Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20120723 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA July 23, 2012 5:00 P.M. I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Scheduled Public Appearances IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes) V. Special Orders of the Day a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments b) Agenda Deletions and Additions c) City Manager's Comments d) Board Reports VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion) a) Resolution # 65, 2012 — City/County Community Development IGA b) Resolution #66, 2012 — Contract Employee Generation Study c) Resolution #67, 2012 — Revised Contract Colorado River Water Conservation VII. First Reading of Ordinances VIII. Public Hearings a) Ordinance #17, 2012 —AspenModern Negotiation —Aspen Athletic Club b) Ordinance #20, 2012 — 831/833 W. Bleeker Subdivision c) Ordinance #18, 2012 — South Aspen Street PUD d) Resolution #68, 2012 — S. Aspen Street— Extension of vested rights - dormancy of townhomes IX. Action Items a) 601 E. Hyman — P&Z Approval Conceptual Commercial Design b) 602 E. Hyman — P&Z Approval Conceptual Commercial Design c) 534 E. Cooper (Boogie's) HPC Approval Conceptual Commercial Design X. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting August 13, 2012 COUNCIL'S ADOPTED GUIDELINES • Stick to top priorities • Involve others in community problem solving • Be thorough, deliberate and accountable for consequences when making decisions COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. V I MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: City/County Community Development Departments IGA Resolution No.(05, Series 2012. DATE: July 23, 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. The amendments were withdrawn from the July 9th meeting to clarify risk and liability language. It is expected that the language will be satisfactory to the City Attorney prior to the July 23rd meeting. 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. 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 Page 1 of 2 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. (5 Series of 2012. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. tp6, Series of 2012." ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Resolution with attached IGA Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION (5 (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. Employment Relationship, Workers' Compensation and Indemnification. A. Employment Relationship. 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. Except as set forth below, 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. B. 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. C. 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. Each party shall be responsible for the acts of the other party's employee when such employee is acting within the scope of the duties being performed on behalf of and within the jurisdiction of such party. City/County ComDev IGA-Page 4 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 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 MEMORANDUM Vi TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner Chris Bendon, Community Development Director 11 RE: Contract for Professional Services—Employee Generation Study Resolution No. 649, Series 2012 MEETING DATE: July 23, 2012 REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting contract approval to conduct an updated Employee Generation Study. Attached is a contract for professional service for Economic Planning Systems (EPS) of Denver to conduct the study. A detailed scope of services is included as Exhibit A. The contract is for $25,080 which includes an updated study, a final report, and a presentation to City Council. Information on the consultants in included in Exhibit B. DISCUSSION: In February, staff received direction from City Council to update the Employee Generation Study. The last study was conducted in 2002, and both staff and Council expressed an interest in updating it. Staff issued an RFP, and received two (2) responses. The Denver office of EPS, who conducted the 2002 Employee Generation Study, outlined a process that utilizes the work from 2002 while expanding on it to reflect changed conditions. The consultant team will work with staff to survey local businesses to understand employment patterns. In addition, information from business licenses and local employment data (QCEW) will be used to supplement the report. The final report will include information on comparative communities' employee generation rates and mitigation levels. The detailed scope of the proposal is attached in Exhibit A. REPORT TIMELINE: The scope of work included in Exhibit A includes a detailed timeline, with an anticipated completion of November 2012. Data gathering will occur in July and August, with analysis and data coding occurring in August and September. The final report is expected to be complete in late- October to early-November. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The budget for this report is coming from the AACP implementation budget. No additional funds are needed for the study. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is requesting approval of the service contract with Economic Planning Systems for $25,080. Staff recommends approval of the contract and Resolution as written. Page 1 of 2 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: 694,;:-6, 2))m , i RECOMMENDED MOTION(ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. Series of 2012, approving a contractual agreement for professional services between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Economic Planning Systems for professional consulting services related to an Employee Generation Study." ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A—Agreement for Professional Services, with Scope of Work EXHIBIT B—Consultant Qualifications Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION # (Series of 2012) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR EMPLOYEE GENERATION STUDY BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND ECONOMIC AND PLANNING SYSTEMS INC 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 professional services for an employee generation study, between the City of Aspen and Economic and Planning Systems Inc., 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 professional services for an employee generation study, between the City of Aspen and Economic and Planning Systems Inc., 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 23`d 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 by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, July 23, 2012. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Alk The City of l>spen CITY OF ASPEN STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT - 2009 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES City of Aspen Project No.: 2012-075. AGREEMENT made as of 23'`i day of July, in the year 2012. BETWEEN the City: Contract Amount: [he ('ity of Aspen c/o Community De∎elopnient 130 South (ialena Street Total: $25,080.00 Aspen, Colorado 8 161 1 Phone: (970) 920-5055 If this Agreement requires the City to pay And the Professional: an amount of money in excess of $25,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the City Economic and Planning Systems Inc. Council of the City of Aspen. c/o David Schwart, 730 1711' Street City Council Approval: Suite 630 Phone: 303-623-3557 Date: July 23, 2012 Resolution No.: For the Following Project: Employee Generation Study Exhibits appended and made a part of this Agreement: Exhibit A: Scope of Work. Exhibit B: Hourly Fee Schedule. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc . 1 Section 4 — Timeline The City and Professional agree as set forth below. 1. Scope of Work. Professional shall perform in a competent and professional manner the Scope of Work as set forth at Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. 2. Completion. Professional 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. The parties anticipate that all Work pursuant to this Agreement shall be completed no later than December 1, 2012. Upon request of the City, Professional shall submit, for the City's approval, a schedule for the performance of Professional'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 Professional. 3. Payment. In consideration of the work performed, City shall pay Professional on a time and expense basis for all work performed. The hourly rates for work performed by Professional shall not exceed those hourly rates set forth at Exhibit B appended hereto. Except as otherwise mutually agreed to by the parties the payments made to Professional shall not initially exceed the amount set forth above. Professional shall submit, in timely fashion, invoices for work performed. The City shall review such invoices and, if they are considered incorrect or untimely,the City shall review the matter with Professional within ten days from receipt of the Professional's bill. 4. Non-Assignability. Both parties recognize that this Agreement is one for personal 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 Professional of any of the responsibilities or obligations under this Agreement. Professional shall be and remain solely responsible to the City for the acts, errors, omissions or neglect of any subcontractors' officers, agents and employees, each of whom shall, for this purpose be deemed to be an agent or employee of the Professional 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-contractor. 5. Termination of Procurement. The sale contemplated by this Agreement may be canceled by the City prior to acceptance by the City whenever for any reason and in its sole discretion the City shall determine that such cancellation is in its best interests and convenience. 6. Termination of Professional Services. The Professional or the City may terminate the Professional Services component of 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 Professional pursuant to this Agreement shall become the property of the City. Notwithstanding the above, Professional 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 Professional, and the City may withhold any payments to the Professional for the purposes of set-off until such time as the exact amount of damages due the City from the Professional may be determined. 7. Independent Contractor 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. Professional shall be, and shall perform as, an independent Contractor 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 Professional 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 Professional. 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 Professional. Professional shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of Professional's agents, employees, servants and subcontractors during the performance of this contract. Professional 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 Professional and/or Professional's employees engaged in the performance of the services agreed to herein. 8. Indemnification. Professional 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 without limitation claims arising from bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or damage, or any other loss of any kind whatsoever,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 act, omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligence, or other fault of the Professional, any subcontractor of the Professional, or any officer, employee, representative, or agent of the Professional or of any subcontractor of the Professional, or which arises out of any workmen's compensation claim of any employee of the Professional or of any employee of any subcontractor of the Professional. The Professional 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 Professional, 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. 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 Professional for the portion of the judgment attributable to such act, omission, or other fault of the City,its officers, or employees. 9. Professional's Insurance. (a) Professional 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 obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. Such insurance shall be in addition to any other insurance requirements imposed by this contract or by law. The Professional shall not be relieved of any liability, claims, demands, or other obligations assumed pursuant to Section 8 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) Professional shall procure and maintain, and shall cause any subcontractor of the Professional 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, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the Professional 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) Workers' 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 FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) for each accident, FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - policy limit, and FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - each employee. Evidence of qualified self-insured status may be substituted for the Workers'Compensation requirements of this paragraph. (ii) Commercial General Liability insurance with minimum combined single limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) aggregate. The policy shall be applicable 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 contractors, 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 ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) aggregate with respect to each Professional's owned, hired and non- owned vehicles assigned to or used in performance of the Scope of Work. The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision. If the Professional has no owned automobiles, the requirements of this Section shall be met by each employee of the Professional providing services to the City under this contract. (iv) Professional Liability insurance with the minimum limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) each claim and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) 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 by Professional. No additional insured endorsement to the policy required above shall contain any exclusion for bodily injury or property damage arising from completed operations. The Professional shall be solely responsible for any deductible losses under any policy required above. (d) The certificate of insurance provided to the City shall be completed by the Professional'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 Professional 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 or renew 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 Professional to City upon demand, or City may offset the cost of the premiums against monies due to Professional 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 protections 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. 10. 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 Proper- ty/Casualty Pool. Copies of the CIRSA policies and manual are kept at the City of Aspen Risk Management Depaitnient and are available to Professional for inspection during normal business hours. City makes no representations whatsoever with respect to specific coverages offered by CIRSA. City shall provide Professional reasonable notice of any changes in its membership or participation in CIRSA. 11. 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. 12. Notice. Any written notices as called for herein may be hand delivered or mailed by certified mail return receipt requested to the respective persons and/or addresses listed above. 13. Non-Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform services under this contract. Professional agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, Section 13-98, pertaining to non-discrimination in employment. 14. 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 Professional to which the same may apply and, until complete performance by Professional 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. 15. 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 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 Mayor (or a duly authorized official in his absence)to execute the same. 16. 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 City of Aspen, from knowingly hiring an illegal alien to perform work under a contract, or to knowingly contract with a subcontractor 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 City of Aspen. "Basic Pilot Program" means the basic pilot employment verification program created in Public Law 208, 104th Congress, as amended, and expanded in Public Law 156, 108th Congress, as amended, that is administered by the United States Department of Homeland Security. "Public Contract for Services" means this Agreement. "Services" means the furnishing of labor, time, or effort by a Contractor or a subcontractor 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, Professional certifies and represents that at this time: (i) Professional shall confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for employment in the United States; and (ii)Professional has participated or attempted to participate in the Basic Pilot Program in order to verify that new employees are not employ illegal aliens. (d) Professional hereby confirms that: (i) Professional shall not knowingly employ or contract new employees without confirming the employment eligibility of all such employees hired for employment in the United States under the Public Contract for Services. (ii) Professional shall not enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails to confirm to the Professional that the subcontractor shall not knowingly hire new employees without confirming their employment eligibility for employment in the United States under the Public Contract for Services. (iii) Professional has verified or has attempted to verify through participation in the Federal Basic Pilot Program that Professional does not employ any new employees who are not eligible for employment in the United States; and if Professional has not been accepted into the Federal Basic Pilot Program prior to entering into the Public Contract for Services, Professional shall forthwith apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing verify such application within five (5) days of the date of the Public Contract. Professional shall continue to apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing verify same every three (3) calendar months thereafter, until Professional is accepted or the public contract for services has been completed, whichever is earlier. The requirements of this section shall not be required or effective if the Federal Basic Pilot Program is discontinued. (iv) Professional shall not use the Basic Pilot Program procedures to undertake pre-employment screening of job applicants while the Public Contract for Services is being performed. (v) If Professional obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under the Public Contract for Services knowingly employs or contracts with a new employee who is an illegal alien, Professional shall: (1) Notify such subcontractor and the City of Aspen within three days that Professional has actual knowledge that the subcontractor has newly employed or contracted with an illegal alien; and (2) Terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within three days of receiving the notice required pursuant to this section the subcontractor does not cease employing or contracting with the new employee who is an illegal alien; except that Professional shall not terminate the Public Contract for Services with the subcontractor if during such three days the subcontractor provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien. (vi) Professional 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. (vii) If Professional violates any provision of the Public Contract for Services pertaining to the duties imposed by Subsection 8-17.5-102, C.R.S. the City of Aspen may terminate the Public Contract for Services. If the Public Contract for Services is so terminated, Contractor shall be liable for actual and consequential damages to the City of Aspen arising out of Professional's violation of Subsection 8-17.5-102, C.R.S. (ix) If Professional operates as a sole proprietor, Professional hereby swears or affirms under penalty of perjury that the Professional (1) is a citizen of the United States or otherwise lawfully present in the United States pursuant to federal law, (2) shall comply with the provisions of CRS 24-76.5-101 et seq., and (3) shall produce one of the forms of identification required by CRS 24-76.5-103 prior to the effective date of this Agreement. 16. Warranties Against Contingent Fees, Gratuities, Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest. (a) Professional warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Professional for the purpose of securing business. (b) Professional agrees not to give any employee of the City a gratuity or any offer of employment in connection with any decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, preparation of any part of a program requirement or a purchase request, influencing the content of any specification or procurement standard, rendering advice, investigation, auditing, or in any other advisory capacity in any proceeding or application, request for ruling, determination, claim or controversy, or other particular matter, pertaining to this Agreement, or to any solicitation or proposal therefore. (c) Professional represents that no official, officer, employee or representative of the City during the term of this Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof, except those that may have been disclosed at the time City Council approved the execution of this Agreement. (d) In addition to other remedies it may have for breach of the prohibitions against contingent fees, gratuities, kickbacks and conflict of interest, the City shall have the right to: 1. Cancel this Purchase Agreement without any liability by the City; 2. Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a Professional, contractor or subcontractor under City contracts; 3. Deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the value of anything transferred or received by the Professional; and 4. Recover such value from the offending parties. 17. Fund Availability. Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available. If this Agreement contemplates the City utilizing state or federal funds to meet its obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon the availability of those funds for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 18. 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. 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 first written above. CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: PROFESS ONAL: MUNI di j [Signature] [ i'" W By: BY: „„411,,.‹ (1,9 tet, [Name] [Name] Title: Title: , r„. • Date: Date: 7 //a Approved as to form: City Attorney's Office EXHIBIT A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Scope of Work Task 1: Project Initiation EPS staff will be available for either an in-person meeting or conference call in advance of the project initiation. This will allow us to review and refine the scope to meet the needs and the City's priorities. We will also identify when the survey can be conducted, coordinating both EPS and Aspen staff schedules. In anticipation of the following tasks, we will collect and review business license-records and match them against the 2002 previous effort to ensure consistency and increase the likelihood of a more robust study and enable comparisons by type and use. Task 2: Business Survey Design and Methodology Following the initial meeting and before collecting the business surveys, EPS will work with City staff to reevaluate the business type categories and zone district from the 2002 study. This will benefit the effort to ensure that the response data sample is sufficient statistically to determine new employment generation rates. As such, the major component of this task is to schedule a full-day trip to conduct the business survey. Similar to the earlier collection methodology, EPS and/or Aspen staff will walk from business to business over the course of the day collecting information, such as: • Type of business; • Floor level; • Location within Aspen; • Zone District; • Length of operation (longevity in Aspen); • Size of space; • Staffing by season, hours per week, and FT vs. PT; • Effects of housing availability on employment; • Staffing demand volatility(i.e. needs under varying market conditions); and • Future staffing plans. This core of questions will allow us to replicate the data collected in the previous study. The analysis efforts in the following task, however, will facilitate a more robust and refined understanding of the employment generation rates by zone by business type. EPS and RRC will ensure, working with staff to identify targeted areas and business types, that the number of survey responses collected will also result in a sample size evenly distributed among business categories and zone districts. To achieve budget and timing efficiencies, we intend to utilize City staff in the collection of responses for the business survey. Task 3: Analysis and Geocoding The primary effort of this task is to analyze the response data collected through the business survey. For comparison purposes, EPS will incorporate the data collected in the 2002 study into a larger dataset for analysis. The secondary effort of the analysis will be to assess the trending of these employment levels using the Department of Labor's Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) micro data. EPS will to geocode these data, which we already have through the second quarter of 2011 from a recent project with the City of Aspen. While the QCEW data are a secondary and independent source, they contain attributes such as business/establishment name, address, and quarterly employment counts, which can be used to cross-reference the collected survey data. EPS will combine both primary (business surveys and secondary(QCEW) data sets into GIS by business type and by zone districts. The result of this effort will be an examination of employment generation rates from 2002 to 2012, and an illustration of how those rates have fluctuated over time. One of the objectives is to provide both a graphic and tabular representation of this work for use in the GMQS. Another objective is to facilitate the larger planning and policy-level dialogue about whether these current conditions represent a departure from historic norms,helping to define a"new normal". Task 4: Comparable Community Practices Also to facilitate the larger discussion among planners, other City and elected officials, a general overview of other communities' employee generation rates and mitigation levels may be valuable. Using RRC's bank of business survey response data from comparable resort communities in Colorado, we will provide Aspen with a summary of rates from other resorts, as well as provide addition information on each of these areas' implementation levels. Task 5: Report and Presentations The final deliverable will be a report summarizing the methodology and approach to implementing the survey, to ensure the consistency of future surveying efforts, the analysis of survey data, maps and tables illustrating the trends in employment generation rates by business category and zone district, as well as a summary of rates and mitigation levels in other resort communities. As included in the previous study, EPS will provide a recap and reexamination of the administrative aspects of the program in the interest of ensuring the discussion considers the multiple options that exist in designing a successful mitigation program. The report will summarize the salient points of each section into several discussions. Also as indicated in the RFP, the deliverables will be in the software formats identified (i.e. MS Word, Adobe Acrobat, Excel, etc.). EPS will also provide ArcGIS shapefiles generated from this effort. Schedule EPS will complete the scope of work above in approximately five months. As indicated in the RFP, the City anticipates this project being completed within 2012. As such, this is a draft schedule, and if necessary to accommodate the City, we can move forward various elements of the project to achieve a quicker project completion. Figure 1 Project Schedule Aspen Employee Generation Study July August September October November Project Initiation Business Survey Comparable Presentation Final Report *Review scope, (Cont'd) Community •Meeting with star yid ((ont'd) methodology,riming •Frixess°.ontirsues: Research pc hip piesentat on •Revfsion[eedcwrk god p01iY(it-'^e3 •r811ow.0p�f reces.at}'. *Wert O'Otht, tU other Staff ar+5/ real at bon 1firowel €§erred s}'Gtial5 Analysis& Groding Draft Report Business Survey •Analysfso€suisey:eta •Assimiiationd€ Final Report •Aralysit and synthesis 8ndtngs *FPS trip to Aspen 'incorporation of a€allswdata •rung bonle»of •Ce ep+tares oidata coffin-mob for reviti Cn +Analysis In%c mitigation levels and at modihratide .Oeve?opmentof. impiementian options Employment Generation Rates .Pc shish meeting with City start EXHIBIT B PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT EPS will to complete the project within the timeframe identified above and for a budget not to exceed$25,080. If the City decides to purchase updated QCEW data, it would represent an additional cost to the City. EPS currently has data through 2nd quarter 2011, and data is available through the 4th quarter 2011. Table 1 Project Budget Aspen Employee Generation Study EPS Staff RRC Staff Principal Senior Production/ Principal Primary in Charge Associate Research in Charge Analyst EPS RRC Total Knudtsen Schwartz McDaniel Cares Morzel Billing Rate $210 $140 $80 $210 $65 Labor Costs Task 1:Project Initiation 2 16 0 0 0 $2,660 $0 $2,660 Task 2:Business Survey 4 24 0 4 10 $4,200 $1,490 $5,690 Task 3:Analysis and Geocoding 0 12 16 0 16 $2,960 $1,040 $4,000 Task 4:Comparable Communities 2 4 0 8 10 $980 $2,330 $3,310 Task 5:Report and Presentation 8 30 6 6 0 $6,360 $1,260 $7,620 Subtotal 16 86 22 18 36 $17,160 $6,120 $23,280 as%of Total Staff Hours 9% 48% 12% 10% 20% Total Staff Hours 124 54 178 Direct Costs Travel $1,200 $600 $1,800 Subtotal $1,200 $600 $1,800 Total Project Cost $18,360 $6,720 $25,080 Agreement Professional Services Page 0 /1.4 June 22, 2012 Rebecca Hodgson eelef/i4,41-""/r Purchasing City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Subject: Employee Generation Study; EPS #123053 Dear Ms. Hodgson: EPS is pleased to submit this proposal to provide professional services for an Employee Generation Study for the City of Aspen. EPS has extensive experience working for the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, and ThE wtnrni,_e >%lout other surrounding Roaring Fork Valley municipalities and counties. We are very interested in working with Community Development Department to assist in the update of the City's housing mitigation program. EPS is a full-service economic consulting firm with 40 professional staff and offices in Denver, Colorado; Berkeley, Los Angeles, and Sacramento, California. Founded in 1983, EPS has a broad-based practice in market analysis, real estate and land use economics, and land use policy. The firm has worked with a wide range of public and private clients throughout the nation and has established a reputation for both rigor and creativity. The EPS team includes RRC Associates. EPS and RRC have worked together for more than 20 years on many projects that integrate survey results and market analysis. Two of the major strengths of the EPS Team include: Depth of Technical Experience - EPS has completed numerous city, county, and regional housing demand studies, addressing market and affordability issues, perception issues, revitalization, redevelopment, and community development needs. With a broad-based practice in comprehensive planning, housing market studies to balance public and private forces, as well as the development of sustainability planning and analysis tools, EPS brings the experience to translate data and analysis into actionable strategy and policy for long term community planning initiatives. Economic&Planning Systems,Inc. 730 17th Street, Suite 630 Survey Expertise - RRC Associates, a member of the STR family of Denver, CO 80202-3511 303 623 3557 tel companies, has a depth of survey experience that is unsurpassed. RRC 303 623 9049 fax has completed hundreds of surveys quantifying housing and market issues. With its broad practice of assessing communities' needs, Berkeley Denver particularly in resort communities in Colorado, RRC brings innovative Los Angeles ideas and effective tools for addressing the City's needs. Sacramento www.epsys.com Ms. Rebecca Hodgson June 21, 2012 Page 2 The EPS Team will include Andy Knudtsen, David Schwartz, and Annalisa McDaniel of EPS; and Chris Cares and Tim Morzel of RRC. We are committed to completing the scope of work included in the proposal and have the requisite skills necessary to address all the issues identified in the RFP. We look forward to this opportunity to work with the City of Aspen on this important project. Per the City's request, our proposal is printed on 30% recycled and FSC-certified paper and submitted in a folder that contains 50% recycled content, 30% post-consumer material. Sincerely, ECONOMIC&PLANNING SYSTEMS, INC. ,,t.4ett, Andrew M. Knudtsen Principal 123053_plet.doc SECTION 1 — INTRODUCTION Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) is a land economics consulting firm 0 experienced in the full spectrum of services related to real estate development, the financing of public infrastructure and government services, land use and conservation planning, and government organization. EPS was founded on the principle that real estate development and land use- related public policy should be built on realistic assessment of market forces and economic trends, feasible implementation measures, and recognition of public policy objectives, including provisions for required public facilities and services. The firms' areas of expertise are as follows: • Real Estate Market and Feasibility Analysis • Land Use Planning and Growth • Public Finance Management • Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis • Open Space and Resource Conservation • Reuse, Revitalization, and Redevelopment • Government Organization • Housing Development Feasibility and Policy • Transportation Planning and Analysis • Regional Economics and Industry Analysis • Asset Valuation and Repositioning Since 1983 EPS has provided consulting services to hundreds of public- and private-sector clients in Colorado and throughout the United States. EPS is located in Denver, Colorado, and Berkeley, Los Angeles, and Sacramento, California. EPS clients include cities, counties, special districts, education and other non-profit institutions, multi-jurisdictional authorities, property owners, developers, financial institutions, and land use attorneys. The professional staff of 40 includes specialists in public finance, real estate development, land use and transportation planning, government organization, and computer applications. The firm excels in preparing concise analyses that disclose risks and impacts, support decision making, and provide solutions to real estate development and land use-related problems. EPS Project Awards American Society of Landscape Architects, "Honor Award" 2008, Fiscal and Economic Analysis for Cattle Creek Crossing, Lower Roaring Fork Valley (Garfield County), Colorado American Institute of Architects "Excellence in Design" 1998, Stapleton Development Plan, Denver, Colorado APA Sacramento Valley Section of the California Chapter "Certificate of Merit for Comprehensive Planning" 1990, Southern Pacific Railyards Specific Plan, Sacramento, California APA California Chapter"Award of Merit for Planning Implementation" - Sonoma County 2007- 2014 Housing Element, Sonoma County, California APA California Chapter "Comprehensive Planning Award Large Jurisdiction" 2009, City of Sacramento General Plan Update 2030, Sacramento, California Economic& Planning Systems, Inc. 3 Section 1 -Introduction Aspen Employee Generation Study June 21, 2012 APA National Planning Awards, "Outstanding Planning Award Special Citation for Comprehensive Planning in a Large Jurisdiction" 1996, Stapleton Redevelopment Plan, Denver, Colorado Congress for the New Urbanism "Award of Excellence" 2001, Robert Mueller Municipal Airport Reuse Plan, Austin Texas FTA/FHWA/APA"Transportation Planning Excellence Award" 2004, Valley Metro Rail Station Development Opportunities and Strategies, Phoenix, Arizona Local Government Commission, American Institute of Architects, California Chapter of APA, and Bank of America, "Awahnee Award of Honor" 2002, Hayward Cannery Area Design Plan, Hayward, California Local Government Commission of California, "Certificate of Recognition" 2008 to James Musbach, Coyote Valley Specific Plan, San Jose,California Southern California Association of Governments' "Visionary Planning for Mobility Award" 2008, Rialto Downtown Vision and Strategic Plan: Market and Financial Analysis for Downtown Revitalization, Rialto, California Economic&Planning Systems, Inc. 4 Section 1 -Introduction SECTION 2 - QUALIFICATIONS Consulting Team Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) and RRC Associates, an STR Company, are pleased to team together for this project with the City of Aspen. We have collaborated on numerous projects in the last 10 years to successfully provide communities in the state of Colorado and outside with actionable housing-related studies, survey efforts, and policy tools. • Economic& Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS): As the project team lead, provides a broad range of services related to housing studies, in addition to our extensive experience in market analysis, land use planning, and public finance. -These-complementary areas of - - - practice inform our approach and understanding of affordable housing needs beyond the basic issues. As shown in the team diagram, Figure 1, the staffing from EPS for this project will be Andrew Knudtsen, Principal; David Schwartz, Senior Associate; and Annalisa McDaniel, Research Analyst. • RRC Associates, an STR Company (RRC): RRC brings extensive experience in the use of housing-oriented surveys and in the use of proper sampling techniques to ensure the most robust response, including those with substantial student populations. RRC understands the range of economic and demographic issues pertaining to housing and brings experience surveying businesses using a variety of techniques. Staffing from RRC will be Chris Cares, Managing Principal; and Tim Morzel, Research Analyst. Economic& Planning Systems, Inc. 5 Section 2 - Qualifications Aspen Employee Generation Study June 21, 2012 Figure 1 Organization Chart Aspen Employee Generation Study City of Aspen • I I Primary Contact/Project Manager David Schwartz Senior Associate Economic&Planning Systems • I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I � I RRC Lead Consultant: w Methodology, j Subcontractor: Data Analysis, Policy,Implementation Levels, Survey Design,Tabulation,and and Mitigation Rates Comparable Community Stats I I I ' I I Andrew Knudtsen David Schwartz Annalisa McDaniel Chris Cares Tim Morzel Principal Senior Associate Research Assistant Managing Director Research Analyst I I I 1 \ I The ( Team Economic& Planning Systems, Inc. 6 Section 2 - Qualifications Aspen Employee Generation Study June 21, 2012 Project Roles Each EPS Team member brings a depth of experience assessing housing-related issues for public sector clients in a variety of geographies, and particularly in mountain resort economies. The City of Aspen will benefit from the historical perspective that each team member brings to this Employee Generation Study, as well as the perspective of having collaborating previously on not only the 2002 study, but many other survey-based studies and policy planning documents. The general roles and responsibilities of each EPS Team member are described below: • Andrew Knudtsen, Principal (EPS): Having worked on the 2002 study, Andy will provide oversight for this project to ensure it maintains consistency with the methodology of the previous work. • David Schwartz, Senior Associate (EPS): David will serve as the primary contact for the project, coordinating the efforts of the team, project pacing, schedule, billing, and generally ensuring that the work completed maintains the rigor of the previous study and is enhanced for the most robust effort possible. • Annalisa McDaniel, Research Analyst (EPS): Annalisa will perform many of the data analysis functions and geo-coding needs of the project. • Chris Cares, Managing Principal (RRC): Also having worked on the 2002 study, Chris will provide additional oversight for this project to ensure that the data collected maintains the statistical integrity of data collected previously. Chris will also ensure that the analysis of comparable resort community mitigation practices is relevant. • Tim Morzel, Research Analyst (RRC): Tim will complete the analytical tasks associated with providing comparable community statistics, contributing to the distribution and tabulation of the survey. Resumes The following pages consist of résumés for each of the staff contributing to this project. Their individual qualifications, education, and brief descriptions of similar experience are included. Economic& Planning Systems, Inc. 7 Section 2 - Qualifications MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: David Hornbacher, Director of Utilities and Environmental Initiatives Mike McDill, Deputy Utility Operations Director THRU: Jim True, City Attorney THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager DATE OF MEMO: July 16,2012 MEETING DATE: July 23, 2012 RE: Approval of Revised Contract with Colorado River Water Conservation District to provide Augmentation Water REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Council is asked to approve a revised Water Supply Contract with the Colorado River Water Conservation District ("River District"), in substantially the form previously approved by Council on March 12, 2012. Pursuant to a March 1, 2012, Memorandum presented to Council, staff recommended approval of a Water Supply Contract with the River District that incorrectly provided for water to be provided from Wolford Mountain Reservoir, rather than Ruedi Reservoir which was the intended supply and which would best serve the City's needs. The original contract for Wolford Mountain Reservoir supplies was approved by Council at the rate of $295.35 per acre-foot. The Ruedi Reservoir supplies are leased by the District for $159.00/acre-foot. The payment on the revised and corrected Water Supply Contract for the current calendar year (2012) will be $5,170.00 (the 2012-13 contract price of $4,770 plus $400.00 for legal expenses), which is $3,690.50 less than the contract price approved by Council in March, 2012. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that City Council approve Resolution No. (01---(Series of 2012), which supersedes Resolution No. 19 (Series 2012) approving the original form of the contract, and authorizing execution of the revised and corrected Water Supply Contract with the Colorado River Water Conservation District in the form provided with this memorandum, and performance of the revised Water Supply Agreement. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: �-� it a Page 1 of 1 RESOLUTION NO. Series of 2012 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING EXECUTION AND PERFORMANCE OF A WATER SUPPLY CONTRACT (CW 11006)BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COLORADO RIVER WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 19 (Series of 2012) WHEREAS, the City has pending water court applications in Case Nos. 05CW300 and 06CW54 (Water Court, Water Division No. 5) for the Aspen reclaimed water system, for certain water rights for existing ponds, and for a plan for augmentation to augment out of priority pond evaporation and diversions from the Aspen reclaimed water project; and WHEREAS,the plan for augmentation contemplates that certain augmentation supplies be provided pursuant to a Water Supply Contract with the Colorado River Water Conservation District ("River District"); and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 19 (Series 2012)the City Council approved execution and performance by City Counsel of a Water Supply Contract CW 11006,which incorrectly provided that the District would provide water from its Wolford Mountain Reservoir supply; and WHEREAS, the City would be best served by a Water Supply Contract with the River District that provides water primarily from its Ruedi Reservoir supply; and WHEREAS,the River District has agreed to provide 30 acre-feet of fully-consumable water from its Colorado River water supply and primarily from Ruedi Reservoir,pursuant to the revised Water Supply Contract CW11006, which will be used to augment out of priority depletions as provided in the plan for augmentation; and WHEREAS, the revised Water Supply Contract must be executed by Aspen and the River District in order to complete the plan for augmentation and obtain a final water court decree; and WHEREAS,City staff and consultants have reviewed the revised Water Supply Contract and have recommended that the City execute the revised Water Supply Contract substantially in the form of Contract CW11006, which has been provided to the City Council; and WHEREAS,City Council has had the opportunity to obtain such advice and information as it deems appropriate and necessary regarding the proposed Water Supply Contract, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Aspen, that this Resolution shall supersede Resolution No. 19(Series of 2012),and that execution and performance by the City of the revised Water Supply Contract between the City and the River District, substantially in the form of Contract CW 11006,is hereby approved. The Mayor,and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute the revised Water Supply Contract and any related documents necessary or desirable to effectuate the transactions provided for in the revised Water Supply Contract. Dated: APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of 2012. Mayor Attest: City Clerk CW11006 WATER SUPPLY CONTRACT This Contract is made between the COLORADO RIVER WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (herein the "River District"), a political subdivision of the State of Colorado acting by and through its ,Colorado River Water Projects Enterprise, and the CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO (herein "Contractor") effective as of the date of the River District's execution indicated below. RECITALS A. The River District is authorized to contract to deliver water for beneficial use from River District water projects pursuant to provisions of C.R.S. § 37-46-101, et seq. (herein"River District Organic Act"). B. The River District is the owner and operator of the Wolford Mountain Reservoir Project located on the Muddy Creek drainage near Kremmling, Colorado, having obtained necessary decrees from the District Court in and for Colorado Water Division No. 5 (herein "Water Court") and permits from governmental agencies, and the River District is entitled to deliveries of water from Ruedi Reservoir under its Contracts with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. C. The River District's Board of Directors has adopted a Water Marketing Policy, as revised by the Board from time to time, to provide for the use of water available from the River District's sources of supply pursuant to contracts, and that Water Marketing Policy is to be implemented through the River District's Water Projects Enterprise. D. Contractor has a need for wholesale water supply, demonstrated in its submittal to the River District pursuant to the Water Marketing Policy's contracting process, in the amount of 30 acre feet annually for municipal/industrial purposes, which beneficial uses will be accomplished by Contractor generally in the vicinity of Pitkin County, Colorado, by surface water diversions from or within the Roaring Fork River drainage, which is a tributary to the Colorado River. E. Contractor is aware of the "Hydrology Assumptions"which are part of the Water Marketing Policy and is satisfied, based on its review and investigations, that Contractor legally and physically can make use for its intended purposes of the Contracted Water, which are the subject of this Contract and that such use will comply with the Water Marketing Policy. AGREEMENT The foregoing Recitals are incorporated into this agreement between the River District and Contractor. DEFINITIONS In this Contract certain terms will have definitions as stated below: WATER SUPPLY CONTRACT CW11006 Page 2 • The "River District" means the Colorado River Water Conservation District created and existing pursuant to the River District Organic Act defined in Recital A and acting by and through its Colorado River Water Projects Enterprise which is currently described and memorialized in the Resolution of the Colorado River Water Conservation District's Board of Directors dated April 20, 2005. • The "Project" meansthe River District's "Colorado River Supply" from: (1) Wolford Mountain Reservoir, for which storage water right decrees were obtained by the River District in Cases No. 87CW283, 95CW281 and 98CW237 in the District Court for Colorado Water Division No. 5, and for which additional storage water right decrees may be obtained in the future by the River District in other cases; (2) the River District's contractual right to water deliveries from Ruedi Reservoir; and (3) other supplies that the River District may acquire suitable for use in its Water Marketing Program. • "Agricultural" means the use of water for commercial production of agricultural crops and livestock and other uses consistent with any right decreed for irrigation purposes, which uses are made on a parcel of land of at least ten acres. • "Municipal and Industrial" means the use of water by individuals, cities, towns, public or quasi-public districts, private corporations, homeowners associations, or other entities for domestic, municipal, and miscellaneous related purposes as those terms are traditionally and commonly construed, including the use of water for purposes of producing or processing a non-agricultural product or service for sale, including without limitation, such uses as manufacturing, mining, milling, land reclamation, golf course irrigation, snowmaking, and non-hydroelectric power generation; and including the use of water for environmental mitigation purposes associated with such uses; but excepting the agricultural use of water defined herein. • "Contracted Water"means the water which is the subject of this Contract which is to be released and delivered by the River District and used by Contractor. The Contracted Water is 30 acre feet of Colorado River Supply below the Roaring Fork Confluence available during each Project Year during the term of this Contract, subject to the provisions hereof, for Contractor's use without right of carryover of any amount not used in any Project Year. • "Project Year" means a period of time from July 1 through and including the subsequent June 30. • "Water Marketing Policy" means the River District's policy statement as revised and readopted as of the execution date of this Contract and as the same may be amended in the future. WATER SUPPLY CONTRACT CW11006 Page 3 • "Project Hydrology Assumptions" or "Hydrology Assumptions" means the document attached as Appendix "A" to the Water Marketing Policy adopted on October 17, 2006. 1. River District Water Delivery Obligations and Responsibilities. a. Delivery. The River District will deliver the Contracted Water at the outlet works of the Contracted Water's sources of supply into the receiving natural streams in quantities provided herein. Unless otherwise agreed to by the River District's General Manager based upon written request of Contractor, the River District will make releases or request that releases be made for Contractor, based upon Contractor's written schedule of anticipated demand, adjusted as necessary by the ongoing status of river administration vis-a-vis the priority status of Contractor's diversions, provided that the releases can be made within the operational limitations of the River District's project facilities as determined by the River District in its sole discretion. Contractor shall be solely responsible after delivery for the legal and physical delivery and use of the Contracted Water. b. Delivery Contingencies. The River District's delivery of Contracted Water shall be subject to Contractor's payments pursuant to paragraph 3 below, and the provisions for curtailment of deliveries in paragraph 5 below. c. Water Measurements. The River District shall measure at the outlet works of the Contracted Water's sources of supply all Contracted Water and shall notify the Division Engineer of Colorado Water Division No. 5 of the date, time and amount of Contracted Water released pursuant to this Contract. Copies of such records shall be provided to Contractor upon request. d. Water Quality. The River District shall have no obligation to Contractor or any other person regarding and makes no warranties or representations to Contractor concerning the quality of Contracted Water delivered pursuant to this Contract by releases of raw water to natural streams. e. Maintenance of Facilities. The River District, to the extent that it has ownership and maintenance control, shall use its best efforts to maintain in good working condition the water storage and release facilities of the Contracted Water. f. Withholding of Delivery. The River District may withhold deliveries of Contracted Water in the event of Contractor's nonpayment for Contracted Water or any other breach of this Contract by Contractor. Such remedy shall not be the River District's exclusive remedy in the event of any such breach. g. Delivery from Primary or Alternate Sources. The River District will deliver the Contracted Water from the sources of Colorado River Supply below the Roaring WATER SUPPLY CONTRACT CW11006 Page 4 Fork Confluence described herein, which will meet the Contractor's need to satisfy calls by senior water rights or the Contractor's physical need for any direct delivery of Contracted Water to Contractor's diversions. Subject to meeting those objectives, the River District reserves the right to provide all or any of the Contracted Water to Contractor from alternate reservoirs for Contractor's use, provided that the alternate sources are suitable to physically satisfy calls by senior water rights or Contractor's need for direct delivery. 2. Contractor's Water Use Obligations and Responsibilities. a. Scheduling of Use. Contractor has provided the River District a preliminary written schedule of its anticipated monthly demands for the Contracted Water during the upcoming Project Year(July 2012 -June 2013). The schedule provided by Contractor in its application for this Contract shall serve as the schedule to be used until it is modified in a written notice given by Contractor to the River District, or as necessary in response to river administration of the Contractor's diversions. The schedule shall identify the volume of any Contracted Water anticipated by Contractor not to be needed by it during any particular Project Year. Contractor shall update said schedule periodically during the Project Year as conditions require and give the River District written notice of all such revisions. b. Carriage Losses. Contractor shall bear carriage losses in such amount as is determined by the Division Engineer for Colorado Water Division No. 5, from the point of delivery of Contracted Water to Contractor's point(s) of use and/or exchange or augmentation. c. Use Per Contract and Law. Contractor's use of Contracted Water shall in all instances be in accordance with the terms of this Contract,the permits and decrees of the Project, the Water Marketing Policy, as it may change from time to time, and in accordance with applicable law and all decrees related to the Contracted Water. Contractor is not authorized to apply for or secure any change in the water rights for or associated with any of the sources of supply of the Contracted Water. d. Legal Approvals. Contractor shall at its sole expense adjudicate a plan or plans for augmentation or exchange and/or secure administrative approvals of any temporary substitute supply plans which are needed for Contractor to use its Contracted Water. Any such plans shall identify Wolford Mountain Reservoir and Ruedi Reservoir as the sources of supply. Contractor already has filed such an application in Water Court, Water Division No. 5, Case No. 06CW54. If necessary, Contractor shall amend the application to identify both of the River District's sources of supply. If Contractor intends to make any additional application(s) for any augmentation or exchange plan(s) or substitute supply plan(s) needed for Contractor to use its Contracted Water, Contractor shall submit the proposed application(s) to the River District within a reasonable time before WATER SUPPLY CONTRACT CW11006 Page 5 Contractor proposes to file such application(s). The River District shall grant written approval of such applications before they are submitted or filed, and the River District's approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The River District may in its discretion become a co-applicant in the prosecution of any such applications for the purpose of protecting its water rights and related policies. Contractor shall cause to be included in any final decree of the Water Court a provision conditioning Contractor's use of the Contracted Water on the existence of a River District contract. e. Limitation on Disposition. i. Contractor shall not sublet, sell, donate, loan, assign or otherwise dispose of any of its rights to this Contract or to Contracted Water without prior written notice to, and the written approval of, the River District and the payment of a transfer fee at the prevailing rate set forth in the Water Marketing Policy. The River District's approval of such disposition shall be granted in all instances in which the Contractor is transferring the water system which supplies the Contracted Water, or a permanent transfer of the Contract is to be made to a successor in interest of Contractor by reason of the transfer of the title or other legal right to use the property served by the Contracted Water, or where the transfer is made to an entity such as a homeowners' association or special district created to serve the property originally represented to the River District to be served with the Contracted Water. ii. The assignment of a Contract is subject to the Water Marketing Policy as revised as of the effective date of the assignment. In accordance with this subparagraph (ii), any assignee must pay for the Contracted Water at the then-current price determined by the River District Board of Directors. f. Contractor's Water Rates. Contractor may charge its water customers who are supplied with Contracted Water such rates and charges as are permitted by Colorado law. g. Nondiscrimination. Contractor shall not discriminate in the availability of or charges for any water service or water supply made available pursuant to or based upon the Contracted Water on account of race, color, religion, or national origin or any other criteria prohibited under state or federal law. h. Accounting of Use. Contractor shall maintain an accounting of its use of all water used or supplied by Contractor on form(s) acceptable to the River District specifically for the purpose of enabling the River District to prove the use of River District Project water rights and to administer and operate the Project and water right decrees and/or administrative approvals related to Contractor's use of Contracted Water. Contractor shall submit its accounting forms and records to the WATER SUPPLY CONTRACT CW11006 Page 6 River District promptly upon request and shall assist the River District as it may reasonably request in presenting and/or verifying such evidence of use in court or before administrative agencies by testimony of Contractor or its authorized and informed officers or agents. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States. Contractor shall consult with the Army Corps of Engineers if construction of facilities necessary to use the Contracted Water requires Section 404 compliance, which may include obtaining a permit. Further consultation and approval by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service may be required to ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.) if Contractor proposes physical alterations to the designated critical habitat of the Colorado River endangered fish species. As of March 1, 2007, designated critical habitat exists from the Garfield County 320 Road Bridge Crossing of the Colorado River in Rifle downstream to the Colorado State line. 3. Contractor's Payments. a. In addition to the application fee already paid by Contractor, in order for the River District's delivery obligation to become effective, Contractor shall pay to the River District within (30) days of receipt of the River District's billing invoice the total sum of $5,170.00, being $400 for the Statement of Opposition the River District filed in Case No. 06CW54, Water Division 5, and $159.00 for each acre foot of 30 acre feet of Contracted Water for the upcoming Project Year (July 2012-June 2013). Thereafter, the River District shall provide Contractor an annual invoice for the Contracted Water, and Contractor shall pay the invoice within thirty (30) days of receipt. The price for each type of water will be reviewed and set annually by the River District's Enterprise Board of Directors (which decision normally will be made prior to March 1 each year). Any annual increase in the contract price shall not exceed the then-current published Consumer Price Index(CPI)plus New Growth Index(NGI). b. Contractor also shall pay any special assessment levied by the River District on Contractor to recoup all or a portion of costs attributable to extraordinary maintenance incurred by the River District or assessed upon the River District by its third party water suppliers. 4. Contract Term. a. Except in the event of an early termination or partial termination as provided for in paragraph 6 below and subject to the other terms and conditions of this Contract, the term of this Contract shall be for a period of up to forty (40) years from the date of the execution of this Contract(through June 30, 2052). WATER SUPPLY CONTRACT CW11006 Page 7 b. At the end of the 40-year term of this Contract (June 30, 2052), the Contractor shall have the right to renew this Contract for the same Contracted Water amount for a secondary term of thirty-five (35) years, upon such terms and conditions as the River District is offering at that time, provided that the River District is offering up the full amount of Contracted Water for lease. In the event that the River District, on a non-discriminatory basis, decides not to offer up the full amount of the Contracted Water for lease, Contractor shall have the right to renew for a secondary term of thirty-five (35)years such lesser portion of the Contracted Water as may be offered by the River District. If Contractor desires to so renew this Contract, it shall provide the River District written notice of its intention to do so at least ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of the initial term of this Contract. Thereafter, and prior to the expiration of the initial term, the River District and Contractor shall execute a supplemental agreement of renewal in a form mutually acceptable to the River District and Contractor. If such notice of intention to renew is not provided and such supplemental agreement is not executed, no renewal term shall commence. 5. Water Shortage. In the event that the River District is unable, because of either legal or physical reasons (including, but not limited to, hydrologic shortages and operational restrictions), to deliver any or all of the full amount of water contracted from the Project, including the Contracted Water, the River District reserves the right to apportion the Project's available water among its several contractors, including Contractor, in the manner provided in paragraph 6 of the Water Marketing Policy. 6. Contract Termination. a. Termination by River District. i. The River District may terminate this Contract for any violation or breach of the terms of this Contract by Contractor, including Contractor's failure to pay timely any sum or amount due under this Contract within thirty (30) days after receiving written notice from the River District of such breach. ii. The River District also may terminate this Contract if, in its discretion, any judicial or administrative proceedings initiated by Contractor as contemplated in subparagraph 2.d above, threaten the River District's authority to contract for delivery of Project Water or the River District's water rights, permits, or other interests associated with the Project. iii. The River District may terminate this Contract if its legal ability to deliver Contracted Water is materially impaired or is eliminated because of the termination or adverse modification of permits, decrees or other authorizations which are needed to deliver the Contracted Water. WATER SUPPLY CONTRACT CW11006 Page 8 b. Termination by Contractor. i. Contractor may terminate this Contract in its entirety for any reason by giving the River District at least thirty (30) days advance notice prior to the due date of Contractor's next annual payment. ii. Every fifth year after the year in which this Contract is executed, Contractor may partially terminate this Contract as to the amount of Contracted Water by giving the River District at least thirty (30) days advance notice prior to the due date of Contractor's next annual payment. Partial termination by Contractor shall not exceed more than fifty percent (50%) of the amount of Contracted Water which is then under contract. iii. Within thirty (30) days of final approval of the Water Court application contemplated by subparagraph 2.d. above, Contractor may by written notice to the River District partially terminate this Contract as to the amount of Contracted Water which is not needed under that approval. c. Notice of Termination to Affected Officials. The River District will notify the Division Engineer and any other appropriate governmental officials of any full or partial contract termination except for any partial termination under subparagraph 6.b.(iii). 7. Force Majeure. The River District shall not be responsible for any losses or damages incurred as a result of the River District's inability to perform pursuant to this Agreement due to the following causes if beyond the River District's control and when occurring through no direct or indirect fault of the River District, including without limitation: acts of God; natural disasters; actions or failure to act by governmental authorities; unavailability of supplies or equipment critical to the River District's ability to perform; major equipment or facility breakdown; and changes in Colorado or federal law, including, without limitation, changes in any permit requirements. 8. Miscellaneous/Standard Provisions. a. Notices. i. All notices required or appropriate under or pursuant to this Contract shall be given in writing mailed or delivered to the parties at the following addresses: WATER SUPPLY CONTRACT CW11006 Page 9 River District: Colorado River Water Conservation District Attention: General Manager/Secretary 201 Centennial Street, Suite 200 P. O. Box 1120 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 Phone: (970) 945-8522 Fax: (970) 945-8799 Contractor: with copy to: David Hornbacher, Utilities Director Kerry Sundeen, Consulting Hydrologist City of Aspen Grand River Consulting Corporation 130 S. Galena Street 718 Cooper Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 920-5110 Phone: (970) 945-2237 Fax: (970) 920-5117 Fax: (970) 945-2977 David.hornbacher @ci.aspen.co.us ksundeen @grandriver.us and copy to: Andrea L. Benson, Esq. Alperstein& Covell, P.C. 1600 Broadway, Suite 2350 Denver, CO 80202-4921 Phone: (303) 894-8191 Fax: (303) 861-0420 alb @alpersteincovell.com ii. Either party may, by written notice given in accordance with this provision, change the address to which notices to it shall be mailed or delivered. b. Amendments. No amendment, modification, or novation of this contract or its provisions and implementation shall be effective unless documented in writing which is approved and executed by both parties with the same formality as they have approved and executed this Contract. c. This Contract is subject to the River District's Water Marketing Policy, as it may be revised from time to time by the River District's Board. WATER SUPPLY CONTRACT CW11006 Page 10 COLORADO RIVER WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT acting by and through its Colorado River Water Projects Enterprise DATE: By: R. Eric Kuhn, General Manager/Secretary ATTEST: Dan Birch, Deputy General Manager/Asst. Sec. VERIFICATION STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) The foregoing Water Supply Contract was subscribed and sworn to before me by R. Eric Kuhn as General Manager/Secretary and Dan Birch, Deputy General Manager/Assistant Secretary of the Colorado River Water Conservation District, acting by and through its Colorado River Water Projects Enterprise this day of , 2012. Witness my hand and official seal. My Commission Expires: Notary Public WATER SUPPLY CONTRACT CW11006 Page 11 CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO By: (Name) (Title) VERIFICATION STATE OF ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing Water Supply Contract was subscribed and sworn to before me by as this day of , 2012. Witness my hand and official seal. My Commission Expires: Notary Public MEMORANDUM Vil I 1 a.1 TO: Mayor and Aspen City Council FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner9 THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director 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, and July 9, 2012. MEETING DATE: July 23, 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 is included on the Aspen Modern ' map. The applicant proposes to — -- voluntarily designate the existing � Robin Molny designed building f L in exchange for benefits through y ;1 "=; %' - '`' _ P. the AspenModern program. The S • L applicant proposes to maintain the second floor office space and provide an affordable housing Photograph 1:720 E.Hyman Avenue mitigation either offsite or through housing credits. The third floor office space is proposed to be converted 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 4 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 23,2012 Page 1 of 15 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. FOLLOW UP FROM SECOND READING ON JULY 9,2012: During Second Reading on July 9th, Council directed Staff to incorporate specific conditions into the proposed ordinance. Following are the proposed changes: Section 1: Approvals and Phasing (pg. 3 of Ord.): Additions to this section approve project phasing for the residential units. The applicant is interested in phasing the residential units in order to honor the existing leases with tenants in the building. Section 2: Historic Landmark Designation (pg. 3 of Ord.): New language is added to prohibit the atrium from being significantly altered. Any substantial changes to the openness or historic character of the atrium requires approval by HPC. Any insubstantial changes, for example adding an ATM machine for the bank, shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director. Section 3: Part 5 Subdivision (pg. 4 of Ord.): Requires recordation of a deed restriction committing that the commercial uses shall not be limited in a way that prohibits those uses allowed in the Mixed Use Zone District. This requirement addresses Council's concerns about limiting commercial uses beyond those allowed in the zone district. 720 East Hyman Avenue AspenModern Negotiation—Second Reading July 23,2012 Page 2 of 15 To address Council's concerns about one owner purchasing the entire building in order to maintain vacant commercial spaces and use the building as a huge free market residence, Staff proposes language that requires recordation of a deed restriction to maintain the residential and commercial components in separate ownership. Section 7: Dimensional Requirements (Pg. 6 of Ord.): The onsite affordable housing unit was removed from this section. A 5 square feet increase to the floor area for the free market residential component is included in the ordinance. This is due to the removal of the offsite affordable housing unit and the related increase in non-unit (circulation) space that is attributed to the free market residential unit. Section 8: Impact and Development Fees (pg. 7 of Ord.): The removal of the affordable housing unit reduced the parking requirement from 3 spaces to 2 spaces and in turn reduced the cash in lieu fee from $90,000 to $60,000. The Ordinance requires payment of the $60,000. Section 9: Affordable Housing (pg. 7 of Ord.): Rather than provide an onsite housing unit, Council requests that the applicant mitigate through either an offsite housing unit located within city limits east of the roundabout or that the applicant purchase affordable housing credits to offset the required 2.06 full time equivalents (FTEs). Either option shall be met prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Phase 1. The proposed language offers two options for housing mitigation. The offsite option requires a one bedroom unit which mitigates for 1.75 FTEs and cash in lieu for the remaining 0.31 FTEs.I The second option is affordable housing credits. On July 9th, Council specified that the requirement for affordable housing credits be 2.0 FTEs and the remaining 0.06 FTEs may be mitigated through payment of cash in lieu.2 The Code requires mitigation at Category 4 or lower. Council did not specify a Category level during the July 9th hearing. The Housing Board recommended Category 3 or 4 for the previously proposed onsite unit, and is supportive of a Category 2 offsite unit or Category 2 housing credits. Staff included a Category 2 requirement in the Ordinance as a tradeoff for the first free market residential unit that does not require mitigation due to the incentive for landmark designation. Staff recommends that Council discuss an appropriate Category level for the required mitigation. Section 18: Vested Rights (pg. 9 of Ord.): The changes include approval of 7 years of vested rights and recordation of the subdivision plat and agreement is required within 1 year of the effective date of the development order. A two bedroom unit mitigates for 2.25 FTEs which is more than the required 2.06 FTEs. 2 Affordable Housing Credits are divisible to 0.05 FTEs. Council could require the applicant to provide 2.05 FTEs and pay cash in lieu for 0.01 FTEs. 720 East Hyman Avenue AspenModern Negotiation—Second Reading July 23,2012 Page 3 of 15 State statute mandates a 3 year vesting period. The Land Use Code requires subdivision plats and agreements to be recorded within 180 days, which may be administratively extended by the Community Development Director. The staff memo dated July 9, 2012 is included at the end of this memo for reference. 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 AFFIRMITIVE): "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. [included] EXHIBIT B— Integrity Score sheet. [provided on July 9, 2012] EXHIBIT C— Subdivision Review Criteria. [provided on July 9, 2012] 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. [provided on July 9, 2012] EXHIBIT E— Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority referral memo dated May 7, 2012. [included] EXHIBIT F—Application dated March 27, 2012, provided on May 29, 2012. [provided on May 29, 2012] EXHIBIT G—AspenModern White Paper. [provided on July 9, 2012] 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. [included] 720 East Hyman Avenue AspenModern Negotiation—Second Reading July 23,2012 Page 4 of 15 EXHIBIT I—HPC meeting minutes from May 23, 2012. [provided on July 9, 2012] EXHIBIT J— Supplemental information to the application dated June 29, 2012. [provided on July 9, 2012] EXHIBIT K—Mixed Use Zone district chart submitted by Staff during the July 9, 2012 hearing. [included] EXHIBIT L—Public notice provided on June 11, 2012. [provided on June 11, 2012] Exhibit M—Updated Subdivision Criteria dated July 23, 2012. [included] Exhibit N—Updated Growth Management Criteria dated July 23, 2012. [included] 720 East Hyman Avenue AspenModern Negotiation—Second Reading July 23,2012 Page 5 of 15 PLEASE NOTE: Following is the July 9th Staff memo for reference. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Aspen City Council FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director 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 " C; ;, I 4a _i ' Use Zone District. The property ?,. is included on the Aspen Modern I, 4.7 4:.: map. The applicant proposes to voluntarily designate the existing Robin Molny designed building in =� exchange for benefits through the Photograph 1:720 E.Hyman Avenue AspenModern program. The applicant proposes to convert a portion of the second floor office space to an affordable housing unit and to convert the third floor office space into two free market residential units. 720 East Hyman Avenue AspenModem Negotiation—Second Reading July 23,2012 Page 6 of 15 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. 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. 720 East Hyman Avenue AspenModern Negotiation—Second Reading July 23,2012 Page 7 of 15 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 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 720 East Hyman Avenue AspenModern Negotiation—Second Reading July 23,2012 Page 8 of 15 $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. 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 720 East Hyman Avenue AspenModern Negotiation—Second Reading July 23,2012 Page 9 of 15 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 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 23,2012 Page 10 of 15 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) 2,3113 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 3 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 23,2012 Page 11 of 15 recommendation. AspenModern allows the consolidation of reviews at City Council which provides Council with the entire proposal for review. • AspenModern 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 720 East Hyman Avenue AspenModern Negotiation—Second Reading July 23,2012 Page 12 of 15 Third level: two free market residential units Roof: a rooftop deck, access stairway, skylights and mechanical equipment Table 3: Dimensional Table MU zone district Proposed dimensional Existing dimensions requirements 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 Residential free market residential floor 0 sf. 0.78:1 or 7,014 sf. 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) Area: and 2,500 sf. —Unit 2 (with 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 0 3 new spaces required for Off-Street net leasable; and 1 space per the 3 residential units. 720 East Hyman Avenue AspenModern Negotiation—Second Reading July 23,2012 Page 13 of 15 Parking residential unit. Ability to Request waiver of required Spaces: pay cash in lieu payment by $90,000 cash in lieu right. payment. 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 720 East Hyman Avenue AspenModern Negotiation—Second Reading July 23,2012 Page 14 of 15 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 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 AFFIRMITIVE): "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: 720 East Hyman Avenue AspenModern Negotiation—Second Reading July 23,2012 Page 15 of 15 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 12 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 regarding 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 and Phasing: a. 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 12 b. Project Phasing. The applicant shall be permitted to construct the approved project in two construction phases as described herein: Phase 1: one free market residential unit. Phase 2: the second free market residential unit. All impact fees stated in this Ordinance shall be due and payable at the time of issuance of a building permit for Phase 1, with the exception of the impact fees specifically related to the second free market residential unit. A building permit for Phase 2 must be submitted and determined to be complete within 1 year of receipt of a certificate of occupancy for Phase 1 of the construction. Building Code, Engineering and other departmental requirements stated in this Ordinance shall be met as part of Phase 1 unless directly related to the construction of Phase 2. 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. The existing atrium is prohibited from being significantly changed, for example by adding a floor or filling in the space in a way that changes the openness and historic characteristic of the feature as represented in the application without approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. Insubstantial changes to the atrium shall be reviewed administratively by the Community Development Director. Section 3: Subdivision 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 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, 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 1 year of the receipt of a Development Order. 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. 720 E. Hyman Avenue - AspenModern negotiation Ordinance #17, Series of 2012 Page 3 of 12 4. Encroachment license for the planter boxes. 5. Agreement to record a deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office that commits the following: 1) the commercial uses shall not be limited to prohibit uses allowed in the underlying zone district of the subject property as amended from time to time, and 2) if the property is condominiumized the residential and commercial components shall remain in separate ownership. The Aspen Athletic Club Condominium plats, Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder reception #201836 and #190688, shall be vacated upon receipt of Certificate of Occupancy for the project. 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. 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 720 E. Hyman Avenue - AspenModern negotiation Ordinance #17, Series of 2012 Page 4 of 11 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 Before any Building Permit (including demolition, access/infrastructure, and/or site preparation permits) is issued for each phase of the Project approved by this Ordinance, the Applicant shall deposit with a local title company ("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 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 for each phase, and as a condition of such issuance, the owner shall deposit with a local title company 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 720 E. Hyman Avenue - AspenModern negotiation Ordinance #17, Series of 2012 Page 5 of 12 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 project, 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 July 9, 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: 4 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. Maximum Residential Floor Area: 0.78:1 floor area ratio, 7,019 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 Maximum Commercial Net Leasable Area: 16,560 square feet Maximum Commercial Floor Area: 10,017 square feet 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. 1 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 12 Section 8: Impact and Development Fees: Parks Development and Air Quality/TDM Impact 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 2 parking spaces equals $60,000 and is due at the time of building permit issuance. 2 new residential units=2 parking spaces required 2 x $30,000/space= $60,000 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 825 sq. ft. /400 sq. ft per FTE =2.06 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) required The project is required to mitigate for 2.06 FTEs through either: 1) Offsite Housing. A one-bedroom off-site unit, which is equal to 1.75 FTEs, that is located within city limits east of the Highway 82 roundabout. The remaining 0.31 FTEs shall be paid as cash in lieu for Category 2 according to the fee schedule in place at the time of building permit submission. The offsite unit shall meet the requirements of the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines and shall be deed restricted in accordance with Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority requirements at Category 2 or lower. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be granted and a deed restriction shall be recorded for the offsite housing unit prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or a Conditional Certificate of Occupancy for Phase 1. -or- 720 E. Hyman Avenue - AspenModern negotiation Ordinance #17, Series of 2012 Page 7 of 11 2) Affordable Housing Credits. 2.0 FTEs of affordable housing credits at Category 2 level. The remaining 0.06 FTEs shall be paid as cash in lieu for Category 2 according to the fee schedule in place at the time of building permit submission. The affordable housing credits shall be extinguished prior to a Certificate of Occupancy or Conditional Certificate of Occupancy for Phase 1. 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. Accessibility 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 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. 720 E. Hyman Avenue - AspenModern negotiation Ordinance #17, Series of 2012 Page 8 of 11 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 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 seven (7) 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 1 year 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. 720 E. Hyman Avenue - AspenModern negotiation Ordinance#17, Series of 2012 Page 9 of 11 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 seven (7) 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. 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 720 E. Hyman Avenue - AspenModern negotiation Ordinance #17, Series of 2012 Page 10 of 11 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 11th 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 Exhibit A: Floor plans and elevations illustrating Section 7 of the Ordinance. 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 : A_�t -� 1 i ly, '« f Wrightian architecture. Restricting the ',i,� '� � v y b.yy* analysis of a design profession liker �, �& 'x �' "mot•` architecture to a uniform set of criteria that \ ': ,4` qualify a building as contributing to a 'i . . T \ specific style fails to recognize the artistic „' �' freedom architects like Molny exercised— ,x .. as Wright expressed to Molny, "If you i ,x�� 1 ; understand the principles of my architecture, il\s‘ r. :,., then your buildings need not look like . ;\ mine." Applying this idea to preservation of „ v . 0 720 E. Hyman; while it does not replicate ,; ' the exact teachings of a master architect, it is ra' . defined in part by Aspen's creative 1' _�1 environment where architects, and other _ `` -, creative professionals, could experiment '" " ` with modern philosophies and the built environment in this specific context. It is .T.. exactly this creative adventure that produced t interesting architecture in Aspen— - ` architecture that communicates both a sense ov. ! of place (the high country and extreme "'," ,__ m �, .; environment) and a higher level of design. „,'.T_ .-. �.-_ ' '' Spatial connections, relationship to the site , : ` - and connection with nature, and utilizing the Photograph l: 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 first patents for glu-lam beams were issued in Switzerland and Germany, and the first U.S. manufacturing standard for glu-lam was published in 1963. The structural glazing (also called structural 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 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 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.Le, 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 stated in the Guidelines at the time the deed-restriction is recorded. Rent shall be verified and Aspen Athletic Building Redevelopment 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 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL PURSUE HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION THROUGH THE ASPENMODERN PROGRAM AND APPROVING MINOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 720 EAST HYMAN AVENUE,LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB BUILDING CONDOMINIUM, AKA LOTS Q, R AND S,BLOCK 104, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION # 12, SERIES OF 2012 PARCEL ID: 2737-182-11-008 through 2737-182-11-031, and 2737-182-11-801. WHEREAS, the applicant, John Martin, represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects, submitted an application requesting Minor Development review and voluntarily landmark designation of the property located at 720 East Hyman Avenue, legally described as the Athletic Club Building Condominiums and Lots Q, R and S, Block 104, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; 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 designation in exchange for specific benefits through the AspenModern negotiation; and WHEREAS, the 90 day Aspen Modern negotiation commenced on March 7, 2012; and WHEREAS, Community Development evaluated the property pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415.030.C.1 and determined that the property meets the criteria for designation and the integrity score qualities as the "best" category; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, Community Development determined that the proposed changes are exempt from Commercial Design Standard Review pursuant to Section 26.412.020.A of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on May 23, 2012 continued from May 9, 2012 the Historic Preservation Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing, took public comment, considered the application, found that the application for Minor Development met the review standards with conditions and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines," considered the staff memo, staff recommendation, and public comments, and found the building 720 E. Hyman Avenue—Aspen Modern recommendation HPC Resolution 412, Series of 2012 Page 1 of 2 to be consistent with the designation criteria listed in Section 26.415.030.C.1, hvm vote o[Fivc to zero (5 - 0). NOW,THEREFORE, BE iT RESOLVED: That }{7C hereby grants Minor Development review with conditions and recommends City Council negotiate for landmark designation of the property located at 720 Fast Ilyman Avenue, Lots (). R and S Block 104' City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 1. UPC finds that 720 Fast Hyrnan Avenue meets all of the designation criteria, u—c, liotcd in §26.415.030.C.1 and Land Use Code Section 2O4)5.0l0 Purpose and Intent. 2. HPC finds that 720 East I lyman Avenue is a "best" example of Organic/Wrightian style. 3. The brise solcil and requested variances are not approved. 4. The mechanical equipment on the rooftop shall be screened for review and approval by Staff and Monitor. 5. The planter beds located in the right of way are required to get an encroachment license from the Engineering Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 6. The applicant shall work with the Parks l)epartment to determine appropriate planting for the planter boxes in the right of way for review by Staff and Monitor. 7. The applicant shall provide information regarding the clear sealer proposed for the planter boxes to ensure that it is appropriate for Aspen's climate and brick materials for review and approval by Staff and Monitor. 8. A repointing test patch on the planter boxes shall be reviewed and approved in the field by Staff and Monitor. 9. There shall be no changes to the approved plans without Staff and Monitor approval. 10. The applicant shall restudy the stairwell on the roof in the middle of the building for review and approval by Staff and Monitor. 11. }{PC is in favor of a 1 foot height variance for the skylights. 12. The applicant nhu\l restudy retaining the second floor false stairway. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 23 day of May, 2012. �. �~�= .~ � ,-^ ^ . `c ^~~� . ^- Ann Muffins, Chair Apsroved as to Form: _ ' 1 o . - Debbie Quinn,Assista t City Attorney ATTEST: i / C'-1/ /) /,, Kmkhy0krie land, Chief Deputy Clerk 720 E. Hyman Avenue—AspenModern recommendation UPC Resolution#|2. Series of20}2 Page 2 of 2 A_, F*)(14;14i I- i'.-- o o RS c, 0 0 0 CI) .� a; U O N cs) (es ''''''-'Ir---------\) U to cts 4. (., o z ,c, ,c, .. -Ts,. cl 0 0 at .. O O co O 0. `J 00 00 M U M SU.,, (-41.,) 'd O �('" U U \r ., . clo -o o p O tt3 p �1 v' O O �" 'C ix O .� 0 �,,_, . .O p0 N O YS O N 0 0 M Oat OO N N i. Cd o O„ — ¢ r Z rii 0 O -0 ,...A y U CU rte+ i U R” 2 EXHIBIT M UPDATED- 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 M—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 either an offsite unit or affordable housing credits. 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.-Aspen Modern negotiation Exhibit M—Subdivision Criteria Page 2 of 3 Staff Finding: Affordable housing is reviewed concurrent with Subdivision pursuant to the AspenModern negotiation process. The applicant proposes either offsite or affordable housing credits. 720 East Hyman Ave.-AspenModern negotiation Exhibit M—Subdivision Criteria Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT M UPDATED- 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 M—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 either an offsite unit or affordable housing credits. 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 M—Subdivision Criteria Page 2 of 3 Staff Finding: Affordable housing is reviewed concurrent with Subdivision pursuant to the AspenModern negotiation process. The applicant proposes either offsite or affordable housing credits. 720 East Hyman Ave.-AspenModern negotiation Exhibit M—Subdivision Criteria Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT N Updated - 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 available to 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 N—GMQS Page 1 of 4 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 N—GMQS Page 2 of 4 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 applicant agrees to mitigate with either an off-site unit or affordable housing credits. 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 has been changed to reflect the changes from the July 9, 2012 meeting. The applicant agrees to mitigate with either an offsite unit east of the roundabout or affordable housing credits. Staff and the Housing Authority propose the unit at Category 2. 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 N—GMQS Page 3 of 4 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 shall be provided either offsite or in the form of housing credits. 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: n/a. 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 a legal 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: Based on the July 9, 2012 meeting, the applicant proposes to mitigate for affordable housing through either an offsite unit east of the roundabout or affordable housing credits. Staff and the Housing Authority propose that the offsite unit or credits be mitigated at Category 2. 720 East Hyman Ave.—Aspen Modern negotiation Exhibit N—GMQS Page 4 of 4 .....__ VIII b MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director 01 J VV i FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director Vl, f, RE: 831/833 W. Bleeker Street, Subdivision, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 2012), Public hearing MEETING DATE: July 23, 2012 APPLICANT/OWNER: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Herb and Marsha Klein Staff recommends approval with conditions. REPRESENTATIVE: .._ � ;�'44 Herb Klein ` - ' LOCATION: ` 831/833 W. Bleeker Street Ii CURRENT ZONING & USE Residential Multi-Family + A `, (RMF), with an existing duplex. ,.� -'" se_ 411111w — PROPOSED LAND USE: Subject property from W. Bleeker Street Conversion from an existing duplex to a triplex. ,t y; SUMMARY: ' Applicant proposes to add a . voluntary affordable housing unit to the existing building, ;• . .f' " changing the structure's use from a duplex to a triplex and establishing Affordable Housing Credits for the development of the voluntary _ _ deed restricted unit. Applicant requests City Subject property from N. Eighth Street Council approval of Subdivision. LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting approval of the following land use review from the City Council: • Subdivision - An application for Subdivision, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.480.040, Subdivision, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied. (City Council is the final review authority following a recommendation from the Planning & Zoning Commission). The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) reviewed the application on May 1, 2012. The minutes from these meetings are attached as Exhibit D. The Applicant received a recommendation of approval for subdivision review and received the following final land use approvals per Resolution No. 9 (series of 2012) included as Exhibit C: • Growth Management Review, Affordable Housing permitting the development of a studio, Category 1 or 2, affordable housing unit rental. Approved by P&Z. • Establishment of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit establishing an Affordable Housing Credit of 1.25 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) for the development of a voluntary studio affordable housing unit. Approved by P&Z. • Dimensional Variance permitting one of the existing units to exceed the unit size cap for individual multi-family units. As a duplex, the units do not have an individual unit cap, and one of the units currently exceeds the 2,000 sq. ft. cap. As a reconfiguration and remodel of the existing structure, rather than a full demolition, the Commission granted a variance for one of the units as it is currently greater than 2,000 sq. ft. Approved by P&Z. • Residential Design Standards Variances permitting variances from three design standards regarding location of parking garages and carports, street oriented entrance and principal window, and first story element. Approved by P&Z. Fi Jr";• re 1: Vicinit ma VI r` i ^!4 v 2 PROJECT SUMMARY: 831/833 W. Bleeker is an existing duplex (Units A and B) on a 9,000 sq. ft. lot in the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zone district. Duplexes are a permitted use in the RMF zone district. The property is located on the corner of N. Eighth Street and W. Bleeker. The applicant is proposing a redevelopment and expansion of the existing structure. As part of the redevelopment, the applicant is proposing to develop a voluntary affordable housing unit on the site, along W. Bleeker, creating a third unit. With the development of an additional unit, the property will be considered a multi-family dwelling, which is also a permitted use in the RMF zone district. Figure 2: Proposed site plan LOTS A, B, AND C - BLOCK 12 CITY OF ASPEN, •,. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO ''r, TOWNSHIP 10 SOU'T'H, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th P.M. z B_Q-k,, C; AapROk7MATE to SrREer '9 1/- ��:r i����/ PNgCT 1 7'7'FkI A 0 =i 117 % rila E ING �k -:7 ` 75.06.1 , �/__ I-\ a a .��A'35c m 90 a 1P7't Vii ■// /, e l- ��4 GG 1 \ .5 717'31.3'lli 3, 7;: / ` / ti.,Vr p 2 ya : � , ' N 3L., kip; 0, ING Ury V I\ - ti�ti O H L'A'NG R {"PI3TU -RE* 4,,.!,-,a O l- t Q J •�' I '' . /FID S RI ..: � Rmr➢ O O ga, w HATCH LEGEND ��,�� %J EXISTING STRUCTURE A7 GGROUND LEVEL(UNITA) a uk \� /, {k PROPOSED STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT M I�I�' '�� `I/ 2 - AT GROUND LEVEL r 1�� "If s -11jc 7 H _:rls, AGE DF ASPpALT ACLE, E 90°0• 117 SITE PLAN & PROPOSED NEW FOOTPRINT The use of the property, as a multi-family dwelling (triplex), changes the dimensional allowances for the property. Following is a table that outlines the underlining zone district requirements of the property. 3 Table 1: RMF zone district dimensional standards Dimension Duplex Triplex Proposed Requirement Requirement Gross Lot Area 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. 9,000 sq. ft. Net Lot Area per 4,500 per unit No requirement 3,000 per unit dwelling unit Min. Lot Width 60 ft. 60 ft. 60 ft. Min. front yard 10 ft. 5 ft. 5.5 ft. setback Min Side yard 10 ft. min. 5 ft. 5.1 ft. setback 30 ft. combined Min Rear Yard 10 ft. 5 ft. 29.7 ft. Setback Max. Height 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. Max. Floor Area 4,080 sq. ft. 6,750 sq. ft. <6,750 sq. ft. Max. Multi-Family < 75% of the duplex 2,000 or 2,500 sq. Unit A - 2,952 sq. Unit Size structure allowable ft. with TDR ft. (variance) floor area Unit B - <2,000 sq. ft. Unit C - 401 sq. ft. STAFF COMMENTS: SUBDIVISION REVIEW The Applicant is requesting subdivision approval because the development of multi- family dwelling units requires approval of subdivision pursuant to the definition of subdivision in the City's land use code. Staff Comment: In reviewing the subdivision portion of the application, Staff believes that the proposal meets the applicable subdivision review standards established in Land Use Code Section 26.480.050, Review Standards. The neighborhood consists primarily of multi-family residential development with some single-family and duplex development. Conversion from a duplex to a multifamily dwelling is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The proposed development is within the existing town site of Aspen, is served by existing infrastructure and is located on land suitable for development. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Staff from Housing, Parks, and Engineering reviewed this project and applicable comments are incorporated into the resolution. The Parks Department is concerned that the root system along Bleeker Street will be impacted with the proposed building addition and conditions are included in the draft ordinance. The Applicant is hoping to work with Park Department representatives between first and second reading to come up with an agreed upon solution. Community Development staff has proposed alternative language with regard to the housing section so that the language encompasses the general deed restriction requirements rather than the specific content of the deed restriction. Staff has worked with Tom McCabe on the language. 4 RECOMMENDATION: The application adds an affordable housing rental to the community as well as reuses an existing building which is better for the environment than demolition and replacement. Staff supports the development of the site as a triplex with a voluntary affordable housing unit and supports the subdivision request. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 2012) granting subdivision approval for 831/833 W. Bleeker Street." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A— Subdivision Review Criteria (provided 6/25/12 and 7/23/12) EXHIBIT B—APCHA Referral Comments (provided 6/25/12 and 7/23/12) EXHIBIT C-Planning and Zoning Resolution No.9 (Series of 2012) (provided 6/25/12 and 7/23/12) EXHIBIT D - Planning and Zoning minutes 5/1/12 (provided 6/25/12 and 7/23/12) EXHIBIT E—Renderings of proposal (provided 6/25/12 and 7/23/12) EXHIBIT F—Application (provided 6/25/12) EXHIBIT G—Public Comment: W. Bleeker Place Homeowners Association and Villa of Aspen Townhouse Association EXHIBIT H—Addendum provided by Applicant, dated 7/16/12 EXHIBIT I—Neighborhood photos provided by Applicant 5 ORDINANCE NO. 20 (SERIES OF 2012) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING SUBDIVISION REVIEW WITH CONDITIONS, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TRIPLEX ON THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS A, B, AND C, BLOCK 12, ASPEN TOWNSITE AND COMMONLY KNOWN AS 831/833 W. BLEEKER STREET, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 273512308002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Herb and Marsha Klein requesting approval of a Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing, a dimensional variance, variances from the Residential Design Standards, Establishment of Affordable Housing Credits and Subdivision, to develop a voluntary affordable housing unit on the subject site thereby converting an existing duplex into a triplex at 831/833 W. Bleeker Street, legally described as Lots A, B and C, Block 12, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.; and, WHEREAS, the applicant agrees that the conditions of approval for the development of voluntary 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 Applicant requested approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission for Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing, a dimensional variance, variances from the Residential Design Standards, Establishment of Affordable Housing Credits and a recommendation of Subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the property is located at 831/833 W. Bleeker Street and is currently zoned Residential Multi-family (RMF); and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended remanding the application to applicant to amend the size or category of the affordable housing unit, reduce the unit size of a proposed residential unit to meet the 2,000 square foot cap for multi-family units in the RMF zone district, require new garage access and surface parking to access and be located off the existing alley, and to restudy the proposed addition to protect the existing trees along W. Bleeker Street; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 1, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the application 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, Page 1 of 7 Ordinance No. 20 (2012) WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission found that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan via Resolution No. 9 (Series of 2012); and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards for Subdivision, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the review; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 23, 2012, the City Council considered the application 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 City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Development Approval The City Council approves the application for Subdivision permitting the development of an additional dwelling unit, for a total of three units, on the subject property. Section 2: Plat and Agreements The Applicant shall record a Subdivision plat and agreement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code section 26.480.070, Subdivision agreement within 180 days of the approval by City Council. Section 3: Build_ing Permit Application The Applicant, the Applicant's General Contractor, the Architect that produced the construction drawings, and representatives from the Building Department, Community Development Department and any other person deemed necessary by the City shall attend a meeting prior to the submission of any type of Building Permit for the Subject Property. The purpose of the meeting shall be to ensure clarity relative to the submission requirements, the requirements of this Ordinance, timeframes for processing Building Permits, and any other issues raised by any party. The building permit application shall include the following: Page 2 of 7 Ordinance No. 20 (2012) a. A copy of the final Ordinance and Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 9 (Series of 2012). b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which meets adopted City standards. e. An excavation stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), and drainage and soils reports pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. f. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department. g. A detailed excavation plan for review and approval by the City Engineer. h. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall be addressed to satisfactorily meet adopted building codes. Section 4: Affordable Housing The development of one (1) voluntary studio rental unit of 401 square feet of net livable area, permitted to be rented at Category 2 or lower at property owner's discretion, is granted pursuant to Resolution No. 9 (Series of 2012), by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 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 provided that, the deed restriction shall allow Owner to select the tenant who shall occupy the unit and who shall meet the qualifications established by APCHA guidelines for occupancy of the unit at the category level permitted; and further provided that if Owner does not have a qualified occupant for the unit within forty-five (45) days of its becoming vacant, APCHA shall have the right to select the tenant. The lease for the unit shall be not less than six months. One designated parking space shall be provided for the employee unit. 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. Page 3 of 7 Ordinance No. 20 (2012) 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. Any 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. Any free market residential unit requiring a Certificate of Occupancy shall not have a final inspection approved nor shall a Certificate of Occupancy be issued for it until after the deed restriction for the affordable housing unit has been recorded and the affordable housing unit has passed its final inspection. Section 5: Certificates of Affordable Housing Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission via Resolution No. 9 (Series of 2012) approves issuance of 1.25 Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, such certificates to be issued subsequent to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and required deed restriction for the voluntary affordable housing unit, pursuant to Section 26.540.040. Section 6: Dimensional Variance Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission via Resolution No. 9 (Series of 2012) approves one dwelling unit to be no greater than 2,952 sq. ft. of net livable area. All other dwelling units shall meet the maximum unit size cap of the underlying zone district. All other dimensional standards for the Residential Multi-family zone district shall be met. Section 7: Residential Design Standards Variances Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission via Resolution No. 9 (Series of 2012) grants the requested design variances of Parking Garages and Carports, Section 26.410.040 (C)(1)(a), Building Elements — Street oriented entrance and principal window, Section 26.410.040 (D)(1)(b), Building Elements —First Story Element, Section 26.410.040 (D)(2), and Windows, Section 26.410.040 (D)(3)(a) as materially represented at the public hearing on May 1, 2012. Section 8: Parks Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan submitted for Tree Protection. A tree removal permit must be applied for and approved via the parks department, where applicable. Special construction and excavation techniques, approved by the City Forester, designed for the purpose of protecting the root systems of the trees within the Bleeker Street Right of Way are required in order to receive an approved tree permit. a. Tree protection fences must be in place and inspected by the city forester or his/her designee before any construction activities are to commence. Page 4 of 7 Ordinance No. 20 (2012) b. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, and storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree on site. c. The applicant shall work on a foundation design that minimizes impacts to the trees along Eighth Street. Section 9: Engineering The Applicant's 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. The Applicant design shall also be compliant with the Urban Runoff Management Plan. Section 10: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met per building permit. Section 11: 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 12: Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, at the time of construction, which are on file at the District office. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Section 13: 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 14: Impact Fees and School Lands Dedication Fee-in-Lieu The Applicant shall pay all impact fees and the school lands dedication fee-in-lieu assessed at the time of building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance. Section 15: Vested Rights The development approvals granted pursuant to this ordinance shall be vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of the development order. No later than fourteen (14) days following the 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: Page 5 of 7 Ordinance No. 20 (2012) Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a vested property right, 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: Lots A, B and C, Block 12, City and Townsite of Aspen, commonly known as 831/833 W. Bleeker Street, City of Aspen, CO, by Ordinance No. -- Series of 2012, of the Aspen City Council. 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 Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 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. 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 23rd day of July, 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 was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 25th day of June, 2012. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland,Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of ,2012. Page 6 of 7 Ordinance No. 20 (2012) Attest: Kathryn S. Koch,City Clerk Michael C. Ireland,Mayor Approved as to form: James R. True,City Attorney List of Exhibits Attachment 1: Required construction techniques for tree protection Page 7 of 7 Ordinance No. 20 (2012) * ,\T ih''''n . yfVgy To r04N4345, mcbi APpROXIIA EDGE- 2APPPOW-XI$r18r17 SrPppROxNar a I� OF QSPHAL pi, ,D G REST e eDGF OF a III- r ASF C r 7I A11I� 28.3, Hq ! Ill `__`_ ?,�,�\\.50'q 17'4, P �� °Ital..,, 'pp.n -`II_�k CURB�e�SeD T �Gl -i� p4l 2 �Il� C r• v x.111 x o r„'--N yy�'}� �' r O *\ z A l' e `�/ q,),-- ., . n1 �j VIII- m z Hd`i' l �• m'‹ /�l I a° T . • m i m NL--- / itill , m�izi 0 / �J? /'v _Ili(T7 to v /\•o/ �1I- L a / I ,/ c7 IN CD 0 l(\ \ a 'ly �1�I.�.i ,-3 Oy _III/ 29,x• 1 /r -Iv , , �,:14 y r p C!) I (:' Z A r L R / ^.,.l (i o tii W 115. ,. y xb� N 14'!i•� it -11- c , C � --lob-- p0 60 :ft m 0 Z 0 w H a m �',1C- m z I2N mD20v� x z: H,'' ,� pvcmA�cmi r 4 * or) mO��OD o y0 t'y ril FlF�yy ��D0°O z 4 �Ii �O O ~ v! O OMAI°D 7'rJ 1 W H C .. AO mDD nO >> O � "i m�mOZO ro �-.:1 ^ DoDOciZ F7\+� ��`..Jy \ 1 OpA�D,ZDj iV ��.yJ y 1-W by W-r-A O A V m rtumm F,-r DZ co<0 �O L-J Z 3,o O A `'J =1?omD 0-0.*,,,Z'M ''-3 I ' °to o-O ril ~ b O OO°AA co o-mm r- -_ x� D m mm m m A cn D D -i Exhibit A— Subdivision Review Criteria Sec. 26.480.050.Review standards. A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: A. General requirements. 1. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan (this application was submitted prior to the `gap' code amendments). Staff Finding: Staff finds that the proposal meets elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. The production of affordable housing is a central priority of the 2000 AACP. Encouraging the private sector to produce affordable housing is also an important goal. The proposal also meets the goals of the 2000 AACP because it is within the original townsite, located in a neighborhood that it is walkable, bikeable and close to transit. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the following statements in the 2000 AACP: • "Encourage greater participation by the private sector in developing affordable housing. " (Housing Goal E,pg 27) • "Development of affordable housing within the traditional town site should be encouraged so as to protect our open and rural lands. " (Housing Philosophy, pg 25- 26) • "When employees have the ability to live near where they work, their reliance on the automobile lessens and they have greater opportunities to become a part of the town's social fabric. " (Housing Philosophy, pg 26) • "New development should take place only in areas that are, or can be served by transit, and only in compact, mixed-use patterns that are conducive to walking and bicycling. " (Transportation Philosophy, pg 21) • "Contain development with the creation of the Aspen Community Growth Boundary...to ensure development is contained and sprawl is minimized. " (Managing Growth Goal D, pg 18) 2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Staff Finding: The neighborhood consists primarily of multi-family residential development with some single-family and duplex development. The development of multi- family residential is consistent with the existing land uses in the area. Staff finds this criterion is met. 3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Staff Finding: The proposed development will not adversely affect future development as the area's infrastructure and access will be maintained. Stafffinds this criterion met. 4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. Staff Finding: The Applicant has either met or received a variance from certain standards of the Land Use Code. Staff finds this criterion is met. B. Suitability of land for subdivision. 1. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. Staff Finding: The proposed development is within the existing town site of Aspen and is not being proposed on land that is unsuitable for development. Staff finds this criterion met. 2. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. Staff Finding: The proposed development is within the existing townsite of Aspen and is currently served by existing infrastructure such as roads and utilities. It will not require the extension of existing public facilities. Staff finds this criterion 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. Staff Finding: The proposed development is within the existing town site of Aspen and is currently served by existing infrastructure such as roads and utilities. The chapter noted above is with regard to engineering regulations such as designing and building streets. The Applicant agrees to meet any engineering regulations as part of the application. Staff finds this criterion 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 26.520, 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: As proposed, a voluntary affordable housing unit is being proposed. As long as no demolition occurs, affordable housing mitigation is not required. Staff finds this criterion met. E. School land dedication. Compliance with the School land dedication standards set forth at Chapter 26.620. Staff Finding: Any Impact Fees or School Land dedication shall be applicable at building permit submittal. Staff(ands this criterion 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; Ord. No. 12, 2007, §§29,30) Staff Finding: There is no yearly cap in allotments for the development of affordable housing. Staff finds this criterion met. esomorlse MEMORANDUM TO: Sara Adams, Community Development Department FROM: Cindy Christensen, APCHA Operations Manager DATE: April 19, 2012 RE: - Expansion and Addition of Non-Mitigation Affordable Housing Unit - - -- -- Parcel ID#2735-123-08-002 ISSUE: The applicant is seeking approval for the expansion of an existing free-market duplex located at 831-833 West Bleeker, with an addition of one non-mitigation affordable housing unit and expansion of the floor area of one of the existing free market residential units. BACKGROUND: The duplex was constructed in 1987. One side contains 3,157 square feet of net livable area plus a two-car garage; the other side contains approximately 657 square feet. The proposed non-mitigation affordable housing unit is proposed to contain 401 square feet. The overall additional square footage for the redevelopment is 1,142. The additional 742 square feet of new construction would be added to the smaller unit for a total net livable of 1,399 square feet. The applicant is requesting to obtain a Certificate under the Affordable Housing Credit program. The unit would add a third unit to the lot; APCHA is unsure if zoning allows this as a permitted use. The applicant is requesting that the 401 square foot studio be deed-restricted as a Category 4 rental unit. Section 26.470.050(B)(6), under the Growth Management Quota System, "Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed restricted at any level of affordability, including Residential Occupied." The Aspen/Pitkin County Employee Housing Guidelines (hereinafter "Guidelines) contain minimum square footages for all categories. Category 3 and Category 4 studio units have a minimum square footage of 500 square feet. The proposed unit is 99 square feet smaller than the minimum net livable square feet stated in the Guidelines. The minimum net livable square feet for Category 1 and 2 studio units is 400 square feet; therefore, if the request is approved, the unit should be deed-restricted no higher than a Category 2. Although the Guidelines allow for a 20% reduction, APCHA would not support a reduction of the size in order to categorize the unit Category 4. DISCUSSION: The development of the property does not provide a 100% affordable housing project. Although it is not explicitly stated in Chapter 26.540, Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit, of the Land Use Code that Certificates can only be used for 100% affordable housing projects, it was staff's interpretation that in order to utilize the non-mitigation units for Affordable Housing Credit Certificates, the project had to contain 100% deed-restricted units. 831-833 W.Bleeker Referral Page 1 Section 26.470.070, 4d), 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 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, as amended. The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, f a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. " The applicant is requesting to deed restrict the unit as a Category 4, rental unit. If the redevelopment is approved, Staff would recommend the unit be a "for sale", Category 1 or 2 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. The Code requires three parking spaces (one for each unit), but the applicant will be providing six parking spaces—two in each garage and two surface parking spaces. One parking space shall be designated for the employee unit. RECOMMENDATION: The APCHA Board reviewed the application at their regular meeting held April 18, 2012. The APCHA Board is recommending denial of the request. Although Chapter 26.450, Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit, does not specifically state that the certificates are to be utilized for the creation of a 100% affordable housing project, Staffs understanding was that it was. The APCHA Board believed that this would be setting a precedent and could allow the single unit to sit empty or be used improperly, which is similar to the ADU and mandatory occupancy ADU program. In the APCHA Board's opinion, this type of an arrangement is almost guaranteed to create enforcement issues in the future. 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. However, should the redevelopment be approved, the APCHA Board would request that the unit remain a "for sale", Category 1 or 2, studio 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 applicant, upon Certificate of Occupancy, shall receive the use of 1.25 mitigation credits at Category 2 in the form of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit (CAHC). Such Certificate shall state the mitigation is for a Category 2, studio unit. 3. The unit shall be classified as Category 2. 831-833 West Sleeker Referral Page 2 4. One designated parking space shall be provided for the employee unit. 5. The Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits shall be required to describe the dimensions of the affordable housing unit (studio) as well as the category, and shall be recorded with APCHA and with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. 6. 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. The condominium documents shall be reviewed and approved by APCHA prior to Certificate of Occupancy. 7. The deed-restricted unit shall receive the Certificate Occupancy prior to, or in conjunction with, the addition to the one free-market unit. 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 2, and at such time the unit is found to be out of compliance for one year, the owner will be REQUIRED to provide cash-in-lieu fee for a Category 2, studio at 1.25 FTE's, at the amount stated in the Aspen/Pitkin County Employee Housing Guidelines at the time of the non-compliance and remove the unit. The unit must, upon removal of the deed restriction and payment of the fee, be removed as a separate unit. 2. The applicant, upon Certificate of Occupancy, shall receive the use of 1.25 mitigation credits at Category 2 in the form of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit (CAHC). Such Certificate shall state the mitigation is for a Category 2, studio unit. 3. The unit shall be classified as Category 2. 4. One designated parking space shall be provided for the employee unit. 5. The Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits shall be required to describe the dimensions of the affordable housing unit (studio) as well as the category, and shall be recorded with APCHA and with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. 6. 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 a cash-in-lieu payment is made for a Category 2 studio unit at 1.25 FTE's and is based on the amount in effect at the time of payment. At such time, the deed restriction will be released and the unit shall be modified that it will no longer be a separate unit. 7. The rental deed restriction will be recorded with the following conditions: 831-833 West Bleeker Referral Page 3 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 2 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 2 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 2, studio, 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 stated in the Guidelines at the time the deed-restriction is recorded. Rent shall be verified and 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. 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 831-833 West Bleeker Referral Page 4 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. 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 831-833 West Bleeker Referral Page 5 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 and if found to be out of compliance, must pay the appropriate Category 2 cash-in-lieu fee for 1.25 FTE's at the amount stated in the Guidelines in effect at the time of the non- compliance. 831-833 West Bleeker Referral Page 6 RECEPTION#: 588 93, 05 /2 2 t 08:59:47 AM, 1 OF 8, R $46.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K.Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO RESOLUTION NO. 9 (SERIES OF 2012) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, ESTABLISHMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDITS, A DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE, VARIANCES FROM THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS, AND RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE SUBDIVISION, WITH CONDITIONS, FOR THE _. f DEVELOPMENT OF A TRIPLEX FOR THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS A, B, AND C, BLOCK 12, ASPEN TOWNSITE AND COMMONLY KNOWN AS 831/833 W. BLEEKER AVE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 273512308002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Herb and Marsha Klein requesting approval of a Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing, a dimensional variance, variances from the Residential Design Standards, Establishment of Affordable Housing Credits and Subdivision, to develop an additional affordable housing unit on the subject site thereby converting an existing duplex into a triplex at 831/833 W. Bleeker Ave.; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission for Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing, a dimensional variance, variances from the Residential Design Standards, Establishment of Affordable Housing Credits and a recommendation of Subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the property is located at 831/833 W. Bleeker Ave. and is currently zoned Residential Multi-family (RMF); and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended remanding the application to applicant to amend the size or category of the affordable housing unit, reduce the unit size of a proposed residential unit to meet the 2,000 square foot cap for multi-family units in the RMF zone district, require new garage access and surface parking to access and be located off the existing alley, and to restudy the proposed addition to protect the existing trees along W. Bleeker Avenue; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 1, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the application 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, Page 1 of 6 P&Z Resolution No. 9 (2012) 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 2, studio, 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 stated in the Guidelines at the time the deed-restriction is recorded. Rent shall be verified and 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 APCI-IA 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 Unit 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. Page 3 of 6 P&Z Resolution No. 9 (2012) 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. 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 and if found to be out of compliance, must pay the appropriate Category 2 cash-in-lieu fee for 1.25 FTE's at the amount stated in the Guidelines in effect at the time of the non- compliance. Section 3: Dimensional Variance Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning' and Zoning Commission hereby approves one unit to be no greater than 2,952 sq. ft. of net livable area. All other units shall meet the maximum unit size cap Page 4 of 6 P&Z Resolution No. 9 (2012) of the underlying zone district. All other dimensional standards for the Residential Multi- family zone district shall be met. The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the variance request meets the review standards of Section 26.313.040 (A) of the land use code. Section 4: Certificates of Affordable Housing Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves issuance of 1.25 Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, such certificates to be granted subsequent to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project, pursuant to Section 26.540.040. Section 5: Residential Design Standards Variances Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby grants the requested design variances of Parking Garages and Carports, Section 26.410.040 (C)(1)(a), Building Elements — Street oriented entrance and principal window, Section 26.410.040 (D)(1)(b), Building Elements —First Story Element, Section 26.410.040 (D)(2), and Windows, Section 26.410.040 (D)(3)(a) as materially represented at the public hearing on Mayl, 2012. The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the residential design variances request meets the review standards of Section 26.410.020 (D)(2) of the land use code. Section 6: Parks Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan submitted for Tree Protection. A tree removal permit must be applied for and approved via the parks department. Special construction techniques may be required to protect the root system of existing trees. A. Tree protection fences must be in place and inspected by the city forester or his/her designee before any construction activities are to commence. B. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, and storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree on site. Section 7: 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 8: 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. Page 5 of 6 P&Z Resolution No. 9 (2012) Section 9: 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 1st day of May, 2012. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debbie Quinn,Assistant City Attorney PLANNING ND ZONING COMMISSION: , LI% .................-- AllIbUIM .4/11411k . LJ f amer, Chair 0 ATTEST: . / jekie Lothian,Deputy City Clerk Exhibits Exhibit A: Elevation Exhibit B: Perspective Page 6 of 6 P&Z Resolution No. 9 (2012) 9'' ' . . '''.14•Pkitt 0;1'.. : q ky k, F y I'll' S 4gt s i y #4" ,Alai. ` ar zyir: 7,-:',4',:;,-'0,S ?x �.PM�? �• ter° } ' e rww!' _;� tom. , t,, #zx" vt+ h ,. �, fit` x Y: >__aigbv d T ,..\.\2*1 . . HH i rto1 yx[, .e I °il f„' "mow , ', 5 t ir;i .= ' j.'- 1 s iL "� ii,.... 6.v!Y+�it'.w,,4 ^f ; t ;" , at tv z } ':,. ft 0 „ f 4 # 4 ' w h i ,$ ,',7,;,. ',.„-„,=:.=-,— 7� I 'UC 14...+1 , .,'� f �.i W}j ., - 13 u. ' ? k wg� p _ ,;.. R+ 44"C-,'V f 3'EE b t tj)ktu tr f f, I ,e F err.. �"' t+r. 0 CI M a fa , . v„ 7 ".4,, git tlies.' ,,I+ ',•„,,:,_ i iLi . i 04 (1) ti 2, 1)1*-3 e)**1‘* %•ir Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting —Minutes May 01, 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, Jim DeFrancia, Jasmine Tygre, Stan Gibbs and LJ Erspamer. Cliff Weiss was not in attendance. Staff in attendance were: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director; and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments Bert Myrin distributed AACP expenses and asked the status of the AACP. Stan Gibbs said that they had discussed the AACP and the Code Amendments. Bert asked for an outline of the work program. Bert said that Chris mentioned increasing the sound attenuation between floors in the Commercial Core to reduce conflicts between uses. Bert said that Jasmine had requested an audit of all the housing audits that have been done. Jasmine Tygre pulled up a list of townhouses from the MLS in the downtown core and one of them was the MotherLode Building being represented as one unit. Minutes MOTION: . LJErspamer moved to approve the minutes of April 3, 2012; seconded by Jim DeFrancia. All in favor APPROVED. Conflicts of Interest None stated. LJ Erspamer went through the Resolution regarding the Library. Public Hearing: 831/833 West Bleeker LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing for the 831/833 West Bleeker. Jennifer Phelan provided the notice of posting and legal notices. Jennifer stated this was an existing duplex located on West Bleeker on a 9,000 square foot lot; the owner applicant was Herb and Marsha Klein. The proposal was to add a voluntary affordable housing unit on the site and expand one of the existing dwelling units while reducing the other existing dwelling unit thereby converting the property to multi-family. 2 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes May 01, 2012 Jennifer said the applicant is requesting Growth Management Reviews to establish affordable housing, affordable housing credits, dimensional variances and variances from the residential design standards and theses decisions are final with P&Z. With the creation of an additional unit the application triggers the definition of subdivision and P&Z recommends to Council the subdivision review. Jennifer said the property is required to meet the minimal dimensional variance; the setback is 5 feet;maximum height is 25 feet and the allowable floor area is 6,750 square feet for a triplex. Additionally there is a net livable size cap of 2,000 square feet and with the landing of a TDR for an additional 500 square feet can be added. Currently the duplex contains 2 units one is approximately 3.100 square feet and the other is just shy of 700 square feet; with the conversion to a triplex the one existing unit would be reduced to about 2900 square feet and increase the existing unit to 2000 square feet and add 401 square feet for the affordable housing unit. A variance is being requested for the 2900 square foot unit because the code allows 2000 square feet; staff doesn't support this request for the variance. Jennifer said the residential design standards were to keep good scale and building size that can be towards the streetscape and multi-family residences are required to meet a limited number of these standards. The applicant is requesting 3 variances from the residential design standards are the garage location with street facing entrances and first story element. The design standards require when there is an alley present that the garage and vehicle access be off the alley; the existing condition today is an existing garage accessed off of Bleeker and it is side loaded and a gravel parking area accessed off of 8th Street. The new proposal will change the doors to be off of 8th Street and build an additional garage next to the existing one so that you will drive into a new garage off of Bleeker. There will also be surface parking for the affordable housing units with 6 parking spaces total including 2 in each garage. . Jennifer said the street orientated entrance requires that for a multi-family building for every 4 units have at least one street facing doorway and principal window and a porch. Currently there is a porch element and entry way on 8th Street that will stay and the affordable housing unit will have a door facing West 8th Street; you won't see the doorway from Bleeker. Jennifer said the applicant was proposing a 401 square foot studio to be category 4 and APCHA Guidelines require that Category 3 or 4 be a minimum of 500 square feet; a category 1 or 2 requires a minimum of 400 square feet which this unit does have. The applicant is proposing this to be a rental unit and APCHA 3 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes May 01, 2012 recommended denial of the request and would prefer to see this as a for sale unit. P&Z has the final decision making for the unit to be for sale or rental and staff recommends the unit to be enlarged if the applicant wants it to be a category 4 to meet the minim unit size. If the affordable housing unit is developed as a studio the credit would be for 1.25 FTEs and staff would be the actual credit at the time of issuance of the occupancy permit. Jennifer said there were some concerns from the Parks Department that will need to get worked out with the 5 foot setback along Bleeker there are trees to be considered and maybe impacted by the development. Stan Gibbs asked Jennifer on APCHA's recommendation would it be a for sale unit. Jennifer responded that APCHA has more involvement in rental units and the owner would also have more involvement. Jasmine stated that the language was not specific enough if the unit was occupied or not but a rental unit may be occupied. Jennifer said that if they are out of compliance with rental units for a year then the unit goes to for sale. Herb Klein introduced himself and his wife Marsha and Stan Mathis. Herb showed exhibits of the existing site on Sheet 1; he explained the house and site. Herb explained the trees around the property and stated there were very tight setbacks so there was no way to access unit B and the affordable unit from the alley. Herb said you can see the development pattern of the neighborhood which is nothing like the West End. Herb said the neighborhood was impacted by parking but they have parking on site. Herb said that the kids play in the alley and showed pictures of them and from a safety point of view the alley doesn't need any more vehicular traffic. Herb spoke and showed pictures of the neighborhood from his house and the neighboring buildings, parking lots, building roofs, the alley, his back fence and the trees. Herb said they were combining the two bedrooms in the existing unit B so they will have 6 bedrooms total in all 3 units. Herb said that if they do not get the net livable area then they can't do the project. The literal interpretation of the code regarding the rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship as distinguished from your inconvenience. Herb made it clear that this was not a variance to increase square footage; this a variance to acknowledge an existing condition. The cap was put on 2-3 years ago by the City; there was no cap when they built the house; the problem 4 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes May 01, 2012 is because of the city placing the cap on development in a multi-family zone. Herb said it would be bad policy to turn down affordable housing and full time occupancy. Herb said the hardship is the property has 4 different levels and reads the code as saying new development can't have more than 2,000 square feet. Herb said the APCHA memo had conditions in it about occupancy and the APCHA Guidelines require recertification every 2 years and APCHA is requiring every year for his unit. Herb said the reason that he would like it to be rental instead of sale is because he is going to be living there and the person will be his neighbor and would like to have it a category 4 to get the broadest tenant population that he can so he has a good choice and he would be fine with capping the rent at a category 2 or 3. Herb said that the code allows rental units; APCHA has expressed the preference for for sale units and he is willing to go to an annual certification process for the tenants. Herb said that he spoke to Brian Flynn at the Parks Department and there are construction methods that we can implement that can find out where the roots are and find ways to protects them and satisfy Parks on protecting the trees. LJ asked for the first exhibit was in the packet. Jennifer replied that she would ask Stan Mathis to supply a copy. Jim DeFrancia excused himself at 6pm. Keith Goode asked if Unit A and Unit B were currently connected. Herb replied no. Keith asked with the renovations would there be a doorway then. Herb replied no connection between Unit A and B. LJ said that it can stay non-conforming if the degree of non-conforming is not increased. Jennifer answered as a duplex it was conforming. LJ asked if this should go before the Board of Adjustment. Jennifer responded that when other land use approvals were being sought the Planning & Zoning Commission could act on all the reviews. LJ asked if there were separate deeds on these units. Herb replied no it is not condominimized. No public comments. Commissioner Comments: Bert said there were a lot of moving parts to this application and he was most concerned for the dimensional variances and the housing. Bert supported the staff recommendations on page 15 of the memo and there are criteria for a variance and 5 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting- Minutes May 01, 2012 it was a fairly high bar. Bert said the Housing Memo caused more questions than answers and he said that maybe staff and Debbie can gain some clarity. LJ agreed. Jasmine stated the reason that part of the application was bringing the project into greater compliance with what is currently desired even though it is not perfect. Jasmine didn't have a philosophical problem with it and as far as the garages go she can find in favor of the placement. Jasmine stated when variances are granted we have to make findings based specifically the criteria established and staff has attached them as exhibits. Jasmine said it was important to tie down specific criteria for or against fulfilling the criteria. Stan Gibbs said he was generally in accord with how staff reviewed this and agreement with all of the variances that were required and in this particular neighborhood the garages were not something that we need to get picky about. Stan said what troubled him the most was that going to a triplex gives you significant FAR benefit and he said it was hard for him to reconcile that with not being able to adhere to the limits of the triplex development. Stan said that Herb's presentation made him feel comfortable with the variance criteria one them says the circumstances that are unique to the parcel, building or structure. Stan agreed with Jasmine that this should be a category 1 or 2; the size and providing the low end units are important. Keith agreed with Jasmine on the category and asked what is a triplex able to do. LJ focused on are we making a non-conforming unit a conforming unit if P&Z approves this and that is what we want to avoid. LJ said the size of that one unit is a problem; the garage and the alley he was fine with. LJ said the trees have to be worked out with Parks and staff; he said that he agrees with category 2. The entrance is a minor thing like Stan said. LJ said the recommendation from APCHA is very confusing and needs a better definition from APCHA. Jennifer said an Accessory Dwelling Unit is used as a form of mitigation for the single family or duplex residence; it is required to be deed restricted but it is not required to be rented. Jennifer said this is not an ADU, it is a unit of density, it is an Affordable Housing Unit and would be required to be occupied. Herb said sending it back to APCHA for clarification of their position; APCHA doesn't like the program and they don't like the City regulations; that was the reason they recommended denial. Herb said there were conditions and it was mandatory occupancy. Herb said that he was surrounded by multi-family and if he can't get the variance he becomes frozen in time; he has something that is non- 6 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes May 01, 2012 conforming'to the character and uses in the neighborhood. Herb said the reason for the cap and that is what he demonstrated was a hardship not just a mere practical difficulty; he is trying to become a multifamily combination mix of free-market and affordable housing. Marsha Klein said the City changed the zoning for the Bavarian and it was duplex and then changed to Multi-family. Bert said the staff's version of the memo page 4 has these 5 things on subdivision review, which staff says meets the criteria. Growth Management Review, Affordable Housing staff has a recommendation for a lower category; dimensional variance was confusing and staff's final sentence on page 4. Bert said his suggestion was the same as the staff suggestion to continue for less pieces in motion. Herb asked what would you want us to look at again. Bert replied on page 6 of the staff memo there were 5 bullets. LJ stated make it 500 feet for category 4 or reduce the current one that you have to Category 1 or 2. Herb agreed to make it a Category 2. Stan Mathis stated that he was reflecting on what Herb was saying and that the cap on the building was a hardship because it was in the language of the hardship; it is a practical difficulty. LJ asked the commission if they wanted a rental or for sale unit for the affordable housing unit. Stan Gibbs said he would go with rental if it was Category 2. LJ would like to see a for sale unit because of the history but he would be flexible on that. Bert supported a for sale unit. Jasmine supported a rental unit if all the conditions outlined in APCHAs memo were included as part of this resolution. Keith was okay with rental. Stan Gibbs said that this does generate significant value but it is not conforming so the case for a variance is strong because of the way that the building is configured; he could support the current proposal based upon that. Bert said he had the least support for this and closing off another doorway you could change the square footage of one unit versus another easily and are able to reduce the size of one unit. Bert would like to see this comply.. Herb reiterated that there were different floor levels that don't line up so you couldn't' it in a doorway. Herb said that you have to have a 2 hour separation fire wall between units. 7 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes May 01, 2012 Jasmine reiterated that it is not coming to what the exact code is but it is a step in the right direction; the spirit of this renovation is appropriate for this particular parcel. Jennifer said the use is becoming more non-conforming and the trend in the neighborhood is for multi-family. Stan Gibbs said that the way the resolution is written now he supports it. Section 3 on page 8 Stan agrees with. Jasmine wanted to modify it adding finding that 26.34.040 have been met, the review criteria. Keith agreed. LJ and Bert did not. LJ wanted the garage in the alley. Stan, Keith and Jasmine were okay with the proposed parking in the front. Jennifer changed the tree section for the Parks Department to inspect the trees and special construction maybe required to protect the root system and tree protection fences must be in place; excavation storage of materials must be contained and traffic upheld for the equipment and remove C. Jennifer said the APCHA portion of the resolution will recognize on page 24 Category 2, re-qualify on a yearly basis, and Community Development does not agree with 4 and 5 meeting the APCHA requirement. MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to continue the P&Z Meeting for 15 minutes, seconded by Stan Gibbs. All in favor. Jennifer wanted to separate APCHA deed restriction guidelines. Herb was concerned about separating a through g. Jasmine wanted to see the mandatory occupancy. Herb replied that it was included in d. MOTION: Stan Gibbs moved to approve Resolution #9 regarding the property located at 831/833 W Bleeker with the changes made at the hearing; seconded by Jasmine Tygre. Roll call vote: Keith Goode, yes; Bert Myrin, no; Jasmine Tygre, yes; Stan Gibbs, yes; LJErspamer no. APPROVED 3-2. Adjourned at 7:10 pm. a'ackie Lot ian, Deputy City Clerk 8 P: ' ,..,..,_, \\\\ t IQ p k � i ri `. �tu� �j j [fl! ' - E-ll tO i rk: tip .- ' r ■ �f It , .. k r a Y T 4J i 1 f (C Uj 2,,,--r-e T w rY 1 o. _ _ — ILI a + k ,,..... ii 1 arinit.... n 1 _. ie. �, V w tU 111 ar k 11..1 1.1. ..1 m Q t\1 tu co 004 11,14E104.\„Itic 1 . a. --r-.—.-.----- ----- __ _ i i -------- Zip - - ---------,,,.., • rn .U. UJ c75 Htu n co n. /-\ Li . - -•. co co ._., Estik,_________„..._ • - . \\------ /1 . . \ \\ , A \----- . , .,' ( / \ilk \ .I.M.L.' \ . 1 r_ _.ic, , . 7c { i r >- • 1 • '•,- g'' zE-- • i ,,,,„ . . ,. . , f..-;17-A - .- . . , cc o / o co # I , :• A ,, L.'a ''.. z E i /.... L. L ii 0 .„. ..: ......o Li.. 1 a 0 U—l..) 11_4 ,.' tr,"' ,A.,:•.,. * ..H....■.■..........■ H Z ■ \ s.‘ \ I -- - . .• , - . D \\:\ \ A 1 \ l \ \\ :,,• ,..1 ,, lilig :' i / •, Ai \\'• _ _____.- I all=r- 11c, 1 1-__ , , ...: 0 i i ta 0 • FA 1 li ---r r LLI 1 I 1 : I—LIJ / Ce D Un- \ N--,-------.7- 0 \ I .-. _ __ - ''''' Lu D Lli \ i LT I co co i \ 1 I -__:_----- ..1,1. ., z,..._ \\ ' 1i . i 15 \L, ,,,,,,,, r _j ._—_-1 -- . . , Y .ice nf'r c •— . . ,,,,. :_______. co>_x .. U hill' „ 1_, , Ewa ..\\�I `- y '.I a - !)i;- - O 1 1 1 tilL ! W O U W O - : ti .--- Xw m Y tt it t 1 L i i ' -L-z !.=,._ _,, __,[ * 1 z r iL ..... [, , , . Ill ,. .. .., w w �;` �w D.i=�v w w r 1 Jennifer Phelan From: William Schaffer [whschaffer @mindspring.com] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 7:14 PM To: Jennifer Phelan Cc: neilbsiegel©gmail.com Subject: Proposed Ordinance 20 831/833 W. Bleeker St. The West Bleeker Place Homeowners Association strongly supports the position of the Villas of Aspen Townhouse Association as outlined in a letter to Aspen City Council dated 7/13/12. Please include our position in this matter in the packet to be given to the Aspen City Council. Please let me know if you would like any further information from us. Thank you. Bill Schaffer Secretary/Treasurer West Bleeker Place Homeowners Association 970.925.5208 Email secured by Check Point • 1 Villas of Aspen Townhouse Association, Inc. 100 N. 8th Street Aspen, CO 81611 July 13, 2012 Members of the City Council City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen CO 81611 Re: Proposed Ordinance 20 831/833 W. Bleeker Street Dear Members of Council: The Villas Home Owners Association (the "Villas") respectfully submits these comments to the proposed subdivision submitted by Herbert and Marsha Klein ( the "Kleins")for the property located at 831/833 W. Bleeker Street. The Villas comprises thirty six townhomes located at 100 N. 8th Street and the Klein property is directly across 8th Street from the Villas. The Villas questions granting a variance allowing for the first time a two car garage on 8th street. Such is plainly contrary to the Land Use Code that compels new garages be placed for alley access for reasons of safety " ... to minimize the potential for conflicts between pedestrian and automobile traffic..." Allowing a two car garage at a blind corner on a narrow street that is essentially one lane, largely devoid of sidewalks, used by pedestrian and automobile traffic raises safety concerns that should and can be avoided. The Villas thus requests that the City Council delete the approval of the variance in Section 7 of the proposed ordinance as it pertains to the City of Aspen Land Use Code, Section 26.410.040(C)(1)(a). This action would prevent the project from placing a two car garage facing 8th Street. As will be established, the Villas have a direct and immediate interest in any development confronting 8th Street that raises safety issues. The Villas believe that the Kleins have failed to set forth any reasonable facts justifying departure from the mandatory language requiring alley access for garages. Importantly, the proposed variance would create a safety issue along this section of 8th Street which is narrow, largely devoid of sidewalks and used as a pedestrian passage. 1. THE STREETS AND THE PROPERTIES As illustrated in the map below, the Villas is located on the west side of 8th Street and comprises thirty six townhomes in ten buildings. The Villas property faces 8th Street on the west side of the street throughout its length between Bleeker on the north and Main on the south. The Klein property faces both Bleeker to the north, a portion of 8th to the west and an alley on the south side of the property. A main parking lot of the Villas directly confronts the Klein I property and opens on to 8th street. In addition to serving as egress for a vast majority of owners vehicles, this entrance serves all service vehicles such as trash trucks, delivery and workmen. o i lb: ,I711' _., 4. _ _ 40 , ,..4, 1---_____ , II. '' '' 111---‘41 mi. ___ Li 7 (1.-1 ,-, ?� .,� v.r.l vE-i ._ � ') r 1-7 r i l lvx-2 l ) I, I - ilo" D 1 - .......i...::C.O.CO L■-,. „r 2 -5-/ L---1 ili if-----, fil ,„ / I cr _ i , i„ h :E. i. ;Q / l I / / 1 >YO !n: • �_ + `l '`` [ r - 7 There are no sidewalks on the west side portion of 8th Street. Parking is on the dirt shoulder on the west side. A water ditch runs along the west side of 8th Street and continues alongside the walkway to Hallam (Rt. 82). There are no garages on this portion of 8th Street. In the winter it is essentially a one lane street, given snow plowing. The intersection of Bleeker and 8th Street is also the terminus of a pedestrian walkway connecting Bleeker to the 8th Street bus stop. The photos below show these streets and the alley behind the Klein property. Survey data from the City Streets Department indicates that the width of Bleeker Street in the block from 7th to 8th is 38 feet. In contrast, the width of 8th Street in the block from Bleeker to Main is just 18 feet. That is, on the contiguous streets, 8th Street is less than one-half the width of Bleeker. It should be noted that parking on the southwest portion of 8th Street was removed several years ago, the City citing the narrowness of the street as posing a potential safety hazard. This action was taken by the City prior to this application seeking a variance to have a garage facing 8th Street. 7 The map below, provided by the City of Aspen GIS, shows these streets and the alley running parallel to Bleeker. The photographs that follow illustrate the area as it now exists, including the walkways, parking and entries. W BLEEKER ST I ~ 1 si ti Z s� / 0 100 ,; Feet W MA IN ST Tit maptlbhgl wnage t a gapiw t, i NT it,Watt of9e tatett depicta aid t tuts!gal e p!to itatbl.Tte ait:i IaO,ma,Ci at ge S depe 011901 tk eebnpme Ito,Raedni. Cq?,riJigpIC A:Ee I P h Gti r 3 Y ! �t �.. 1'l., k "1s .r `'b �i • a :cy '. yam t`� l'''..11L. ' Y- . y Jy s s - -, s, rt-. y4.. ; T� TK L?`'" i _ ,` ..yam i4�} N y ' yam. i� r �,� ,,,t�Q�'S.i : lam At■ 1, i ,, 11611111'4'' �i ;licit F 4'a Alt.. +]r glil11■7 -_ 4 . .,,;:i..e., qi.... ,... _ . _... _ ___ ,,..i., _ _____ _. ____ . . . _ , _ . .__. . _ ...„ 8th Street looking south from the intersection with Bleeker Street. Villas driveway is in front of yellow van. Street width = 18 feet. 4 r ` 1 ' ' i4 '. Y ..:' ■ is 3Y` will ....._ _ ..... s owil .. limivoli.A_ , Bleeker Street looking east from the intersection with 8th Street. Street width = 38 feet. 5 i�i a _ 4' -.. LI i'l.- i R < } 1 �. >a"� -e S-.+ �vats t-" aFi 'i s�f - ..s �"' Pedestrian walkway looking north from the intersection of Bleeker and 8th Streets. 6 c..,-x.- "" ; .,t. 4k,' 4,irisy r, 4 r �,` a..84 :f4 jy5. vit. r.,h f KyY` , 41,ZY yf ,.1 :..-. , i, •■•'-4,-, - sob .-,,,-... ., , , .„ . ... - _ , , .. it -- „ ,„.. ,. . . , . . -' ti - t it • �• 4 mss Villas entry looking east to 8th Street and Kleins house, showing the near alignment of the proposed garage with the pre-existing Villas driveway. I 7 i.„ „.. 44. . ,.„ , .„, „ *47w-- .- ' Y t -4 G• -%. 9 i L 41114" i .. .f i 4I1 e > i .ii, R at ,.`- ,, � ,ry,k 0 Vim , T. ¢ � ^ ., ( rM1 ' .W4/0111M41106411f .20,-.111.. . �r q . T , M y'-. Alley behind Kleins property, looking east from 8th Street. 2. A Variance, Placing a Two Car Garage on 8th Street Would Create a Safety Issue. The current property has a two car garage aligned east—west with access via a curb cut on Bleeker Street. The "rear" of the garage faces 8th Street but with no street access. There are multiple blocking trees and bushes not only between the rear and the street but also on the corner of the property at 8th and Bleeker— see photo below. 8 II L . • South east corner of Bleeker and 8th Streets showing corner of the Klein property where the proposed garage would open on to 8th Street. 9 • r: • i<itft4 " . j lA ♦' "fix iy itivoiotto- • Existing "rear" of garage facing 8th Street showing blocking trees. Additional trees and bushes extend around the corner eliminating sight lines from the proposed garage to both Bleeker and the pedestrian walkway. (The gravel was added this spring.) As illustrated below( Ex. C-1 supp.), the application seeks a variance to have a two car garage opening on to 8th Street. The garage would be reversed, the "rear" becoming the "front". At least one tree is proposed for removal. A new driveway would be created and would nearly confront the existing entrance to the Villas parking lot. In addition, a new two car garage would be created in the new structure and open on to Bleeker Street using the existing curb cut. The entire problem could be solved by simply using the existing curb cut on Bleeker for both parking garages since they will be on the same grade and contiguous with each other— see EX.E-1,E-2 in Council's June 25th packet 10 'rM TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, MINUS as 1 ' BkE KKR IP •?rrT STREET c ems., U12g f f _1'4"._ �'' s >5 09.7 0K (, cuT r_. Ice .±.."4`"c , .�� s. dam= '�1i-• - t/j alt iy. ,' I<Eiif ct ` I�! 1li� .7 T x_114,.k1,-74�rt°�tn.._ '..0 intritwzroyeal 0 GDR ---,6-1-Y. ....:-.. 14-,t'w.l 'ilIF,riiitni•ronertfors / r22.9,•. L 7- ��r:: ci /-+aca•.mwtA a� I �� Y" f ■MT p6 84, ,,r, / tfe;S1 ' sal • A Ott°`." 44.7 Ak 9p`oo -1---L.1,4, --9,;€-'t�+ PRt • The City staff opposed granting this requested variance ( See: p.17 memo to the P &Z). The P &Z by a narrow 3-2 vote approved the application including the variance for the proposed garage accessing 8th Street. There was no discussion of the safety impacts of the proposed garage. The Villas believes that the record was inadequately developed concerning safety issues and the mandate to avoid conflicts between automobile and pedestrian traffic. This particular site has unique properties, i.e. wide street bending into a narrow one with an active pedestrian walkway at the bend. Additionally,the Villas contends that based on the record, the grant of the variance was an error, irrespective of the compelling safety issues (discussed in the following section). The Code Section 26.410.040.C.1.a states: "The intent of the following parking ,garages and carport standards is to minimize conflicts between pedestrian and automobile traffic by placing parking, garages and carports on alleys...."2 2 The Code, Part 400, Page 12 contains illustrations that exactly fit the current situation. 11 Rather than minimize conflicts, the proposed variance would create a conflict at an already constrained intersection by placing more vehicle traffic emptying on to the street in the form of a two car garage. To illustrate the narrowness of 8th Street and the hazard presented, consider the following two images which show a garbage truck exiting the Villas parking lot onto 8th street. • • r W„:, 4 W N ( .. • 12 "+'" ¢ r • _ t -� r r �-„ .. '":::::;,°77: Arta, k- t" F `its "14:' C 1. f 4-, �Vj i "el,i■ mot. ■ Operative Facts : 1. 8th Street is materially narrower than Bleeker, 18 feet as opposed to 38 feet. 2. 8th Street ends at Bleeker with a pedestrian walkway used extensively by walkers and bikers. 3. The are no sidewalks on either side of 8th Street in the span confronting the Kleins property. 4. 8th Street is rendered essentially one lane in the winter. 5. 8th Street is currently the sole street serving the Villas for all service vehicles, cars , delivery, and is a school bus route. 6. The proposed driveway for the two car garage on 8th street is in near alignment with the existing driveway entrance of the Villas. I 7. The Kleins property at the corner of Bleeker and 8th Street has a number of mature trees obstructing vision from the proposed driveway. 8. The city has already eliminated some parking places on 8th Street citing the narrowness of the street as raising safety concerns. Since the intent of the Code is to minimize conflicts, how does the placement of a two car garage opening on to 8th Street mitigate the existing conditions? Cars pull into a garage, 13 they must back out and in this case onto a narrow street at a blind corner with two way pedestrian traffic. That is in the summer. Consider the winter case where all of the above exist and additionally: 9. Traffic coming around from Bleeker must merge into a single lane. 10. Adding to the difficulty, the city routinely piles snow along Bleeker at the corner(a Ford was buried there for two months a few years ago). 11. Moreover, since the location of the ditch cannot be easily located in the winter parkers along the west side tend to park more on the street, further narrowing it. It is not understood how the establishment of a two car garage facing 8th Street helps the situation, in fact it creates more danger. The intent of the standard is degraded, if not ignored by granting the proposed variance. None of this was considered by the P&Z and that alone mandates denial of the variance. 3. A Variance For a Two Car Garage on 8th Street from the Strict Constraints of the Residential Design Standards is Not Justified Based on the Record. The Kleins application, among the many variances sought, seeks a variance from Section 26.410.040.C.1.a, requiring residential uses that have access from an alley to access garages from the alley. The specific wording follows: "The intent of the following parking, garages and carport standards is to minimize the potential for conflicts between pedestrian and automobile traffic by placing parking, garages and carports on alleys or to minimize the presence of garages and carports as a lifeless part of the streetscape where alleys do not exist. 1. For all residential uses that have access from an alley or private road, the following standards shall apply: a. Parking, garages and carports shall be accessed from an alley or private road." (emphasis added). The use of the term "shall" in the code like the term "must" is mandatory, requiring strict application. Stated differently, compliance is required as opposed to being merely permissive. The code provision exactly fits this situation and an exemption should not be granted. We are not aware of any variances granted to this provision where alley access exists. There is no question that the residential use here has direct access to the alley behind the property. The application offers no cogent reason why the proposed garage on 8th Street could not be relocated. All of the reasons given are either incorrect or do not provide complete facts. For example, the application points to trees along the alley portion of the property making alley access difficult if not "impossible". (See: application p. 11) but at the same time proposes removing at least one large tree to allow street access for the new garage on 8th Street. That is, without removal of at least one tree facing 8th Street access to the proposed garage on 8th Street is also "impossible". The application does not mention that the tree it requests to remove shields the building structure from the street, making it"lifeless". As the City staff pointed out " ... the proposed parking garages are much more visible and detract from the streetscape." See: 14 Ex D, p. 17 to the P &Z). Thus, if a tree needs to be removed it should be the one that drives the project into conformity with the regulations and not create an exception from them. The application points to a potential safety issue with children playing in the alley. True, but children also play along 8th Street. The water ditch in the summer is especially attractive. In the winter all pedestrian traffic is in the street since there are no sidewalks. The issue of safety vis- a-vis the development is not explained in any comprehensive manner relative to all of the streets involved . For example, the application is entirely silent as to the potential safety impact of a two car garage on 8th Street, given the narrowness of that street and the use of that street as a pedestrian walkway. As detailed in the preceding section, safety is very important and placed in the proper perspective, the greater issue potentially exists along 8th Street and not in the alley. The application references that "The alley is fairly constrained." (See: Application p. 11) but never recognizes that 8th Street is even more constrained than Bleeker given its limited width. Also, the width of the alley is about 16 feet behind the Kleins fence so it is almost the width of 8th Street. Parked cars have been able to negotiate the alley from parking places given the lack of thru traffic. The application references what it calls "no pattern" of access requiring a strict application of the requirement to have parking access from the alley. ( See: Application p. 12). The conclusion advocated is at odds with the facts. More properly, the existing pattern complies with the requirements. There are no alleys serving the Villas and the West Bleeker Street Townhomes so street access is permitted. The Bavarian Housing Project locates all of its parking in the alley with both east and west alley access to the street together with a north alley branch to Bleeker Street. In sum, the application provides no cogent reason why the design cannot be modified to have the proposed garage face the alley and thus comply with the rules. 3 If the Kleins are steadfastly against having any garage face the alley, we emphasize that the acceptable compromise is to simply leave the orientation of the existing garage alone, reorient the doors and share the existing curb cut on Bleeker with the proposed new garage. 15 4. Relief Requested For these reasons, the Villas submits that an owner's ability to develop his property should not trump strong regulations compelling design aspects for safety reasons. Thus, pursuant to the powers vested in the City Council in Section 26.208.010M, the Villas requests: [a] As a condition of approval of the ordinance, the requirements of Section 26.410.040(C)(1), insofar as it pertains to garages, should be added so that conformity with applicable standards is maintained and potential safety issues are avoided , or [b] Proposed Ordinance 20 should be voted down so that the applicant can consider options going forward. Respectfully submitted, 47,,/8, Sege/ Neil B. Siegel President Villas of Aspen Townhouse Association Cc: Jennifer Phelan Community Development Department 16 2 HERBERT S. KLEIN 831 W. BLEEKER ST. ASPEN, CO. 81611 970-925-8700 EMAIL: hsk @kcelaw.net July 16, 2012 City Council, City of Aspen C/0 Jennifer Phelan City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Co.81611 RE: 831-833 W. Bleeker Street Land Use Application Dear Honorable Council Members, I am submitting this letter to briefly respond to certain statements made in the letter sent by the Villas of Aspen Townhouse Association ("Villas") to the Aspen City Council dated July 13, 2012. The Villas letter objects to the location of a garage facing the 8th Street frontage of my property. This aspect of our development proposal was granted final approval by the Planning Commission and is not subject to re-review by the City Council as all time periods for appeal of the PZ approval have passed. The Villas did not attend the PZ hearing on this application and although it sent in a letter objecting to certain aspects of the project,the garage issue they now raise was not among them. The Villas objections are not only time barred,but are incorrect. There is no safety problem by reason of the location of the garage fronting 8th Street. The property was approved for a curb cut on 8th Street and one on W. Bleeker Street at the time of its original development in 1987. Cars can park and access our property on the 8th Street frontage regardless of whether or not there is a garage there. The additional density proposed by the present application is simply the addition of the one 401 square foot studio apartment voluntarily providing deed restricted,mandatory occupancy affordable housing. An increase in-the square - - -- -- - - footage of one of the existing duplex units ("Unit B") is also proposed, but the bedroom count for the property will remain unchanged. The PZ considered the location of the garage in detail at its hearing and was convinced that the best place for it was on 8th Street. This was for several reasons, which included: 1. The alley is constrained and used as a playground for the children residing in the Bavarian Housing Townhomes. This was a primary reason that the PZ preferred 8th Street. A photo of kids playing in the alley is attached. 2. In addition,creating an access for parking off the alley conflicts with the substantial trees located at the rear of the property. 3. There is no practical connection for garage access between the alley and the new AH unit or existing Unit B. With respect to the engineering and safety aspects of the 8th Street access, separate from the PZ approval,the City Engineer has considered the 8th Street access and has approved it. Attached is the letter,signed by the City Engineer granting this approval. You will note that the distance from the corner of W. Bleeker Street and 8th Street is being improved and designed to line up as close as possible to the Villas parking lot entrance. This is a good engineering practice and is an improvement over the location of the previously approved curb cut. This was taken into account by the City Engineer in her approval of the 8th Street access. Please see the attached photo showing the 8th Street frontage of my house as viewed from the Villas parking lot entrance as it lines up with our driveway access point. In aid of Council's review,below is a summary of what we are proposing: Existing Density: two (2) dwelling units. Unit A: 4 bedrooms, 3,157 square feet of Net Livable Area Unit B: 2 bedrooms, 657 square feet of Net Livable Area. New units of Density: One(1). A 401 sq.ft. studio apartment that will house one person,deed restricted as Affordable Housing. Number of Bedrooms: Before: six (6). After: six (6). Two of the existing bedrooms will be combined into one and we are counting the studio unit as one,so the number of bedrooms will not change since an existing bedroom from Unit A is being added to Unit B. Net Livable Area After Development: Unit A: 2,952 sq. ft.. A reduction of 205 sq. ft. Unit B: 2,000 sq.ft. An increase of 1,343 sq.ft. Unit C: 401 sq. ft. An increase of 401 sq. ft. 2 In summary,the Villas objections are misplaced and incorrect. The access is appropriate,safe and has been approved by both the PZ and the City Engineer. Very truly yours, ____._ Herb Lein 3 HERBERT S.KLEIN 831 W.BLEEKER ST. ASPEN,CO. 81611 970-925-8700 EMAIL: hsk @kcelaw.net June 29,2012 Tricia Aragon City of Aspen Engineer City Hall Annex 517 E.Hopkins Ave. Aspen, Co. 81611 Re:Approval of Curb cuts—Request for Engineer's Review-Variance Dear Tricia, Thank you very much for meeting with me and Stan Mathis last week to discuss the parking access at my home at 831/833 W.Bleeker St. The property is a legal duplex in the RMF zone. It is a corner lot and has previously approved curb cuts on W.Bleeker St. and on 8th Street.A Site Plan,labeled Exhibit A is attached showing the parcel,the existing improvements and the curb cuts. I am in a development review process to add a non-mitigation affordable housing unit and to expand one of the duplex's units (Unit B)that is on the north side of the property. City staff has brought to my attention that the Engineering Department favors only one curb cut per property. During our conversation with you we explained that I am not able to provide parking and garage access without the use of the two existing curb cuts. You suggested that I submit an application to you for a variance under Sec. 21.16.070 of the City Code. I have reviewed the City's code provisions that address curb cuts. The provisions of Sec.21.16.060 Driveway and curb cut specifications, state in relevant part: All driveway and curbcut plans shall conform to City standards(see construction and excavation standards). In Residential Districts R-6,R-15, R-30,R-40 and RR,and in Conservation (C)District,there shall he allowed only a single point of vehicular access,which includes a single curbcut/driveway per lot. In specially planned districts and districts other than:Neighborhood Commercial(NC), Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I), Commercial Lodge(CL),Lodge(L), Office(0)and (0-2),Residential-Multiple Family(RMF),Residential Districts R-6,R-15,R-30,R-40 and RR and Conservation(C)District,the number and size of curbeuts shall be subject to review. (emphasis added) Since the property is in the RMF zone,you can authorize the continued use of these curb cuts by review. However, if you wish to authorize this use under the Code's variance provisions,that is acceptable. The variance provisions of Sec. 21.16.070 state in relevant part: Variations in driveways and curb cuts allowed for unusual conditions. Under unusual conditions of topography,drainage, existing landscaping or improvements on City rights-of-way,existing buildings or improvements on private property or special use requirements for the property,a variance from the requirements in Section 21.16.060 above for driveways and curb cuts may be given by the City Engineer upon filing a written application and a plot plan showing the building site and special conditions existing thereon. (emphasis added) As we discussed in our meeting,the duplex was constructed in 1987 and has two approved existing curb cuts that provide access and parking for each of Units A and B. Unit A fronts on 8th Street and Unit B fronts on W.Bleeker Street. Access for parking or to a garage from the alley is not possible due to the presence of many large trees and the ° presence of the existing building which separates Unit B from any possible access from the alley. On the east side of Unit A,there is only 5'+/-between the existing structure and the east property line and there is also a required window well in the 5' set back. The west side of Unit A fronts 8th Street which has mature trees along the boundary with 8th Street. Please see the attached Site Plan and note the location of existing improvements, landscaping and the narrow setbacks. Additionally,it is important to note that there is a playground for the children residing in the Bavarian Housing project that is directly on the alley along the rear of Unit A and the children play in the playground area as well as in the alley. Any additional vehicular traffic in the alley raises safety issues and contradicts the goal of minimizing pedestrian-vehicular conflicts.The alley is fairly constrained. In fact,cars backing out of existing parking stalls serving the Bavarian units often hit the fence that is along the rear property line of Unit A,necessitating the installation of a bumper along the backyard fence. Therefore,even if it were feasible to serve Unit B and the All Unit from the alley (which it is not)such would not be a good outcome. The criteria for a variance are satisfied by the presence of existing landscaping on City rights-of-way and the presence of the existing buildings and improvements on private property that limit where we can provide parking and garage access to the existing curb cuts. Additionally,you have authority to approve this request upon review. The location and dimensions of the curb cuts are shown on the Site Plan. The W. Bleeker St. curb cut was built as originally approved. The curb cut on 8`h Street is 2 actually in a better location than as approved since it is farther from the corner of 8'h St. and W. Bleeker St, than as originally approved and it lines up with the opposing curb cut for the Villas of Aspen parking lot.We will memorialize the improved location of this curb cut by your approval of this request. Site distances are adequate and safe.There is no through traffic in this somewhat U-shaped neighborhood and there is no intersection at 8th St. and W. Bleeker St. Other than the existing curb cut and the alley,there are no other curb cuts on the east side of 8'h Street, The only curb cut on the west side of 8`h Street is the one for the Villas of Aspen parking lot. Similarly,on W.Bleeker St.,the only curb cut on the north side of the street is for the W. Bleeker Place Townliomes parking lot, On the south side of W. Bleeker St., other than the existing curb cut and the curb cut serving the Bavarian Affordable Housing project,there are no other curb cuts. I respectfully request that you approve the curb cuts as shown on the Site Plan.I have provided space below for your approval and signature. Please also note your approval by signing the site plan where indicated. This will assure that the records will reflect the correct plan. Thank you very much for your consideration of this request. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. Please let me know when you have signed this request so that I can pick it up. Very truly yots;/ „,---,.v7 //:_________----- V Herb Klein The undersigned approves two curb cuts for 831/833 W. Bleeker St(one on W. Bleeker St. and one on 8th Street)the final configuration of the drives including the dimensions . will be done as part of the Right of Way and building permit process. f/ L' , Date: July, 2- ,2012 rich . .agon,P,E. City of Aspen Engineer 3 t-, `4 . E-4 t W °p° ixl E-r M w • EE-4 o J 0 "( ¢< L,U. a z oa M a a 20 P . ti k c &' 8a E A as � ` § i g ? C I .; i 8 0 a 0 L A O -v - ir`Y:1 (4 fin. i'j•S :' t51S,,.+�` etfe rci 7l 'fir p t 1+ ',7.7.ft __\t!� . . p ill-. eii V r te tt t y ` f' �:.±:y ii/4/ ," • i I { ooi, ,.. 4-. 11-;" i '44k, '., \ _A i :., -=4,,,a, , 4.1.f.P,,,,'',, k■\ 1.11— Imo\ r ,#7. �„ 1 '$34, 1.331 1.331j O� 17�+eSy -5.0q-- .i' I.47 3/yHikQ*d�S rt./9 3`30.3.)a. p C7 P ... of''tit. K Z U P4 z i-t U W Z 0 04 U .0 (�s Kids Pla in: in the Alle 4 r • 3� r + ', y p, 1V' ir'F r , . y-/ij)Iry�• - �y}1 � Pte' ��Y ll�1T13 .. Y ..... . , .;.,, ,,,,w, I � "r .ir' �r . +� _ r f t dad 4 .,,a� , _ !II 1 11, .„:71-ii, ._11174 _1.,,s ,‘7:7-7-07- .i.._...1 [lc z r,r'•i - _ 2 1 • fi [• - 111 • P• 1,,' 1 .t.',,. r S tax j�. * f tip nl ![ 'd �. fi ,r t -;, i ,r , it. - 1 ` .-1`." 4 !.ay ■ y y i4 4r{'si + ,_ Y I I. ,I, r r Y : s, I g'. ,...:, if*,--"e".."-37:1:14%., •''.4t..47\'' 1 pt. :_ . Imo, -t, - I N"`�,a s 1 w 'i • n 1 i. n :f' t 1 „,......,,•:,'te` ∎ '. •4 Xy . • .ii1; [ '......•,,.. . . f , • „, - �d --q- ":"..,1V.03- liiii v, ,: 0)TV Af -, - r it `, Y p. ■ t t4 ��[, - il . k'' .. -rt,,,Ilii, t 1;1, t,,j 7 Y `V 7 t 3 ,',,,,041. 1 r e y+. , ' � }} .1 Photos of Alle and Bavarian Housin: Pla Area Ore: .A� >ah{ ti ' t 4,t i .?.' , x • • i:,,:',0 "-*- ,1!.;Iii.4t,'.'''e?‘111.- 10!'.4.0:,' ''Al :.-'11St4-t")...').4-"''''' - ' • ' '''' • . • . r -!.....•.,-. _ n r/.y ;S "iti, , 41.'\'.:441 t .';,,w.:-k .: i4 i .. i� 4 �1 r 'Fitt ` .0 ,. t.. ' ,v` • q ■0; ' , k q•...• 4-.-...-•.. , --','=NI ._ ..: •• ,k Ki,. .,, ‘ ,..,"-..„.•.... . „ ,, ,vit• �} {{{ ° '��.�. _ r� c.>i + Jett • _5„,.',./,,t.. 1 <;i ,-, .l'i '' -r-,.' 1:.) 1: '-' -; L., • r r s i. 'may,' ''S: I �± ". ti r, - ` -": s; .r ' ' is 1:1116....."- .. 1 d �t• sr 4 _ r1 Vary �x } - 'ird -• ' i - yy 3 rtta F3• i ti: •, fa.i}f,a �� 1:� 4y itl� x s ;L •. ,' ,t �`{ #ice 1 Y y .•• - .., •, - .• .� " i f i s�. txt • .+� , f,'-„” .mss A 1 a �i 4'#k. 4 C.:.,_*,:.'4,'4,-,_ , , ..... t - . --, . -I I I '11,L liv:.C.,t7I'll':,;:‘.--'?'1,r..r.i.:-.:1":.,,i'l.:'. `wry'_^ _ '_ _ - '�` '3°t i --`-c �-�._ •'ate _ - ` s' e . 1 Kids Pla in: in the Alle 1r , ..,1,00s.'. 7 N , .. .. ._:,... _ si._,;.;:k,„..,.,,ic,, ,ie.,v41)1.''`k,- i\- - . -' i s .1411 S. l ay _. '. - _ 2 ■ NEIGHBORHOOD STREET FACING ELEVATIONS 8th Street fi -;-':_!1---;y �a } .lt ';%, � rr ' ,. •2•sr � . 4,f K � r,F , 13.,q",',...k jr r 6 n , 2C i { c 1. t ,; r t'. tr 3 •Y• 4 ,f -3 j 1, t - E1 * (;l sp va 1 f '. F,1 { P . - .ter.:f � ��_�i .. .,___ _"., _ Bavarian Housin: Street Front Elevation on 8th Street {tj/ R. r T ,f "+",,„, C EO y + *, -, ' t V‘-':T. ' r 14410, r V -- i fL ■•FitYw 't?•T •.rti _' P'r1.. `_as . .r;• a `t t° s Sj,_ a k ft, r 3 T"Street Elevation Facin: Su b'eF c t • } c ' " to 4 rVilla Of As en To wnhomen -8 t i��u ,' F ' 7 Y a rJi�„t� ji If f itj - \ i a -ivy” Y � f fi` p f tp C ` i y ;. \ ., ff -- -, ' w -. y: x r • t s - , ; .+ r ( r} it}r r :r � t �Jl ,s ?�(T` / 4 ( 'r +•( 1 r� s, are,!6_,I,...... x„,11.4,-,-..,1 4 �S'. } r' �? �� "'. a Atka tis I '0J ,,• ;yd �i ei rye s t t` i: / '` .-T? k - 1 T '1 t J �4 t- C 1\ '.,> >,:y L r +t ;ri r ; ' " ' k� r y a z}i • t if A a' - ( / • iail`i z ‘7...'11.r.:, k / i(vt , :. ,,r •Yi �y . f 4 a ) • -10, } s-''' 'k iv1' r tv . is in * ' l+ { 9 t .1.41 u +Yy,c, � ta4 - n,� y• :A} Vld l v _L ;aif X , r "II 4 SUBJECT-8TH STREET ELEVATION c r S3id ` r ' *���,,yx�, r " ,1• ;` • 4 '�' ,`.• 1"., �f//qat� off a cti 2 g ,. "�,�5 i It jr< a�,� iur s 7 ;t ;zq -� 8 X'• .. ' ,,,,,. .`..f.:,-,•`:'*' ' . ' .' .-,! , ''''•':1,,,i.e''','"'"-.,;1",,...`-',1.',.,',:::,---,'-'-',,tv.'`*-4.".1‘,i'''.'•'---i:17!';',`."'":*-r'i . '''''',Y;'• -,;(e--, ... r:.:....),----.V.-- 4 .- . .rte, l- �` - f 1 'i ( + i. r YP • ^✓ yc,; i , . . ( j # 141,1 I .F c ': `�.s. ♦ fir ( 'i Jl � •-•S j a ` f :. rte {i 1 . 1 •c ;',/ r i t A',�•r,,.„-$,..,,,y frh - y' 'l 4-.4 i rt4 f■ -; ( '•' '��" ,; •�`Af J, `�y`y '' �S S \• lC I „ fry � .,.., . X��j+ :.. f rY5r r 1 T - "Yr ri 1 ,� raf.��d�� rlri 4 F. p sa . `_ .gyp 1 1d 5 I W.BLEEKER STREET NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES W.BLEEKER ST. ,' 1 1 F rf t fi C • � 7pp7 'ti '' T4, • • ( 6 • W.BLEEKER PLACE TOWNHOMES-W.BLEEKER ST.-FACING SUBJECT .' Asti; ,..••i a sw .•.•f :1 4�ic3 ,n r•-! .si ".;-J Y' '_. )z '$t.S j • •>. -.$rr `,�. f (4 b ti afit t Y {,.. eVlc�'7_.'.s3lk✓ '.•�R`vaq K 4 4$ L\ {;,}-�' tin` :4. - 1'i ''''%'. 1•h ' k 4 .iN•n. } Os�zf.v� ."'",s'&';'/.4..-r �t ..t7 ''# . > '` f-'� { y 1 ./.; 'F 'fF i} 7 V ,.. .st a. "r r .rte ,s *.-;VJ S 4 ` y ` i _ ii 7 1 Y4F rf t s•'1- °# ib/' ,$j ak:1R q.f1 -a Y f'3 - f i{s+;` 11 r- 'T5a .' 't_1 t'' t1r' ),� '' a ',1 i i` •-• <:- > i c l' ti 4, iii �Y •j�i� - 'u i i 3�`;�,4'��1y.1 < l f �'�'t�{�t�Y,� j3�a J � + r i,:�t �c: E ��"-tY irAi, y'7 +� t 1 O1' ',A.4.1 �' t x ,,4.,11‘' r 3' �i3 iiiiiii 1 i3 ± k f yJ tl'L, ;I is k. • �� z s{tom ki `a ,p St i _. t yt 7 "'1tc fi.� " jYtirtjx+ ? gyp` �,2Ri 3 ",r i 1 t t_ k.-1 ` ��, ,- real: v - s Y 77' f� l '4 j .. F r i i! is lif F;� - r di:t rr f, rte. - ' ,4" 4 <. . , J .'" • dir -`alp _ ,_ X],�. ' i�i<<r j.Z{ S 'r~ ''''.41-4, to-'.i' c• •-r 3 "+ \ 1 a ,,,y;?.,,-,.,;,,,-:, f y ..,.4a ": j 1 J ','}.S�I'-�' e7,r { t 1'' .•• ,j 3;` G••, 74 ,'' , r 414)i r.: f "--. .i. ,.....----7,., -,. R / C � � rSSl4111.ti i Y }rti�Y ! 1 f yLh 'L+ ry� t i Y` s 1 I 8 BAVARIAN y HOUSING-W.BL�/EEKER ST.-SAME SIDE OF STREET AS,SUBJECT vo. V `fN 1 ,::?,..4-.v t �T 4 y r Vio a• >rq _i:i `v"., � t / • ' .r ' h � 4E YA. r^ k vJ ` - c fiqY lt r S .°3 r 6 p'} is "t f r: t . `1,:!iii-r,..,...::-1..;,- .„,. •...a...-,-..; ...' ' 1.' -v,,..1.'. .,:r.,,,,,-",,z i.).p.f..-4.f.11;.:ti;,;:W,iii.;,,,,tr-i l':::1_, ,...,-, ..,,r..., !,,,.i.:.,....,,,z,..,'4.-; , l 1 3 Z it... 11., ' ,rr- Ititai�}y hk,,g ; �. ,, �`� -.± ,- ' t_.ti. . }1} T I - A} .C�=`''', �r tt-'`4 f T r f „ t4 1.-' Y krhC -. T-t t �r d 1♦.rTi t p .'� .f ` { '' 1 1 r i 1 4.14,14 ..:1 _ .: t 1. 7 g .%1 a a s Cr l.i ' S yr j�tx ti i# 5��� r,i 1,1,-,k.ti, : `` 3i \ ' ,.° ,((c , A, .4%.i�✓�`�f to itr. ;�, ire :.:..t - _ 9 wL ,. . 9 SUBJECT-8TH STREET ELEVATION mot ": q\.!f,A7' ;, 41f f . Y .,„ =c 1 Y 3.1 st` )f r .1 ' ,\1\ t'/ `_ / k t �tLa `.� > 'tl , ,..,„0„....:,.., t 4 ,,,?.,:- 1, ,.., 4; ,.•:.•• 4 ; + ? p. - r `•1.Y ; - yam, 1 z .. 1 -..D- r, v i X71 ,,,, , PAR r 'q . _ s. . '�• ' • e`,'�a`t Sr i}' - ''t vp F-,:,,,. :.. ; 1 " ;4;`,..=.,":4;,`"-:-4,...,-..45,---r•-'--+a' jc er t d 3F : � 7', s 1� r i'1A• y p x 3W-i �x r3a.■ n ' k 'i 9 T otigit;,� a S , „i; r 4- f� ,*f f' '� i x -, a��� + I yip y r -.Jr. i.f 7 '' g{ ;, t,f t > fn �� ` J i 10 J • SUBJECT— UNIT B ENTRY AREA % ;C zT� �J�i51 l�V,� F r - r ,41f 'f'L{'♦ 4 t !'F�l1ni>,l TF j , . . t t E ry y 1 A ,,� Jw 1 !i t T} t I } '! < R 1. 111 • 6 i.: J ' 1T17 !1' I j ?rte y � � � r 1>..?-, j { 6: ;}.N i. r4 t t 0,:',.f / S ro $ ' L b `J t {Ft p _ 115. a c ry. 4 rh; ('x ,3 4 :( 't - s 'F.� i, f • �. ri 5, -.; y i tt Y i- t! f l''' '''',i 5 it ; P J ;tjei#a i .'a: ,c 11 1 TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Directot RE: South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD—Amendment to existing approvals, 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 18 (Series of 2012) MEETING DATE: July 23, 2012 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. At the July 9th hearing the Applicant made a presentation on their amended townhome application but then discussed the potential for a lodge development at the site. The Applicant is willing to consider a lodge development at the site over the next few months but will need to "suspend" their current amended townhome application during the review process of the lodge and have the ability to revive the application if a lodging project is not approved or if the lodging application is withdrawn by the Applicant. Also in the July 23`d council packet is a request to extend the vested rights of the existing townhome entitlements during the lodge review. As part of the resolution included with the staff memo on the extension of vested rights, the amended townhome application is "suspended" with the ability for it to be revived in the future. - - - - - - - - - - - - Vill A MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council p THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Directo� J u I vv! FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director(' ) RE: South Aspen Subdivision/PUD Extension of Vested Rights—Resolution -05, Series 2012 —Public Hearing MEETING DATE: July 23, 2012 APPLICANT/OWNER: PROPOSED LAND USE: ASV Aspen Street Owners, LLC Currently approved for a free market residential and affordable housing townhome development, REPRESENTATIVE: potentially being proposed as lodging David Parker, Bald Mountain development. Development STAFF RECOMMENDATION: LOCATION: Approval with conditions. West side of South Aspen Street near the base of Aspen Mountain (approximately Su M MARY: between Dean and Gilbert). The Applicant requests an extension of their vested rights for the original townhomes project CURRENT ZONING & APPROVED USE commensurate with their pursuit of a lodging Lodge zone district with a PUD Overlay, project on the same site. Staff is recommending approved for fourteen (14) fee-market a two-year extension. Staff also recommends residential units and seventeen (17) City Council "suspend" review of the amended affordable housing units. townhomes project and authorize submission of a lodging application. If a lodging project is not approved, or is withdrawn, the amended townhomes project would be automatically revived and continue its review. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval: • Extension or Reinstatement of Vested Rights to reinstate the vested rights of the approved residential project, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.308.010 C., Extension or Reinstatement of Vested Rights. (City Council is final review authority who may approve or deny the proposal). PROJECT SUMMARY: At the July 9th hearing, the Applicant provided an overview of their "Amended Townhomes" land use application and also discussed the possibility of reconsidering the development of the site as a lodge. In discussing a lodge scenario and undergoing a land use review process, the Applicant will need to put the current application on hold and develop a timeline in which to complete the lodge review. As part of putting the Amended Townhomes application on hold, a request for an extension of the existing entitlements is being requested. Currently the "Approved Townhomes" entitlements (14 free market and 17 affordable housing units on-site) have a vesting period that will expire on March 1, 2013. As a result of the upcoming 2013 vested rights expiration date and City Council's interest in an alternative "Lodge" development, the present owners are proposing an extension of the existing entitlements to enable further discussion on a potential Lodge development and land use application. As part of the resolution for the extension of vested rights, the resolution acknowledges that the current Amended Townhomes application is to be considered "suspended" during the review of a Lodge development. In the event a Lodge project is formally denied or withdrawn, the Amended Townhomes application will become reactivated. As part of a Lodge application, the Applicant is requesting a compressed review timeline. A draft timeline is provided below. City Council and the public should expect these dates to be amended as the project moves forward. Special meetings of City Council may also be necessary. 7/23 City Council: Extension of Vested Rights 8/13 City Council: Sketch Plan review (concurrent with P&Z) 8/14 P&Z: Final PUD review (#1) 8/21 P&Z: Final PUD review(#2) 8/28 P&Z: Final PUD review(#3) 9/4 P&Z: Final PUD review(#3) 9/10 City Council: 1st Reading, Final PUD review 9/24 City Council: 2nd Reading, Final PUD review(#1) 10/8 City Council: 2nd Reading, Final PUD review(#2) 10/22 City Council: 2nd Reading, Final PUD review (#3) 11/12 City Council: 2nd Reading, Final PUD review (#4) 11/26 City Council: 2nd Reading, Final PUD review (#5) STAFF COMMENTS: VESTED RIGHTS EXTENSION: The Applicant is requesting an extension of the vested rights for the original townhomes approval. Staff is recommending a "rolling" two-year extension based on pursuit of a lodging project. The Applicant is requesting the extension of their vested rights because the Applicant cannot allow the residential project's vested rights to expire during an alternative review of developing the site with a lodge. Staff believes that the City would be better served with a hotel at this location rather than a purely residential development. It is in the City's best interest to add to its lodging bedroom base and a master planning process may provide an acceptable community solution with regard to development at the base of Lift IA. Therefore, Staff believes that the extension of vested rights would benefit the City by encouraging the Applicant to pursue a lodge development. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the requested extension of vested property rights for the original townhomes project for a period of two-years from the date a lodge application is either denied or withdrawn. RECOMMENDED MOTION(ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No.b4, Series of 2012, approving an extension of vested property rights for the South Aspen Subdivision/PUD originally approved by Ordinance No. 32, Series of 2003." CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A—Review Criteria and Staff Findings EXHIBIT B—Request by Applicant for Extension of Vested Rights, dated 7/6/12 RESOLUTION NO. J (Series of 2012) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF THE VESTED RIGHTS GRANTED BY ORDINANCE NO. 32, SERIES OF 2003, FOR THE SOUTH ASPEN STREET SUBDIVISION/PUD APPROVAL,BEING A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCELS 1, 2, AND 3, OF THE SOUTH ASPEN STREET SUBDIVISION/PUD, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2735-131-39-001 (Parcel 1) Parcel No. 2735-131-39-002 (Parcel 2) Parcel No. 2735-131-39-003 (Parcel 3) - WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from ASV Aspen Street Owners, LLC, represented by David Parker, of Bald Mountain Development, requesting approval of an amended townhome development relative to the townhome development approved under the South Aspen Street Subdivision/ PUD pursuant to Ordinance No. 32, Series of 2003; and, WHEREAS, during the public hearing process for the amended townhomes plan, City Council related its interest in seeing a lodge developed on the site, after further discussion the Applicant has agreed to consider a lodge development on the site; and, WHEREAS, in pursuing a lodge development the Applicant wishes to preserve the existing vested rights for the entitled townhome development; and WHEREAS, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 32, Series of 2003, which approved a subdivision/PUD and awarded Vested Property Rights status for the development of fourteen (14) free-market residential units and seventeen (17) affordable housing units until July 28, 2006; and, WHEREAS, the statutory vested rights for the project were subsequently extended via the adoption of City Council Resolution No. 9, Series of 2008, to July 28, 2009, and then via resolution No. 9, Series of 2009, to March 1, 2013; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is described as Lots 1, 2, and 3, of the South Aspen Street Subdivision/Planned Unit Development as described on the subdivision plat thereof recorded as reception number 537080 in Book 83, Page 50, with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.308.010 Vested Property Rights of the Land Use Code, City Council may adopt a resolution granting an extension of vested rights after a duly noticed public hearing; and, City Council Resolution No. ---, Series of 2012. Page 1 WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the application and has recommended approval of the extension of vested rights for the South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the requested extension of vested rights for the South Aspen Street Subdivision/ PUD under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the extension of vested rights proposal meets or exceeds all applicable land use standards and that the approval of the extension of vested rights proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO,THAT: Section 1: The Aspen City Council does hereby extend the statutory vested rights as approved by Ordinance No. 32, Series of 2003, for parcels 1, 2, and 3, of the South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD, City and Townsite of Aspen for the South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD with the following conditions: 1. This extension is for the sole purpose of enabling the review of an alternative development plan on this site vis-à-vis lodging, residential, commercial, and fractional ownership uses. At the time the "Lodge" land use application for this property is either approved, not approved, or is withdrawn, the vested rights associated with the "townhomes project" approved pursuant to Ordinance 32, Series of 2003, shall remain valid for twenty-four additional months from the effective date of such action. A six-month period of inactivity shall constitute a withdrawal of the application. 2. The statutory vested property right shall not preclude the application of regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, and all adopted impact fees. The developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, and impact fees that are in effect at the time of building permit, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. Section 2: Due to the Applicant's voluntary participation in developing an alternative development plan on this site and its suspension of the current land use application for an amended City Council Resolution No. ---, Series of 2012. Page 2 townhome project, City Council considers the amended townhomes application to be suspended until a lodging project is approved, denied, or withdrawn by the applicant. At such time, the amended townhome application shall be considered reactivated to continue in its review process. The "abandonment of application" provisions of Section 26.304.070.F shall not apply during this period of suspension. For the period of suspension of the amended townhomes application, the "no-two- applications" provision of Section 26.304.030.F shall not apply. An application for an alternative development plan on this property for a lodge development may be accepted and reviewed by the City. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 6: A duly noticed public hearing on this Resolution was held on the 23rd day of July, at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. FINALLY, resolved, adopted, passed, and approved by a to vote on this day of , 2012. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: James R. True, City Attorney Michael C. Ireland,Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk City Council Resolution No. ---, Series of 2012. Page 3 Exhibit A EXTENSION OR REINSTATEMENT OF VESTED RIGHTS REVIEW CRITERIA& STAFF FINDINGS Section 26.308.010.C., Extension or Reinstatement of Vested Rights, of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for an extension of vested rights may be approved in accordance with the following standards and requirements. 1. In reviewing a request for the extension or reinstatement of vested rights the City Council shall consider, but not limited to, the following criteria: a. The applicant's compliance with any conditions requiring performance prior to the date of application for extension or reinstatement; Staff Finding: The Applicant was required to record the final plat,final PUD plan, and Subdivision/PUD agreement which is required as part of Ordinance No. 32, Series 2003. Those documents were recorded on April 25, 2007. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. b. The progress made in pursuing the project to date including the effort to obtain any other permits, including a building permit, and the expenditures made by the applicant in pursuing the project; Staff Finding: In addition to recording the necessary plat and associated documents, the Applicant has submitted an application to amend the existing townhome configuration, continuing to pursue some form of townhome development. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. c. The nature and extent of any benefits already received by the city as a result of the project approval such as impact fees or land dedications; Staff Finding: The Applicant, thus far, has paid the a number of fees associated with the amended townhome review. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. d. The needs of the city and the applicant that would be served by the approval of the extension or reinstatement request. Staff Finding: Staff believes that the City would be better served with a hotel at this location rather than a purely residential development. It is in the City's best interest to add to its lodging bedroom base. Therefore, Staff believes that the proposed extension of vested rights would benefit the City by encouraging the applicant to pursue a lodge development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. HAAS LAND PLANNING , LLC July 6,2012 Mr. Chris Bendon, Director City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Extension of Vested Property Rights for the South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD Dear Chris: On behalf of the owners/applicants for the Amendment of the South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD (SAS), we hereby request an extension of the remaining vested property rights as well as approval to simultaneously process and maintain active two land use applications for the subject property, namely the currently pending amendment request and a lodge/accommodations development proposal. The applicants have agreed to discuss and pursue the potential for a viable lodging project on the subject properties but can only do so with assurance that the vested rights associated with the 2003 townhomes approval(Ordinance No. 32, Series of 2003) will in no way be in peril, and that the currently pending amendment application can remain active. A similar arrangement to that requested herein was approved by the Aspen City Council pursuant to Resolution No. 96 (Series of 2009), whereby the Council approved an extension of the vested rights granted by Ordinance No. 32-2003 for the SAS applicants to pursue a lodge development proposal through the COWOP process. Under the current request, the applicant desires an extension of the townhomes project vested rights for the sole purpose of enabling the review of an alternative development plan on the subject properties vis-à-vis lodging and/or fractional ownership uses. At the time the "Lodge" land use application is either approved, not approved, or is withdrawn, the vested rights associated with the "townhomes project" approved pursuant to Ordinance 32, Series of 2003, would remain valid for twenty-four(24) additional months from the effective date of such action. If the "Lodge" land use application is not formally withdrawn, a six (6) month period of inactivity, as determined by the Community Development Director, would constitute a withdrawal of the application. These are the same general terms by with the Council granted to 2009 extension for pursuit of the Lodge COWOP process. It is respectfully requested that you please schedule a City Council hearing for review of the requests described hereinabove. Should you have any questions or desire additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. - Very truly yours, Haas Land Planning,LLC Mitch Haas Owner/Manager MEMORANDUM 11\ TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planning Technician THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Notice of P&Z approval of Conceptual Commercial Design: 601 E Hyman Ave, P&Z Resolution #13, Series of 2012 MEETING DATE: July 23rd, 2012 BACKGROUND: On July 3, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) approved Conceptual Commercial Design Review for a project at 601 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. This property is located on the southeast corner of Hunter St. and Hyman Ave. The applicant is proposing a full demolition of the existing two-story building and its replacement with a three- story mixed-use building. The project meets all underlying dimensional requirements. The project decreases the amount of on-site public amenity space from 13% of the site to 6% of the site. The applicant proposes to provide cash-in-lieu payment for the remaining 7% of public amenity space. The building 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 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 4:2. 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 is not a public hearing and no staff or applicant presentation will be made at the July 23rd Council meeting. If you have any questions about the project, please contact the staff planner, Sara Nadolny. 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 (by August 7`h) For this application, City Council may vote to Call Up the project at their July 23, 2012 meeting. 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 Growth Management and Final Commercial Design Reviews. 1 ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Approved Plans Exhibit B: P&Z Resolution 13, Series 2012 Exhibit C: P&Z draft minutes Exhibit D: Land Use Code Section 26.412.040(B) 2 CA CU bA _« - • .• I--1 •i W mow. . - f. i. __ T -€ 'F t 0 1111 t Ur s -� • ...IF . - Z I Z m � O O =id ; r O O -J TIFARIMIOgnirrIPIr7"...111111Wir ..s. w w • : mot. a MI ® i - AGM 1111 INN All s�j ' --i u TI CI) r Q Ill O 2 a a a e r h .„ . Z Y Ifs' k Z O O • Z tt re* Owl •I■1 .C?..09 Cn/ /— .0-S .cr.m .a..• - •• r41 1 ...". •„.• ,..0 •,..• 1 w•iiii 1 Nn AlHatelOild _..... ........ , i) \---1-."1-,v7.1 i, - , c7 ,.., <I) , /-7 111111.1111111 1 1 _111 ;I 1. ca I ---- I -1.7n111101111 11 N 4 - 1 i g d Ezi, 1 ; i(1> --v-----) 1 i 1 1 1 1 0 0 N...... RI -km1 i,...„- ...... `1 --- I ; ; i I I 11 iI "F 4.---.\. SC.• E / 11 cr ■---, I I [ y III ) b,47111 1,------ c\ ; I I 1 i 6__.._.....,.... I I I I' / '°"/ ,.... Ite'l 1 S 0 . 444414f,"'..411144-I'll,.c;,T 1'1,cc. __.• Mai - 1 , ... I■1-4, r--- I 1 i 1111111111111111L,T__7_ r-gs 0 IDIlona. liaison 1111 NM" ; 1 ID 111481-11-11 MM.. ii =Mt ■ i 1 I propi IIII nall SW ■ " "LN2.--\ , 1 1 IMENNE MMINE 11 8 . 1 ". ,1— H -a S....- . in r 1 .. O ........„,_ 3Nn AJkladOkld '............ 101...... I- 1 ,‘,.............. .. I 1) o c ( NWM301S i'l • p frN1', , 1,14-m, 1 ,L...,j,v ; - k„,,k,cei4 ■ -- . ....,10 ■ 0 maaativ--6, C) C O •111110 '4.81 .o-sc / CV x o-,vz ,. o-.0 0.1.i 1 .o-..V., r .0-.LL. W.* $ e C 2 oW o 0 illmi CD I C4 I �•• 1 4.11 I 1 •I*: I W ; I I O u= 6 I r O w OQ v d W ..j a U Od t. 3N11 AJX3dO21d 1 131N fOV 0 I ` `JOl 7Jtl I `; W ■ III 4 '` 1 O ■ NLL{q I 1 1 C) l'. I 1 x I ■ r ............. CC Ig i 1 � I 1 N 1 A I _ 3NI1 AL113dO1id I I I De e i I. I I llI I II ; I r GI w =1 1 E"I = -)r 1 /- / Cis) Z / ../.0.4Z / •1.0 AY,GI 4-A4 .0-ZS •imi Cid .f 1 iJ 4_ PI:Ili :scIf P.* ■•• 2 .- 0 g 1 irn CU 1 14 i L"rtii ;NO g 0 w R 4 *1 •• 71.4 i 1 , ■."--1'\1'771 I I I I 1 , 1 s■L_1 I •-•,-.I 7 •-• •gel , , 1 I ZTJ g ci 1 .1 1 P.14 I I ---, ,_.„---- \-- 1 31.4n Ali1341Ohld_ I 1 T-----(\_\ - _ _ _ 1 ._ .--...., _. L ,--H--- 1 - Li II I .7,;47:11 . \ - •• _ I . , 1 •":4 7;:. '.. i 4 I , I ■—,i I 0 \ I - I 111 1111 , I Hi 1 1 0 OM 1 MEM 1 , 1 ., Pi 1 1 H H --- 1 1 1 1 0 II 1 1 1 Mini 111111E1 _ 1 1 itiir moll .._ 1 1 11 II mummin iiiiim----, 111111_ MI ., •writs — la . immagalmolls ■ I 1 1 .-'■-•---'''''':----- g I I I 1 . ,---------'-7,--' 5 E , i:1 NM 1 I 1 / I / § , , 1 1 _ i__7,__ _i_. L________. avn AUf3d021d 0018 IN3Vera• I ( / I 4 H H c, 8 g 0 •- +. tt CU worn w g i•l V CZ CI W4 In .- 1 W4 .o-se x ....._ / .0-.9L f .o-.l,l i R.<L T A,e1. _ .7ZI b d_ eb d " ds - ' o ow our. I 1 e C1 Y ss 5 W I" , ,1 1 1 t< til 1 1 . 3N11 ALL3Kkid 1 W m r11- , , j i , 1 j 1 a' , -I 1 _ , i ‹. <t>b l 1 1 � o m 2 WF 1 <w _.a 1 Q O \ V 1 / / . 3Nn A1213dOlid / 7O'291N37YfOtl I d I O I Rj 28 g O •- tt 1. .0-SC I Q .o-sa Clue / o-.0 'f .o-,« 0.c4 o-z� „ . W q„. e ° ' oW o� o� o� CU I 04 ''I O *I i V) •• r, ° F 1 s m� ill I 1 1 , I .6 arvn uaadoad 1 ome L IOVIVIv W N A ' \ , t I 1 1 1 1 1 , 4 O I . m L F ° U I 1 C) H I , 4 / / ' / 3NrIAliEldOliel --- r—/ / _ 1 q i G Q O e. 4 1 8 a a 88 1 yt N P. E)thi 10It RESOLUTION NO. 13 (SERIES OF 2012) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN FOR VICTORIAN SQUARE CONDOMINIUMS, COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 601 E. HYMAN AVE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2737-182-250-31, 2737-182-250-28, 2737-182-250-30, 2737-182-258-01, 2737-182-250-27, 2737-182-250-32, 2737-182-250-33, 2737-182-250-29 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Victorian Square, LLC (Applicant), represented by Stan Clauson of Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of a Conceptual Commercial Design for Mixed Use development at Victorian Square; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.412 of the Land Use Code, commercial design review approval may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on June 19, 2012, and a continued public hearing on July 3rd, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and recommended approval of the conceptual commercial design with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, WHEREAS, Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval shall only grant the applicant the ability to submit a Final Design Review application and the proposed development is further subject to GMQS Allotment and Subdivision pursuant to the Municipal Code. WHEREAS, the Commission finds that the development review standards for Conceptual Commercial Design Review have been met, as long as certain conditions are implemented. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Conceptual Commercial Design Review, pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, for the Victorian Square building, subject to the conditions listed in Section 1 below. Section 1: The approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The Final Commercial Design Review application shall reflect and demonstrate compliance with the findings of the Commission. 2. The Final Commercial Design Review application shall include: a. An application for Final Commercial Design Review and the proposed development is further subject to Final Commercial Design Review, GMQS Allotment, and Page 1 of 4 Subdivision. A pre-application conference with a member of the Community Development Department is required prior to submitting an application. b. Delineation of all dimensional provisions of the development. c. A proposed subdivision plat. 3. Approval of the Conceptual Commercial Design does not preclude meeting other requirements of the Municipal Code, such as Engineering and Parks standards. Drawings illustrating the Conceptual Commercial Design Review are attached as exhibits to this Resolution. Section 2: Public Amenity Space The approved public amenity space shall comprise a total of 13% of the total parcel. Proposed by the Applicant thus far is to provide 272 sf (6%) of the total requirement on-site, and to provide cash-in-lieu payment for the the remaining 323 sf(7%). Prior to Final Design Review, the Applicant will further examine and study the public amenity space with the objective of increasing the on-site amount. Section 3: Building The final design shall meet adopted building codes and requirements if and when a building permit is submitted. Section 4: Engineering The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21, Title 28 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. A construction management plan must be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. A completed drainage report/plan as outlined in the Urban Runoff Management Plan shall be submitted and approved prior to Building Permit issuance. This major project is subject to the fee in lieu requirement of Section 2.12.140 of the Aspen Municipal Code. Section 5: Parks Landscaping in the public right-of-way will be subject to landscaping in the right-of-way requirement, Chapter 21.20, of the Municipal Code. There shall be no plantings within the City right-of-way which are not approved by the City Parks and Engineering departments. Per Municipal Code 13.20, an approved tree permit will be required prior to any tree removal or development within the drip line of the tree. All tree permits must be approved prior to approval of building permits. Parks will approve the final landscape plan during the review of the tree removal permit based on landscape estimates. Section 6: 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). Page 2 of 4 Section 7: Public Works 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 8: Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. Section 9: Environmental Health The state of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regard to asbestos. Additionally, code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include: a prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements, noise abatement and pool designs. Section 10: Engineering 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 11: School Lands Dedication Before the Applicant is issued a Building Permit, the Applicant shall pay a fee-in-lieu of land dedication pursuant to Chapter 26.620, School Lands Dedication. The amount of the fee shall be calculated by the Community Development Department using the calculation method and fee schedule in effect at the time the applicant submits a Building Permit. Section 12: Impact Fees Before the Applicant is issued a Building Permit, the Applicant shall pay a Parks Development fee and a TDM/Air Quality fee pursuant to Chapter 26.610,Impact Fees. The amount of the fees shall be calculated by the Community Development Department using the calculation method and fee schedule in effect at the time the Applicant submits a Building Permit. Section 13: 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 14: 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. Page 3 of 4 APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting on July 3, 2012. LJ Erspamer, Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: Deb Quinn,Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Attachment: Exhibit A—Site Plan Exhibit B—Elevations Page 4 of 4 al ..0 �Ni J,1}J3d42id ,_. ......, �, �eiee,►,��► � �,�`>'4i'ie1'ti"iii'0 i'''i is ` '90'1∎i1 i`∎loo . -W `4e 4ti e�' +►' rPis','r ',' �►�i`i i is �% � i`��►i'. — ��►oke 4►ANA,. '1,108SSN NVIAMI"SrS�WI Ails 5 a � �, :.r�� � ►i.�► O --tea [ ,),„4 ,,,,\,\ ��` 111 w -��1 c., _iii I ,.?", illp .4 1 iHHH11hIIi 0<) 41.11 t...;ii. 10 i 6 AIL \> , ;1` ` C� ` °g i 1 -slit Ill L I\ 131 ..."..."),(.....),..\/ -,-,-.1,,L.„10.4 _ R 4 ' Z 0 - f� ,,,e' , i t .1i0 5 �' I;,c'; 4 qi.go i X, 4"ir )-. i 4. , i ,, . , . 1 " WI 1;:eeeeS .ire e* 1 +I��i►IIIi► Via. 11 ►IelVAISI V4:0) i1 4e14f% ee V � `C +�, , posAfriv►l` +► a 0 9 K4t$4.# I IiII eeee ee 4 IIIIIf! It, I eeF e Xw rri�lI I MIS , t•%;. r, A # ICI --' 11111111111111 MINI MIIIIII .,.."\,, ts r4*..4. '�� �' ,--'"' 111111111111 MIN sksiblooks *V poop IIIIIMIII MOM ,. --.1 tf)�,� +', +'0, ,, _ s %441AVVIt *V Y in ��ij `Ieleledvie♦# �"w N— 01044/W444- Sig!SS la d3 SS I! 0'41 *. / ;►• vove i‘1 ,':"; <,;. '` i t'' vivii �►3 .ir' o 044 .6.1 ..e Sat a a S SSIVA. : ` S`AWSa' :i±► ►1*WS'S 1 A1tliel0Hd '''' <I 44 1\4,, ' 'I.. 1-VIL.,,,, ] ,, tor,k, r i1,,,,,,„s,;,J...{.-,4,,-..T 111 rt,.. 1 04 A 0 r il 4ir A IlI, ,0l 41i l 1•1 IiL P lk z1 iEs - xwmaaie Awn. ” 11111Y a r—i I0 . ,.... . 4—' g f t g f i ct f -1-4 •,-.I r•O ,___,C) •1-1 ..r..1 4.1 (I) t 1 0 c9 1 (..) a) E rz4 , i , ' , 1 i 1# 1 1 1 i wr . , Val kilGeldlist ..*...--... ..-.....---.........---- •-..----------.-....- --.-.-- .-.-- -.."—.1\ t,,„,,,, I \ i \ i _ \ \ ' 1 , 1 \ 11 ;04 ° i 1 4-----".. IC) I 1 , I ,1 1 I , 1 1 I ' 4 1 •I t I i 1 , 1 / 1 1 _ _ 1 , / 1 _ ,,..-- _71 :,. ----- --,,,- / ' ' L., I i ' 1 //T, 1 1 / 1 i , 1------11 / 1 I 7,44,.... II i 1 I <I> / / I I 1 ii / i>1 7 / / / / / ..,, / , / / i ,' 1 / / i / / / .., ,..„, , ti / 1 / / '' 001E1 ihr3OVIIIV 3N11,41/9340kid / / / I ' i i / 6 1 W I d ig lb 1 , i ig lot,. 61 a 1 d i t e X t.,. Z i.- a I 1 6 w N 1 p .arse / / / / �+.. g . 4 0,i1 6 ti ..o-ti. ot1 W it V ,f o CU 1 o .4..1 • CA 1 cri I I 8 . i • , 4 Dale 11433501'0%, •*:.• — — --I\t.:.-- ...,. ', —— ——————— • I\ '. \: • i i , ' :' \\ ; . • H; : • I i. i• . . • 1 I ' i' r H E, sr• 0 �: , 3hN1Aid W I I I x 'a I 1 1 1 E)‘Jaibif C 1 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 5th 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: 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 31'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 1" and 2"d 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 3`d floor; it meets all of the design guidelines but there final design guidelines that talk about maintaining the statue of the 151 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 3`d 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 ana 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 b uilding 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 3`d 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. LT 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 1 S' 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; Li Erspamer, 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. II 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: 601 E Hyman Ave Conceptual Commercial Design LJ Erspamer opened the hearing for 601 East Hyman. Debbie Quinn asked the applicant concerning the posting of notice was for 15 days prior to the public hearing and it was signed on the 27th day of May and has it been posted as noted in the notice. Stan Clauson stated yes it has been. 7 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes June 19, 2012 Sara Nadolny stated the purpose of this review was a commercial design review and looking at the location and building on the property, the mass and scale of the building and public amenity space but not the overall finish, materials or appearance. This property is also known as the Victorian Square Condominium - Building located on the southwest corner of South Hunter Street and East Hyman Avenue. The existing building is 6292 square feet with 5487 square feet of net leasable space; there is currently 595 square feet of public amenity space. The applicant is proposing demolition and replacement of this building with an 8630 square foot mixed use building. There will still be 5487 square feet of net leasable and retail on the ground floor and second floor commercial and third floor residential space. The proposal includes a primary entrance on East Hyman and the ground floor retail space entrances are on both East Hyman and South Hunter. There is no alley access for this property. There is currently no off street parking and the C-1 Zone District does not require off street parking for the residential unit. The applicant is proposing a couple of methods to meet the public amenity space requirement. The code requires 25% of the parcel to be designated as a public amenity, but allows for any deficit to be maintained in the case of redevelopment. The property currently designates 13% of the parcel'as public amenity. This 13% is proposed to be maintained by an on-site amenity of 146 square feet or 3.2%, and the remaining 449 square feet or 9.8% to be provided via cash-in-lieu payment. The public amenity spaces are open to the sky and the applicant is proposing a piece of art in the area; staff does not support the proposed combination of the public amenity because it does not meet the intent of the public amenity space which is to create open space for the public. Sara said there was a 6 foot setback for the building placement and meets the sidewalk on the Hunter Street side and is parallel to the lot lines with a primary entrance to Hyman Avenue. Staff recommends the building be moved to meet the east Hyman Avenue sidewalk. Sara said there were a couple concerns with the trash/recycling area and the transformer and according to the land use code that transformer does need to have a screen or fence and there was a fear of lack of capacity for trash and recycling for all 3 floors of this building. Sara said the height, mass and scale of the building as measured to the top of the parapet was at 35 feet which is under the 36 foot cap. Variation is achieved between buildings as the neighboring Muse building has been approved at 38 feet. The applicant was requesting 40 feet on the Hyman side for the ornamental glass and this will be further discussed at final design review. Sara asked the 8 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes June 19, 2012 • Commission to consider the requests for the Commercial'Design Review to relocate the public amenity space of the Hunter street facade; to bring the Hyman Avenue side of the building to the sidewalk edge; to reduce the massing of the building created by the second and third story elements; to bring the ground floor retail space on Hyman out from under the recessed canopy area and revisit the size and access of the trash/recycle area. Bert asked about the recycling/trash area. Sara said Environmental Health had concerns with the amount space for trash/recycle area with the amount of trash that would be generated. Sara said the access could be a problem with pick up in pulling those out. Bert said he wanted to know what tools P&Z had to solve that problem. Jennifer Phelan said that they didn't however if the applicant is interested in having the building operate in a manner that works they might want to look at the trash and recycling solution with the Environmental Health Department. LJ asked if the applicant could put trash compactors internally in the project. Stan Clauson introduced Sarah Broughton, John Rowland, architects and Patrick Rawley with Stan Clauson Associates. Stan Clauson utilized power point to show the subject property and the redevelopment of the East Hyman block and across Hunter the Aspen Core and redevelopment of the Benton Building. Stan Clauson said that they held a neighborhood outreach program as part of the land use code and invited neighbors and interested parties and a full mailing. The comments were exciting, like the texture, increase in mass,variation and creative. Stan Clauson said the current building does not have ADA access, relatively ' cramped space and the public amenity space is behind a fence. There would be net leasable on the first floor, 2900 square feet on the second floor and one free market unit on the 3I'd floor of 2,000 square feet net livable. The lot is 4500 square feet and the allowable floor area is 8630 square feet. They have provided street trees and are working with the Parks Department. Sarah Broughton, Architect, said the vision of the clients was to have an iconic building and wanted a landmark building. Sarah said there used to be a lot of color in the historic neighborhoods and wanted to possible add some color to this building while still maintaining a modern façade and speak to the entrance to the arts district. • Stan Clauson said when it comes to the trash/recycling area that it was important to note that the alley is not accessible to this building and therefore there are unusual constraints. The trash/recycling and mechanical need to remain in the same place 9 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes June 19, 2012 as it currently is located. Stan Clauson said that they looked very carefully from the staff memo on page 5 regarding the access to sunlight; nowhere in the design guidelines does it say access to sunlight year round is desired. Stan read the street facing amenities from 1.7 of the design guidelines and they have met that criteria. Stan Clauson said when a building façade is 60 feet there should be modular sections to the building and they have provided that. Stan Clauson said 26.575.020 talks about exterior surface treatments and it is a final design element. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to extend the meeting until 7:30 seconded by Ryan Walterscheid; Approved 4-2 (Bert and Keith no). Stan Clauson said this was the city of Aspen sketch up model and Patrick rotated around to looking around the corner. Sarah said this would be taken in the middle of the street on Hyman looking East and they are dealing with 2 facades in the urban location. Stan Clauson said the setback on the building compliments the setback that occurs on the Muse Building. Keith asked if there was a space between the Muse Building and the current building. Sarah replied that was access to the stairs to the building. Jim asked the current glass color. Sarah replied that they were playing with that right now and will bring it back at final; they love the idea of color and light that reflects through it. Stan Gibbs asked to see how the 3rd floor aligns with the Muse Building; the 3rd floor is setback. Sarah said they thought it was important for the 2nd and 3rd story to read as one to reinforce that module. Stan Gibbs said if the 3rd floor was pushed back a little it wouldn't be so overpowering. Sarah said that we had strong guidelines in the City and as few opportunities there are to build downtown we are at risk of everything looking the same so we as a community have to know where is the right place to have background buildings. Keith asked the height of the 1 S` floor inside dimension. Sarah replied it was 10 feet 4 inches. Sarah said that this space was not big enough to have a restaurant and they will talk to Environmental Health. Keith left at 7:15. Ryan said it appears that the trash egress from the second and third levels passes through the first level and questioned whether there would be egress from the main area through that area, as it currently appears there is not. Ryan questioned how a door could be provided in the current.configuration as a door cannot swing out into the right-of-way and noted some discrepancy regarding a door in that area between ` 10 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes June 19, 2012 that area plans and the floor plan. Ryan asked if there would be a door between the second and third levels to keep people from accessing the third level residential deck. Sarah said they didn't include a door at this time. Ryan asked to consider the doors on the trash area. Sarah replied that it would be a door that went up. Ryan asked about the basement level storage area and how it would be accessed and that falls into your net leasable and how it was calculated. Stan Clauson said the code says building storage is not part of the leased space and they would look at in detail at final. Bert asked if the fenced in area was considered public amenity and this currently was fenced in. Jennifer replied the characteristics were open to the sky. Bert said when open space turned to public amenity was open to the sky. Bert wanted to have the concerns stated in the P&Z Resolution. Bert agreed with the recess on the 3rd floor. Stan asked is Parks involved. Jennifer said this would be reviewed with Parks. LJ opened the public comments section of the hearing. There were no public comments. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to continue this public hearing on 601 E Hyman to July 3.d seconded by Stan Gibbs. All in favor 5-0. Bert will not be at the July 3rd meeting. Bert supported staff comments on the open space. Adjourned at 7:35 pm. ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 11 L Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes July 3, 2012 Comments Minuets 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 601 East Hyman - Conceptual 2 2 1 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes July 3, 2012 LJ Erspamer opened the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30. Commissioners present were Ryan Walterscheid, Jim DeFrancia, Keith Goode, Cliff Weiss, Stan Gibbs, and LJ Erspamer. Bert Myrin and Jasmine Tygre were not in attendance. Staff in attendance were Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Phelan and Sara Nadolny, Community Development; and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments LJ Erspamer stated that Jennifer did a good job on the update. LJ asked to see the year of the Aspen Area Community Plan documents when they are referring to it. Jennifer Phelan said the next meeting was July 17t" and at the following meeting on August 7th the county was trying to schedule a "West of Castle Creek" meeting with City Council, Board of County Commissioners, County P&Z and City P&Z to meet at 4 pm for the update. Jennifer said that then the regular City P&Z Meeting would begin at 5pm. MOTION: Ryan Walterscheid moved to approve the minutes from June 19`h with his corrections seconded by Jim DeFrancia. All in favor APPROVED. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest None stated. Continued Public Hearing: 601 East Hyman — Conceptual Commercial Design Review LJ Erspamer opened the continued public hearing. Sara Nadolny stated that she emailed Exhibits A, B & H to be included in the record and the applicant provided a new Exhibit I. Sara Nadolny introduced Sarah Broughton and Stan Clauson. Sara said this was a 4,500 square foot parcel located on the corner of Hunter and Hyman; the applicant was planning a full demolition and replacement of the building. There was 6% public amenity and the remainder provided by cash-in-lieu. Sara said the Commercial Design Review included the placement of the building, height, massing and placement of the public amenity space. Sara said at the last public hearing a number of topics were raised like the trash/recycling area, the removal of the spruce trees, amenity space and the building space and massing. After the applicant met with Environmental Health and proposed an increased space for the trash/recycle area that will house four 96 2 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes July 3, 2012 gallon containers, 2 yard cardboard recycling container and a wider opening. The trash area is now separated from the exit stairs by an overhead door. Sara said the applicant has contacted the Parks Department regarding the tree removal and discuss the street trees; Parks response is Exhibit F and is in favor of the street trees. Sara said the applicant was preparing an increase from 144 square feet to 272 square feet public amenity space with the walkway increased by 5 feet, street trees, public art and benches on the site. Staff does question the quality of public amenity space and refer to the design guidelines to be a gathering space with solar access and maintenance of a well defined street edge. The stair tower is now setback 4 feet and increased the public amenity space. Sara asked if the public amenity spaces on Hyman Avenue have a potential for more negative effects on retail. Sara said the staff has concerns using the 2nd and 3rd stories elements over projected over the 1st story and showed (power point) of that overhang which was lessened to 5 feet from 6 feet. Sara asked if this overhang will create a dark recessed space and potentially hurt the success of a retail space on the first floor. Staff is seeing this as 3 modules (Exhibit H); staff recommends a study of the stair tower height and location for greater balance for the massing. Jim DeFrancia asked why staff thought the canopy overhang was an impediment to successful retail. Sara replied that it removes the retail from the existing sidewalk and people have to choose to walk into the space. LJ said there were so many iconic buildings in Aspen and asked if there were any iconic buildings located right next door to those iconic buildings or in other words does an iconic building stand alone in town. Jennifer said there were buildings that stand alone but the context is important for these buildings to relate. Stan Gibbs does not show the façade as was proposed. Stan Clauson replied that they were asked to provide some drawings without the ornamentation so that the planning commission and staff have a better understanding of the underlying nature of the building. Jennifer said the ornamentation is at final design and material; those snow pillows will exceed the underlying height unless it is granted a variation. 3 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes July 3, 2012 Cliff Weiss asked about the dimensions of the public amenity space and asked where is the 13% public amenity space on the existing building. Sara Nadolny said the public amenity space was 13% and it was the applicant's duty to keep that 13% however they are responding to that in the new proposal was to have 6% on site and the rest cash-in-lieu. Cliff asked what is that in square footage. Sara replied 272. Stan Clauson stated that they have made some changes based on comments and this has resulted in some minor changes in square footages; the 3rd floor residential unit has a net livable area of 1947 square feet. Stan Clauson said this was a project that was in conformance with the land use code and with the historic district guidelines with commercial design approval with the proposed max height at 36 feet and is specifically exempt as ornamentation such as the pillows. Stan Clauson said the proposed height overall is 8,798 which is considerably less that the code allowed on this 4500 square foot lot. Sarah Broughton thanked the commission for their comments; this is a unique situation with no alley access and 2 street sides. Sarah said it was appropriate to have the 2' and 3`d stories not stepped back. Sarah said successful retail sidewalks start at 10 feet and is a code that they have studied and feel to create a great retail experience we need to step back the sidewalks. Sarah said the differences on the first floor were an increase in the transformer area, created a screen and open to the sky; a generous trash area that can accommodate retail and the rest of the retail; it is separated from the egress door from the stair and an opening. Stan Clauson said the public amenity is the walking area around the sidewalks as a linear amenity. Sarah said that they get solar access around the corner by pushing it back 5 feet from the property line. Stan Clauson said there were 4 objectives from the historic design guidelines that might be applicable: 1. having the wider sidewalk on Hyman strengthens the sense of relatedness to Hunter; 2. maintain a retail orientation and we were not losing retail orientation by the minimal setback; 3. promote a contemporary design and 4. encourage a defined street wall. Stan Clauson said that they met with Ashley Cantrell in Environmental Health regarding the trash/recycling area and that was how they came up with this design. Stan Clauson said that they removed the wing wall and feel it is a good design. Stan Clauson said some design changes were transits above the windows and increased orientation toward Hunter Street. Sarah said they have brought in French doors in the retail and are working with the retail to make sure that it is successful to pedestrians walking by. Stan Clauson said they have provided seating next to 4 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes July 3, 2012 the Muse building and looking at a green wall which will come back to you at final and is doable in our climate. Stan Clauson showed the Hunter Street elevation with the 4 foot overhang and showed other retail with overhangs. Stan Clauson introduced Ron Garfield as the builder of the property. Ron said first he wanted to thank P&Z for the time tonight; Sara and Jennifer have given good information that they have taken to heart and made some changes. Ron said the building they were in right now is a failure as an office building and retail; the building was built in 1975 and there were 2 art galleries and a bakery in the space that is now occupied by Joshua Real Estate. Ron said the 2nd floor was separated into a number of small office spaces and as they took more and more of the building and the building was originally designed to house a number of small spaces. Ron said that he and Andy had their law firm and were also developers and wanted to create retail space on the first floor of the new development. Ron said the challenge was the constraint of the site and when the buildings that are going up the town will look different and they are trying to make a statement with the glass design. Ron said they were clear with their team for no variances and there is a finite limit on what they can do on this site. Cliff asked how wide the public amenity space was on Hunter and Hyman. Stan Clauson replied 18 inches with a curved planter on Hunter and it is 5 feet on Hyman except where it goes under the canopy. Cliff asked if there was rooftop access above the 3rd floor. Sarah replied no. Cliff asked about the glass. Sarah replied that would be addressed at final. Cliff said that you show retail but could it be a restaurant. Stan Clauson said the code allows for a restaurant but it hasn't been designed for it. Stan Gibbs said the amenity space was only to the end of the bench. Stan Clauson replied it has an open quality but they did not count it as amenity space. LJ asked where the standard 10 feet sidewalk space. Sarah replied that a new urbanism has been around for 15 to 20 years and prior to that in the 1960s a Berkley Professor started the new urbanization scale in sidewalks that will encourage retail. LJ asked if there was an airlock with the French doors for winter. Sarah said they haven't gotten into that so far. Stan Gibbs said the dimension of the canopy coverage was 4 feet deep by how long. Sarah replied 35 feet. No public comments. 5 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes July 3, 2012 Commissioner Comments: Jim DeFrancia said there were no variances requested, the FAR was less than allowed and the staff had trouble with the public amenity space and noted that this was a constraint site. Jim said the 5 foot setback didn't have an impact on retail, personally. Jim said it was an attractive building and was satisfied with the turn out. Ryan personally liked the changes made to the building; the corner was well addressed by wrapping the storefront around the corner. Ryan said that he didn't have a problem with the massing and it is broken down; by pushing the trees out to the curb line you will put people closer to your building and will be more successful. Ryan said the next time P&Z sees this and we discuss materials you may be able to break up your modular more; by final how will you break up that storage in the basement. Keith liked the changes in the trash area and the setback for the stairwell; it flows with the block. Keith said that his concern was the overhang with water runoff. Cliff said he had no trouble tearing down what is there and putting something attractive in its place but was concerned about tying this block to downtown. Cliff asked about the one view but didn't like the piece of art. Cliff said the size, mass and scale he had no trouble with and he would like to see something a little more active than another gallery. LJ said that he liked Mr. Garfield's comments about the old building. LJ said that he was not a huge fan of modern contemporary but your comments were good. LJ said that he would like to see more public amenity space but was proud of the 10 foot sidewalk. LJ liked the canopy because it protects you from the elements but with cars parked in front and a canopy limits your view of retail spaces. LJ said he was not a fan of bringing street wall up to the sidewalk and likes that there was a setback. LJ said that he won't be supporting this because in his opinion he doesn't think that modern character reflects a small mountain town. Stan Gibbs said in general it was a good application and have done an admiral job of staying within the limits of development; in general he like the modularity but he doesn't favor the mass of that façade and overhang. Stan said he likes the building better without the glass because it goes to the mass of that overhang. Stan said the public amenity space even with the 4 feet that is taken out by overextending the building, if you take that 4 feet out you gain 144 feet of public amenity space and you reduce the apparent mass of the building. Stan wanted to 6 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes July 3, 2012 see more amenity space even though it is not sitting space but it is open to the sky. Stan Gibbs said that he probably won't support this project and would like more thought given to making the building flush. Sarah said that with the bump out she felt that it looks to the pedestrian experience. Sarah stated the materials would be looked at final and wants to make something that is long lasting and one of the ideas was to bring back some color to town. Stan Clauson said they would look at the final design issues and any dripping from runoff and they feel this will add to the vitality to what is there. Cliff said that he could support the canopy and the glass was different and Aspen could use a change, so it was fine with him. Cliff asked why we were losing 7% amenity space was it truly more than just flow. Stan Clauson replied from an FAR standpoint they are giving up quite a bit of that FAR in the overall building. Stan Clauson said the allowable floor area on this site is 11,250 and proposed is about 8800 so there is about 2500 square feet in unused floor area; they need to look to the viability of building and the 2nd and 3rd floor projection does add interest. LJ asked Debbie Quinn if there was a tie vote there is no action and what happens then; these people can't apply for a year. Debbie Quinn quoted from Section 26.212.050 application actions required remain pending with a tie vote means they had a motion not to consider action and because action is required on a vote. Debbie said you could either continue after a 3 to 3 action vote or you could come back and reschedule. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution #13, series of 2012 for Commercial Design Review for 601 East Hyman with the addition of the language further study and review of the public amenity space with the objective of increasing it before final; Ryan Walterscheid seconded. Roll call vote: Stan Gibbs, no; Keith Goode, yes; Ryan Walterscheid, yes;Jim DeFrancia, yes; LJ Erspamer, no; Cliff Weiss, yes. APPROVED 4-2. Discussion prior to vote: LJ asked if the resolution in the packet would be the resolution used. Sara replied yes although public amenity space has not been completed. LJ read from page 4 of the staff memo regarding the public amenity space. Stan Gibbs said if there were an amendment to the motion then the person who made the motion agreed to it then it would be included in the motion but if they don't agree then it can't be included and we just have to vote on it to get any amendment to the resolution. LJ said the person who made the motion and the 7 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes July 3, 2012 person who seconded it have to approve the amendment through that motion. Debbie Quinn said before it is voted on. Cliff said because of the loss of the 7% of public amenity if this were at final he would vote this down because it is critical for the amenity space. Jim DeFrancia suggested the language further study and review of the public amenity space with the objective of increasing it before final. Adjourned at 6:15. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 8 Exhibit D: 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. MEMORANDUM 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 23, 2012 UPDATE: This memo responds to questions raised during the July 9th Council meeting. The free-market residential unit is being developed at the maximum size. No commercial space is being converted to residential space and no additional space is expected to be converted in the future unless zoning regulations become more flexible. Regarding the existing trees, the plans maintain the existing structure and add a third floor. This is highly preferable given the proximity and size of these trees. The applicant has engaged a professional arborist to monitor the health of the trees and to work with Parks and Engineering Departments on final landscape and sidewalk plans for the final review. Finally, it does appear that the P&Z did discuss the massing of the proposal shown on the "view towards northeast" rendering. This massing was preferred over other iterations that had a greater presence along Hyman Avenue. BACKGROUND: (UNCHANGED FROM JULY 9TH MEMO) 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 9th 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 0303533 11X911103 013131111X9111403 911001011 311913 0311113113X10 ill 00 3301X310 MY1 NON1103 31)1111131 131111 T1 SDAIIN11/0 3N0) 731 5113111011 6 3N0)30 1010311334 N3111111 30114 3111 1OO13■ 03140)10 030 31 ON 10111010311 IIO 30 1114 ON 711 31)313101!1 3103 30 11131014 3311 0 111311I000 3333 NO 13111110)113111 191030 ON)N0111N103NI 3111 T1'11)33110111 3103 010)O 11011)31110100!IMAM 10111310131*3X01100034010 09.4310 333331 01 3391311)313 103 31111 111 13 0115)04031 30 111111 ION 3 031111311)3X0) W m m: nm 0 "m Z �� W OOYNOIO)'N3dStl'30N3Atl NYWAH 1333 Z09 $ c `V c O = ry z d =1005 13a0W311 NVWAH 1 S V 3 Z 0 9 ; = says es- el 'IN N SI 1 e a<g ° fil ', -1097 401 t „. .,. ,. , ,, , , i . , ' 11 1 4 1 r: A .y . ,n1r•13F _ ll I . • 43.: IJ q PI 31 Ir 1 it l` 11 ,,„ 1 ,• / /} • ,4 a 4,t I • I'� ` y11i '06 1. i I VIII 1 I. BI I I, _ O Z ir H 1I� -I F w W A; = i ( W I T W W s , _ r W jj _t Rio: A' W ON r 11 Q +� z ,44. 5 , _ II e e . . ,,. i, --■-- ........ .., --... ti....\ OOA'1303N SUM 711 013131(0 147(140)7X0001701 5107114 0300031 N3M0 P(ONO INOOO1Y]O 14Hl N010101111 NIHO31 71X0 RI 0/131110/11 MOO Jul 001(0111 Y 3NO](0 NM01ONO]1131.1111/1101111 3X1 1001(1114 001400 NO 0350 ON(NN NO11HWNOONI 0101(G ONNA ON 771 01411X]141 Y ONOO 00 WN10N](HI 0 10301000 001 NO 03X1(110)IN01141 N0010 ON(N011YONOONI 3111 711 YU011H]YY Y ONOO 0100 0 XOI1Y01O(W(N]LL014 110011 111001(1 YpO J11Ji Y0 070101'10]0301 01110111110 ANN NO]MU(N(IV 311IONOAOOY NO 11111110N 01 01131(010 H 0N00 W o"f tv OOtlN010J'N3dSY'30N3Atl NYWAH 1Stl3 109 ,:, i I Z �� ��a�8 V = ass Q CCD o = m 13a0W3 � NVWAH 1SV3 ZO9 _ � M I, W N = O d V~f V Q �° n O0 IIICC N a a<# M Mil ''•4 - 01 4 7 0 0 . 8 Z ' 1 �, • \. • ■ "a • 1- i t 1tI W N a U J Z W ■ ^tr.� ' l er' i LL IY W LL O H U ZLA W 0 CO Z K Q 0. ill 2 ai Q Z O w a W �_ ~ 11-Z F' CD W H ZO Z0 LU Il WO Na U U r-z _ o a0 U • =W O= O~ 11JUO O S tl] Z 1-D W CI LU al ZZ0 co a.0Um J Q W H Q 2 EtLU Illibi • 1 _ < i I I- W , 4 •.t k Et . - /IA ' o i Q O H 1 4/` _p' . ' > CD MBA 01■910 110'010'11101 110911440)01100010111119111 0001301 131110 10 000 1101111015 MYI 004710)11Y X1113111'0)311 11311100100 Y 3000 111 1131U■)1Y Y 3000 10 1101000130 X31111010114 Nil N01011100 011403 00 0 N 311010 1101.1111101111 UR 10 1104 00 111 Sll3111010 Y 31101 40 11134014 101 11 10100)00 0111 MO 01010100)103101 1111)10 or 11011010101111 3111 Ill 1111110)00 Y 3003 ZI OZ O 104100001U00 X3011100 1101 10001100 10110911)345 30 190/01170 113111 01 11914110 104 101 NU 100 110 1101)X04130 00 310111 110 U 013111X)10 0 3001 m a 2 in W cm N_ _ „� �� W 'Dann)'N1dSY'31IN3AV NYNAH 1103 M9 =d m° 1300W311 NVWAH 1SV3 Z09 a .-d � o ' . s= el* W M � od6, W N d =• CD C Q d 0 a a<§ !I ■ „�1 Y , 00 1 - - fil lr- a w m �1 orz m0 p '.kL1 T'`. Q I-O Z Z Lli f: Zlai W 0 1n Z w Q CL • ill CC 0% r <Z 0 0 0 Z CL H 7 O W F H { ' , d a' Z ` W O o r i.• oxm �� Zr 0 C` 1 f. / .J,a, Q . `l Il l 9 ,yam' S•+M1 +1 r_, ^.1 • 4 II:8,.-,,, ‘ r- I w,.1111 _ F- ' W Ill. A, . ,,,,, , w Ce y } QUO j J CL co •- . g N .,10,4 LL n : f +. 1. Q Q CL I I- J Q Q . I 1'1::i • I— 2 cc a sit ,. 1 O - 1F w j O 03013003 5X01113'013130 1393040)0330110111 1131.101 0 0333031 0300 1111 003 10101.111013 0330 30330)171 313131 01311070 103410100 3 3307 711 11)11)003 3 3110)0 110134111134 331101/A IOW 331 N01111M 03030)30 0130 31 1011 X0 0 0 04 0111 SINI 10 1134 ON 70 51)3000)I 3 301 30/11340%.111111111111M 133 NO 0331)1110)133130 30030 030 1000310331 311<111 133111010 0 3X01 0)03 O 11X13!1101110111111303 00114 100103 510031U1{w 2111111111111011 01 00 30X)103 101 330 133 13 00071104)33 30 310311 103 SI 110311033 0 3301 W a o� N N v °i 0038010'N3d5V'3HN3AV NVWAH 1093 Z09 q _ _ o▪ �� =gym° 1340W3 � NYWAH ISd3 Z09 ' = 1 11- �adl CD IIICIC a N a a< 1 , 1 , O Z 00 t 1 1 wr 1 LEI + CO 0z 4 t 11.1 Q H a � CL LL1 IX H0 Z LI_ W p CA Z W Q • Z • 1h 11.1 Z CL a P oo ¢z (1) Q Z O w aZ H Z0 0) 0 I— O u O cc w O go <o a0 CC 0 w O= O~ LI o O ■Wk.. 4 2 1—D 1 Ilf � N ' 111 W H Y I Z Z UO CL Q O II J r : 4 Ct . s i'l' r� W 4 . j 1. } J li i:1 Q a CO —J • y P U) U 0 I 0 w 0 ift 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: 2 737-182-12-003 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 of 3 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 Page 2 of 3 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 requirements 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 Page 3 of 3 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 5th 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: .,' 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 tern; 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 2"d 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: 604 E Hyman A e.,Conceptual Commercial Design vv,, , LJ Ers er opened�tthe,hearing for 601‘'East Hyman. Debbie. Quinn asked the p applicant c cerning the ng of notice was,for 15 days prior to the public - hearing and it'w4s signed on tli 77th day of May a has it been pos'sed as noted in the notice. Stan Fuson stated_yes has been. , 7 Exhibit D: 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. MEMORANDUM XC■ TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner ` , ► " RE: Notice of HPC approval of Conceptual Commercial Design and Conceptual Major Development: 534 E. Cooper Street, aka Boogie's, HPC Resolution #16, Series of 2012 MEETING DATE: July 23, 2012 BACKGROUND: On July 11, 2012, the Historic Preservation Commission Commission (HPC) approved Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Conceptual Major Development Review for a project at 534 E. Cooper Street (aka Boogie's). Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Conceptual Major Development address the mass, scale and placement of a proposed building, compatibility of the building within the Commercial Core Historic District and provides the applicant with direction for moving forward with their proposal. The applicant is proposing to add a third floor free market residential unit and to expand the second floor restaurant space. The building currently contains commercial and an affordable housing unit. The project meets underlying dimensional requirements. The addition of an elevator along Hunter Street to meet ADA requirements reduces the onsite public amenity from 10% to 8%. The project is approved to provide off-site public amenity for the remaining 2%. The third floor is approved to be 38 ft. in height which meets the 38 — 42 ft. height limit in the Commercial Core. HPC denied the request to increase the height to 42 ft. for portions of the third floor and denied the proposed chimney located behind the existing atrium. Planning staff recommended in favor of the design review with conditions, and the HPC approved the design by a vote of 4:0. A copy of the HPC 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 23rd Council meeting. If you have any questions about the project, please contact the staff planner, Sara Adams, 429-2778 or sara.adams @ci.aspen.co.us. 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 23, 2012 meeting. 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 HPC 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 and Final Major Development Reviews. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Approved Plans Exhibit B: HPC Resolution 16, Series 2012 Exhibit C: HPC draft minutes t ti � "5 ° SoR ! N � s O8 8� w U C Q O •m y Q V O Ti O N Z g "0 w~Z � 415- U A fig S J U Nip: g'LL J w I 1 = ; a N Q 0• J . 0) -14-g-. ' Alai MIME kNi111.11111111111n , 7.= cci C Z�%�INNE=II CD O ca . ., .. . . ., 114-41- i ..::.,J,, ,f,..,,, ,,1 .:, Li j 5t h` n L`9 s -___\.. t - — 1111M11.11 1 g; P 1 0°. - 11 I N 3 o c m orn _a o c c o °u Q O C N a v 8 0 c ° m H N E 13 MI L t > z_ O z N z a • w . I r 4 ~ _ U d' „ . • V N N ". O d cs' E OQ o 3 o• o o -0 o L3 m y �u o R o y a a O• O 2 O)c c 0 d Q- w H 3 N 3 O `p o E Q d m`C m e �• G c0 3 O V ZG z 0 m. O J N Z ID 0 f ° a. d J w 1 1 , U H illith 11111I Q ■■ `o gmCpl o am -� l tr 0) +d � m me 0 - 1111 ME MI MIME ...,) C.) 4111116 II 11.01 O — 0 III S = I r �1 m8 /®pC-�� �-ry -• C▪ OO 00. E E ' ® tlYUi nr=a.�;n ■ G!_-1 I, o t2 2 ..s\ r 0.912E11111111111011 1 //11.®®Ile I L I I it Z• R■ C $ O O G 3 O j W 1 E o o t o cD. N z z 8• 3 3 g 3 w U Q o N o p d+ f m m w C Ti. U w U U 2O O t ,B t > > H O F. d I PL O < r ° -0 O <w w `O '. C O -I- 9. N z F 0) C o▪ 0, I U o T 1 1 0) U H }m v) Q •X Q> E g is U ' a . 6 O 3 c a I I 0 O 3 0 �O o 0 . 0) a o m g O i C c I a E , 5 c o I -0 o — U H I D y0 > I z z m N a) 0) O , i , r 41�IN,Fi p1-11P?�I+t D1 ia;.,.,p , i O 11 I I� ,, #4, I , r�! i 1 4 •, ,; 1 1 flfl 1 I. ..._ "loll , , , ,. , a I.J..*.! I, S S I, I i II J, 0X111 1 bI4 1 i hi' I ' I I d II J _ gam III • I.•;; 4 el 1 ,1 Ittm — �I -- 1 o II i li w I t .o�L. f! f I,O U O E- E. V 1 c t O O g O 0 O O c 1 u 0) o E v c 3 c ° Ne o 3 a) E • ° z k' �w - I E _ o o c w' z z c I--Z c m z g Z a v c O C 'a V3 . 1 H O • — . -. • . , . , >-. = - . C) i1.10 Alley oi --I •1 —g, 8 . . 1 , • /-i ' 1 V. 1 1 1 ... . -:' -5 0 • I I \LI\ 1, cn •' < 0 0 C ■,,'.. .- _ Co c,.. .-, a 1 c , D c 6- , 0 -„,..---. 0 FD 11411ker‘ i". -,- ;j,:-':•.--;:.''''.: . D --,,5-=•;:=-j' GO 0 0 • (0 I "" -..:3- 1,•-•-._ CD cf) .• '•••,,N.i. ' oci . ••-•-2.:4-Tz., C ,.,..:-:::-•:-.., -_=:. . ":-.=.:;=•,1--- — D (C2 > "0 0 n _.. ,,., . - ..: ,-- i F r-- ..T 0 n • ,,,,l- . = , , _ . r -4 ). D-- .... ---, a cr, —4- - East Cooper Avenue • . 7 in •-• 41.10...... -: , • —-- i 0 ■ , . 1. ' I , , . 13 • A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) AND CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 534 EAST COOPER STREET, LOTS R, S AND EASTERLY 2 1/2 FEET OF LOT Q, BLOCK 95, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION #16, SERIES OF 2012 PARCEL ID: 2737-182-24-008. WHEREAS, the applicant, Boogie's Building of Aspen, LLC, represented by Kim Weil of Poss Architecture + Planning, has requested HPC Major Development (Conceptual) and Commercial Design Review (Conceptual) approval for the property located at 534 Cooper Street, Lots R and S, and the Easterly 2 1/2 feet of Lot Q, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the Commercial Core Historic District; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070, Development involving designated historic property, of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3, Development involving designated historic property- Certificate of appropriateness for major development, of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Commercial Design Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented as a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines per Section 26.412.040.A.2, Commercial Design Standards Review Procedure, of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report to Historic Preservation Commission dated July 11, 2011, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards are met with conditions; and 534 E. Cooper Street (Boogie's) HPC Resolution#16, Series of 2012 Page 1 of 2 WHEREAS, during the duly noticed public hearing on July 11, 2012, the applicant provided the Historic Preservation Commission with proof of completion of the neighborhood outreach requirement of Section 26.304.035.C.3 and Section 26.304.035.F, Neighborhood Outreach, of the Aspen Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on July 11, 2012, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and recommended approval with conditions by a vote of four to zero (4—0). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants HPC Major Development (Conceptual), Commercial Design Standard Review (Conceptual) approval for the property located at 534 East Cooper Street, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 1. Chimney is not approved. 2. Restudy materials on elevator shaft to reduce perceived mass and height for review at Final Review. 3. The 42 ft. height increase is not approved. 4. Public amenity approved to be 8% onsite and 2% off-site public improvements to the right of way subject to review and approval by the Parks Department, Engineering Department and Community Development Department. 5. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within eighteen (18) months of July 11, 2012, the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 11th day of July, 2012. Ann Mullins, Chairman Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 534 E. Cooper Street (Boogie's) HPC Resolution #16, Series of 2012 Page 2 of 2 C r ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 11, 2012 534 E. Cooper Ave. — Boogies— Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design Review— Public Hearing Sara said the application is a request for conceptual major development and also conceptual commercial design review. The building is in the commercial core district and on the corner of Hunter and Cooper Streets. The proposal is to add a third floor and bump out a portion of the second floor where the temporary awning is located to make a larger restaurant space. Staff is supportive of the proposed setback and they meet guidelines 6.28 and 6.29. An elevator shaft is proposed along Hunter Street. There is an existing elevator but there is no way to enlarge it. Placing the elevator along Hunter does eat into their public amenity. They are required to have 10% of their site be public amenity and by adding the elevator and a little lobby to enter into the elevator it reduces that about 2%. They will have 8% on-site and 2% off with improvements to the right-of-way and they will work with the Parks and Engineering Departments. A fire place chimney is also being proposed which is directly behind the atrium. By adding the third floor they will have to cut into the existing atrium about half and they are proposing a chimney that would come up right behind the atrium. They have lowered the chimney to the minimum height that they can have. Staff is still concerned about what the chimney does to the overall height and mass of the building and it draws attention to the third floor. Staff is recommending that the chimney be removed from the proposal. Staff is supportive of the second floor expansion and it helps the building get closer to our current design guidelines by bringing the second floor forward a little bit. That is what you would typically see downtown in a commercial building. Height: The height limit is 38 feet and you can increase it to 42 feet with commercial design review. The majority of the third floor is proposed at 38 feet and there is a bump up that goes up to 42 feet. There are specific guidelines 6.27 that need to be complied with in order to go to 42 feet. Staff finds that the additional height criteria are not met. The 2%off site public amenity needs approval by the Parks and Engineering Dept. and the Community Development Department. The applicant will need to go to P&Z for growth management review because they are adding a free market residential unit. It will also go to city council for a subdivision review and then back to HPC for final where HPC will deal with fenestration etc. HPC is allowed to grant a six month extension and the applicant is request 18 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 11, 2012 months due to the lengthy approval process. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. Jay disclosed that his wife rents an office at 520 Cooper which is within 300 feet. There is no financial interest. Jane asked for clarification of equipment on the roof. Sara said equipment does not count in the height as long as it is allowed within the allowances. You are allowed to have mechanical up to five feet over the roof and it does not count toward your height. Sallie also said she is concerned about the mechanical. Sara indicated that HPC can request information about the mechanical at final. Sara said Bill Poss designed the building originally. Kim Weil, Poss Architecture Bill Poss Andy Wisnosky Kim said the bulk of the building is remaining as is. The elevator, lobby and stairway are within the existing footprint. The elevator will provide access to the restaurant and continues up to the apartment. The second level has new commercial space which replaces the tent. The free market is 2,000 square feet. We can keep the elevator shaft to 40 feet and the chimney is at 44 feet. The existing affordable housing will have new windows. The architecture is brick and we didn't want to add more brick. We wanted to lighten it up all the way around and the materials are metal and glass. Along Hunter St. there are a lot of one story brick buildings and we chose to go with metal as opposed to brick. Bill said this is a transitional building on the corner and we go from tall buildings on Cooper which are three and four stories and transition around on South Hunter to one and two story buildings. The metal allows us to make a quieter building. The building gets lighter as it gets higher. Kim said there are a lot of three stories along Cooper Ave. Exhibit I —Public Notice Exhibit II —Elk's letter 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 11, 2012 Ann asked about the elevator location. Andy said the proposed elevator is accessing the apartment, the restaurant and the ADU. It is also required by the ADA. Patrick asked how far out the trellis or sun shade comes. Kim said 13 feet. Sara said that is an architectural feature that we will deal with at final. Kim said on the elevator there are many codes and you need clearance which is about 40 feet. The building is not on the east property line, it is about 2 1/2 feet inside the property line and we have about 3 1/2 feet that we want to use for protection into the lobby. We don't want people standing in the rain. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the agenda item was closed. Ann identified the issues: Scale and mass Elevator shaft Fire place chimney Second floor expansion Height Public amenity Trash/utility recycling area 6 month extension Jay said the atrium is successful and the building feels like a triangle. I cannot support the chimney because it brings so much attention to the center of the building. The elevator on Hunter Street has the proper access and maybe it can be softened up a little with materials. I have no issue with the 2% amenity. If you lose the chimney I can support the 42 feet section. On the mechanical we will need to see that at final and hopefully some of it can be hidden elsewhere. Patrick recused himself. Sallie said she understands why the fireplace is where it is and the applicant has lowered it. The mechanical is a big issue for me and possibly a parapet wall could hide it. We need a limit on where the mechanical should be located. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 11, 2012 Jane said she has no problem with the chimney or the elevator shaft. The elevator shaft is a great amenity for that building and now people will be able to get in. The color palate on the chimney and elevator shaft should be looked at because they stand out a little too much. Ann said putting a third story set back works well with the building. The new elevator shaft wall needs a little more street presence. The roof scape seems messy already and you don't have any mechanicals drawn out yet. I don't support the chimney unless there is a good justification for it. On the height guideline 6.27 I don't see a good reason having the 42 foot height. 38 feet is per code and the public amenity is good. Extending the 6 month approval is also acceptable. Kim said they will look at other material options for the elevator shaft and they can work out everything. Regarding the mechanicals some of it can move to the basement. The restaurant exhaust will be on the roof and we will discuss how it should be screened. On the third floor it was decided that we needed something other than brick to make it lighter. MOTION: Ann made the motion to approve resolution #16 for 534 E. Cooper with the following conditions: 1. Chimney is not approved 2. Restudy the materials on the elevator shaft to reduce perceived mass and height 3. The 42 ft. height increase is not approved 4. Public amenity approved to be 8% onsite and 2% off-site 5. A development application for final shall be submitted 18 months from today's approval. Motion second by Jay. Roll call vote: Jay, yes; Sallie, yes; Jane, yes Ann, yes. Motion carried 4-0. MOTION: Ann moved to adjourn; second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 0-rte 7