC Resolution numbered 12, Series of 2012; and 720 E. Hyman Avenue - AspenModern negotiation Ordinance #17, Series of 2012 Page 1 of 11 WHEREAS, §26.415.025.C(1)d establishes that "as part of the mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council may, at its sole discretion, approve any land use entitlement or fee waiver permitted by the Municipal Code and may award any approval that is assigned to another Board or Commission, including variations;"and WHEREAS, the property owner requests voluntary Landmark Designation - §26.415.030(C), AspenModern; Subdivision review - §26.480.040(C)Subdivisions; Growth Management review - §26.470.060(3), §26.470.070(4), and §26.470.080(2); Change in Use of historic landmark sites and structures; Development of Affordable Housing and New free-market residential units within a multi family or mixed use project; all to be consolidated with the AspenModern ninety-day negotiation process and reviewed by City Council; and WHEREAS, in addition to Historic Landmark Designation, Subdivision, and Growth Management, the applicant had identified preservation incentives that are requested as part of the AspenModern negotiation process in a letter dated March 7, 2012. Those incentives requested include: the ability to construct a 2,750 square feet floor area free market residential unit; ability to increase the free market allowable floor area to 0.78:1 or 7,014 square feet of floor area; a waiver of the onsite parking requirement and a waiver of the parking cash in lieu payment; and WHEREAS, the applicant agrees that the conditions of approval for the mitigation of the impact of the development on affordable housing are accepted by the applicant and constitute a voluntary agreement to limit rent/sales prices on the Property and to otherwise provide affordable housing stock in accordance with the provisions of CRS 38-12-301(2)(a) and (2)(b); and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department performed an analysis of the application including Landmark Designation, Subdivision Review, and Growth Management Review and found that the review standards are met. The staff report analyzed the proposed preservation incentives and monetary value of the benefits where possible; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Approvals: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby approves Historic Designation, Subdivision, Growth Management Review and a site specific development plan subject to the conditions described herein. 720 E. Hyman Avenue - AspenModern negotiation Ordinance #17, Series of 2012 Page 2 of 11 . r Section 2: Historic Landmark Designation Historic landmark designation is granted for the property located at 720 East Hyman Avenue (the Aspen Athletic Club Building Condominiums, Lots Q, R, and S, Block 104). Upon the effective date of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall record with the real estate records of the,Clerk and Recorder of the County, a certified copy of this ordinance. The location of the historic landmark property designated by this ordinance shall be indicated on the official maps of the City that are maintained by the Community Development Department. Section 3: Subdivision Pursuant to the procedures and standard's set forth in Title 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the Aspen City Council hereby approves Subdivision of the property located at 720 East Hyman Avenue (the Aspen Athletic Club Building Condominiums, Lots Q, R and S, Block 104) for a mixed use building that contains two free market residential units, one affordable housing unit, a commercial component and a rooftop deck. A final Subdivision Plat and Subdivision Agreement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code § 26.480, Subdivision, shall be recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office within 180 days of the receipt of a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development by, the Historic Preservation Commission. Subdivision Agreement shall include at a minimum the following information: 1. An illustrative site plan of the project depicting the proposed improvement and the approved dimensional requirements. 2. Plan of any required grading and drainage improvements. 3. Approved planting for the right of way. 4. Encroachment license for the planter boxes. Section 4: Financial Assurances Before the Applicant is issued a Building Permit the Applicant shall provide to the Community Development Department 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. There are no public improvements associated with the project at this time. Any public improvements associated with the project that are discovered after the approval of this ordinance are subject to the requirements listed below. The cost estimates for the implementation and maintenance of the planting in the right of way described herein at Section 13 shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks Department. The cost estimates for all other improvements and development in the Subdivision shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Department. Cost estimates for the landscape plan (i.e. the planting in the right of way) 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 required by this Ordinance. 720 E. Hyman Avenue - AspenModern negotiation Ordinance #17, Series of 2012 Page 3 of 11 b. Landscaping Guarantees. Pursuant to and in conformance with the requirements of § 26.480.070(C) & (D) and § 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, 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 and approved 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, or by providing such other security that may be acceptable to the City attorney. If an irrevocable letter of credit is used, 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 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. Section 5: 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 Project approved by this Ordinance, the Applicant shall deposit with Pitkin County Title, Inc. ("Escrow Agent") the sum of$25,000 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 Building 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 720 E. Hyman Avenue - AspenModern negotiation Ordinance #17, Series of 2012 Page 4 of 11 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 6: Cash Escrow for Site Enhancement Fund. Before the issuance of a building permit, and as a condition of such issuance, the owner shall deposit with Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. the sum of TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO/100THS ($25,000.00) (the `.`Site Enhancement Escrow Funds") in the form of cash or wired funds pursuant to an Escrow Agreement made and entered into between the Owner and the City which shall provide as follows: i. In the event construction work on the development of 720 E. Hyman Ave. shall cease for ninety (90) days or longer prior to a final inspection by the City of the work authorized by a building permit on the subject property, then the City in its discretion may draw upon the Site Enhancement Escrow Funds from time to time as needed for the purposes of improving the appearance of any construction work already completed, and for the installing of any public improvements on or adjacent to the subject property. ii. The City shall have sole discretion with respect to the manner of improving the appearance of construction work in progress as well as a determining the public improvements to be installed. iii. The Site Enhancement Escrow Funds or any remaining balance thereof shall be returned to Owner upon completion by the City of a final inspection and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the projeect, or when otherwise agreed to by Owner and the City. iv. The City shall be named as a third party beneficiary of the Escrow Agreement with the express right and authority to enforce the same from time to time in accordance with the tenor in terms thereof. Section 7: Approved Dimensional Requirements The building as presented in the plans dated April 20, 2012 and attached as Exhibit A to this Ordinance comply with the effective dimensional allowances and limitations of the Mixed Use (MU) zone district except as modified below. Compliance with these requirements shall be verified by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer at the time of building permit submittal. The following dimensions are approved: Maximum Height: 3 new skylights and a rooftop deck, shown in Exhibit A, are permitted to be 1 ft. in height as measured from where the feature is attached to the roof. 720 E. Hyman Avenue - AspenModern negotiation Ordinance #17, Series of 2012 Page 5 of 11 Maximum Residential Floor Area: 0.78:1 floor area ratio, 7,014 square feet total free market residential Maximum Residential Net Livable Area: 5,2501 square feet total: 2,750 square feet for Unit 1 and 2,500 square feet for Unit 2 Minor adjustments to the dimensions represented above may occur upon review of a building permit as long as the resulting dimensions do not exceed those approved through this ordinance. Section 8: Impact and Development Fees: Parks Development and Air Quality/TDMImpact Fees Pursuant to Land Use Code § 26.610.030, Exemptions, development involving a property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures is exempt from the Parks Development and Air Quality/TDM Impact Fees. 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. Parking Pursuant to Land Use Code § 26.515, Parking, new residential units are required to mitigate parking impacts either through onsite spaces or cash in lieu. The parking cash in lieu for 3 parking spaces equaling $90,000 is hereby waived. 3 new residential units= 3 parking spaces required 3 x $30,000/space=$90,000 Section 9: Affordable Housing The project requires affordable housing mitigation for the 2,750 square feet free market residential unit. The 2,500 square feet free market residential unit is exempt from mitigation pursuant to §26.470.060 Growth Management Change in Use for historic landmark sites and structures which allows historic landmarks to create one new free market residential unit without affordable housing mitigation. The affordable housing requirement is specified below: 2,750 sq. ft. of net livable area * 30% = 825 sq. ft. of net livable area required for affordable housing The total maximum residential net livable area requires the landing of 2 transferrable development rights in accordance with §26.535 Transferrable Development Rights. 720 E. Hyman Avenue - AspenModern negotiation Ordinance #17, Series of 2012 Page 6 of 11 The project includes an 825 sq. ft. net livable area rental, Category 4 or lower, affordable housing unit onsite. The unit shall meet the requirements of the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) Guidelines and shall be deed restricted in accordance with Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority requirements in effect upon building permit submittal. Prior to recording the deed restriction, the Owner and APCHA shall stipulate and agree that, in accordance with CRS 38-12-301(1)(a) and (b), this Deed Restriction constitutes a voluntary agreement and deed restriction to limit rent on the property subject hereto and to otherwise provide affordable housing stock. Owner shall waive any right it may have to claim that this Deed Restriction violates CRS 38-12-301. The unit may be "converted" to a sales unit upon the owner filing a new deed restriction in compliance with policies and procedures adopted by APCHA applicable to sale units in effect upon conversion. The condominium documents shall comply with adopted APCHA policy intended to protect the affordable housing unit from excessive monthly and/or special assessments having to do with luxury items and/or expensive modifications. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be granted and a deed restriction shall be recorded for the housing unit prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or a Conditional Certificate of Occupancy for the free market residential units or the commercial component. Section 10: Growth Management Quota System Allotments 1 free market residential unit is herby granted an annual development allotment. Pursuant to §26.470.060(3) Change in Use of historic landmark sites and structures, the second free market residential unit is not deducted from the annual development allotments but is deducted from the respective development ceiling levels. Section 11: Building Permit The applicant may not submit a Building Permit Application until the requirements in Land Use Code § 26.304.075.A, Building Permit Application, are fulfilled. The building permit application shall include the following: 1. A copy of the Development Order issued by the Community Development Department (see § 26.304.075(A)(2), City of Aspen Municipal Code.) 2. A copy of the final City Council Ordinance and HPC Resolution. 3. The conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover page of the Building Permit set. 4. A construction management plan (CMP) and drainage report pursuant to Engineering and Building Department requirements. 5. Accessiblity and ANSI requirements shall meet adopted Building Code requirements. Section 12: 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 720 E. Hyman Avenue - AspenModern negotiation Ordinance #17, Series of 2012 Page 7 of 11 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 recordation of Final Plat. 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 HPC to amend the design. An encroachment license is required for,the planter boxes located in the Right-of-way. Section 13: Parks 1. The Parks Department shall review and approve the planting for the planter boxes. 2. Landscaping in the public Right-of-way shall be subject to landscaping in the Right-of- way requirements, Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 21.20. All plantings within the City Right-of-way must be approved by the City Parks Department prior to installation. 3. Right-of-way requirements necessitate adequate irrigation pressure and coverage, if a system is not in place one will need to be added that is specifically designed for the trees in the planter boxes. 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: 1. Compliance with all codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District 2. Sprinkler, fire alarms and carbon monoxide alarms are required. (IFC as amended Section 903 and 907). 3. Documentation that the 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 shall be satisfied by an analysis acceptable to the Water Department which demonstrates system delivery capacity of existing water distribution system at the Water Departments' main water to the approved development of no less than 3,000 gallons per minute. 4. An overall access plan for the site. Section 15: Sanitation District Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. Section 16: Water Department The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code in place at the time of building permit submittal, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Each of the units within the mixed use building shall have individual water meters. Section 17: Exterior Lighting 720 E. Hyman Avenue - AspenModern negotiation Ordinance #17, Series of 2012 Page 8 of 11 All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code § 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. Section 18: Vested Rights The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan and a vested property right pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.308.011 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 three (3) 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 § 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 § 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 three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 720 East Hyman Avenue, the' Aspen Athletic Club Building Condominiums, Lots Q, R and S, Block 104, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, 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 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. 720 E. Hyman Avenue - AspenModern negotiation Ordinance #17, Series of 2012 Page 9 of 11 Section 19: • 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 Historic Preservation 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 20: 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 21: 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 22: A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 11`" day of June, 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 29th day of May, 2012. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk • FINALLY,adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2012. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: 720 E. Hyman Avenue - AspenModern negotiation Ordinance #17, Series of 2012 Page 10 of 11 Kathryn Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: James R. True, City Attorney • 720 E. Hyman Avenue - AspenModern negotiation Ordinance #17, Series of 2012 Page 11 of 11 Exhibit A HISTORIC DESIGNATION §26.415. 030. C AspenModern 1. Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures as an example of AspenModern, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The quality of significance of properties shall be evaluated according to criteria described below. When designating a historic district, the majority of the contributing resources in the district must meet at least two of the criteria a-d, and criterion e described below: a. The property is related to an event, pattern, or trend that has made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific event, pattern or trend is identified and documented in an adopted context paper; b. The property is related to people who have made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific people are identified and documented in an adopted context paper; c. The property represents a physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman, or design philosophy that is deemed important and the specific physical design, designer, or philosophy is documented in an adopted context paper; d. The property possesses such singular significance to the City, as documented by the opinions of persons educated or experienced in the fields of history, architecture, landscape architecture, archaeology or a related field, that the property's potential demolition or major alteration would substantially diminish the character'and sense of place in the city as perceived by members of the community, and e. The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City Council shall adopt and make available to the public score sheets and other devices which shall be used by the Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply this criterion. STAFF FINDINGS: Staff finds that review criteria a— e are met. 720 East Hyman Ave-AspenModern negotiation Exhibit A-designation criteria Page 1 of 3 720 E. Hyman does not exemplify textbook �� + i . Wrightian architecture. Restricting the R '� Jr. .;�, � , analysis of a design profession liket�� � °,� yam' architecture to a uniform set of criteria that ` ' , , ; A .-,u i� .'4 qualify a building as contributing to a - s specific style fails to recognize the artistic `-w 41 4 �` C , ;i-.91.4 freedom architects like Molny exercised^ t i ,� % � as Wright expressed to Molny, "If you _ � ; understand the principles of my architecture, _ ,a " x , -----\\ then your buildings need not look like xt r y, mine. Applying this idea to preservation of �� i 720 E. Hyman; while it does not replicate �,, i#- . ` : ,' the exact teachings of a master architect, it is t `��s l �� .,` , ` , " � Y defined in part by Aspen's creative I "4, k ' environment where architects, and other '" a creative professionals, could experiment W:' " x ; 1 �, ' with modern philosophies and the built ,-, � ' � ° ,x ' ' environment in this specific context. It is + _ l �v � "` ' exactly this creative adventure that produced K °" -� interesting architecture in Aspen -.mo t. , ,. ` >0 architecture that communicates both a sense ��'� { rr��� of place (the high country and extreme ,' ; environment) and a higher level of design 1 -�, i ,_. — Spatial connections, relationship to the site '�. '' - _. w..':' fi��' '�'11.`8 -_3- and connection with nature, and utilizing the Photograph 1: example of blurring the line between the materials for both aesthetic and structural inside and outside through the use of glazing and large functions are all examples of Wrightian sliding glass doors philosophy. Molny used Wrightian design philosophy- for example: organic architecture (composing buildings with space rather than mass and scale; and creating a harmony of architecture and environment) - to create an open floor plan and an interior/exterior courtyard. Aspen was lucky to be home to many intellectuals, including modernist architects, who were starting out in the field. Molny used his foundation at Taliesen to draw upon the physical and intellectual environment of Aspen and create a,building that is not a replica of Wright, but indicative of his own background, design, experiences, and client. Molny was not the only architect in Aspen whose training under Frank Lloyd Wright influenced the towns architectural character. Please refer to the white paper "Aspen's Twentieth- Century Architecture: Modernism 1945 — 1975", attached as Exhibit B, more information about this trend. Aspen was fortunate to attract a variety of highly trained architects who left a modern impression throughout the town. Among the architectural crowd was Robin Molny who trained at Taliesen under Frank Lloyd Wright for five years and in the 1950s was selected by Wright to supervise the.Greenberg Residence in Dousman, Wisconsin. Wright is quoted as describing Molny as a "poet" saying "he'll be a good architect one day." Subsequently, Molny moved to Aspen, 720 East Hyman Ave-AspenModern negotiation Exhibit A-designation criteria Page 2 of 3 worked for Fritz Benedict, and opened his own architecture firm. The Hearthstone House (134 East Hyman, 1961), the Mason and Morse Building (514 East Hyman, heavily altered, 1971), and the downtown pedestrian malls (1970s) were all designed by Molny. The HPC awarded Molny two Welton Anderson Preservation Honor Awards in 1995 for the pedestrian malls and again in 1997 for significant architectural contributions to Aspen. Dick Carney, Chairman of the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation Board, wrote a letter honoring Molny when he was presented with the Welton Anderson Preservation Honor Award in 1997. Robin Molny's architectural contributions are locally significant in their representation and communication of Aspen life in the 1960s and 1970s. As indicated through the careful orientation of the main atrium, Molny was sensitive to spatial relationships: he designed the atrium to serve as a flexible, light-filled, transition between the exterior and interior, taking advantage of the views to the mountain, and creating interest for those inside the building. The style of the building is hard to categorize. It best represents an eclectic commercial style that Molny created using natural materials, repetition, and cutting edge building technology of the time. The elegant use of structural members to create the form, fenestration, and architectural interest, and attention to small details like bolt patterns display the craftsmanship and philosophy of a quality designer. Molny displayed his appreciation and knowledge of materials and architectural history in the construction of the Aspen Athletic Building with the use of the current technology and construction techniques. The if first patents for glu-lam beams were issued in { e�Switzerland and Germany, and the first U.S. � �r �� manufacturing standard for glu-lam was published in 1963. The structural glazing (also called structural a ` r silicone glazing) that spans between the first and second floors to create the interior atrium uses cutting edge technology that was developing in the late 1960s and early 1970s. 720 E. Hyman was built F., in 1976. Photograph 2: Detail of bolt pattern Overall the physical integrity of the building is intact. Original materials have not been replaced and the form and site plan is unchanged. The plywood hoppers appear original but are no longer operable. The building scored a 17 on the integrity score sheet which qualifies it as a "best" example of organic architecture. The proposed minor changes to the exterior that HPC reviewed do not significantly impact the building's integrity score. Staff finds that criteria a, b, c, d, and e are met. 720 East Hyman Ave-AspenModern negotiation Exhibit A-designation criteria Page 3 of 3 tj�x, `; .L%L T a • E IM Ell c lb, 03 _ VJ � i0 � °—' � � � pO � � 3c .c O CO o c E +- O C c rn'� O )•U a) = 7 E a) � O - o Q - cn C Q cn uoi • `+- - O N O (1) V) D 0 3 a) `� N a°i ° o a) Cl) ) - O L _c O N C CO N 0 C a O N N (0 _, L N .-0 o L L >'`0 -o Q V 0 N .0 N U C p O N (0 O O �. U O' U .�, Q ' C (I) � uj•0 4 CO ' . 2 _0 o = O L) L C N N (1)cy)O C C co N L C N (DE L Q (O j U U C (B 6' > N p N FE O N O O N p (n Q +� U U O a--. N N (A Q 4--� Q c o L Q- a (0 (0 C .L O O N O N (_� •u) cCUc ) m � - � -oo ('-arc .u _° ° m1 - E v � QE Q - Q zt p Cl) .Q _zt C N c 0) L CO N L (0 0 C +a. '5 C = co p) a) C 4) +r 4) 'L ♦"� +L 0) o a) U L (0 > O O a ° O .0 a •_ U i� 0 >•,.r_-- L N t C .0 p O p C .� L m N +� ftU O N C L Q (0 L °O N D >•- I� § o O -. 00 -.2 U O O ) (0 .- O 2i (0 1 C•-1: i l'-- F- • r 11 4— o N ' } ° _ , / ta ': , �` � .� )°'73 1O C >:.--' C L L O , s fnt {o W l)i t h, b3.N.O L O 2 :_ ' L _• 1 Tk�c' s. \ L L C C N U • �I � N .� > 2 ''' (�, r '.�.�.`. i.fir � CO vS U rn o a)' 0Q_ /ik, a i61' fay' r• //�� C N 7 — O .0 6- /�_ld .1.;`a(f s i ��y �{], } s j,}ji J,}}�Ca O as w >+� L 5 ,1 ( ! ■ 1 I`, 5 r;.,,-.41,AV,I l " LL f` ( FE IS?.. tt O 0 a N � c0 N O C (ti' et; ` t 6k 2 C ((IA L (I) (0 1 f t ` :' ��� d s , N O -6 .e aCl ACAS� O CO N Q- O j3.;I ;■ 1. it I.,' ;S)-- _ L O u) ° C W _c 0 ate.-. x L c- 1 1 1 1 \ ��'''' '� c 0) L c o u) E xx ?' cam) - tiI ' `' 'VI; o ° a) c � c ° ao) E ' I L� r� t p .. C O -O . A U T O 0 ' 11 11 `co , /L A� (Ld 0 ? U Q cOc S �' r; . " t 1 f i f i„.,ii.,,i,'..,'",i-::,-,' ,1 W L = = U C () C L Q_ C i 7 ,�i Ir.,.,!;� t \ �, { U �, _ ,�- Q. (0 N – C O N C C N i r-n �4}• a--� +, >' L -O.4`- O U (0 - t y--�" t r G. i t. % '^ti � 3. �_ O O "a a) C Ra* ',m,G.(*'a%`` ' �S ; (a c O ° O a) t l'. . fig' , pif 1 { g (�7) O n a rn ID ••C 0 cn (n " .,?..1, tk a 'y y k a� j Cl U (0 — O (0 E�,0 ,,of +a I# ' '`"�? t 1' t� X N a) .v C Q 4,i 11 1 ;'six q l t . 1, 1 ow 1, 0 0 O (n O +. (Ld O (n N •,.i (,,l <" ii.~°4 x -, k' ,,,, C 1 (0 Q U `` l �e V N .0 U +tea "a O 1 11, ?I� fi E( *� tY rz.t 1,. dry L (0 (0 L a) o (0 a) fir-- t i ° 4 to 1:.v �;^' 1 i` g R L– x 2 -a Q_ (0 (/) (0 (0 C C5 ( j� ``t i t ° O C a) a) x (n \)'.‘.1-..r,�' �l�ls �r r �t,, O . Q M (0 N U (f) co . , } }}'■S 1 \ , 1 lv 1 , x ., f„ I _ Ot ` , , l ,, t-... _! - ,_rt_ . �I INTEGRITY SCORING If a statement is true, circle the number of points associated with that true statement. LOCATION OF BUILDING ON THE LOT: The building is in its original location. a-point: The building has been shifted on the original parcel, but maintains its original 1 point alignment and/or proximity to the street. SETTING: The property is located within the geographical area surrounded by Castle 1 point Creek, the Roaring Fork River and Aspen Mountain. The property is outside of the geographical area surround by Castle Creek, the Raoring Fork River and Aspen Mountain. 1/2 point DESIGN: The form of the building (footprint, roof and wall planes) are unaltered from 3 points 4 the original design. a.) The form of the building has been altered but less than 25% of the original walls have been removed, OR b ) The alterations to the form all occur at the rear of the subject building, OR 2 points c.) The form of the building has been altered but the addition is less than 50% of the size of the original building, OR d.) There is a roof top addition that is less than 50% of the footprint of the roof. MATERIALS Exterior materials The original exterior materials of the building are still in place, with the 2 points exception of normal maintenance and repairs. 50% of the exterior materials have been replaced, but the replacements -1 point match the original condition. Windows and doors The original windows and doors of the building are still in place, with the exception of normal maintenance and repairs. 2 points 5.0% of the original windows and doors have been replaced, but the 1 point replacements match the original condition. Best: 15 up to 20 points Integrity Score (this page) maximum of 10 points: Better: 12 up to 15 points Character Defining Features Score.(first page) maxi- 95 Good: 10 up to 12 points mum of 10 points: Not Eligible:0 up to 10 points HISTORIC ASSESSMENT SCORE: T i .. EXHIBIT C 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 finds that the proposal supports the general policies and goals in the Aspen Area Community Plan, specifically the Historic Preservation chapter. The project 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 subdivision to create separate legal interests is in compliance with applicable requirements of the Land Use Code. 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: n/a. 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: n/a. 720 East Hyman Ave.-AspenModern negotiation Exhibit C-Subdivision Criteria Page 1 of 3 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 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 shall comply with Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.580 as applicable. 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: Affordable housing is reviewed concurrent with Subdivision pursuant to the AspenModern negotiation process. The applicant proposes to mitigate for affordable housing with an onsite deed restricted unit. 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) 720 East Hyman Ave.-AspenModern negotiation Exhibit C.—Subdivision Criteria Page 2 of 3 Staff Finding: Affordable housing is reviewed concurrent with Subdivision pursuant to the AspenModern negotiation process. The applicant proposes onsite affordable housing mitigation in the form of a one bedroom Category 4 unit. • 720 East Hyman Ave.- AspenModern negotiation Exhibit C—Subdivision Criteria • Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT D GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEWS §26.470.080.2 New free-market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use project. The development of new free-market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use project shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the general requirements outlined in Section 26.470.050. 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. Staff Response: Sufficient growth management allotments are available4o accommodate the proposed free market residential unit. Staff finds that this criteria is met. 2. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Response: The project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan specifically the Historic Preservation chapter. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district. Staff Response: The project requests a variance to the allowable floor area allotted to free market residential use as part of the AspenModern negotiation for landmark designation. The commercial component of the building is an existing non-conformity, however the proposal reduces the non-conformity. • 720 East Hyman Ave.—Aspen Modern negotiation Exhibit D—GMQS Page 1 of 5 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. Staff Response: The project is consistent with Historic Preservation Commission approvals. 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 shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate. (Ord. No. 6 —2010, §2) Staff Response: n/a—the project reduces commercial net leasable area which does\not require mitigation. 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) Staff Response: Two new free market residential units are proposed. The smaller of the two units (2,500 square feet of net livable area) is exempt from affordable housing mitigation offered. As a historic landmark,- it is eligible for the one time incentive for historic landmark properties that permits the creation of a free market residential unit without mitigation. The larger of the two units (2,750 square feet of net livable area) requires mitigation at 30% of the new net livable area. 720 East Hyman Ave.—Aspen Modern negotiation Exhibit D—GMQS Page 2 of 5 The larger free market residential unit comprises 2,750 square feet of net livable area, which requires an 825 square feet net livable area affordable housing unit. The proposed unit is located on the second floor and is 825 square feet of net livable area. It is proposed as a one-bedroom, Category 4 rental. Further discussion of the housing unit and APCHA's recommendation is provided below. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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) Staff Response: The project represents minimal demand on public infrastructure. It is an existing commercial building that is being partially converted to mixed use. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Sec. 26.470.070.Minor Planning and Zoning Commission applications. The following types of development shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.470.110, Procedures for review, and the criteria for each type of development described below. Except as noted, all growth management applications shall comply with the general requirements of Section 26.470.050. Except as noted, the following types of growth management approvals shall be deducted from the respective development ceiling levels but shall not be deducted from the annual development allotments. Approvals apply cumulatively. 4. Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved,; approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. Staff Response: A referral from APCHA is included as Exhibit E. APCHA is not in favor of the proposed onsite unit due to concerns about its location in a mixed use building, and recommends Affordable Housing credits as the form of mitigation. The Land Use Code permits and incentivizes mitigation onsite to encourage diversity within the building. The ordinance includes APCHA's conditions of approval for a Category 4 rental unit as requested by the applicant. b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City 720 East Hyman Ave.—Aspen Modern negotiation , Exhibit D—GMQS Page 3 of 5 limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a cash-in-lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash- in-lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation requirements by approval of the Community Development Department Director, pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of the Certificate. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. (Ord. No. 6—2010, §4) Staff Response: The housing unit is provided onsite. Staff finds that this criterion is met. c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430. (Ord. No. 14.2011, §3) Staff Response: The unit is located on the second floor of the existing building. Staff finds that this criterion is met. d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, if alegal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory "for sale" provision. Staff Response: The applicant requests that the proposed unit be a Category 4 rental; however APCHA requests that the unit be a Category 3 or 4 sale unit. The Code does not specify a specific option, only that the unit is deed,restricted in accordance with APCHA 720 East Hyman Ave.—Aspen Modern negotiation Exhibit D—GMQS Page 4 of 5 guidelines and is either sold or rented to a qualified purchaser/renter. Conditions of approval for both a rental and an ownership option are included in Exhibit E. 720 East Hyman Ave.—Aspen Modern negotiation Exhibit D—GMQS Page 5 of 5 biliujent, MEMORANDUM TO: Sara Adams FROM: Cindy Christensen, APCHA Operations Manager DATE: May 7, 2012 RE: REDEVELOPMENT OF 720 EAST HYMAN (ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB BUILDING) ISSUE: The applicant is requesting approval for the redevelopment of the 720 East Hyman, the Aspen Athletic Club building. BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing the redevelopment as part of the voluntary historic designation. It will encompass full renovation of the building over several years. Section 26.415.025.C, Aspen Modern Properties, comes into play with the voluntary history designation; therefore, there is a 90-day negotiation period with City Council. The request is to provide two free-market units and one deed-restricted unit within the building. Under Section 26.470.050.B, Growth Management: General Requirements, the applicant is requesting one allotment for a free market unit and one for an affordable housing unit. A second free-market unit is being made available as a growth management benefit, under the Aspen Modern Program for Landmark Properties, without affordable housing mitigation. DISCUSSION: Section 26.470.100.A, states that 60% of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The applicant states that the total net leasable area within the building will be reduced by 5,537 square feet; thereby no affordable housing mitigation is required. Section 26.470.050.B.6, states that "the 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 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." Under the Aspen Modern Program, Landmark Properties, the free market unit No. 1 should meet the requirements for affordable housing mitigation, and Unit No. 2 will be exempt from affordable housing mitigation. The unit size cap for both free-market units is 2,000 square feet; however, both units are proposed as 2,500 square feet and 2,750 square feet. The applicant is applying for the 500 square foot floor area bonus for designated historic properties for Unit 1. As to the additional square footage of 750 for Unit 2,the applicant is looking to mitigate with a TDR for 500 square feet and requests that the additional 250 square feet be permitted as it is being placed within the existing building floor area. Aspen Athletic Building Redevelopment Page 1 The affordable housing unit is proposed as a one-bedroom, 825 net leasable square foot unit, to be located on the second floor. The plans for the unit are attached. Section 26.470.070.4.d, Minor Growth Management: Affordable Housing, states that the "proposed units shall be deed-restricted as `for sale' units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority." This paragraph also allows for APCHA or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters. The proposed unit may also be a rental unit owned by an employer or non-profit as long as a legal instrument, acceptable to the City Attorney, ensures the permanent affordability of the unit. The applicant is requesting the unit as a dedicated rental unit to be owned by the building owner and rented to an employee of the owner. Parking is an issue. Section 26.515.010 has a general requirement that all development shall be provided with off-street parking. Under Section 26.420.010.B.1.e, the applicant is requesting a waiver for required parking on site due to the lack of available lot area to create parking spaces. If the redevelopment is approved, Staff would recommend the unit be a "for sale", Category 3 or 4 unit and that the condominium documents reflect that any common area maintenance shall be assessed based on the actual values of the free-market versus the affordable unit. RECOMMENDATION: The APCHA Board reviewed the application at their meeting held May 2, 2012 and is recommending denial of the on-site deed-restricted unit as it would be a single unit in a mixed use building. Enforcement on these types of single units would place a burden on the APCHA staff and is not in the best interest of the program. The APCHA Board recommends that the mitigation for the second free-market unit be provided by the use of an Affordable Housing Credit Certificate and not an on-site or off-site unit. However, should the redevelopment be approved by the City Council, the APCHA Board would request that the unit remain a "for sale", Category 3 or 4, one-bedroom unit. If the project is approved, certain conditions should be required. Listed below are the conditions that should be required broken down into whether the unit is a"for sale"unit or a rental unit: Sales Unit: 1. The unit shall be an ownership unit and sold through the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority lottery system upon Certificate of Occupancy. 2. The unit shall be classified as Category 3 or 4. 3. The condominium documents shall reflect that any common area maintenance shall be assessed based on the actual values of the free-market homes versus the deed-restricted unit. Any property management fees or other fees associated with the commercial or free-market aspect of the building shall not be charged to the deed-restricted owner. The Aspen Athletic Building Redevelopment Page 2 condominium documents shall be reviewed and approved by APCHA prior to Certificate of Occupancy. The goal is to protect the affordable housing unit from excessive monthly and/or special assessments having to do,- with luxury items and/or expensive modifications. 4. The deed-restricted unit shall receive the Certificate Occupancy prior to,)or in conjunction with, the free-market units. Rental Unit: 1. If the unit is allowed to be a rental unit, the deed restriction shall require that all tenants are approved PRIOR to tenancy through APCHA and must re-qualify on a YEARLY basis,the tenant shall be no higher than a Category 4, and at such time the unit is found to be out of compliance for one year, the owner will be REQUIRED to sell the unit through APCHA's lottery system. 2. The unit shall be classified no higher than Category 4. 3. A document will be required to be signed by the owner that this deed restriction is being done on a voluntary basis and that the rental control of the unit is acceptable and required and will remain in perpetuity until such time the unit is sold as stated in number 1 above. 4. The rental deed restriction will be recorded with the following conditions: a. The use and occupancy of the Employee Dwelling Unit shall henceforth be limited exclusively to housing for employees and their families who are employed in Pitkin County and who meet the definition of"qualified Category 4 employee" as that term is defined by-the qualification guidelines established and indexed by the Authority on an annual basis. The Owner shall have the right to lease the Employee Dwelling Unit to a,"qualified Category 4 employee" of his own selection. b. The Employee Dwelling Unit shall not be occupied by the Owner or members of the immediate family("Immediate Family" shall mean a person related by blood or marriage who is a first cousin [or closer relative] and his or her children),unless the family member is a qualified employee and obtains • approval by APCHA prior to occupancy. The unit shall at no time be used as a guesthouse or guest facility. c. Written verification of employment of employee(s)proposed to reside in the Employee Dwelling Unit shall be completed and filed with the Authority by the Owner of the Employee Dwelling Unit prior to occupancy thereof,and such verification must be acceptable to the Authority. d. The Employee Dwelling Unit shall be required to be rented for periods of no less than six (6) consecutive months. Upon vacancy of the Employee Dwelling Unit, the Owner is granted forty-five (45) days in which to locate a qualified employee. If an employee is not placed by the Owner, the Authority may rent the Employee Dwelling Unit to a qualified employee. e. The maximum rental rate shall not exceed the Category 4, one-bedroom,rental rate as set forth in the Rental Guidelines established by the Authority and may be adjusted annually as set forth by the Guidelines. The maximum permitted rent for the unit on the date of execution of this deed restriction as statecLin the Guidelines at the time the deed-restriction is recorded. Rent shall be verified and Aspen Athletic Building Redevelopment i Page 3 approved by the Authority upon submission and approval of the lease. Employees shall be qualified • by the Authority as to employment, maximum income and asset limitations on a yearly basis. The signed lease must be provided to APCHA. f. The Unit must meet minimum occupancy; i.e.,one person per bedroom. g. Owner agrees to provide.to APCHA upon request all information reasonably necessary to determine if there is full compliance with this Agreement. h. In the event that APCHA has reasonable cause to believe the Owner and/or tenant is violating the provisions of this Agreement, the APCHA,by its authorized representative, may inspect the Property or Affordable Housing Unit between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, after providing the Owner with no less than 24 hours' written notice. i. The APCHA, in the event a violation of this Agreement is discovered, shall send a notice of violation to the Owner and/or tenant, as,may be applicable, detailing the nature of the violation and allowing the Owner or tenant fifteen (15) days to cure. Said notice shall state that the Owner or tenant may request a)quasi-judicial hearing before the APCHA Board pursuant to the Grievance Procedures of the APCHA Guidelines within fifteen (15) days to determine the merits of the allegations. If no hearing is requested and the violation is not cured within the fifteen (15) day period, the Owner or tenant shall be considered in violation of this Agreement. If a hearing is held before the APCHA Board, the decision of the APCHA Board based on the record of such hearing shall be final for the purpose of determining if a violation has occurred and for the purpose of judicial review. j. There is hereby reserved to the parties' hereto any and all remedies provided by law for breach of this Agreement or any of its terms. In the event the parties resort to litigation with respect to any or all provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall recover damages and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees. k. In the event an Affordable Housing Units is leased without compliance herewith, such lease shall be wholly null and void and shall confer no title whatsoever upon the purported tenant. Each and every lease, for all purposes, shall be deemed to include and incorporate by this reference, the covenants herein contained,even without reference therein to this Agreement. 1. In the event that the Owner or tenant fails to cure any breach, the APCHA may resort to any and all available legal action, including, but not limited to, specific performance of this Agreement or a mandatory injunction requiring compliance by Owner and/or tenant. m. Whenever possible, each provision of this Agreement and any other related document shall be interpreted in such a manner as to be valid under applicable law; but if any such provision shall be invalid or prohibited under applicable law, such provision shall be ineffective to the extent of such invalidity or prohibition without invalidating the remaining provisions of this Agreement or other document. n. This Agreement is to be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. o. No claim of waiver, consent or acquiescence with respect to any provision of this Agreement shall be valid against any part hereto except on the basis of a written instrument executed by the parties to this agreement. However, the party for whose benefit a condition is inserted herein shall have the unilateral right to waive such condition. Aspen Athletic Building Redevelopment Page 4 p. The parties to this Agreement agree that any modifications of this Agreement shall be effective only when made in writing signed by both parties and recorded with the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County,Colorado. q. The terms and provisions of this Deed Restriction shall constitute covenants running with the title to the Affordable Housing Units as a burden thereon for the benefit of, and shall be specifically enforceable by, the Managing Agent, the Association and/or Owner, by the Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Colorado, and by their respective successors and assigns, by any appropriate legal . action including,but not limited to, injunction,abatement,or eviction of non-qualified tenants. r. Lease agreements executed for occupancy of the Employee Dwelling Unit shall provide for a rental term of not less than six (6) consecutive months. A signed and executed copy of the lease shall be provided to the Authority by the Owner within ten (10) days of approval of employee(s) for the Employee Dwelling Unit. s. Owner and APCHA stipulate and agree that, in accordance with CRS 38-12-301(1)(a)and (b),this Deed Restriction constitutes a voluntary agreement and deed restriction to limit rent on the property subject hereto and to otherwise provide affordable housing stock. Owner waives any right it may have to claim that this Deed Restriction violates CRS 38-12-301. t. When the option to convert any unit to a sale unit is exercised, the owner must adopt a new deed restriction in the form adopted by APCHA that is applicable to sale units. Aspen Athletic Building Redevelopment , Page 5 NW 61 Or AspenModern @ 18 Months A Brief Review & Evaluation While much larger cities like Minneapolis, Phoenix and Scottsdale have programs to protect Post WWII architecture, the only small municipalities on board are a few progressive resorts. The closest in size to the City of Aspen are Wildwood NJ . (pop.5,200),New Canaan CT (pop. 20,000) and Palm Springs CA (pop. 50,000). _ For those who remember other City of Aspen innovations (Main Street Historic District in 1974, affordable housing, green building codes etc.), breaking new ground is challenging, sometimes painful and messy—and almost always controversial. It's • something like bush-whacking in the wilderness with about 6,000 people, many of whom didn't really want to come along in the first place. After more than a 100 meetings of the Historic Preservation Task Force and committees, 10 of the 21 members wrote minority reports. At 18 months, AspenModern might be described as in its "toddler" stage—a good time for taking a deep breath and a step back to explore how it's progressing. New programs mean uncertainty and unpredictability—two things that people don't always appreciate in local government. It's no doubt easier to take the path of least resistance, keep one's head down and keep raised voices to a minimum. Sometimes the City seems to take the path of most resistance; whether that's admirable or foolhardy is in the eye of the beholder. Part of the reason AspenModern is a new chapter in the land use code was a recognition that as a resort environment, Aspen needs to be able to tell its story to visitors—including the unique story of how the resort itself developed. Part of that story reflects the nature of Aspen's idealistic people, including innovative architects with a deep respect for natural materials, a sense of opening up to the outdoors and even environmental sculpture. After 18 months,,the public, city staff, Historic Preservation Commission and City Council are feeling their way along. That's only to be expected. There are certain elements of the program that make it particularly challenging and controversial: 1) Lack of popular consensus on preserving modern architecture as a community benefit. There was enough popular concern at the demolition of Post WWII structures, and enough support to create a voluntary designation program, but there are many in the community who still challenge the underlying premise. While open space, trails, affordable housing and public transit are basically accepted community benefits, AspenModern has yet to reach that level of community consensus. 2) Determining the historic value of an AspenModern building is a subjective process. One can determine how many people can live in an affordable housing complex, or how many people use public transit, or how many acres of parks and miles of trails the City operates—and how much it all costs. Whether a given building built in 1970 is an important part of telling Aspen's story is subject to debate and opinion. 3) Weighing one community benefit against another can be polarizing. The AspenModern program includes a wide range of possible financial incentives, some of which could have an impact on other community benefits that have already been basically accepted—from housing to parking and pedestrian amenities. Under AspenModern, city planners use a scoring system from 0 to 20 to evaluate the physical integrity of structures, placing them in categories of"good," "better" and "best." The scoring system is an attempt to be as objective as possible—anything scoring less than 10 is ineligible. Staff separately generates a written analysis of the inherent historic value of the structure using Context Papers and several land use code criteria. As AspenModern was being debated, some Council members understandably wanted to see a direct correlation between how well a building scored and a specified range of incentives that would be offered. But staff has found the scoring process is still somewhat subjective—it's just not specific or measurable enough to match a given property with a specific toolbox of incentives. Some wanted to see staff perform a financial analysis of each case: How much property value was the applicant losing due to historic designation versus how much they were gaining in incentives? Early indications on this approach were not encouraging —even the professional appraisers who spoke to the Task Force had widely differing opinions. When weighing all the elements that are part of an AspenModern building and site, the level of complexity defies the traditional method of using "comparables" to establish value. The young and fluctuating market for historic TDRs makes it all the more difficult. Instead, staff reports only the actual dollar value of fee waivers. As more cases go through the new program, some Council members are likely to think in terms of precedent. If a certain incentive was granted for building A, which scored "better," should we grant the same incentive for another site that also scored "better"? Again, the inherent subjectivity, grey areas and issues unique to each site make precedent-setting discussions difficult. The ongoing challenges can make it easy to overlook how much ground has been covered. The City has moved from a deeply polarizing time when one side wanted an involuntary program and the other wanted no program at all, to a place where the land use code enables a conversation to take place on a case-by-case basis. During the 30 years before AspenModern, the Historic Preservation program was largely focused on Victorian Era properties, and it tended to be involuntary with specified and limited benefits available to the property owners. In other words, the impetus for action tended to come from staff, the HPC or City Council. Because AspenModern is entirely voluntary, the impetus for action comes from the property owner, who applies for historic designation and requests a list of incentives in exchange. In order to attract property owners to voluntarily participate, the incentives are not specified or limited. Taken together, the process can be perceived negatively, as property owners shopping for a"great deal." It also creates a level of unpredictability, which is difficult for the public, boards and even other City departments. Three properties have been designated under AspenModern, with two more in the review process, indicating a certain balance in the program. If no one had applied, it would not be effective—if dozens had applied, it could be too permissive. All of the approximately 50 property owners that fall under AspenModern remain free to renovate, or demolish and replace. They don't have to go to the HPC or City Council, reflecting a generally silent but contented constituency. Despite the newness of the program— and knowing they would be in the crucible of public debate—a few property owners have seen the civic-minded AspenModern alternative as worth exploring. For the few cases that have gone through City Council so far, incentives requested by applicants have included: • Reduction of affordable housing mitigation • Waiver of unit size limits • Reduced parking requirement • Waiver of parking cash in lieu • Waiver of public amenity cash in lieu • Increased FAR for free market residential • Extension of vested rights Requirements and conditions placed on designated sites have included: • Space deed-restricted as affordable restaurant • Pedestrian amenities • Physical improvements to upgrade historic integrity of building • Sterilizing future development rights • Buying historic Transferrable Development Rights (TDR) Staff for the National Trust for Historic Preservation helped the City through the process of developing the AspenModern program, and no one knew better how challenging it would be. Just finding a term to describe the historic era of the program was difficult; ranging from "Post WWII" to the "recent past," to the "familiar past." , "Preserving our `familiar past' is a complex and sometimes controversial undertaking," says the recently completed AspenModern educational brochure. "(The program) seeks to reacquaint Americans with their living history by reframing public perceptions about Modern and recent past architecture ... " If one thing is clear about young and innovative programs, it's the need to pay attention to the growing track record; exploring why one case worked smoothly and another didn't; looking for ways to reduce uncertainty and increase reliability and confidence. The 2012 AACP boiled down the motivation for AspenModern—"Aspen's distinctive history is irreplaceable"—but the follow-through is never quite so simple. c 419 Ili t • RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION(HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT AND FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 720 EAST HYMAN AVE (COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB BUILDING),ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB CONDOMINIUM& DUVIKE CONDOMINIUM,CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,COLORADO RESOLUTION NO.25, SERIES OF 2008 PARCEL ID: 2737-182-11010 (through 11031) & 2737-182-11800 (and 11801) WHEREAS, the applicant, CM LLC c/o Roger Marolt, represented by Lenny Oates, Oates Kenezevich, Gardenswartz, and Kelly, P.C., has requested Minor Development for the property located at 720 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen Athletic Club Condominium & Duvike Condominium, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, the procedure for a Minor Development Review is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is 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 reviews the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.050 of the Aspen Municipal Code establishes the process for Designation and states that an application for listing on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall be approved if City Council, after a recommendation from HPC, determines sufficient evidence exists that the property meets the criteria; and WHEREAS,Jason Lasser, in his staff report dated October 2, 2008 performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic • Preservation Design Guidelines and Commercial Design Standards have been met; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 8, 2007, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application for Minor Development and Historic Landmark Review met the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design' Guidelines" and the Aspen Municipal Code Historic Landmr"' c« .,ter 7�.rF.,,:a,., nr;fpriq anl7 annrnvPrl flip application by a vote of four to one(4 to I). RECEPTION# 555802, 01/16/2009 at 09:08:25 AM, I OF 3, R $16.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K.Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC approves the application for Landmark Designation of the property at 720 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen Athletic Club Condominium & Duvike Condominium, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, and approves the application for Minor Development with the following conditions; 1. The applicant will replace the ground floor exterior sliding doors and maintain their existing configuration and operation. 2. That the,applicant will retain the existing planters,primarily on the Hyman side but will look at the planter configuration on Original Street and work with the new accessible needs and try to maintain as much of the original landscape as possible. 3. The applicant will remove the Coniferous trees in conjunction with Parks and Engineering. 4. The beige paint will be removed, 5. The applicant will apply for a right-of-way permit for all the landscaping items as stated in staffs memo. 6. The applicant will work with parks to choose the appropriate tree species from the Arbor Guide and those plantings will be appropriately and carefully considered in size as they grow. 7. The new awning windows are approved. 8. The brise-soliel as proposed are approved but final design will be approved by staff and monitor. 9. Historic Designation is approved. 10. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance,the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes,pertaining to the following described property: 720 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen,Colorado. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 8th day of October 2008. Approved as to Form: Michael Hoffman,Chairman Jim True,Special Counsel ATTE T: Kathy ickland,Chief Deputy Clerk I. The applicant will replace the ground floor exterior sliding doors and maintain their existing configuration and operation. 2. That the applicant will retain the existing planters, primarily on the Hyman side but will look at the planter configuration on Original Street and work with the new accessible needs and try to maintain as much of the original landscape as possible. 3. The applicant will remove the Coniferous trees in conjunction with Parks and Engineering. 4. The beige paint will be removed. • 5. The applicant will apply for a right-of-way permit for all the landscaping items as stated in staff's memo. 6. The applicant will work with parks to choose the appropriate tree species from the Arbor Guide and those plantings will be appropriately and carefully considered in size as they grow. 7. The new awning windows are approved. 8. The brise-soliel as proposed are approved but final design will be approved by staff and monitor. 9. Historic Designation is approved. 044 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2012 Vice-chair, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Nora Berko, Willis Pember, Jay Maytin and Jamie McLeod. Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Motion: Jay moved to approve the minutes of May 9, 2012; second by1Ann. All in favor, motion carried. Elizabeth Means represented the Aspen Community church. Elizabeth said they are in need of repairing the church. It is being held by,tie rods on the interior. It was built in 1890 with no drainage. We are doing a capital campaign to'raise 4.4 million. Since it is a community church we have raised 1.4 million. Possibly the city could get involved and maybe we can - use RETT funds. Amy and Deborah said they would research some possibilities and they haven't gone through the complete analysis for options. Jay mentioned damaging by neglect. Amy said the city has a $25,000 loan which isn't much. 720 E. Hyman—AspenModern Negotiation for Voluntary Landmark Designation and Minor Development (cont'd from May 9th) Mitch Haas, Haas Planning Charles Cunniffe, Cunniffe Architects & Associates Brian West, Cunniffe and Associates Public Notice —Exhibit I Sara stated that the property is on the corner of Hyman and Original and is also called the Aspen Athletic Club. It is included on the Aspen Modern map and was designed by Robin Molny in 1976. The proposal is AspenModern negotiations and HPC will need to make a recommendation on designation. There are also some issues for a minor development review. The applicant wants to convert the third floor commercial to two free market residential units. They also want to convert a portion of the second floor 1 • ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2012 commercial to affordable housing to mitigate for the free market residential component and the rest of the building will remain commercial. It is located in the mixed use zone district and is currently over the allowable height and is an existing non-conformity. It also exceeds the allowable FAR ratio for commercial use. There have been very few changes since 1976. In 2008 HPC granted approval for some minorchanges including stripping the brown paint off the building and doing a stain which looks much better. They were approved to remove the evergreen trees that were obscuring the planter boxes. The brise soleil was approved but they didn't act on it so their vested rights have expired and it needs to be discussed again tonight. Staff finds that all of the-designation criteria are met. It's representation to Molny and representation of a hybrid Wrightian Molny style. It did score 17 on the integrity scoring and staff recommends designation. HPC is asked to apply the purpose and intent of the preservation program to this designation and the proposed. project before you to help council,decide and weight the benefits requested. The benefits they are look for is to allow one larger free market unit then what is currently permitted in the zone district. They also need more FAR allotted to the free market residential component than is allowed in the mixed zone district. They are making their commercial non-conformity a little bit smaller and they are'asking to create a bit of a non-conformity with their free market component. They are also asking for a waiver of the three parking spaces which is cash in lieu of$90,000. There is no space for parking in the alley. They also need a slight height variance for a skylight on the roof. It is less than one foot for the variance. Right now the building conforms to the setback requirements but the brise soleil would need a variance. Minor Development: • . Sara said they are proposing a roof deck that would have a glass guard rail around the,deck and it is about 675 square feet. They do meet the height limit for the deck and guard rail and access. They do need to provide another form of egress to the roof Staff is in favor of the roof deck and proposed materials because it is set back from all sides of the façade and it will not make an impact to the historic characteristics of the building. For the brise soleil they are proposing all of the windows on both street facing facades and on the west facade. They are trying to reduce the energy. consumption in the building. Staff does not support the brise soleil that it 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 23,■2012 obscures certain architectural features. It will also change the reading of the building and the planes and understanding Molny's architecture. Weido not think the guidelines are met specifically 10.10. Staff is in support of the skylight as you will not see it and it doesn't impact the nature of the historic building. They are proposing to replace the plywood hoppers with operable glazed windows. Staff is on support of that change and it is important to _ have all the windows operable again. Staff is not in support of the setback variances for the brise soleil and it ' doesn't meet the criteria for granting a variance. We are recommending that council negotiate for landmark designation. In the resolution the condition is to not approve the brise soleil and screen the mechanical equipment on the roof top for review by staff and monitor. The planters in the right-of-way need an encroachment license from Engineering and work with the parks department to determine the proper plantings since it is on city property. They are also proposing some re-pointing in the planter boxes as some of the mortar is deteriorating and we are requesting a test patch. Brian West, Cunniffe and Associates Charles said he worked with Robin Molny in 1981 and 1982 and we did some minor work inside the building for the athletic club. I personally don't think Robin.would be opposed to the brise soleil with all the climate issues as we have become much warmer than in 1981. One thing that is non- Wrightian about this building is the lack of overhangs. They would be attached in a manner that you can read the building completely and they can. easily be removed. We have no other issues with staff's recommendation. • Brian said with the planter boxes we will have to reline them. Brian did a power point explaining the brise soleil and the elevations of the building including the roof top elements. On the tall windows which are 3/4 inch thick glass there is no insulation and the brise soleil will help in the summer time and moderately in the winter. The south facing façade is the most important. There are two systems available, louvers which are extruded out of the wall and cable stays or the'second system which is a grading system with a bar screen that is projected out. They would also need the rods and cables to keep them in place. The basement is partially under the planters. The mechanical equipment will be redone on the roof and you won't see it from the street. On the first floor we are proposing no changes due to the long term lease with Timberline Bank. The top floor would have two free market units with a new stair that would go to the roof. There would also be a small 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2012 roof top deck for the free market units only. The least impact second egress would be on the exterior stair in the back and we would design one more' flight up to the roof The stair in the back is presently a fire escape. On the skylights we would reduce the amount that we have which is five small ones and one large one. We would put in three in the back and none in the front at the same size. Charles said on the brise soleil we might not need it on the east side. The south and west are the most onerous. Willis asked about energy modeling on the building. Charles said once we know we can go forward we would pursue an energy modeling. We would -- have a mechanical engineer do the entire building. Jay asked about the snow load of the brise soleil. Brian said it is engineered for the climate and the expected loads will be applied and they are not solid. , Jay said the stairway in the center of the roof seems to be 9 feet above the roof level. Maybe it doesn't have to be that big. Charles said the stair is one egress and the fire escape is the other. Charles said he can work with the shaping of the stair and lowering it. Charles said the green roof would have a ground cover and it would be alive. Nora asked about the roof deck. Charles said they would have a picnic table and a few lawn chairs. Nora said she is worried about the scale of that block and adding a summer room. Charles said it is more of a view deck. Nora commented that the upgrades have improved the building immensely. Without those trees you can really see the building. Possibly there ate other solutions for the interior rather than the brise soleil. Charles said the best way to protect from heat gain is before it enters the building and before the heat comes through the glass. Once it is through the glass it is in the building and all you are doing is trapping it in a confined area which creates vast temperature changes from the surface of the window and the inside of a shade which creates its own set of problems. It also affects the sealants of the windows. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2012 Nora said the building is a knockout building and we need to figure out how ' to keep it that way. Ann asked about the notched out piece in the stairwell and if it can be kept because it is an interesting piece. Brian said where the stair comes"up is the entry to the free market unit. ' Charles said the sketches came from the owner and we can discuss it. Sara said if you are doing free market residential you could have a total of 4,500 square feet. If you were doing all commercial you could have 6,750 square feet. Charles said we are basically using the space that is there. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Jamie said she is in favor of preserving the building and in favor of the 250 square foot bonus because you are already using existing square footage and just reallocating it. I'm in favor of exceeding the allowable FAR because you are within the existing square footage. I'm not in favor of waiving the three parking spaces in lieu of cash. The roof deck is favorable and you can't see it. I am in favor of the one foot height variance for the skylights and the fact that you are removing five skylights and adding three and you really are removing two and it won't exceed existing conditions. The second egress is favorabl&and the idea of sloping the roof is recommended. I am in favor of the hoppers but not the brise soleil. Ann said she agreed with Jamie with the exception of supporting the parking waiver because the architect has done a beautiful job with the building already and I would hate to have a piece chunked out for parking. You also have the city parking garage several blocks away. I am supportive of limiting the number of cars coming into the city. Jay said he would support the resolution with one condition to restudy the roof top stairwell. Jay said he would like to see something to help the building be more energy efficient but is not sure the brise soleil is the right 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2012 solution. Restoration should occur on the planters and the interior stairwell should be restudied. Nora said she would support landmark designation without the brise soleil. I would like to see the cash-in-lieu for parking. I would also support Jamie's comments. Willis said he supports the landmark status and the 250 additional square feet. Asking for the cash-in-lieu waiver is a little unseemly given the programmatic change that is going on. I would support the height limit and roof deck use. Adding green to the roof is adding sustainable things. When Molny believed in modernism they embraced the size of these solid plate glass windows and it is a way to create to the outdoors. They added the hopper windows to add fresh air to come in. I have a hard time changing the hoppers into clear story windows. If you are trying to cut down heat gain with glazing you don't do it by adding more glazing. On the east and west vertical shading'devices perform much better. If you were to flush this out and come to us with an energy model you would find in a hurry that brise soleil on the east and west are not going to do much of anything. In terms of managing solar gain on the south you have several options. You have deciduous trees and you can look at glass technology. If Robin were here he would study that and you can look at a opaque glazing on the glass itself that cuts down a certain percentage of site line but it maintains the facade treatment. Willis said he is opposed to the Brise soleil. Charles and the owner has been looking at the best glass possible. We are not changing the structural glass. We will look at the glass for the hoppers. The owner is already changing the hoppers for the view. All of the tenants want it. MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution #12 as written with a restudy. of the stairwell to the roof in the middle of the building to shrink the height and slope and to be approved by staff and monitor. We are also in favor of the one foot height variance for the skylights and we recommend a restudy of retaining the interior second floor false stairway. Motion second by Jamie. Vote: Jamie, yes; Jay, yes; Nora, yes; Willis, yes; Ann, yes. Motion carried 5-0. • 6 CA A = CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS z z June 27, 2012 Sara Adams cc Senior Planner Community Development o City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Aspen Athletic Club Building CY) 720 East Hyman Avenue Aspen Modern negotiation for Landmark Designation, Minor Development and z Public Hearing Dear Sara, With this letter,we will attempt to address some of the concerns expressed by City Council as follows: In exchange for voluntarily designating his property as historic, the Property Owner of 720 E. Hyman Ave. (aka-the Aspen Athletic Club building)wishes to receive several benefits from the City. Briefly, these benefits are the construction of skylights and a roof-top deck for the proposed residential units along with associated access and egress; waiver of the • cash-in-lieu parking fees; and allowance for two free-market residential dwellings...one with the GMQS incentive for historic landmarks and the second mitigated with an on-site affordable housing unit. As a whole, the C proposed development is a remodel of an existing building. very little of the existing building exterior will be modified to accommodate the proposed renovations. From Hyman Avenue and Original Street, a passer-by would likely have difficulty noticing a change to the building.This is a benefit to the proposed historic designation for the building. Additionally, the building owner has taken great effort to rehabilitate the building in the last few years in order to preserve its historic integrity and functionality. This is exemplified with the exterior siding being stripped of paint and re- stained and the removal of the trees that have helped damage the basement walls. The proposed renovations keep within the existing envelope of the building, except for the proposed roof deck and access. As a whole, the existing building is actually less than the allowed FAR on the site, which is 18,000 sf. However, the existing commercial use of the building far exceeds the allowable FAR for commercial space,which is limited to 9,000 sf. As a nonconforming structure, the proposed changes actually bring the building closer to being in conformance by lowering the commercial FAR from 17,026 sf to 9,061 sf. By bringing the commercial FAR to near conformance, the proposed residential units end up exceeding, by 2,514 sf, the allowable FAR for residential use. Nearly 70% of this excess residential square footage is nonunit space consisting in large part of common atrium space, corridors, stairs, and elevators within the building...much of which is also [ 610 East Hyman Avenue n Aspen, Colorado 81611 u tel• 970.925.5590 n fax: 970.925.5076 o www.cunniffe.com used by the other occupants of the building. Generally speaking, the existing building cannot be reasonably brought into compliance with FAR allowances per current code. Therefore,without demolishing a significant portion of the building, one or more of the included uses will be nonconforming. As an incentive for historic designation, the property owner requests that the proposed free-market residential FAR be in excess of the allowable FAR for this zone district. With the building remaining largely intact and unchanged both in envelope and floor area, the tradeoff between commercial and residential has a negligible physical effect on the building and on the surroundings. The proposed changes actually bring the building closer to the zoning uses allowed in the Mixed Use zone in which it resides. To the east, the neighborhood is almost exclusively free-market residential. For at least a block in each of the other three directions, the buildings within the area are largely residential with a little commercial included. So, the Aspen Athletic Club building as it currently stands, as 100%commercial space, is an anomaly within the immediate neighborhood and within its zone district. By introducing the residential components, the building becomes a mixed use building, as the zone district title implies, and it reduces the amount of commercial floor area immediately adjacent to residential neighborhoods. As for the allocation of uses, the entire third floor was chosen to house the free-market residential component of the building.This helps isolate the units and provides for greater security. As a result of maximizing the property owner's development rights for the units, a residual 250 sf is left unused on the floor level. Instead of creating an odd and small non- residential space, the 250 sf is proposed to be included in one of the residential units.The property owner requests as an incentive for historic designation this additional square footage be allowed as net floor area in one of the units. The proposed access stair, guardrails, and mechanical enclosure on the building comply with code requirements. However, since the existing building is over the current allowable height, the proposed skylights and roof deck will, by default, be over the allowable height limit.The property owner requests that a variance be allowed to install the new skylights and the roof deck.The small skylights will be lower in height than the five existing ones being removed. The larger new skylight will be about the same height as the small skylights. All of them will be lower than the large existing skylight that to y � � � r��y,,, remain. Furthermore, almost all existing roof appurtenances cannot be seen from the surrounding streets and the proposed additions to the roof should also not be seen. New mechanical equipment is also proposed to be consolidated toward the rear of the building thus minimizing the rooftop units that can be seen today. The existing site is not large enough to accommodate on-site parking without demolishing a portion of the building. By potentially designating the building historic, it would seem undesirable and impractically expensive to demolish a portion of the building in order to provide for parking. Additionally, the savings from the parking fees would help facilitate the costs of further rehabilitation of the historic brick hardscaping and maintain the preservation efforts already begun on the building.The property owner requests as an incentive for historic designation a waiver of parking fee as related to the on-site parking requirement of the proposed development. The property owner feels that the incentives requested are in line with the benefits to the community by preserving for the community a piece of Aspen's recent history.The Aspen Athletic Club building was designed by a local architect, Robin Molny,who studied under Frank Lloyd Wright and brings elements of his style to Aspen. Mr. Molny y als• 'Leg egi designed three other prominent pieces of Aspen's historic fabric with the Hearthstone House, the Mason and Morse Building, and the downtown pedestrian malls. The building has been home to a community athletic facility and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. The building has become somewhat of a landmark for the community and even a monument for way finding. The historic designation in exchange for the requested benefits would help maintain these amenities as well as the character of the building for future generations to come. Sincerely CLI.C.1.00,04 Charles L. Cunniffe, AIA On behalf of the Applicant. 1 6/28/2012 .k ., • • AO gr. `'its I �` 1' yj.,T.1144 i y'= 77 Q 1I I I _ ;>- r !! AEI «. e�_?_®__ ` : - - - - ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB BUILDING NM ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB BUILDING I 720 E.HYMAN AVENUE 00 ASPEN HPC HEARING t[s NNwFFE JULY 9, 2012 S', ., e ,may t Sqi�. ^ , - s� `t : .. ... _ . ........ .. 7,p� 1 F tt_r y \ �I 4t. . I 4 11,,,,_, io,, , #4 k : _ iir446_,N0,L-,,,___ '.---.--- -_---....--- ,, .7-3 :y "o- 0 1:11 .,f _ 00-i-----.ANC --r Alp,•:..„ a^ �._ 45,1,�� ,:. x+r� �� Las, F AERIAL IMAGE �s °•..,,I 1 • x , \ I'1 1, 7 ON ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB BUILDING 1 720 E.HYMAN AVENUE OQ ASPEN HPC HEARING E JULY 9, 2012 1 6/28/2012 d®®At rl all circa 1980 :. Aspen Athletic Club Building • Built in 1976 circa f'1 es 4- rt • Architect: Robin Molny an apprentice of Frank Lloyd Wright • Other buildings by Molny: • Mason and Morse Building • Hearthstone House • The pedestrian malls • Other local homes ISTORY ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB BUILDING 1 720 E.HYMAN AVENUE 0[3 ASPEN HPC HEARING �e,cu.wrre JULY 9, 2012 ft , _ S-' BEFORE 2008 a�.. • — y P: NT • 2008 UPGRADES • ADA accessibility upgrades ' �: — • Pine tree removal • Removal of exterior paint HISTOR .. ,< -, 0a ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB BUILDING 1 720 E.HYMAN AVENUE 00 ASPEN HPC HEARING JULY 9, 2012 • 2 6/28/2012 r ♦ s 4r • s !• ■ AFTER BEFORE AWNING WINDOW PAINTED PLYWOOD .. _ _ .,3 __AWNING,.WINDOWS...,. ;dm ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB BUILDING I 720 E.HYMAN AVENUE `y ASPEN HPC HEARING JULY 9, 2012 v ` , Illy roe RI,,> ( 5-,,,,,• -_ I fIQ-a�� _ �1 , ac I 111 P 9r: 1:,1 ASPEN ATHLETIC SUILL7ING 1 I t .-, ` w r 4I — — —;.1 11 I_ I ` +rca .v74aJ M17J1.474.1 67.0e1 AERIAL IMAGE EXISTING&PROPOSED SI_T ALA INN ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB BUILDING I 720 E.HYMAN AVENUE 01O ASPEN HPC HEARING ,q�,rw,„«E JULY 9, 2012 3 6/28/2012 0 VERTICAL CIRCULATION COMMERCIAL • = L'-J � l L J wt, L� j ! , I �,.. t l ` tl t 1 -np flh j/ II 5 - ..... ' d PROPOSED EXISTING RIO ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB BUILDING I 720 E.HYMAN AVENUE 0ES ASPEN HPC HEARING El NNWFFE JULY 9, 2012 II��L 0 AFFORDABLE HOUSING ❑VERTICAL CIRCULATION 0 COMMERCIAL WIL / ; a PROPOSED EXISTING .,. _ SEW P , 0m ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB BUILDING I 720 E.HYMAN AVENUE ELI ASPEN HPC HEARING JULY 9, 2012 .:41',14T.;1""'"' 4 6/28/2012 0 FREE-MARKET HOUSING 0 VERTICAL CIRCULATION i •COMMERCIAL Gp i a 1 c,, h o / -R li _iJII _ - t . 1 PROPOSED EXISTING UP • v --i ''.. so ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB BUILDING 1 720 E.HYMAN AVENUE 00 ASPEN HPC HEARING eeseuu..� JULY 9, 2012 0 DECK FOR 0 VERTICAL CIRCULATION rK ttfARKEf HOUSING in' tI ._Q. ,1:1 . ` 1 IF ROE _SILO anl r, 1 1 PROPOSED EXISTING ROOF LEVEL PLA N ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB BUILDING 1 720 E.HYMAN AVENUE s7,1 ASPEN HPC HEARING JULY 9, 2012 5 6/28/2012 [7..77..,$ - n -; -- __ _l CCD 23®C==2 C=CCp = • II === I I I. !._ I PROPOSED e __ __ _ _ _ ..-. __ — —F,,,,...-O J • -----!- ---- _ ' ! I I .e EXISTING Y • •.1. NU • S. TH ELEVATION all ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB BUILDING I 720 E.HYMAN AVENUE BO ASPEN HPC HEARING �us Mew.. 9, 2012 x ---- — ----'--- - --- s^x� OG OCO�J===1 ®q— III_! n III -.viii PROPOSED • -I®.-_� . ' rEmEm- . ,. . - ..-. 1 1 , ,UUI r EXISTING ORIGINAL STR (EAVATION 0m ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB BUILDING I 720 E.HYMAN AVENUE 00 ASPEN HPC HEARING DIMES cuxw,FFr. JULY 9, 2012 6 6/28/2012 i r—1 -. ! -' T-=rte.. .I PROPOSED `1 6 i.®.II�I®I-I1_i �;r •a f!4.., I != '= 1 .,.. EXISTING 0M ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB BUILDING I 720 E.HYMAN AVENUE 00 ASPEN HPC HEARING Rw.FE JULY 9, 2012 CHATr [c.:r o j�.r ... =___,==,__,.. ===== • l - -� 7" PROPOSED IIII❑ MMMMill I II i Iii, ;IJ, _ -m ail 'MI=, ��._. EXISTING ; NEIGHBOR'S(1ST) ELEVATION IM ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB BUILDING 1 720 E.HYMAN AVENUE SU ASPEN HPC HEARING �eRCSCURxF JULY 9, 2012 4RfNrTVTS 7 6/28/2012 ME 1 $ J,..,-_ "4-2. x P - f _.:� t R _ __ . I; -w ii.' BEFORE VIEW#2 FROM ACROSS INTERSECTION-'0 ' ON ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB BUILDING I 720 E.HYMAN AVENUE NO ASPEN HPC HEARING C CMFPUxWFFE JULY 9, 2012 lE3 .....ii■i' .,-.-.4.r. , , ,,, , , $ 4.4.,„:.(:,„..,:. .s.ss ,,,:.—_,..,..-. .p, --_��. - ...._ t 1' ' is .* I* 4 i .1. i____ ilr-3._ rill ___, - Y 1 !t 7iti 1=_ #r � Via_ , ;. _ - , _ _1.1:,- (.,. (AFTER VIEW#2 FROM ACROSS INTERSECTION OF En ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB BUILDING 1 720 E.HYMAN AVENUE IFIG3 ASPEN HPC HEARING GM.4 F LF9 CUMIIFFE JULY 9, 2012 8 6/28/2012 9..ir Jo ,1 -�- "-` ---.. . . - 11. A.1-1 '. • ' .YJ - , ,. .`I-- ea'� 71 - .^`- -. " y — i T - _ 1 • , 9 .. ... - - r -u .— ,ti M.. _ `I 'i1 c i BEFORE '#3 FR VI OM ACROSS INTERSECTION OF 0M ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB BUILDING I 720 E.HYMAN AVENUE rgrZi ASPEN HPC HEARING JULY 9, 2012 v + y,ifi ii l '!^ ,+t {. r y.t '1 ate = f.- ,t -"*1 l i 4-,;;,-,.-".1"..--- } !1 r, p L • Pi'.�= '.) _L.. i' . AFTER • VIEW#3 FROM ACROSS INTERSECTION O.---, HYL V ,&•' GI),k,- -:` ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB BUILDING I 720 E.HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN HPC HEARING JULY 9, 2012 9 6/28/2012 r ,, 14t 444:;ute• i a 3° M1 " 1-, 4—I 1, y , "T-lip,- - -1- j _ si 1^' Fj 1 ° , BEFORE . 143 . '--L0-,'C•O ON ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB BUILDING I 720 E.HYMAN AVENUE 00 ASPEN HPC HEARING ..1.cux.nFre JULY 9, 2012 E J ` P� 7� py 1 V -- --— — _" u � , May �' c., > ��y7• A Z AFTER VIEW#4 FROM ACROSS .ORIGINAL ST.ATALLEY 0M ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB BUILDING I 720 E.HYMAN AVENUE SO ASPEN HPC HEARING JULY 9, 2012 .271.1.cu,nnrrc 10 6/28/2012 "41-,,,;75i,%:' �r, y_ T ,t F .-s T i f F 't K k,�p , 3w , •S �P f J 1'f d . f. t .^ � 3,. '#3"\ g. 1k 'TF '�'11.401„ t r l , to Y4 ` '' e t ,.*„-,-`�s s� 1� :' dr , �a S ..4,,,,,,,: , , .4,,„ . W 1 l 1 � T ; ' I. if. ' ° f5cf`' r ` ' Lc, + .,�{�F r � l . ` f �Y'1N 7' 'F iS ,r a ' __LlirAa?" .1:- '' ' BEFORE '!u , 51• ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB BUILDING I 720 E.HYMAN AVENUE 51Q ASPEN HPC HEARING JULY 9, 2012 Pfff . .PIFe LtMg r., _ h k ▪ ::•▪ ::-4--. , J�j,JI. Y1Xf T ,, ITT}}} L .. „.0,..+ ..�tip, �e 5 agxy V' yfk r4Y� _ .l -T;:-,.' 1 ^s, �. ? t � ,� r ,�} J lir' i 4.� r �� -. ;^1J: f tit-,QC( ] J,,lr'11 �Y'n Y'1 �• g',• i,t _ � `y '- 'r�� •_,..-,1ff . jT'� t � a Ii !). -.� �S X ' :.1 '. ' '.� 'V. Via :i tlGt �,,� It-,.'FpsK ., i.sm_• cty, 4y ''\ - '. A.. T� .may AFTER ii .„, .-..........,,- VIEW#5 FROM ACR.S '- sum ATHLETIC CLUB BUILDING 1 720 E.HYMAN AVENUE 0o ASPEN HPC HEARING JULY 9, 2012 11 6/28/2012 THANK YOU ! RIM ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB BUILDING I 720 E.HYMAN AVENUE 00 ASPEN HPC HEARING ru■14(.e JULY 9, 2012 12 -1-- if)(1•147i1 11. ° ... 1 .1 .2412 .......s -a. , . ,,- . .....„.. •" . 1 ._ . ,4- , . _,,, o -- ..„, ,, .� ° al = - 0 0 0 0 . bo O [--- O --• + 3 o n'''''-r----*----Th eu ti) o O ~ O 4 z N O OA ':,—I - C... M cll C ► c O O ;, O O . O . �7+ W Q1 - \�V 0 Cr) Cr) 3C.)-. J M ...... Q) 10 0 Q.1.) ,..0 iz x o , o o -- ° o • o o o 0 o ° o M o cu n cc N cs , ; . 0 , c z N ..o ,.......4 ct t, U a. H 'O .�Ltt CI, _ 5 4J w 0 * MEMORANDUM I ago- TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner RE: Notice of P&Z approval of Conceptual Commercial Design: 602 E Hyman Ave, P&Z Resolution #12, Series of 2012 MEETING DATE: July 9, 2012 BACKGROUND: On June 19, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) approved Conceptual Commercial Design Review for a project at 602 E Hyman Ave. Conceptual Commercial Design Review addresses the mass, scale and placement of a proposed building, and provides the applicant with direction for moving forward with their proposal. The applicant is proposing to remodel the existing two-story building and add a third floor that is set back from the street. The project meets all underlying dimensional requirements. The project increases public amenity space from 17% of the site to 24% of the site. It re-uses the existing building, and is proposed to be 35 feet in height, which is lower than the 36 — 40 foot height allowed under the code in effect at the time of initial application. The building is proposed to be a mix of Commercial, Affordable Housing and Free-Market Residential space. Planning staff recommended in favor of the design review, and the P&Z approved the design by a vote of 5:0. A copy of the P&Z Resolution and Minutes are attached as Exhibits B and C, respectively. A copy of the approved massing is attached as Exhibit A. PROCEDURE: This call up procedure is new and was part of the AACP Gap Code Amendments approved on February 27, 2012. This is not a public hearing and no staff or applicant presentation will be made at the July 9`h Council meeting. If you have any questions about the project, please contact the staff planner, Jessica Garrow. Pursuant to Section 26.412.040(B), notification of all Conceptual Commercial Design Approvals must be placed on City Council's agenda within 30 days. City Council has the option of exercising the Call Up provisions outlined in Section 26.412.040(B) within 15 days of notification on the regular agenda. For this application, City Council may vote to Call Up the project at their July 9, 2012 or July 23, 2012 meetings. If City Council decides to exercise the Call Up provision, it will be placed on the August 13, 2012 City Council regular agenda for discussion. If City Council does not exercise the Call Up provision, the P&Z Resolution shall stand, and the applicant will move forward through the land use review process. This application will be subject to future Subdivision, Growth Management, and Final Commercial Design Reviews. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Approved Plans Exhibit B: P&Z Resolution 12, Series 2012 Exhibit C: P&Z draft minutes Exhibit D: Land Use Code Section 26.412.040(B) 1300311911W 1113 911 MOM 9 00 911 1011!11030®19110111 ON 1101/005 0001110111103 TN 010 700 711000110 190 7111011111113100 1 N9011 13111100 IOW 3111 100100 03407 10 on i 111110111N000 90110 9741 00 111 101110N 1 NW 10 1103100/3111 01031110019111 10 0310/1103 113110 101 00 100 0101 311 711 YU31110111 3100 1111 1XOI00WN 13111001111100110011091013110 911010 3911 01 13160 111 001 3111 10 13 011600133 10 3900 100 0 10111010 1 31101 W a I. ooh 1_ N_ z Z r ° OOY1010)'N34SY'30N3AY MYNAH 1W]Z09 _ c z d O...:ic 0 o =�a° 1300W3V NVWAH 11013 t09 - d 6W, M u C ,, eo W 00 a 3r s n<t 1. k 1.� • ill ••.. , i ' s TA milt i • a I 11 • • 1 >,3 fic rJ,'_ 'ati- O 0 7,441 J W W 2•• f o E CO . It W W • c W LLI Z 2 Ilk WIO O 13.00321 WW1 110 01713N1 1X011310 10011MN 111011 MUD 113/U0 111 OW IMAMS M01 11310103 111*0130 11015 711 11.1111101N 1 WI 711 0373111)00 0 71101 10 1060130 131111M 10110 311111101111M 03300)10 0350 31 1011 00111110101 0X1 10 1100 ON 711 10311101/1 3101 10 11030000 Oil 9 10000300 OIl 10 01111011103 111111 010330 000 11011011101111 1111 777 0171111011 0 3100 1103 O 11011001041111 0111X1 1011 HULLO 01011111DLS 10 S91■d10 3311101 010100 111 III 3300 101 10 11110000011 00 111111 100 11 01)311X)11 0 3003 IY a •• _ �" CO v m W 0011010)'13001'3fIN3AY NYHEH LSY3 Z09 c _ d Z �` =d m° 13a0W3ll NVWAH 1SV3 ZO9 , a= y* s p a o n♦'1 2 N - V d W s N s a<E ° 1 _ z � 3 n, � R °O o W co 0 . 1-Z m0 D ai= w CL 0 0 Z O ~J a Q O 2 4 CL z o wQ try Iwi W LL_Cr O p F O Z LL W 7 CO H • O a III D az O w <W :f H 1-z ar_ Z O °0 W a Z W o OO UU �ce �O J ad 0 i U r1{ 01- 4. Ijj Up O=y . . Z 1-0 C F- o w W CL Y Z Z UO CL• 0 C.) m J Q CC W H Q 2 J �r.,,, z a 2 J Q CL W CL W O r 1. a 0 I- I 1 W 0 • 03103131 9100 3110 0131311 1M71 MO)0111300001 11030 0103131 IMO 1110 O 1 0 MINE 1(1 10X10 11V 11031 3110 111 003131110(3101 ]71 11)31.01301 1 3X01 30 1009X434 X111111 Iona 3X11001911 03403 10 060 311(4 0011(1X10111 9111 10 1104 ON 11 31)31900(1 3103 0 33131014 311 9 103110000 94100 03111110)113311 19030 0M0 0011000103 3111 111 10011000(3100 3100 O 110II1011110 1311)43*10114 110(113 91011031036 00 191111111 33011 01 01011110 110 101 3X9 0(0 311100413100 31101 100 9 503110)1((3M03 W a <n a.6 � �o _ �� .� V 0011010)'N3dSY'30N3AY MYNAH LSY3 109 _ x ^X �` =gym° 1340W3v NVWAH 1Sd3 109 , 1-= ii 6 0 I, W M V W H - Z O d a omg _ g Q a . Ot c o 0 W CO O I-Z CO 0 FD- I- 2a 0 ro Z Ho c Q O LL7 > a 0 Z LL W 7 0 Z W¢ az 00 oa r z ZL Ill 1-z CL R. wz 0) zOv 3 Uw O W :-, H � 0 Z O o Wd 0 1111 wO 0~ U U tL VCi o 31 zr7 W I- o W W CC Y Z z O co 0- 003 J Q W I- 2 } J CC z Q Q a. J . fn _/ Q W nN I- F=- a W cc 0-q 0 S ' z 11.,. 1 CI • Ce ' 0 Il, i W 0 0111631 UM 1 1 1 01313X1147111410 7X000111 711011 011163113X10 011 0•0 1/N10IS 3001 30000 TM Nr11311700 711 WUICIV Y 101 73113311000 1 3000 10 00000004 0310130 10• 0 0 3 1 4 0 0 00 0 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 00 0 00 1 1 11 0 0 1 00 4 0 0 W S3304300 1 3107 10 U1310Y NU 0 1X330300 331 00 030101103 11310 17630 000 0000310401 341 711 01)311X111 1 3X00 2103 O 1101100104011 13111030 104 11011130 01010•3)36 10 0710000 3311 01 IMO 1000 000 330 130 100 1316104131 10 311111 100 Y 0103110•3 3003 W 0 • 'PO e O F v n m E 0008010)'NNW'311N3AY MYNAH 1S13 ZO9 • `• , Z �� =d 00 o r a a s j 13GOW3 NVWAH 1SY ] ZO9 11 I M � d �0 W e= Q N s a(, ,° • , 1 • ., ,, r� 0 0,. ,., r . ■ , O Z 't 1: o0 k9 /,.. . .,. ,..... 1 W H a I ° A.~ b r 0 ceo lL O zZ 1 i I. o I N U 2 tai W, • N W Cr a 111 z 1Y p a 1- U) w O W Uz O (n Z U U W . 1j1 N ill O U U a o\ . \ , o J F O L'1.• � ' W I— p W a W C F- U U Z Z t, d0Um 4' .\ 5 ct I- Q 2 } J cC Z CL J H D n 2 O cn 0 ce QQ 0 H 1 W_ e RESOLUTION NO. 12, (SERIES OF 2012) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL REVIEW FOR THE TRASH / UTILITY / RECYCLE AREA, FOR A REMODEL AND ADDITION CONSISTING OF COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL SPACE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 602 E HYMAN AVE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS K & L, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-182-12-003 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Daniel L Hunt, represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, LLC requesting of the Planning and Zoning Commission approval of Conceptual Commercial Design Review, and Special Review for the Trash/Utility/Recycle Area, to remodel the existing building and add third floor addition for a project that will include a mix of commercial space, affordable housing, and free-market residential; 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 Commercial Design Standards and the Special Review Standards for the Trash/Utility/Recycle Area; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant amended the application on June 13, 2012 for the June 19, 2012 Planning and Zoning hearing, which staff recommended in favor of; and, • WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 19, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 12, Series of 2012, by a five to zero (5 0) vote, approving Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Special Review for the Trash/Utility/Recycle Area; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the Resolution No 12, Series 2012 Page 1 of3 development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves Conceptual Commercial Design Review, and Special Review for the Trash/Utility/Recycling Area, with the following conditions: A. The applicant shall work with the Engineering, Building, Parks, and Planning Departments to address the ability to create an accessible sidewalk along this property between Conceptual and Final Design Review. A final solution shall be presented with the Subdivision and Final Commercial Design Review. B. The Final Commercial Design Application shall address the specific improvements proposed in the Public Amenity spaces located on the site. These will be reviewed and must be approved by the City Parks Department. C. Remove the wall between the recycling bins and alley to ensure adequate access to the bins. D. The Final Commercial Design Application shall address the height of the third story addition, and explore ways to minimize the perception that the third story appears out of proportion with the existing building. Drawings illustrating the Conceptual Commercial Design Review are attached as Exhibit A to the Resolution. Section 2: Engineering The applicant shall address compliance with the City's Urban Runoff Management Plan as part of the Subdivision and Final Commercial Design Review. • Section 3: Parks There shall be no plantings within the City ROW which are not approved by the City Parks Department and the Engineering Department. Parks is concerned with any improvements to the _sidewalk area. The applicant has expressed interested, and is supported by Parks, in saving the larger spruce trees planted within the Hunter Street courtyards. Changes in elevation on Hunter and Hyman will have impacts to the success of these trees. These shall be addressed in the Subdivision and Final Commercial Design Review The applicant must work closely with the City Forester in order to reduce conflicts between the development of the third floor and the existing trees. Resolution No 12, Series 2012 Page2of3 The Applicant shall include information on the Parks Department requirements related to tree replacement as part of the Final Commercial Design Application. The applicant should also consider lifecycle planning for the large on-site trees. Section 4: General The applicant shall comply with all applicable City of Aspen Codes. Nothing in this conceptual approval negates the Applicant's requirements to meet other sections and requirement of the Municipal Code. Section 5: 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, 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 6• This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an 'abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 7: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 19th day of June, 2012.' APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Deb Quinn,Assistant City Attorney LJ Erspamer, Chair ATTEST: • Jackie Lothian,Deputy City Clerk Resolution No 12, Series 2012 Page3of3 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes June 19, 2012 Comments 2 Minutes 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 602 E Hyman Ave Conceptual Commercial Design 2 601 E Hyman Ave Conceptual Commercial Design 7 1 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes June 19, 2012 LJ Erspamer opened the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30. Commissioners present were Keith Goode, Bert Myrin, Stan Gibbs, Jim DeFrancia, Ryan Walterscheid and LJ Erspamer. Jasmine Tygre and Cliff Weiss were not in attendance. Staff in attendance were: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director; Jessica Garrow, Sara Nadolny, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments Bert Myrin wanted everything submitted electronically and this past time we just had everything but the application books submitted electronically. Jennifer replied that as soon as we get Council going with a smooth format then the P&Z and other Boards would be able to have a smooth transition. Jennifer said the clerks have hired an outside purveyor. LJ said that he also would follow up. LJ talked about the ARC passes. Jennifer said they were looking into it and need something to available to members so it hasn't been forgotten. Jennifer said that the Hospital wanted to invite Planning & Zoning to a tour of the facility and asked for any interest in that and what scheduling was necessary. Jennifer said it would be a 90 minute walking tour. Bert asked if they could join the Council tour. Minutes MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve the minutes of June 5(h_seconded by Keith Goode. All in favor APPROVED. Conflicts of Interest Ryan Walterscheid stated that he was conflicted on 602 East Hyman. LJ Erspamer said that he property managed a unit in the building next door but the city attorney thought it was okay but if the applicant asked him to leave he would leave. Sunny Vann stated that he would like to have him stay. Bert and Stan said they did not walk by the site and Keith, Jim and LJ did walk by for an informal site visit to both properties. Public Hearing: ti 602 E Hyman Ave Conceptual Commercial Design LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing for 602 East Hyman Avenue. LJ asked for legal notice and Debbie Quinn asked the applicant if the sign was up the entire 2 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes June 19, 2012 time from the 31st day of May 2012 until today, the public hearing. Sunny Vann, the applicant representative, replied that it was. Jessica Garrow said this was a public hearing for the redevelopment and addition at 602 East Hyman sometimes referred to the Ellie Burman Building. The new owner David Hunt received permission from the previous owner Taylor Investments for Conceptual Design Review, Special Review for the trash/utility/recycle area and addition to the building. Sunny Vann is the applicant's representative and Dylan Johns and Jeff from Zone 4 Architecture are present. Staff recommends in favor of the requests with conditions. Jessica utilized power'point showing the front page photograph from the memo, as well as the photographs from page 4, 5, 6 and the applicant attachments A300 to PAS2 included in Exhibit G. Jessica said that the existing building was a 2 story building with a full basement and approximately 20 to 21 feet in height. The current floor area of the building is about 5,100 square feet; there is 4,548 square feet of commercial leasable space (located on the basement 1st and 2nd floors) and a legally established free market residential unit just over 1500 square feet as well as a bandit unit. The bandit unit will at some point in the past years was converted from commercial space to a livable dwelling unit and it will be addressed with Growth Management Review. The parcel has some substantially large trees and the applicant is working with the Park Department to preserve the trees on site. There is a substandard trash area located on the alley currently as well as 6 parking spaces off the alley. Jessica said currently there is 17% of the parcel that qualifies as public amenity space and some existing roof overhangs on the Hunter and Hyman sides; on the Hyman side the roof hangs into the right-of way by about 4 feet and on the Hunter side it over hangs by a few inches. There is a view plane that crosses this property from the Courthouse and it crosses most of this property with the exception of the northeast corner but it crosses at a height limit that is higher than the building about 45 to 50 feet so it doesn't restrict the property in any way. Jessica said the new total floor area would be 8, 818 square feet; 2,409 of that would be net livable space. The required amount of public amenity space is 25% however if it is part of a redevelopment to maintain any deficient as long as you don't have any less than 10% and they currently have 17% on site and they are increasing that to 24%; staff is supportive of this. There is the elimination of some second floor decks. Jessica from power point (page 4 of the memo) said you could see the existing and proposed public amenity. There is a significant grade change 3 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes June 19, 2012 on this site where the actual parcel sits and the actual right-of-way. The street is down and stairs are along Hyman and Hunter that lead up into this sidewalk and there are some stairs that go up into the actual parcel from the side walk. Jessica said there were some unique constraints with the large trees that the city and applicant want to preserve on the site and there was not much to do with changing the grade of the sidewalk which will come before you at final and subdivision review to figure out how to make ADA accessibility to this site without really impacting the way this building sits. There are significant setbacks shown on page 5 of the memo. The existing overhang on Hyman will be removed and replaced with what they are calling "shadowboxes" taking advantage of the elimination of the vestibule and create an interesting design element and because they are using the existing building they have come up with a creative way of the design of the building and glazing. The 3rd floor is setback approximately 30 feet from the property line. Staff was concerned about the plate height of the 3rd floor; it meets all of the design guidelines but there final design guidelines that talk about maintaining the statue of the 1st floor as opposed to the 3rd story and staff has asked the applicant when coming back to final to look at those 3rd floor plate heights. The resolution includes the condition of the new portion of the building relate to the redevelopment of the building. The second part of the review is the trash/utility/recycle area. Staff would like to see the small wall at the recycle area removed because it will help ensure proper access to the recycling bins and trash and is incorporated into the resolution. There were a_few changes to the resolution to add a date to the 3rd WHEREAS and add the applicant amended the application on June 13, 2012 for the June 19th Planning & Zoning Hearing and on Section 1 on B and D to eliminate The Subdivision and. Bert Myrin said that on page 15 #3 there was mention of elevator shaft in the building. Jessica said it was referencing an internal elevator and there was an elevator that goes out to the alley so folks in that area can access that elevator. Bert talked about the trees dying and being replaced with a parking spaces and how they go about preventing that. Jessica replied at final the resolution could address that with the Parks Department. Stan Gibbs asked if in the big rectangle was the dumpster that gets taken out and loaded into the waste trucks. Stan said that TDRs were 250 square feet. Jessica replied TDRs are different where you land tem; on a single family home it is 250 4 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes June 19, 2012 square feet and within one of the commercial zone districts is worth 500 square feet of net livable area; doesn't increase the size of the box but what is in the box. • LJ asked about the size of a setback on the roof for a:railing. Jessica answered the setback is required to be the same as the height of the fence or railing. Jessica said with this applicant there is a significant setback on the Hyman side but there is potential with the roof but that will come back at final with the plan. LJ asked if the trash met the DRC requirement. Jessica replied that they did. LJ asked if they could be a deck on a shadowbox. Jessica said that this would be reviewed at final. Sunny Vann stated that he represented the applicant and they closed today. Sunny said this project was about half of the allowable floor area, wants to maintain the existing building and alley, the commercial spaces will be retained. Sunny said that the trash was the only special review because the code conflicts with the new part of the building that goes to the rear of the property line and calls for a 20 by 10 trash area but he doesn't understand why they have to apply by the building rules for a new building. Sunny said if you are familiar with parking in the alley it is double loaded and there were 6 spaces and they will lose one for the trash; this building was built in the 1960s and the code requirements have changed since then. There needs to be better pedestrian accesses to the rear of the building as well as the trash/recycle area. Sunny said in the CC or C-1 zone district there is no residential requirement for parking and the parking requirement for commercial uses can be met by the owner's discretion so the 2 spaces are lost and asked if we need to pay cash-in-lieu for those. Dylan Johns, Zone 4 Architects, said that Jessica did a great job with the presentation and presented a slide show showing the initial ground floor of the site plan and basement, with the exception of mechanical, is net leasable space. Dylan showed the 1St floor net leasable space was held by Chaffin/Light and office space for support. The 2nd floor was the residential space with the entrance on the Hunter side of the building and there were stairs on the north side of the building outside. Dylan said they were planning a fairly straight forward roof with skylights and he showed the elevation of the building. Dylan said that they anticipated that the lower level of the building would be net leasable with the exception of the mechanical portion; they have expanded the mechanical rooms and brought in some circulation along with an elevation for accessibility. Dylan showed the revised 2nd and 3rd level plans but hasn't gotten too far into this; the deck configuration may change a bit. They are going to try and keep as much of the existing structure as possible and they are going to need to add some additional structure and mechanical equipment into the building and anticipate the current 5 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes June 19, 2012 roof needing to get thicker to accommodate the 3rd floor and the majority of that ceiling height is at 10 feet and only at the kitchen and living area has an increase higher, so they were not taking a 12 foot ceiling all they across. Dylan said that they did not want to lose those trees. Dylan said most of the Design Guidelines will recommend changing the cladding for an addition onto an existing building; we thought we would take a wood element. Keith Goode asked if there were any slides without the trees looking at that 3rd story. Dylan showed the Hunter Street elevation and the Hyman elevation. Stan asked the setback from the 2nd to the 3rd floor. Dylan said the biggest restriction is the trees hanging over onto the building and the setback is 5 to 6 feet. Stan asked the reason that wall has to be that deep. Dylan replied that the,general parameters with 3rd floors was to set them back and there was the consideration of the tree. LJ asked where the cash-in-lieu parking money goes. Jessica replied that it goes into a parking fund and the number of parking spaces is addressed in subdivision. PUBLIC COMMENTS: 1. Harris Kahn, public, stated that he owned the building behind this one; he said with one small exception he liked what they were doing. Harris had one concern for the patio for the cheese shop and would like to discuss this with Sunny and Dylan. Harris would like the new third floor setback a little more from the alley. 2. Jim Scull, public, stated that he worked for the Taylor family since 1968 until today when the building was sold. Jim spoke about the trees. LJ closed the public portion of the hearing. Sunny said Mr. Kahn's comments would be about talking with staff and whether we can move it forward with building materials and color. Jim DeFrancia said he agreed with Sunny that there was not much that could be done with moving the top floor because it was to address another concern and was in an alley way. Jim said they didn't know what would happen across the alley. Jim said that he didn't have a problem with the project as presented. LJ asked if those were stilts holding up that 3rd floor. Dylan replied yes. Sunny said that those were the things that they talked about with staff but they haven't 6 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting– Minutes June 19, 2012 gotten to that much detail. LJ\asked how far was the overhang from the main building. Jessica said the 3rd floor setback was really necessary for Hyman Avenue. Bert said on page 3 the last sentence of the 1St paragraph was excellent. Bert supported staff concerns on A306. Bert wanted to see some kind of plan for the lifecycle of these trees to be replaced with whatever should be clear. Bert said that he would support the application. Stan Gibbs stated that his biggest concern was the Hunter Street elevation and he doesn't have as much concern about the alley although he understands Harris's concern. Stan wondered if there was more balancing to do in this project and some of the amenity space could be changed. Sunny said that was a special courtyard and they have an opportunity to enhance it; the building was built in the 1960s so they will take a look at what they have once they start opening up the building. Jim wanted to move this forward and it does comply with all of the dimensional requirements and some of the things that are in the conceptual stage. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution #12, series 2012 as amended approving Conceptual Commercial Design Review for the project located at 602 East Hyman Avenue; seconded by Bert Myrin. Roll call vote: Stan Gibbs, yes; Keith Goode, yes; Jim DeFrancia, yes; Bert Myrin, yes; LJErspamer, yes. APPROVED 5-0. Discussion prior to the vote: Bert proposed on page 10 D to add minimize the perception that the 3rd story appears out of proportion with the existing building. Bert wanted to add.an "E" request the lifecycle of the trees and restrict the tree space not to parking. Bert would like to have a plan to replace the trees. Jennifer said that at final the applicant will come back with the Parks Department requirement on tree replacement. Jessica said it was in Section 3. LJ asked to remove wall by the trash, access sidewalk plan and minimize the floor height. Sunny said the sidewalk was covered in A and the removal of the wall was in C. Public Hearing: 6h-E Hyman:A Conceptual Commxiercial Design\ , LJ Ers er opened the,hear.ing for 601~East Hyman.-Debbie,Quinn asked the applicant c cerning the pbstjng of notice w : or 15 days prior to-the public -hearing and it w s'signed on th7th day-Of May a has it,-.b een pos d as noted in the notice--Stan uson stated . .es3 has been. • Exhibit Dr 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 Conceptual Design, 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. The notification shall be placed on the agenda of a regular City Council meeting within 30 days of the approval, or as soon thereafter as is practical under the circumstances. 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 fifteen (15) days of notification, as outlined in 26.412.040(B)(2). Consequently, applications for Final Design shall not be accepted by the City and no associated permits shall be issued during the notice and 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. The City Council's action shall be limited to: a. Accepting the decision. b. 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.