Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20130114 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA January 14, 2013 5:00 PM I. ANNUAL MEETING - Aspen Public Facilities II. Call to Order III. Roll Call IV. Scheduled Public Appearances V. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes) VI. Special Orders of the Day a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments b) Agenda Deletions and Additions c) City Manager's Comments d) Board Reports VII. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion) a) Resolution #4, 2013, Tourism Promotion Fund Agreement b) Board Appointments c) Resolution #6, 2013 - Contract Snow Louver Improvements at ARC d) Resolution #1, Series of 2013 - Designating Location for Posting Public Meeting Notices e) Resolution #7, 2013 - Annexation of South Portion of Lot 1, Moses Lot Split f) Resolution #8, 2013 - Burlingame Ph II Vertical Construction Contract Haselden g) Resolution #9, 2013 - Burlingame Ph 2 Owner's Agent Project Management Contract h) Temporary Outdoor Lighting - 300 E. Hyman i) Minutes - December 3, 10, 2012 VIII. First Reading of Ordinances a) Ordinance #1, 2013 - Approval Fee in Lieu Methodology IX. Public Hearings a) Resolution #5, 2013 - Temporary Use- AT&T Cell Tower b) Resolution #3, 2013 - Temporary Use - Above the Salt Airlock c) Resolution #2, 2013 - Temporary Use - Nugget Gallery d) Ordinance #23, 2012 - AspenModern Negotiation for Landmark Designation of 610 E. Hyman Avenue e) Ordinance #25, 2012 - Code Amendment: CC and C1 Zone Districts X. Action Items a) 223 East Hallam Ave. - Notice of Call up for Partial Demolition and MInor Development for a landmark The City dAspen City AtmrneY's Office MEMORANDUM FROM: JAMES R. TRUE DATE: January 14,2013 RE: Term Limits The question has been raised as to whether a council member facing term limits could run for mayor or the mayor facing term limits could run for council. In a memo in 1998, John Worcester briefly addressed this issue. His memo mainly focused on how these Constitutional provisions, adopted in 1994, affected individual members of Council serving at the time. Without any analysis, he simply concluded that A member of Council may run for Mayor, or the Mayor may run for a seat on the Council. Those are not "consecutive" years of service in a particular office. Thus, at the end of two consecutive terms as a member of Council, that person may legally be elected to the Office of Mayor. Since there has been little discussion of this issue while I have been with the City, I thought it would be prudent to do a more thorough analysis of the issue. The Aspen City Charter does not contain term limits. Term limits for all non judicial elected offices, including those within a home rule municipality, are set forth in art. XVIII, §11 of the State's Constitution. Specifically, that section states: (1) In order to broaden the opportunities for public service and to assure that elected officials of governments are responsive to the citizens of those governments, no nonjudicial elected official of any county, city and county, city, town, school district, service authority, or any other political subdivision of the State of Colorado, no member of the state board of education, and no elected member of the governing board of a state institution of higher education shall serve more than two consecutive terms in office, except that with respect to terms of office which are two years or shorter in duration, no such elected official shall serve more than three consecutive terms in office. This limitation on the number of terms shall apply to terms of office beginning on or after January 1, 1995. For Confidential Attorney-Client Communication-Page 1 purposes of this Section 11, terms are considered consecutive unless they are at least four years apart. (2) The voters of any such political subdivision may lengthen, shorten or eliminate the limitations on terms of office imposed by this Section 11. The voters of the state may lengthen, shorten, or eliminate the limitations on terms of office for the state board of education or the governing board of a state institution of higher education imposed by this Section 11. (3) The provisions of this Section 11 shall apply to every home rule county, home rule city and county, home rule city and home rule town, notwithstanding any provision of Article XX, or Sections 16 and 17 of Article XIV, of the Colorado Constitution. The fundamental question in this evaluation is whether the office of Mayor and the office of a Council Member in the City of Aspen are considered the same offices. Under this constitutional provision and the City of Aspen's Charter, the offices are separate and distinct. Thus, a council member can run for mayor and a mayor can run for council, even though he or she was term limited in the existing position, without the four year separation set forth in the this Const. art. XVIII, §II(a). Our charter clearly delineates the two offices. Three provisions address the delineation and state as follows: Section 3.1. The council. The City shall be governed by a council of four (4) councilmen and a mayor. All councilmen and mayor shall be nominated and elected at large from the entire City. (Ord. No. 46-1980, § 1) Section 3.2 Terms of office for members of Council. The terms of office for members of Council shall be for four (4) years. ... Section 3.3 Mayor. The mayor shall be elected at large for the entire city for a term of two (2) years. Section 3.1 collectively refers to the five individuals as the "Council" and that is generally the term used to refer to the governing body. Nonetheless, the language of all the three sections indicates that the positions of council member and mayor are separate and distinct offices. Also, throughout the Charter and Code, the Mayor is referred to as and considered a member of Council. However, the Charter and the Code provide special duties and authority to the Mayor that are not given to the individual council members. Although no Colorado Appellate Court has addressed the issue, following the adoption of this Constitutional provision in 1994, numerous communities addressed the question. A comparison of one such community's code provisions and the interpretation of those provisions are helpful in considering the issue. Specifically, the City of Longmont addressed the issue in a formal opinion issued in 2001. The City of Longmont, which has a code provision that is less clear than Aspen's, followed a City and County of Denver decision and concluded that a term limited official in one position could run for the other position. Longmont's code states: The elective officers shall be seven Councilmen, one to be elected from each of the three wards, three to be elected from the City at large, and one to be elected from the City at large as Mayor. Longmont's Mayor serves a two year term, while the council members serve four year terms. However, Longmont's inclusion of the Mayor as one of seven councilmen is less distinct than that set forth in Aspen's Charter set forth above. Thus, Longmont focused on the separate duties of the Mayor. Longmont, like Aspen, gives separate duties, responsibilities and powers to its Mayor. Such specific duties and powers provided in both jurisdictions include: • Presiding over the City Council; • Being recognized head of the City government for all ceremonial and legal purposes; • Convening, at his or her sole request, special City Council meetings; and • Authenticating ordinances. Council members do not exercise these special powers and duties. Although the Mayor's duties encompass those of a City Council member, including the right to vote on issues before the council, the Council members do not share the duties of Mayor. Although our Charter provisions are different, Longmont concluded, as I have, that the offices are separate and distinct. Longmont is not the only City or entity to address the issue. The City and County of Denver made the same determination. In addition, in 1997 the Colorado Municipal League issued opinions set forth in printed document titled: "Term Limits — A Guide for Colorado Officials." This was updated in 2001. The Colorado Municipal League concluded: Changing office is a common practice in local government. Most often it occurs at the municipal level when an incumbent councilmember or trustee decides to run for mayor. Because term limitation applies to "consecutive" years of service in a particular office, a person may serve three two-year terms as trustee, three two- year terms a [sic] mayor, then three two-year terms as trustee again, and so forth. Although CML was addressing equal terms of office of Mayor and Council members to reach its conclusion, the argument is stronger when the term lengths of the two offices are different. It should be noted that Basalt recently faced this issue and its attorney concluded that the mayor could not run for the Town Council after his term limit as Mayor. The language of their Charter is important to consider to understand the distinction in our evaluations. The Basalt Charter states: "There shall be a Council consisting of six Councilors and one Mayor, who shall act as and be considered as a full member of the Council. ..." This is clearly different than Aspen's charter language set forth above. In addition, the Councilors and the Mayor of Basalt all have four year terms. Because the Basalt Charter also provides additional powers and duties to the Mayor, similar to those set forth above for Aspen's Mayor, Basalt may have been able to assert that the Mayor had a distinct term limit and could have made the transition to Council. However, given the Charter language set forth above and given the fact that all of Basalt's Council including the Mayor have four year terms, their conclusion is supportable and actually emphasizes the distinct intent of the City of Aspen's Charter. Finally, the Constitutional provision itself fairly clearly states that offices with different terms must be considered separate and distinct offices. A position with a two year term has a six year limit, while a position with a four year term has an eight year limit. It does not make sense to consider these different term length positions as equivalent. If they were then the two year term limit should also be eight years. Further, the question would have to be raised as to how the different terms would be incorporated if an elected official intended to move from one position to the other. Consider for instance a council member who served one term on council then ran for Mayor. Is he or she limited to one term as Mayor having now served six years or two terms for a total of eight years? The best example of how impossible this incorporation would be is faced by the City in the upcoming election. Councilman Skadron has served six years on Council. Is he precluded from running for Mayor or if not precluded is he limited to one term? Councilmen Johnson and Torre have served four years. Would they be entitled to run for one term as Mayor for a total of six years or two terms as Mayor for a total of eight years? And, Councilman Frisch has served two years. If he were elected would he be entitled to two or three terms as Mayor? The only correct, logical conclusion is that all four councilmen would be entitled to seek three terms as Mayor, if any one were elected this year. In conclusion, after completion of three two-year terms the Mayor of Aspen can run for city council and after completion of two four-year terms a council member can run for Mayor. b) 434 E. Cooper Ave. - Notice of Call Up for Conceptual Commercial Design and Conceptual Major Development for a property within the Historic District XI. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting January 28, 2013 COUNCIL’S ADOPTED GUIDELINES COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. • Stick to top priorities • Involve others in community problem solving • Be thorough, deliberate and accountable for consequences when making decisions MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk DATE: December 27, 2012 RE: Annual Meeting of the Aspen Public Facilities Authority SUMMARY: The articles of incorporation of the Aspen Public Facilities Authority state that the annual meeting shall be held on the second Monday in January. BACKGROUND: The Aspen Public Facilities Authority is a “non-profit corporation and an instrumentality of the City of Aspen for certain limited purposes”. The Board of Directors of the Authority is the members of the City Council, the City Finance Director and the City Clerk. The officers at the last annual meeting were: President Mick Ireland Vice President Derek Johnson Secretary Kathryn Koch Asst. Secretary Steve Skadron Treasurer Don Taylor The By-Laws state the President shall be the Mayor of the City of Aspen. The Vice President and Assistant Secretary shall be members of the City Council and shall hold office so long as he or she remains a member of the City Council of the City of Aspen. The Treasurer shall be the Finance Director of the City of Aspen. The Bylaws of the Authority require that an annual meeting be held on the second Monday of January at 5:00 p.m. at the regular meeting place of the corporation. The Bylaws state the following order of business for regular meetings: 1. Roll call 2. Reading and approval of the minutes of the previous meeting (minutes of January 9, 2012 attached) 3. Bill and Communications 4. Report of President 5. Unfinished business 6. New business 7. Adjournment The Authority was formed to assist in the financing of several public projects over the years. The only outstanding bond issue of the Authority is the 2007 Certificate of P1 I. Participation issue which was used to finance the acquisition and remodeling of the Isis theatre. This borrowing will be fully repaid in 2037. The debt service is funded from the rents received from the building and is also guaranteed by the City. P2 I. Minutes Aspen Public Facilities January 9, 2012 ANNUAL MEETING ASPEN PUBLIC FACILITIES Steve Skadron moved to convene the annual meeting of the Aspen Public Facilities at 5:33 PM; seconded by Torre. All in favor, motion carried. Members present; Mick Ireland, Steve Skadron, Torre, Derek Johnson, Adam Frisch, Kathryn Koch and Don Taylor. Johnson moved to approve the minutes of January 10, 2011; seconded by Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. There was no new business to present to the Aspen Public Facilities Authority. Skadron moved to adjourn at 5:35 PM; seconded by Torre. All in favor, motion carried. P3 I. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM : Randy Ready, Asst. City Manager Don Taylor, Finance and Administrative Services Director James R. True, City Attorney CC: Steve Barwick, City Manager DATE: January 2, 2013 RE: Resolution #4, Series of 2013, Tourism Promotion Fund Agreement with the Aspen Chamber Resort Association SUMMARY: Attached for your approval is a proposed resolution and agreement with the Aspen Chamber Resort Association regarding the City of Aspen Tourism Promotion Fund. The term of this Fifth Amended and Restated Agreement would expire on December 31, 2017. The dates have been changed to correspond to the new five-year term. Other changes include clarification of how the funds will be released based on the annual budget amount, with ACRA responsible for returning to City Council with a supplemental budget request for the use of funds over the budgeted amount PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The original 1.0% Visitor Benefit Tax on the short-term rental of commercial lodging accommodations was approved by Aspen voters in November 2000. Fifty percent (50%) of the proceeds from that tax is dedicated to transportation services and fifty percent (50%) is dedicated to tourism promotion activities as described in Ordinance No. 45, Series 2000, in the Agreement effective February 27, 2001 and in subsequent restated agreements. In November 2010 Aspen voters approved an additional 1% Visitor Benefit and Promotions Tax, 100% of which is dedicated for tourism promotion activities. Therefore, the current total Visitor Benefit and Promotions Tax is 2%. 25% of that total amount is dedicated to transportation services and 75% is dedicated for tourism promotion activities as described in Ordinance 31 of 2010 and in the attached agreement. Debbie Braun and Julia Theisen annually present the ACRA Marketing Plan and Budget for approval by Council during a work session typically in November each year. CURRENT ISSUES: During contract renewal discussions with ACRA staff and City Council at a work session on November 27, 2012 ACRA requested that the term of the agreement be changed to five years, with annual review and approval of the marketing plan and budget to continue. Staff also reported that agreement had been reached with ACRA staff to change the formal method of disbursement of the funds to “a monthly basis pursuant to the approved budget.” As such, any P5 VII.a amount remaining in the fund over the budgeted amount would be available for ACRA’s use with Council approval of a supplemental budget request. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: The City Tourism Promotion Fund is designed to use 100% of annual proceeds, with 75% of the 2% tax on hotel and other lodging operations designated for destination marketing and 25% designated for transit service. The proposed agreement clarifies that all revenues for tourism promotion will be distributed monthly based on the approved budget. Any funds available over the budgeted amount would be distributed to ACRA upon Council approval of a supplemental budget request. In the event that annual revenues fall short of the annual budget, ACRA and City staff will discuss options with City Council and get approval for budget changes and/or any grants or loans from the General Fund in subsequent year(s) to address any budget shortfalls. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Resolution # 4, Series of 2013. P6 VII.a RESOLUTION NO. 4 SERIES OF 2013 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A FIFTH AMENDED AND RESTATED AREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO AND THE ASPEN CHAMBER RESORT ASSOCIATION SETTING FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING MARKETING AND TOURISM PROMOTION SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID DOCUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a Fifth Amended and Restated Agreement between the City of Aspen, Colorado and the Aspen Chamber Resort Association, LLLP, a copy of which document is annexed hereto and made a part thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves a Fifth Amended and Restated Agreement between the City of Aspen, Colorado and the Aspen Chamber Resort Association regarding marketing and tourism promotion services for the City of Aspen, a copy of which document is annexed hereto, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute said document on behalf of the City of Aspen. RESOLVED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 14th day of January, 2013 by the City Council for the City of Aspen, Colorado. __________________________ Michael C. Ireland, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held January 14, 2013. _______________________ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk P7 VII.a Fifth Amended and Restated CITY OF ASPEN AND ACRA TOURISM PROMOTION FUND AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is effective this 1st day of January 2013, by and between the CITY OF ASPEN (the “City”) and the ASPEN CHAMBER RESORT ASSOCIATION (“ACRA”), RECITALS 1. The City and ACRA entered into that certain Agreement dated February 27, 2001, which agreement has been renewed over the years, and the parties hereto desire to again renew said agreement. 2. The City Council has adopted Ordinance No. 45, Series of 2000, which imposes a 1.0% visitor benefits tax on condition that the voters of the City of Aspen approve the aforementioned ballot question at the November 7, 2000 municipal election, which the voters did approve. 3. Ordinance No. 45, Series of 2000, requires the City Council to appropriate 50% of all revenues generated by the original tax for marketing and promotional efforts for the City’s tourism industry. 4. The City Council has adopted Ordinance No. 31, Series of 2010, which imposes an additional 1% visitor benefit and promotion tax on condition that the voters of the City of Aspen approve the aforementioned ballot question at the November 2, 2010 municipal election, which the voters did approve. 5. Ordinance No. 31, Series 2010, requires the City Council to appropriate 100% of all revenues generated by the additional 1% tax for marketing and promotional efforts for the City’s tourism industry. 6. As a result, 25% of all revenues generated by the total 2% visitor benefit and promotion tax shall be used to enable the City to meet its financial obligations to the Roaring Fork Regional Transportation Authority or other similar transportation services provider, and 75% of all revenues generated shall be used for marketing and promotional efforts for the City’s tourism industry. 7. The foregoing taxes are codified at Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 23.50, and are referred to herein as the Visitor Benefit Tax or “funds” or “marketing funds.” The City desires to contract with an organization capable of performing the marketing and promotional efforts contemplated by said ordinance and funded by the Visitor Benefit Tax. 8. The Aspen Chamber Resort Association desires to contract with the City to receive funds appropriated by the City Council for tourism promotion activities and to thereafter perform such tourism promotion activities on behalf of the City of Aspen. AGREEMENT In consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby mutually acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: P8 VII.a 1. Intent of the Parties. The parties to this Agreement agree that the following sets forth their intent in entering into this agreement and the principles set forth below shall help guide all future interpretations of this Agreement and the parties continuing relationship with respect to the expenditure of tourism promotion funds of the City of Aspen. a. The parties acknowledge that the City shall use funds generated by the visitor benefit and promotions tax imposed by Ordinance No. 45, Series of 2000, and Ordinance No. 31, Series 2010, to meet its financial obligations pursuant to this Agreement. Accordingly, the parties acknowledge that the purpose, limitations, and administrative requirements of such funds as set forth in said ordinances shall apply to this Agreement. b. The parties intend to enter into a continuing relationship for the multi-year planning and implementation of tourism promotion activities as set forth herein. 2. Scope of Services and Marketing Program. a. During the City’s annual budget review and adoption procedures, ACRA shall recommend a marketing plan and budget for City Council’s consideration for the forthcoming calendar year. City Council may approve the budget for the marketing plan as it may deem necessary. b. The marketing plan and budget shall include the following: 1. planning and implementing the advertisement, promotion, and development of tourism in the City of Aspen; 2. tourism advertising, written and graphic materials, and cooperative and matching promotional materials; 3. gathering and disseminating information on the tourist industries and attractions of the City of Aspen; 4. purchasing such equipment, materials, and supplies as shall be necessary, to be used solely for tourist promotion; 5. contracting for those services and materials as may be incidental, necessary, and appropriate to the accomplishment of the purposes of the fund, including but not limited to, administrative, secretarial, clerical, or professional services deemed necessary; 6. promoting conferences, conventions, and meetings of a commercial, cultural, educational, or social nature to the City of Aspen; 7. promoting sporting events and social and cultural events sponsored by non-profit organizations; 8. defraying administrative and clerical costs of collecting and administering the tax, provided such expenses do not exceed the actual costs of such administrative and clerical costs. P9 VII.a c. The marketing services shall be primarily for strategies and activities developed since February 27, 2001, and ACRA shall not defray costs of programs existing on that date (such as existing special events and marketing efforts including airport host program, visitor center support, among others) with funds from the Visitor Benefit Tax. Marketing funds may be used to enhance or promote existing tourism promotion programs and special events. d. The general nature and content of advertising paid for by the marketing fund shall follow these guidelines: the purpose of advertising and promotion shall be to enhance the year-round economy and public welfare of the City as a whole; advertising and promotional efforts shall avoid undue emphasis upon any particular commercial activity or enterprise that might be construed to create a competitive disadvantage to other similar commercial enterprises; and there shall be no advertising or promotion that is misleading or deceptive and therefore opposed to the public interest or prejudicial to the interests of the City . e. ACRA shall be solely responsible for planning and implementation of specific details of the marketing program and may include the lodging community in such planning. ACRA shall monitor the program and ensure conformance to its budget. At least 70 per cent of the funds are to be expended on program costs, rather than on support or staff. ACRA shall not use fund proceeds for its existing operational costs, for expenses not directly attributable to the purposes of this Agreement, or for expenses not identified in its annual marketing plan and budget (initial or revised) as approved by the City Council. f. The ACRA and Aspen Lodging Association shall meet at least annually before October 15th of each calendar year to review a tourism promotion plan and budget for the City’s following fiscal year prior to presentation to the City Council. 3. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2017. This agreement may be terminated by either party as set forth as Section 8, below. 4. Reporting and Budgeting. ACRA shall submit a detailed marketing program and expense budget for inclusion in the City’s budgeting packets, along with a review of the previous year’s program. The City Manager shall provide budget recommendations, including an estimate of prospective tax proceeds, general fund contributions, prior year carry-forward balance, and interest income. The marketing fund shall be eliminated from the City’s Grant Panel Review process in that it is its own separate fund. The ACRA is allowed and encouraged to attend and advise the City Council at all such meetings where the marketing program and budget is discussed. During the course of the year, ACRA may submit a revised or supplemental budget to the City Council for their consideration in order to accomplish such additional strategic marketing objectives as they may identify. City Council may approve the revised budget as it may deem necessary, with the understanding that City Council need not approve such a revised budget unless revenues from the Visitor Benefit Tax are available. ACRA shall provide annual reports to the City on the fund and expenditures from it. 5. Accounting. The City shall pay all revenues generated by the Visitor Benefit Tax during the term of this Agreement to ACRA based on an agreed upon schedule on a monthly basis pursuant to the approved budget. ACRA shall be responsible for paying its vendors, suppliers, subcontractors, staff, and the like. ACRA shall maintain the tax fund receipts in a separate and interest-bearing bank account from its general funds. The City may inspect ACRA’s records upon reasonable notice. ACRA shall account for any funds not expended for the purposes set forth in this Agreement. P10 VII.a 6. Repayment to General Fund. The City and ACRA acknowledge that the City’s General Fund shall be repaid from the funds received as follows: $100,000 in 2013 and $100,000 in 2014 in order to complete repayment of $480,000 loaned to the Tourism Promotion Fund in 2009 and 2010. 7. Equal Access. Any and all businesses within the City shall be permitted equal access and opportunity to participate in cooperative advertising efforts and package promotions specifically related to and supported by the use of the marketing funds referenced in this Agreement, whether or not the business is a member of the ACRA or the Aspen Lodging Association. That is, to the maximum extent possible, ACRA shall make a distinction between member service and other existing programs supported by membership dues, and new programs supported by the City and this Agreement, and as to the latter, not discriminate based on membership in the organizations. 8. Termination. Either party may terminate this agreement effective on December 31,of any year covered by the agreement; provided, however, that written notice is delivered to the other party not later than September 30 of the year that termination is to become effective. 9. Other Restrictions and Provisions a. These are intended to be additional funds for marketing, and the intent is that the City will continue its existing funding (for the visitors center, etc.) as a floor, and not lessen those so that the marketing funds from the tax are not absorbed into existing ACRA/City programs. b. The marketing funds shall not be used for city capital projects such as the construction of visitor information centers or other tourist amenities. c. The City Council shall not, without prior consultation with ACRA, change the agent assigned to manage the tourism marketing funds. Nor shall the City change that agent without some sort of cause and explanation, and it shall consult with the ACRA as to any new fund manager. d. ACRA shall not use any of the marketing funds for providing direct reservation services. e. ACRA shall not use fund proceeds to influence the outcome of any election. 10. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, representatives, successors and assigns and to any person into or with which any party hereto may merge, consolidate, or reorganize. 11. Acknowledgements. The parties declared that they have read and understand the terms of this Agreement, that they have had an opportunity to be represented by counsel with regard to the execution of this Agreement, and that they execute this Agreement voluntarily and without being pressured or influenced by any statement or representation made by any person acting on behalf of anyone else. 12. Indemnification. ACRA agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, insurers, from and against all liability, claims and demands on account of injury, loss, or damage, arising out of or in any manner connected with this Agreement, if such injury, loss, or damage is caused in whole or part, or is claimed to be caused in whole or part by, the act, omission, error, mistake, negligence, or other fault of ACRA, employee, representative, or agent. ACRA agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide a defense for and defend against any such liability, claims or demands at the sole expense of ACRA, or at the option of the City, ACRA agree to pay the City or reimburse the City P11 VII.a 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 part by the act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or its employees, the City shall reimburse ACRA for the portion of the judgment attributable to such act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or employees. If any lawsuit challenges the City’s authority to impose the visitor benefits tax, the City shall be primarily responsible for the defense of the suit. 13. No Warranties. Except as expressly set forth in this Agreement, the parties have not made and make no other representations, warranties, statements, promises or agreements to each other. 14. Entire Agreement. The parties agree that this Agreement represents the entire agreement and supersedes all prior agreements between and among them with regard to the subject matter set forth herein, and may not be amended nor may any condition contained herein be waived except by written instrument signed by all parties. 15. Notices. Notices hereunder shall be sent to the City Manager and the City Attorney at 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen CO 81611; to ACRA at Aspen Chamber Resort Association, 425 Rio Grande Place, Aspen CO 81611; and to Oates, Knezevich & Gardenswartz, P.C., 533 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen CO 81611. 16. Counterpart Signatures. This document may be executed in counterpart original copies, with the original signatures on separate pages to be collated together on one original form of the agreement. P12 VII.a CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation Attest: __________________________________ _____________________________ By: Stephen H. Barwick City Clerk ASPEN CHAMBER RESORT ASSOCIATION Attest: ___________________________________ By: Debbie Braun, President _____________________________ Secretary P13 VII.a Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kathryn Koch, THRU: Click here to enter text. DATE OF MEMO: 12/11/2012 MEETING DATE: 1/14/2013 RE: Board Appointments REQUEST OF COUNCIL: By approving the consent calendar, Council is making appointments to city Boards and Commissions PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council interviewed candidates for Housing, Wheeler, Board of Adjustment and Commercial Core and Lodging Commission in November and December. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: There are none. Click here to enter text. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Click here to enter text. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Make the following appointments Open Space Advisory Board Philip Jeffreys Board of Adjustment Kevin Burton P15 VII.b Page 2 of 2 Commercial Core and Lodging Commission Hana Pevny Housing Authority Ron Erickson – City appointee Wheeler Opera House Board Doug Clayton; Christine Benedetti CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: P16 VII.b Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tim Anderson, Recreation THRU: Jeff Woods DATE OF MEMO: 12/28/2012 MEETING DATE: 1/14/2013 RE: ARC Snow Louver Improvements REQUEST OF COUNCIL: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Click here to enter text. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FINANCE REVIEW: Click here to enter text. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Click here to enter text. RECOMMENDED ACTION: P17 VII.c Page 2 of 2 ALTERNATIVES: PROPOSED MOTION: CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Notes: • Please use page numbers on all memos and attachments, especially for work sessions • The memo should be as long as it needs to be – but remember, you’re not writing a novel. Use attachments for more detailed information, ordinances and resolutions, etc. • Attachments: All attachments to the memo should be referenced somewhere in the body of the memo. All attachments should be titled as “Attachment”, “Exhibit” or “Schedule” with a letter following: Attachments: A - Exhibit One - Map ... B - Property Description C - Chart of Costs D - Resolution #97-1 P18 VII.c RESOLUTION #6 (Series of 2013) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND R&H MECHANICAL 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 Snow Louver Work on the ARC, between the City of Aspen and R&H Mechanical, 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 Snow Louver Work on the ARC, between the City of Aspen and R&H Mechanical, 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 14th day of January 2013. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, January 14, 2013. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk P19 VII.c MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Tim Anderson, Recreation Director THRU: Jeff Woods, Manager of Parks & Recreation DATE OF MEMO: January 7th, 2013 MEETING DATE: January 14th, 2013 RE: Aspen Recreation Center Snow Louver Renovation Request of Council: Staff is requesting approval of the attached contract for construction services with R&H mechanical for the purpose of redesigning and constructing a retro-fit to the existing snow louvers and air intake on the mechanical penthouse of the Aspen Recreation Center. Background: The current air intake system and louvers to the ARC heating systems create an uneven intake of air to which the higher velocity sections suck in snow causing ice to form inside the HVAC units and inhibit effective, efficient heating of the Recreation Center. This creates higher maintenance and less efficient energy consumption in the facility. Staff bid a solution provided by an engineering firm and pricing was far outside of the available funding. So staff then began working with the firm who did bid on the project, discussed options, worked with their engineers, tested theories and came up with a solution that achieves efficient and effective operations of our heating systems at the ARC in the winter. Discussion: Staff has had engineers calculate an even distribution of air intake along the mechanical penthouse wall to where sufficient make up air is provided to P21 VII.c the HVAC systems per manufacturer’s recommendations and city code. The even distribution of air will keep the system from sucking in snow creating ice and maintenance issues and inefficient use of energy. Financial/Budget Impacts: Financial impacts are hard to calculate for this improvement, but if ice no longer develops inside the mechanical units the belts, bearings and other moving components will last longer, require less maintenance by staff, and will allow for more energy efficient operating. What the actual budget impacts will be are minor but sufficient to be addressed in the manner this contract allows. Cost of the contract is $34,690. This amount is in the capital budget for the ARC for 2013. Environmental Impacts: Less energy consumption due to ice not forming inside the heating units. Recommended Action: Staff is recommending the approval of this contract for the benefit of more efficient operations and energy consumption in the winter at the ARC. Alternatives: Staff feels viable alternatives have been explored at this time and due to what we feel is excessive costs the alternative we are providing seems to be the only reasonable and affordable solution. Proposed Motion: I move to approve the contract with R&H Mechanical for Snow Louver Improvements to the Aspen Recreation Center for the purpose of more effective and efficient operations. City Manager Comments: P22 VII.c Attachments: “A” contract with R&H Mechanical P23 VII.c P25 VII.c P26 VII.c P27 VII.c P28 VII.c P29 VII.c P30 VII.c P31 VII.c P32 VII.c P33 VII.c P34 VII.c P35 VII.c P36 VII.c P37 VII.c P38 VII.c Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kathryn Koch, THRU: Click here to enter text. DATE OF MEMO: 12/26/2012 MEETING DATE: 1/14/2013 RE: Resolution #1, Series of 2013 - Designating Location for Posting Public Meeting Notices REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Approve Resolution #1, Series of 2013, designating a location for posting of public meeting notices. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council annually adopts a resolution at its first regular meeting in January which designates one location for posting BACKGROUND: Pursuant to 1991 legislative amendments to the Colorado Open Meeting Law as Section 24- 6-402(2)(c) (attached), City Council is to annually designate at its first meeting for each calendar year a public place for the posting of notices for meeting. By properly designating a place for posting meeting notices, a public entity will be deemed to have given full and timely notice of any meeting so long as notice thereof was posted as the designated place at least twenty-four hours in advance thereof. Posting notices as the designated place will also suffice for municipal boards and commissions. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Click here to enter text. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FINANCE REVIEW: Click here to enter text. P39 VII.d Page 2 of 2 Click here to enter text. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends adoption of Resolution #1, Series of 2013. ALTERNATIVES: Council could determine a more suitable location for posting of notices of public meetings. PROPOSED MOTION: CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Resolution #1, Series of 2013 P40 VII.d RESOLUTION #1 Series of 2013 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, DESIGNATING THE PUBLIC PLACE FOR POSTING NOTICES OF PUBLIC MEETINGS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, deems it in the public interest to provide full and timely notice of all its meetings; and WHEREAS, the Colorado state legislature amended the Colorado Open Meetings Laws, Section 24-6-401, et. seq., C.R.S. to require all “local public bodies” subject to the requirements of the law to annually designate at the local public body’s first regular meeting of each calendar year, the place for posting notices of public hearings no less than twenty-four hours prior to the holding of the meeting; and WHEREAS, “local public body” is defined by Section 24-6-402(1)(a) to include “any board, committee, commission, authority, or other advisory, policy-making, rule- making, or formally constituted body of any political subdivision of the state and any public or private entity to which a political subdivision, or an official thereof, has delegated a governmental decision-making function but does not include persons on the administrative staff of local public body”. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1 A public notice of each meeting held by the City Council of the City of Aspen and each meeting of any other board, committee, commission, authority, or other advisory, policy-making, rule-making, or formally constituted body of the City of Aspen, shall be posted by the City Clerk at least twenty-four hours prior to the holding of the meeting in P41 VII.d the enclosed glass case in the lobby of City Hall, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado. Section 2 The City Clerk shall notify each board, committee, commission, authority, or other advisory, policy-making, rule-making, or formally constituted body of the City of Aspen of the contents of this resolution and the other general requirements of the Colorado Open Meeting Law, C.R.S., Section 24-6-401 et. seq. Dated: , 2012 Michael C. Ireland, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held January 14, 2013. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk P42 VII.d Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney THRU: James R. True DATE OF MEMO: 1/8/2013 MEETING DATE: 1/14/2013 RE: Annexation of South Portion of Lot 1, Moses Lot Split REQUEST OF COUNCIL: See attached memo PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Click here to enter text. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FINANCE REVIEW: Click here to enter text. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Click here to enter text. RECOMMENDED ACTION: P43 VII.e Page 2 of 2 ALTERNATIVES: PROPOSED MOTION: CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Notes: • Please use page numbers on all memos and attachments, especially for work sessions • The memo should be as long as it needs to be – but remember, you’re not writing a novel. Use attachments for more detailed information, ordinances and resolutions, etc. • Attachments: All attachments to the memo should be referenced somewhere in the body of the memo. All attachments should be titled as “Attachment”, “Exhibit” or “Schedule” with a letter following: Attachments: A - Exhibit One - Map ... B - Property Description C - Chart of Costs D - Resolution #97-1 P44 VII.e 1 MemorandumMemorandumMemorandumMemorandum TO: Mayor and Members of Council FROM: James R. True, City Attorney and Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney DATE: January 14, 2013 RE: Annexation of South Portion of Lot 1, Moses Lot Split ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ Attached for your consideration is a resolution which, if adopted, would initiate annexation proceedings for the South Portion of Lot 1, Moses Lot Split. The Petitioner, South Alps Road, LLC, filed a new annexation petition with the City Clerk on December 6, 2012. The Moses Lot Split includes two properties, Lots 1 and 2, both owned by Petitioner. Lot 1 currently has split jurisdiction between the City and the County. Annexation would allow the entire parcel to be within the City’s jurisdiction. The Petitioner has a land use application pending. This office and the Engineering Department have determined that the petition substantially complies with the technical requirements for a petition pursuant to state annexation laws. Engineering has requested that the Petitioner submit an annexation map that complies with City standards and requires that the existing trail easement through the property be properly depicted on the Annexation Plat, expanded to twenty feet in width and documented with an easement agreement to provide for the installation, construction, operation, use, inspection, repair and maintenance of a trail suitable for bicyclists, pedestrians, cross country skiers, snowshoers, and for other similar recreational purposes. The Community Development Department supports the petition. According to state law, the next step in the annexation process is for Council to set a date for a hearing, no less than 30 days nor more than 60 days after the effective date of the attached resolution setting the date for the public hearing, to determine if the annexation complies with Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S. Section 31-12-104 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires: (a) That not less than one-sixth of the perimeter of the area to be annexed is contiguous with the annexing municipality. ... and (b) That a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the annexing municipality; that said area is urban or will be urbanized in the near future; P45 VII.e 2 and that said area is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the annexing municipality. ... Section 31-12-105, C.R.S. sets forth certain limitations upon annexations. None of the limitations in the statute appear to prevent this annexation (limitations on dividing land held in identical ownership, commencement of annexation proceedings for annexation to other municipalities, detachment of area from a school district, prohibition against extending city limits beyond three miles in a single year, adoption of a plan for the area to be annexed, and requirement that entire widths of streets be made a part of the annexed area). Nevertheless, a hearing must be held so Council can make those specific findings. The following steps must take place for the parcel to be annexed into the City: (a) A hearing before Council to determine compliance with Sections 31-12-104 and 31- 12-105, C.R.S. as described above. (b) Per Section 31-12-115, C.R.S., underlying zoning needs to be established within ninety (90) days after the effective date of the annexation. Adoption of the attached resolution will cause staff to continue working on the above described steps. Once the steps are completed, two ordinances will eventually be presented to Council, the first to formally annex the area into the City and, the second, within ninety days of the effective date of the first, to give the property its initial zoning in the City. REQUESTED ACTION: A motion to adopt Resolution No. ______, Series of 2013. P46 VII.e 1 RESOLUTION NO. 7 (Series of 2013) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO, RELATIVE TO THE PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE "SOUTH PORTION OF LOT 1, MOSES LOT SPLIT"; FINDING SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 31-12-107(1), C.R.S.; ESTABLISHING A DATE, TIME, AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH SECTIONS 31-12-104 AND 31-12-105, C.R.S.; AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF SAID HEARING; AND AUTHORIZING THE INSTITUTION OF ZONING PROCEDURES FOR LAND IN THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED. WHEREAS, on December 6, 2012, Neil D. Karbank on behalf of South Alps Road, LLC, the owner of the property proposed to be annexed, (“Petitioner”), did file with the City Clerk of the City of Aspen a Petition for Annexation of territory to the City of Aspen, whereby real property described in Exhibit "A" appended to the Petition for Annexation, is being petitioned for annex- ation to the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk of the City of Aspen has referred the aforesaid petition as a communication to the City Council for appropriate action to determine if the petition is substantially in compliance with Section 31-12-107, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, the petition, including accompanying copies of an annexation map, has been reviewed by the City Attorney's Office and the City Engineer and found by them to substantially comply with the requirements set forth in paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (1) of Section 31-12- 107, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner owns one hundred percent (100%) of the affected property and has consented to annexation of its property to the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, Section 31-12-107(1)(g), C.R.S., mandates that the City of Aspen initiate annexation proceedings in accordance with Sections 31-12-108 to 31-12-110, C.R.S., whenever a petition is filed pursuant to subsection (1) of Section 31-12-107, C.R.S. P47 VII.e 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That the Petition for Annexation of territory to the City of Aspen is hereby found and determined to be in substantial compliance with the provisions of subsection (1) of Section 31-12- 107, C.R.S. Section 2 That the City Council hereby determines that it shall hold a public hearing to determine if the proposed annexation complies with Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., and to establish whether or not said area is eligible for annexation pursuant to the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965, as amended; said hearing to be held at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Aspen at 5:00 o'clock p.m. on the 25th day of February, 2013 in Council Chambers at City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado 81611. (A date which is not less than thirty days nor more than sixty days after the effective date of this resolution). Section 3 That the City Clerk shall give public notice as follows: A copy of this resolution shall constitute notice that, on the given date and at the given time and place set by the City Council, the City Council shall hold a hearing upon said resolution of the City of Aspen for the purpose of determining and finding whether the area proposed to be annexed meets the applicable requirements of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., and is considered eligible for annexation. Said notice shall be published once a week for four consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the area proposed to be annexed. The first publication of such notice shall be at least thirty days prior to the date of the hearing. The proof of publication of the resolution shall be returned when the publication is completed, and the certificate of the owner, editor, or manager of the newspaper in P48 VII.e 3 which said notice is published shall be proof thereof. A copy of the resolution and petition as filed, shall also be sent by registered mail by the clerk to the Pitkin County Board of County Commission- ers and to the County Attorney of Pitkin County and to the Aspen School District at least twenty days prior to the date fixed for such hearing. Section 4 That pursuant to Section 31-12-115, C.R.S., the City Manager is hereby directed to initiate appropriate zoning procedures with regard to the territory proposed to be annexed. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 14th day of January, 2013. __________________________ Michael C. Ireland, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated. __________________________ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk P49 VII.e Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager THRU: Barry Crook, Scott Miller DATE OF MEMO: 1/8/2013 MEETING DATE: 1/14/2013 RE: Burlingame Ph II Vertical Construction Contract Haselden Construction REQUEST OF COUNCIL: See attached memo PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: $16,779,287 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FINANCE REVIEW: Click here to enter text. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Click here to enter text. RECOMMENDED ACTION: P51 VII.f Page 2 of 2 ALTERNATIVES: PROPOSED MOTION: CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Notes: • Please use page numbers on all memos and attachments, especially for work sessions • The memo should be as long as it needs to be – but remember, you’re not writing a novel. Use attachments for more detailed information, ordinances and resolutions, etc. • Attachments: All attachments to the memo should be referenced somewhere in the body of the memo. All attachments should be titled as “Attachment”, “Exhibit” or “Schedule” with a letter following: Attachments: A - Exhibit One - Map ... B - Property Description C - Chart of Costs D - Resolution #97-1 P52 VII.f Page 1 of 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager THRU: Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager and Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director DATE OF MEMO: January 7, 2013 MEETING DATE: January 14, 2013 RE: Burlingame Phase II Contract Amendment for Addition of Vertical Construction of Buildings 1 through 4 (48 housing units) REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests approval of attached contract amendment with Haselden Construction with a total GMP contract sum of $16,779,287 to add the vertical construction of Burlingame Phase II buildings # 1, 2, 3 and 4 (48 housing units) along with associated site work per the plans and specifications which define the work. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On November 13, 2012, staff presented information to City Council which stated that 33 of the 48 units in buildings 1 through 4 were reserved. The number of units reserved in buildings 1 through 4 has since increased to 39 of 48 or 81%. At that time, City Council approved the 150 Housing Development Fund Budget in the amount of $17,814,980 for the purpose of construction of Burlingame Phase II buildings # 1, 2, 3 and 4. BACKGROUND: In 2012, extensive access/infrastructure (A/I) site work was completed by Haselden Construction on the Phase II site. Approximately 25% of the A/I scope remains to be completed. The scope of the remaining A/I work will be integrated with scope of the vertical construction of buildings 1 through 4 and the combined scope is scheduled to be completed in time to facilitate delivery of buildings 1 and 2 before the end of 2013 and buildings 3 and 4 shortly thereafter in 2014. DISCUSSION: The Burlingame Phase II construction contract with Haselden Construction that is presented herein as Exhibit #2 and is an amendment to the existing AIA IPD contract that is already in place with Haselden Construction, which is described by the following documents: 1) AIA Document A295 General Conditions of the Contract for Integrated Project Delivery 2) AIA Document A195 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Contractor for Integrated Project Delivery 3) AIA Document A195-2008 Exhibit A Guaranteed Maximum Price Amendment – Civil Infrastructure 4) AIA Document A195-2008 Exhibit C Guaranteed Maximum Price Amendment – 48 Unit Vertical Construction (proposed in this memo) Together, the AIA A295, A195, Exhibit A and Exhibit C contract documents create a comprehensive IPD construction contract for the Guaranteed Maximum Price delivery of Buildings 1 through 4 along with the required site work. P53 VII.f Page 2 of 4 Although the contract is designed as a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) contract, the possibility of necessary changes to the defined work does exist, thus the contract describes a change order process which must be followed in the event that work other than the defined scope of work becomes necessary. Alternatively, there is also a provision in the contract that allows the City of Aspen and Haselden Construction to split any savings on a 50%-50% basis so there is the potential that the total contract amount could be less than the GMP. The attached Exhibit 1 document from owner’s agent, Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB), further describes the benefits of the contract and recommends approval to proceed. The GMP requires notice to proceed (NTP) by February 1, 2013. Upon approval of this contract amendment, staff intends to provide NTP to Haselden on Tuesday, January 15 in order to expedite subcontract and material buyouts. The building permit application has been submitted and is currently under review. Work is scheduled to begin on or before April 1, 2013. Throughout 2012, Haselden Construction worked diligently to provide an open and inclusive communications program to the neighborhood residents at Burlingame Phase I, and this program will be continued. City staff will continue to make sure that a comprehensive level of community outreach be undertaken throughout the process. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The following updated Burlingame Phase II long range estimate was communicated to Council in the November 13, 2012 budget presentation: The revenue projections included unit category reductions per the November 13, 2012 memo. The council-approved budget for 2013 is $17,814,980. The attached GMP contract amendment with Haselden Construction is $16,779,287. Staff will also be requesting to carry-forward 100% of the remaining 2012 construction budget to complete the remaining A/I scope. Thus, actual Burlingame Phase II budgets and expenditures are as follows: P54 VII.f Page 3 of 4 Staff has also budgeted for comprehensive construction oversight, insurance and other work that will be the City’s responsibility as the developer, and commitment to proceed with the attached contract amendment will necessitate subsequent Council approval of contracts such as the following:  Owner controlled insurance policy (OCIP)  Owner’s agent project management services  Architect/engineer construction administration services  Commissioning agent services  Quality assurance/control inspections/observation services  Material testing, inspection, geotechnical engineering services  Condominium plat services These are included in the table of 2013 planned sources/uses below: Owner’s contingency of 3.7% is expected to cover any costs due to changes in the work that may become necessary. Project experience thus far indicates an expected value of approximately 3%. P55 VII.f Page 4 of 4 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of attached contract amendment with Haselden Construction with a total GMP contract sum of $16,779,287.00 to add the vertical construction of Burlingame Phase II buildings # 1, 2, 3 and 4 (48 housing units) along with associated site work per the plans and specifications which define the work. At the November 13, 2012 budget worksession, staff provided the following information: “An alternative to continuing with the proposed plan would be to delay further construction and take the opportunity to re-bid the next phase of the project.” Pros and cons of this alternative were presented, and the alternative action was not pursued by Council. This alternative is noted here for reference only and is not recommended by staff at this time. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Memo/recommendation from Owner’s Agent, Rider Levett Bucknall Exhibit 2: AIA A195-2008 Exhibit C Guaranteed Maximum Price Amendment – 48 Unit Vertical Construction – General Contractor, Haselden Construction P56 VII.f P57 VII.f Page 1 of 2 January 4, 2013 Mr Chris Everson email: chris.everson@ci.aspen.co.us Affordable Housing Project Manager City of Aspen 130 South Galena St Aspen, CO 81611 BURLINGAME RANCH PHASE II 2013 PHASE 2A VERTICAL –BUILDINGS 1 THROUGH 4 – HASELDEN GMP ADDENDUM Dear Chris, The purpose of this letter is to summarize our recommendation regarding the Haselden 2013 Phase 2a GMP. CONTRACT ADDENDUM Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB), Janet Lawler-McDaniel from the legal firm Benjamin, Bain, Howard and Cohen (BBHC) and the City of Aspen have been very active over the past month compiling the A195 GMP Contract Addendum which will form the basis of the 2013 Phase 2a vertical construction work. RLB is privy to many construction contracts and the efforts by BBHC in the earlier phases of the project have provided a sound base contract (which was not altered during recent contract negotiations). We are satisfied that the A195 GMP addendum currently contemplated serves to adequately control the City of Aspen’s risk. Four specific components of this addendum were focused upon with Haselden and BBHC:  Understanding the 2% Bidding and Award Allowance  Mitigating and managing any potential risk of escalation (particularly in lumber which saw a 48% increase over the last 12 months and 29% in the last quarter!)  Having the buildings completed in 2013 to allow sale and occupancy  Agreeing the GMP price and ensuring no cost overlap with the Access/Infrastructure package We note that two critical factors affect the GMP addendum, a/ timely Notice to Proceed to the General Contractor by February 01, 2013 and b/ uplift of the Building Permit to enable a start on site on April 01, 2013. A minor item defining the duration from substantial completion to final completion will need to be resolved as the contract schedule is finalized. P58 VII.f January 04, 2013 Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager BURLINGAME RANCH PHASE II 2012 ACCESS INFRASTRUCTURE PACKAGE –CONTRACT ADDENDUM AND HASELDEN GMP Page 2 of 2 2013 PHASE 2A VERTICAL –BUILDINGS 1 THROUGH 4 – HASELDEN GMP ADDENDUM Phasing of the project has created some complexities with scope, particularly for site work and earthwork. In October, considerable work was also done to reduce the initial GMP cost through value engineering, alternates and targeted savings. The GMP submitted is well compiled, reasonable and sufficient to complete the 2013 Phase 2a work. RLB queried some cost items in the GMP at the time of CoA budget submission, and Haselden felt these were still necessary to be retained within the GMP and order to complete/carry out the work. RLB will be active in tracking expenditure against these line items. We are comfortable with the General Conditions inclusions and value ($1,192,000; 7.1%) and other allowances of 12.4% carried in the total. The larger allowances include the civil scope and the bidding allowance and these will be resolved with the subcontractor re-bid Haselden is planning to carry out until January 28th. As such, we recommend the Haselden GMP is accepted for $16,779,287 and the A195 GMP Contract Addendum is executed. CONCLUSION Overall, the Haselden GMP appears to be well compiled, reasonable and sufficient to complete the 2013 Phase 2a work. Allowances included in the GMP are reasonable and appropriate for the project scope. We are satisfied the GMP covers the scope of the 2013 Phase 2a package and we recommend acceptance of the A195 GMP addendum with the Contract Sum of $16,779,287. We trust this is of assistance. Please contact me for any queries relating to this memo. Sincerely, Rob Taylor Associate Principal, BE, PSP Rider Levett Bucknall Ltd P59 VII.f Page 1 of 10 AIA Document A195-2008 Exhibit C Guaranteed Maximum Price Amendment This Exhibit is incorporated into the Agreement dated the 22nd day of March in the year 2009. for the following PROJECT: Burlingame Ranch Phase II Aspen, Colorado ARTICLE A.1 § A.1.1 PHASE II GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE – 48 UNIT VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION Pursuant to Section 4.2.2 of the Agreement, the Owner and Contractor hereby amend the Agreement to establish a Guaranteed Maximum Price (“GMP”) for Phase II – 48 Unit Vertical Construction of condominium units for sale to private residential owners, Buildings 1 through 4. As agreed by the Owner and Contractor, the Guaranteed Maximum Price is an amount that the Contract Sum shall not exceed. The Contract Sum consists of the Contractor’s Fee plus the Cost of the Work, as that term is defined in Article A.3 of this Amendment. § A.1.1.1 The Contract Sum is guaranteed by the Contractor not to exceed Sixteen Million, Seven Hundred, Seventy- Nine Thousand, Two Hundred and Eighty-Seven Dollars (16,779,287.00), subject to additions and deductions by Change Order as provided in the Contract Documents. This amount includes the deduct of $78,720.00 for overlapping General Conditions between the Civil Infrastructure scope of Work a nd the Vertical Construction scope of Work. The Contractor shall submit a revised Guaranteed Maximum Price Estimate within 14 days of Contract execution to align with this guaranteed Contract Sum which will become Exhibit 1B. The amount by which the sum of the (i) actual Cost of the Work, plus (ii) the Contractor’s Fee, is less than the Guaranteed Maximum Price, defined herein as “Savings”, shall be shared between the Owner and Contractor. The sharing ratio shall be fifty percent (50%) to the Owner and fifty percent (50%) to the Contractor. The Contractor’s portion of the Savings shall be paid at the time of the Final Payment, as provided for in the Agreement. § A.1.1.1.2 Contractor’s Fee: The Contractor's Fee for Work performed after the establishment of the GMP will be 3% of the Cost of the Work. No fee shall be added to expenditure of the Contractors Contingency or the Final Bidding & Award Allowance. § A.1.1.1.3 The Contract Sum identified in Section A.1.1.1 above includes within it an amount for General Conditions of One Million, Two Hundred Sixty-Eight Thousand, Four Hundred Twenty-Seven Dollars ($1,192,000.00), which is $1,268,427 reduced by $76,427 for the overlapping of General Conditions between the Civil Infrastructure and Vertical Construction, subject to additions and deductions by Change Order as provided in the Contract Documents. General Conditions will be billed at actual costs. Contractor must not move Work from General Conditions to subcontract trades or self-performed work without a signed Change Order. § A.1.1.2 ITEMIZED STATEMENT OF THE GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE The Contractor shall provide an Exhibit 1B which will be an itemized statement of the Guaranteed Maximum Price which conforms to the GMP amount in the Agreement, organized by trade categories, allowances, contingencies, General Conditions, the Contractor’s Fee, and other items that comprise the Guaranteed Maximum Price. § A.1.1.3 The Guaranteed Maximum Price is based on the Implementation Documents identified below. The GMP includes all the Work required to complete the Phase II Vertical Construction Work. The Contractor guarantees that the Contract Sum will not exceed the GMP price provided that this GMP Amendment is executed before February 1, 2013 and a Notice to Proceed is issued by February 1, 2013. The Contractor’s GMP includes a Final Bidding & Award Allo wance ($310,000.00) to cover costs with the final subcontractor awards and subcontract execution in accordance with article A.3.4. of this amendment. This allowance P60 VII.f Page 2 of 10 shall also be used to cover added costs, if any, associated with post GMP submission docume ntation reflecting the Accepted Cost Trend log scopes not otherwise reflected. • OZ Architecture - Burlingame Ranch Phase II - Addendum 02 - November 09, 2012 • OZ Architecture - Burlingame Ranch Phase II - Volume 04 drawings - November 09, 2012 Contractor shall provide a detailed log of these awards and provide reconciliation of the allowance within 45 days of the Notice to Proceed. All savings from this allowance shall be returned to the Owner. Any shortfalls in this allowance shall not be cause for an increase in the GMP. § A.1.1.3.1 The Contractor’s GMP includes a 2% Contractor's Contingency for the Contractor’s exclusive use to cover costs defined in this Section A.1.1.3 to cover costs to expedite the schedule for non -excusable delays, and other unanticipated costs which are properly considered reimbursable as a Cost of the Work but do not form the basis for a Change Order as a result of cha nges in the scope of the Work. § A.1.1.3.2 The Contractor shall report and reconcile the Contractor’s Contingency to the Owner on a monthly basis. Contractor’s Contingency will be allocated to specific line items in the Estimate through the use of a Change Order signed by the Owner and Contractor, including a description of the items covered by the Contractor’s C ontingency, and the Contingency amount will be reduced accordingly. § A.1.1.3.3 The Owner shall not unreasonably withhold approval of a Change Order to utilize the Contractor’s Contingency so long as (a) the contingency amount does not increase or exceed the GMP, (b) the Contractor utilizes the Contractor’s Contingency for items required for the Project that are otherwise recoverable as Costs of the Work under the Contract Documents, or (c) the Contractor’s Contingency is used for items outlined in clause s (1) through (3) below: .1 Scope of the Work that is unclear, incomplete or conflicting on the Contract Documents but which is Work consistent with the Contract Documents and reasonably inferable as being necessary to produce the intended results. .2 Additional resources necessary to recover lost time for non -excused delays. If overtime is required to maintain the schedule, the Contractor shall obtain the Owner’s prior written approval before moving forward with such overtime. .3 Delays caused by market, labor, material or transportation conditions, labor disputes, weather or other causes which are costs of the Work but do not justify an increase in the GMP. §A.1.1.3.4 The Contractor’s Contingency is not available for use by the Contractor for m istakes that result from Self- Performed Work secured through competitive bidding, mistakes of subcontractors or vendors, subcontractor’s warranty work, or manufacturer’s warranty work. § A.1.1.3.5 The Contractor’s Contingency is not available for use by the Owner for allowance overruns, changes in the Scope of Work, differing or changed site conditions, or design errors. § A.1.1.3.6 At Final Completion of the Project, any Contractor’s Contingency remaining in the Final GMP will be returned 50% to the Owner and 50% to the Contractor in the shared Savings in Section A.1.1.1. § A.1.1.4 Allowances and Alternates included in the Guaranteed Maximum Price, if any: The Allowances included within the GMP are as follows: 1 Earthwork (includes updated cost on trend log with Bldg. 5) $ 1,259,424 2 Vehicle Control Signage $ 7,500 3 Pavement Markings $ 6,000 4 Transit Benches $ 3,200 5 Grass Seed for Areas Outside Area of Disturbance $ 4,500 6 Independent Soil Testing for Landscaping $ 10,000 7 Irrigation Infrastructure $ 32,520 8 Irrigation Pump Station $ 150,000 9 Pump house #2 on 15.2 $ 100,000 10 Miscellaneous Flashings & Counter flashings $ 20,000 P61 VII.f Page 3 of 10 11 Misc. Joint Sealants $ 2,000 12 Final Bidding & Award Allowance $ 310,000 13 Medium Voltage Line $ 175,000 There are no Alternates included within the GMP. If Alternates are subsequently approved, they will be added by Change Order. § A.1.1.5 Contractor’s assumptions and clarifications will not be allowed to modify the terms of the Agreement. Contractor’s Assumptions and Clarifications regarding the Scope of Work, if any, on which the Guaranteed Maximum Price is based: See Exhibit 2B, attached. § A.1.1.6 To the extent that the GMP Documents require further development by the Architect and Contractor, the Contractor has provided in the Guaranteed Maximum Price for such further development consistent with the GMP Documents and reasonably inferable therefrom. Such further development does not in clude such things as changes in scope, systems, kinds and quality of materials, finishes or equipment, all of which, if required, shall be incorporated by Change Order. § A.1.1.7 The Guaranteed Maximum Price is based upon the AIA Document A295-2008 General Conditions of the Contract for Integrated Project Delivery, as modified, attached to the AIA A195 -2008 Agreement dated March 22, 2009. § A.1.1.8 The Guaranteed Maximum Price is based upon the following Modified Plans, Specifications, and Documents as set forth in the GMP Proposal:  OZ Architecture - Burlingame Ranch Phase II - 100% Implementation Documents For Construction - August 31, 2012  OZ Architecture - Burlingame Ranch Phase II - Addendum 01 - September 20, 2012  OZ Architecture - Burlingame Ranch Phase II - Addendum 02 - November 09, 2012  OZ Architecture - Burlingame Ranch Phase II - Volume 04 drawings - November 09, 2012  Exponential Engineering Medium Voltage Design and Specifications - Sheets E1, E2, E3, E4 dated 9/18/2012 Rev B; XFMR Calcs 9-20-12; Transformer spec sheet XFMR Rev B 9-20-12; Specification Section 26 05 13 8/29/12  Haselden GMP Value Engineering Tabulation - November 2, 2012 - Revision 4 - deduction of ($819,150) ARTICLE A.2 SCHEDULE § A.2.1 So long as the Notice to Proceed is received by February 1, 2013, and the required building permits are received on or before April 1, 2013, then the anticipated dates of Substantial Completion for Phase II – Vertical Construction of Building 1 through 4 established by this Amendment are: December 3, 2013 for Building #1 December 9, 2013 for Building #2 January 08, 2014 for Building #3 January 22, 2014 for Building #4 June 02, 2014 for Sitework and landscaping The Contractor shall submit a revised schedule within 30 days of Contract execution to align with these dates. ARTICLE A.3 § A.3.1 COST OF THE WORK § A.3.1.1 The term Cost of the Work shall mean actual costs necessarily incurred by the Contractor in the proper performance of the Work. Such costs shall be at rates not higher than the standard paid at the place of the Pr oject except with prior consent of the Owner. Owner and Contractor hereby agree that actual, agreed upon costs for Burdened Hourly Wage rates, equipment rates, insurance premiums and SubGuard are the stipulated, fixed rates set forth on Exhibit 3B, and such rates are not subject to further audit or adjustment. The Cost of the Work shall include only the items set forth in this Section A.3.1. P62 VII.f Page 4 of 10 § A.3.1.2 Where any cost is subject to the Owner’s prior approval, the Contractor shall obtain this approval prior to incurring the cost. The parties shall endeavor to identify any such costs prior to executing this Agreement. § A.3.1.3 LABOR COSTS § A.3.1.3.1 Wages of Contractor’s Own Forces or Own Personnel, which are defined as construction workers directly employed by the Contractor to perform the construction of the Work at the site or, with the Owner’s prior approval, at off-site workshops. Overtime for non-exempt employees may be charged at 1.5 times the Burdened Hourly Rates identified in Exhibit 3B. § A.3.1.3.2 Wages or salaries of the Contractor’s supervisory and administrative personnel when stationed at the site with the Owner’s prior approval, based on actual hours devoted to the Project. Salaried, exempt employees of Contractor will not be paid an overtime premium, and will not charge the Project for more than 40 hours in any week. Wages or salaries of officers of the company, Project Executives, Construction Executives, Senior Project Executives or above will not be reimbursed under any circumstances. Contractor’s approved supervisory and administrative personnel for Phase II - Vertical Construction include a Superintendent, a Project Manager, and a Project Engineer at the rates identified in Exhibit 3B. These rates must not include allocation for subsistence, per diems, housing, travel, vehicle allowances, gas, merit pay, incentive pay, profit sharing or bonuses. Person included Status (full-time/part-time) Rate ($0.00) Rate (unit of time) Sen. Project Manager Part Time See Exhibit 3B Hour Project Manager Full Time See Exhibit 3B Hour Gen. Superintendent Full Time See Exhibit 3B Hour Project Superintendent Part Time See Exhibit 3B Hour Project Engineer Full Time See Exhibit 3B Hour Environmental / Safety Engineer(s) Part Time See Exhibit 3B Hour MEP Coordinator Part Time See Exhibit 3B Hour § A.3.1.3.3 Wages and salaries of the Contractor’s supervisory or administrative personnel engaged at factories, workshops or on the road, in expediting the production or transportation of materials or equipment required for the Work, but only for that portion of their time required for the Work and devoted to the Project. Salaried, exempt employees of Contractor will not be paid an overtime premium, and will not charge the Project for more than 40 hours in any week. § A.3.1.3.3.4 Contractor’s project personnel stationed at the Contractor’s principal office or offices other than the site office, will not be charged to this Project without the Owner’s prior written approval. With the Owner’s prior approval, such personnel will be paid based on actual hours devoted to the Project at the rates listed in the approved Burdened Hourly Rates schedule in Exhibit 3B. With the Owner’s prior approval, reasonable travel and temporary living expenses are allowed for such employees. Salaried, exempt employees of Contractor will not be paid an overtime premium, and will not charge the Project for more than 40 hours in any week. Wages or salaries of officers of the company, Project Executives, Construction Executives, Sen ior Project Executives or above will not be reimbursed under any circumstances. § A.3.1.3.4 Costs paid or incurred by the Contractor for taxes, insurance, contributions, assessments and benefits required by law or collective bargaining agreements and, for personnel not covered by such agreements, customary benefits such as sick leave, medical and health benefits, holidays, vacations and pensions, provided such costs are based on wages and salaries included in the Cost of the Work under Sections A.3.1.3.1 through A.3.1.3.3 are included in the Burdened Hourly Rates identified on Exhibit 3B, attached hereto, and will not be paid in addition to the Burdened Hourly Rates. § A.3.1.3.5 Intentionally deleted. § A.3.1.4 SUBCONTRACT COSTS Payments made by the Contractor to any Subcontractors in accordance with the requirements of the subcontracts on the Project will be considered a Cost of the Work and the Contractor will be entitled to no more than a 3% fee on Subcontract costs. P63 VII.f Page 5 of 10 § A.3.1.5 COSTS OF MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT INCORPORATED IN THE COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION § A.3.1.5.1 Costs, including transportation and storage, of materials and equipment incorporated or to be incorporated in the completed construction. § A.3.1.5.2 Costs of materials described in the preceding Section A.3.1.5.1 in excess of those actually installed to allow for reasonable waste and spoilage. Unused excess materials, if any, shall become the Owner’s property at the completion of the Work or, at the Owner’s option, shall be sold by the Contr actor. Any amounts realized from such sales shall be credited to the Owner as a deduction from the Cost of the Work. § A.3.1.6 COSTS OF OTHER MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT, TEMPORARY FACILITIES AND RELATED ITEMS § A.3.1.6.1 Costs of transportation, storage, installation, maintenance, dismantling and removal of materials, supplies, temporary facilities, machinery, equipment and hand tools not customarily owned by construction workers that are provided by the Contractor at the site and fully consumed in the perfor mance of the Work. Costs of materials, supplies, temporary facilities, machinery, equipment and tools that are not fully consumed shall be based on the cost or value of the item at the time it is first used on the Project site less the value of the item wh en it is no longer used at the Project site. Costs for items not fully consumed by the Contractor shall mean fair market value. § A.3.1.6.2 Rental charges for temporary facilities, machinery, equipment and hand tools not customarily owned by construction workers that are provided by the Contractor at the site and costs of transportation, installation, minor repairs, dismantling and removal. The total rental cost of any Contractor-owned item may not exceed the purchase price of any comparable item. Rates of Contractor-owned equipment and quantities of equipment shall be subject to the Owner’s prior approval. § A.3.1.6.3 Costs of removal of debris from the site of the Work and its proper and legal disposal. § A.3.1.6.4 Costs of document reproductions, facsi mile transmissions and long-distance telephone calls, postage and parcel delivery charges, telephone service at the site and reasonable petty cash expenses of the site office. § A.3.1.6.5 Costs of materials and equipment suitably stored off the site at a mutually acceptable and insured location, subject to the Owner’s prior approval. § A.3.1.7 MISCELLANEOUS COSTS § A.3.1.7.1 Premiums for that portion of insurance and bonds, at actual cost, required by the GMP Documents that can be directly attributed to this Contract. Estimates of the Guaranteed Maximum Price may be based on percentages, however payment to the Contractor will be based on actual cost. § A.3.1.7.2 Sales, use or similar taxes imposed by a governmental authority that are related to the Work and for which the Contractor is liable and which are not exempt under the City’s Tax Exemption. § A.3.1.7.3 Fees and assessments for the building permit and for other permits, licenses and inspections for which the Contractor is required by the GMP Documents to pay. § A.3.1.7.4 Fees of laboratories for tests required by the GMP Documents, except those related to defective or nonconforming Work for which reimbursement is excluded by Section 12.4.3 of AIA Document A295™–2008 or by other provisions of the GM P Documents, and which do not fall within the scope of Section A.3.1.8.3. § A.3.1.7.5 Royalties and license fees paid for the use of a particular design, process or product required by the GMP Documents; the cost of defending suits or claims for infringement of patent rights arising from such requirement of the GMP Documents; and payments made in accordance with legal judgments against the Contractor resulting from such suits or claims and payments of settlements made with the Owner’s consent. However, such costs of legal defenses, judgments and settlements shall not be included in the calculation of the Contractor’s Fee or subject to the Guaranteed Maximum Price. If such royalties, fees and costs are excluded by the last sentence of Section 9.17 of A295™–2008 or other provisions of the GMP Documents, then they shall not be included in the Cost of the Work. § A.3.1.7.6 Costs for electronic equipment, cell phones, computers and software, office furniture and office equipment directly related to the Work with the Owner’s prior approval. The total rental cost of any rental item, excluding the cost of insurance, repairs and maintenance, whether a Contractor-owned item or otherwise, may not exceed the purchase price of any comparable item. P64 VII.f Page 6 of 10 Contractor shall provide Owner with an equipment management plan which identifies the following: .1 All equipment to be used on the Project; and .2 Competitive market rental rates for the equipment, including whether the equipment can be rented on an hourly, weekly or monthly basis; and .3 A recommendation regarding whether it is in the Owner’s best interest to purchase the equipment outright or to rent the equipment; and .4 Which equipment may be provided by the Contractor, at rates not to exceed the competitive marke t rates. § A.3.1.7.6.1 Equipment including, but not limited to, electronic equipment, machinery, cell phones, computers and software, office furniture, supplies and office equipment purchased and charged to the Project as a Cost of the Work shall become the property of the Owner. The Owner may require Contractor to turn these items over to the Owner at the end of the Project. Any lease/purchase rental arrangements must be disclosed to the Owner. If the Contractor purchases equipment under a lease/purchase arrangement whereby rental payments are charged to Owner as a Cost of the Work, an appropriate credit shall be given to the Owner for the fair market value of the equipment at the time it was last used on the Project. For Contractor-owned equipment, the Contractor shall maintain daily equipment usage reports. The Owner shall not be charged for equipment which is stored on the job site but not in regular use. The equipment use reports shall be used by the Contractor to determine the most economical bill ing rate (hourly, weekly, monthly) to the Owner. § A.3.1.7.7 Deposits lost for causes other than the Contractor’s negligence or failure to fulfill a specific responsibility in the GMP Documents. § A.3.1.7.8 Legal, mediation and arbitration costs, including attorneys’ fees, other than those arising from disputes between the Owner and Contractor, and other than those related to claims filed by subcontractors or material suppliers for non-payment on the Project, reasonably incurred by the Contractor after the execution of this Agreement in the performance of the Work and with the Owner’s prior approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. § A.3.1.7.9 Subject to the Owner’s prior approval, temporary living and subsistence expenses approved by Owner incurred for the Contractor’s personnel identified in A.3.1.3.2 above and required for the Work on this Project. Meals will not considered temporary living expenses and will not be reimbursed. The Owner reserves the right to approve accommodations for Contractor’s personnel in advance, and to find them alternate accommodations in the event that the Owner does not approve of their proposed accommodations. § A.3.1.7.10 That portion of the reasonable expenses of the Contractor’s supervisory or administrative pe rsonnel identified in A.3.1.3.2 above, incurred while traveling in discharge of duties connected with the performance of the Work on this Project, at the rates on Exhibit 1B which have been approved by the Owner in writing. Travel expenses of officers of the company, Project Executives, Construction Executives, Senior Project Executives or above will not be reimbursed under any circumstances. § A.3.1.7.11 General Conditions will be paid monthly, on the basis of actual costs incurred, but only when suppo rted by evidence satisfactory to the Owner. § A.3.1.8 OTHER COSTS AND EMERGENCIES § A.3.1.8.1 Other costs incurred in the performance of the Work if, and to the extent, approved in advance in writing by the Owner. § A.3.1.8.2 Costs incurred in taking action to prevent threatened damage, injury or loss in case of an emergency affecting the safety of persons and property, as provided in Section 9.24.4 of A295 –2008. § A.3.1.8.3 Costs of repairing or correcting damaged Work executed by the Contractor, Subcont ractors or suppliers, provided that such damaged Work was not caused by negligence, failure to conform to the Contract Documents, or failure to fulfill a specific responsibility of the Contractor and only to the extent that the cost of repair or correction is not recovered by the Contractor from insurance, sureties, Subcontractors, suppliers, or others. § A.3.1.9 RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS § A.3.1.9.1 For purposes of this Section A.3.1.9, the term “related party” shall mean a parent, subsidiary, affiliate or other entity having common ownership or management with the Contractor; any entity in which any stockholder in, P65 VII.f Page 7 of 10 or management employee of, the Contractor owns any interest in excess of ten percent in the aggregate; or any person or entity which has the right to control the business or affairs of the Contractor. The term “related party” includes any member of the immediate family of any person identified above. § A.3.1.9.2 If any of the costs to be reimbursed arise from a transaction between the Contrac tor and a related party, the Contractor shall notify the Owner of the specific nature of the contemplated transaction, including the identity of the related party and the anticipated cost to be incurred, before any such transaction is consummated or cost incurred. If the Owner, after such notification, authorizes the proposed transaction, then the cost incurred shall be included as a cost to be reimbursed, and the Contractor shall procure the Work, equipment, goods or service from the related party, as a Subcontractor, according to the terms of Section A.3.4. If the Owner fails to authorize the transaction, the Contractor shall procure the Work, equipment, goods or service from some person or entity other than a related party according to the terms of Sectio n A.3.4. § A.3.1.9.3 Self-Performed Work: The Contractor will be allowed to bid on self-performed Work on the Project under the following conditions: 1. The Contractor may provide a bid on any portion of the Work (the “Self Performed Work”) that the Contractor requests to perform, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Section A.3.1.9.3. Contractor must disclose to the Owner the subcontractor bid tabulation results for all subcontracted Work, including Self Performed Work. Contractor shall prequalify all subcontractors for all subcontracted work including the Self Performed Work, and must disclose the prequalification results to the Owner. The prequalification process for subcontractors involves the Contractor’s evaluation and determination th at the subcontractors have the experience, financial strength, safety record and staffing sufficient to perform the work within the scheduled time. The prequalification process for Self Performed Work involves the Owner’s evaluation and determination that the Contractor has the appropriate experience, qualifications and competence for the Bid Package. Contractor shall list in the bid tabulation results any firm it proposes to use as a sub-subcontractor. Contractor may not utilize any firm as a sub -subcontractor if such firm could have successfully prequalified to bid the Self Performed Work. If the Owner approves the award of Self Performed Work to the Contractor, then such Work shall be performed for the Contractor’s bid amount on the basis of a Stipu lated Lump Sum, and shall not be subject to further audit or adjustment. Owner agrees that Contractor’s own forces, for Self Performed Work which complies with this Section A.3.1.9.3, shall be deemed to include Contractor’s own employees, material suppliers and sub-subcontractors involved in the Self Performed Work. 2. At least 30 days prior to soliciting bids from the subcontracting community, the Contractor shall submit its proposed Bid Packages to the Owner for review and approval including a detailed, lin e item list of the scope of work proposed by the Contractor to be included in each Bid Package, accompanied by a list of subcontractors from whom the Contractor intends to request bids. If Contractor intends to request approval from the Owner to submit a bid for Self Performed Work, then the Contractor must be listed on the proposed list of bidders. The Owner will review the Bid Packages and Bid Lists proposed by the Contractor within 14 days and notify the Contractor of any revisions required to be made to the Bid Packages or any proposed bidders to whom the Owner has an objection. The Contractor shall revise the Bid Packages and Bid Lists accordingly. 3. The Contractor must obtain the Owner’s written consent in advance of submitting a bid to self -perform any Work on the Project. The Owner may request information and references from the Contractor to determine Contractor’s experience, qualifications and competence to perform the scope of work. Bid tab review and award for trade packages involving Self Performed Work will be subject to Owner review and approval of award in conjunction with the Contractor. 4. The Contractor must not move Work included in the General Conditions to subcontractor Bid Packages or Self Performed Work. 5. If approved in advance to submit a competitive bid, the Contractor must obtain a minimum of three other competitive bids for the same scope of work. If there are less than four competitive bids received on the scope of work (Contractor plus 3 others), then the Owner will not approve the Contractor’s self-performed bid and the Contractor must proceed to perform the Work under the Contract in accordance with A.3.1.9.3.7 below. P66 VII.f Page 8 of 10 6. Contractor shall submit its competitive sealed bid to the Owner at least 24 hours in advance of the published bid opening date. 7. For all work performed by the Contractor on a non -competitive basis, defined as less than four competitive bids received on the scope of work, then the Contractor will be compensated on the basis of the Cost of the Work plus a 3% fee in its role as the General Contractor using the same overhead, general conditions and supervisory and administrative staff identified in the General Conditions for the Project as a whole , unless agreed mutually by the Owner and Contractor. 8. For Self performed Work, when items 1 through 7 above have been satisfied, the Contractor may utilize any fee deemed appropriate to form part of Contractor’s competitively submitted bid for such Self Performed Work (the “Self-Perform Fee”). The Self Performed Work Fee is separate and distinct from the Contractor’s Fee defined in Subparagraph A1.1.1.2. Contractor shall furnish the Owner with sufficient information regarding the scope and all inclusions/exclusions in the bid so Owner can confirm the scope is consistent with the Bid Packages approved in item 2 above, and to the other submitted bids. 9. Contractor’s fee will be no more than 3% of the Cost of the Work, including but not limited to Self Performed Work, work performed by the Contractor’s own forces, employees or p ersonnel, materials purchased or equipment rented in the role as General Contractor, General Conditions, and all Work performed by Subcontractors. § A.3.2 COSTS NOT INCLUDED IN THE COST OF THE WORK § A.3.2.1 The Cost of the Work shall not include the items listed below: .1 Salaries and other compensation of the Contractor’s personnel stationed at the Contractor’s principal office or offices other than the site office, of officers of the company, Project Executives, Construction Executives, Senior Project Executives or above, except as specifically provided in Section A.3.1.3. or as may otherwise be provided; .2 Expenses of the Contractor’s principal office and offices other than the site office; .3 Entertainment, business development meals, meals delivered to the job site, or similar expenses; .3 Overhead and general expenses, except as may be expressly included in Section A.3.1; .4 The Contractor’s capital expenses, including interest on the Contractor’s capital employed for the Work; .5 Except as provided in Section A.3.1.8.3 of this Agreement, costs to correct defective, non -conforming work, or work damaged due to the negligence or failure of the Contractor for self -performed work awarded on a competitive basis, Subcontractors and suppliers or anyo ne directly or indirectly employed by any of them or for whose acts any of them may be liable to fulfill a specific responsibility of the Contract; .6 Any cost not specifically and expressly described in Section A.3.1; .7 Costs, other than costs included in Change Orders approved by the Owner, that would cause the Guaranteed Maximum Price to be exceeded; .8 Bonuses, profit sharing, incentive compensation and any other discretionary payments paid to anyone hired by the Contractor or paid to any Subcontractor or vendor, without the Owner’s prior approval; and .9 Travel expenses of any kind, including aviation related expenses, of officers of the company, Project Executives, Construction Executives, Senior Project Executives or above. § A.3.3 DISCOUNTS, REBATES AND REFUNDS § A.3.3.1 Cash discounts obtained on payments made by the Contractor shall accrue to the Owner if (1) before making the payment, the Contractor included them in an Application for Payment and received payment from the Owner, or (2) the Owner has deposited funds with the Contractor with which to make payments; otherwise, cash discounts shall accrue to the Contractor. Trade discounts, rebates, refunds and amounts received from sales of surplus materials and equipment shall accrue to the Owner, and the Contractor shall make provisions so that they can be obtained. § A.3.3.2 Amounts that accrue to the Owner in accordance with the provisions of Section A.3.3.1 shall be credited to the Owner as a deduction from the Cost of the Work. P67 VII.f Page 9 of 10 § A.3.4 SUBCONTRACTS AND OTHER AGREEMENTS § A.3.4.1 Those portions of the Work that the Contractor does not customarily perform with the Contractor’s own forces, defined as the Contractor’s own personnel or employees, shall be performed under subcontracts or purch ase agreements with the Contractor. There will be no distinction made for different subcontract or supplier tiers other than for Self Performed Work defined in Section A.3.1.9.3. The Owner may designate specific persons from whom, or entities from which, the Contractor shall obtain bids. The Contractor shall obtain bids from Subcontractors and from suppliers of materials or equipment fabricated especially for the Work and shall deliver such bids to the other Project Participants. The Project Participants shall then determine which bids will be accepted. The Contractor shall not be required to contract with anyone to whom the Contractor has reasonable objection. § A.3.4.2 When a specific bidder (1) is recommended to the Owner by the Contractor; (2) is qualif ied to perform that portion of the Work; and (3) has submitted a bid that conforms to the requirements of the GMP Documents without reservations or exceptions, but the Owner requires that another bid be accepted, after the GMP has been established, then the Contractor may require that a Change Order be issued to adjust the Guaranteed Maximum Price by the difference between the bid of the person or entity recommended to the Owner by the Contractor and the amount of the subcontract or other agreement actually signed with the person or entity designated by the Owner. § A.3.4.3 Subcontracts, purchase orders or other agreements shall conform to the applicable payment provisions of this Agreement, and shall not be awarded on the basis of cost plus a fee without a guaranteed maximum price or lump sum price. If a Subcontract or purchase order is awarded on the basis of the cost -plus a fee with a guaranteed maximum price, the Contractor shall provide in the Subcontract or purchase order for the Owner to receive the same audit rights with regard to the Subcontractor or supplier as the Owner receives with regard to the Contractor in Section A.3.5, below. § A.3.5 ACCOUNTING RECORDS The Contractor shall keep full and detailed records and accounts related to the cost of the Work and exercise such controls as may be necessary for proper financial management under this Contract and to substantiate all costs incurred. The accounting and control systems shall be satisfactory to the Owner. The Owner and the Owner’s auditors shall, during regular business hours and on at least a monthly basis, upon reasonable notice, be afforded access to, and shall be permitted to audit and copy, the Contractor’s records and accounts, including complete documentation supporting accounting entries, books, correspondence, instructions, drawings, receipts, subcontracts, Subcontractor’s proposals, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to this Contract. The Contractor shall preserve these records for a period of three years aft er final payment, or for such longer period as may be required by law. ARTICLE 4 MISCELLANOUS PROVISIONS § A.4.1 The Owner’s program for the Project described in Section 1.2.1 of the AIA A295 -2008 has been revised, as follows: Burlingame Ranch Phase II will be constructed in multiple Phases over a period of several years. Construction of Civil Infrastructure began in 2012 and will be completed in 2013. Construction commencement of Buildings 1, 2, 3 and 4 is anticipated in 2013. Construction commencement of Building 5, 6 and 7 is anticipated in 2014, subject to Aspen City Council approval. Award by the Owner to the Contractor of any particular Phase will not be construed to be a guarantee of award of subsequent Phases. Owner reserves the right to ter minate the Agreement for the Owner’s convenience, as well as the right to competitively bid subsequent Phases. The Preconstruction Services and Implementation Documents Phase Services as defined in the Agreement have been fully completed. The terms for performance for any additional preconstruction services in the future shall be mutually agreed upon between Owner and Contractor. § A.4.2 Sections 7.1.5.1 and 7.2.4.1.1 in the A195-2008 Agreement are deleted and replaced with the following provision: § 7.2.4.1.1 Notwithstanding the above, in the event the City Council for the City of Aspen does not approve the Guaranteed Maximum Price for Phase II, Vertical Construction, or any subsequent Phase of the Work, this Agreement will be terminated for the Owner’s convenience and no subsequent Suspension or Termination Expenses or fees will be due or will accrue from the Owner to the Contractor after such termination. Approval of the Guaranteed Maximum Price for Phase II, or any subsequent Phase, by City Council creates no obligation on the part of the Owner to approve subsequent Amendments to the Agreement for subsequent Phases of the Work. P68 VII.f P69 VII.f Exhibit 1B Page 1 P70 VII.f Page 2 P71 VII.f Page 3 P72 VII.f Page 4 P73 VII.f P74 VII.f P75 VII.f P76 VII.f P77 VII.f P78 VII.f P79 VII.f P80 VII.f P81 VII.f Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager THRU: Barry Crook, Scott Miller DATE OF MEMO: 1/8/2013 MEETING DATE: 1/14/2013 RE: Burlingame Ph 2 Owner's Agent Project Management Contract REQUEST OF COUNCIL: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: $428,740 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FINANCE REVIEW: Click here to enter text. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Click here to enter text. RECOMMENDED ACTION: P83 VII.g Page 2 of 2 ALTERNATIVES: PROPOSED MOTION: CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Notes: • Please use page numbers on all memos and attachments, especially for work sessions • The memo should be as long as it needs to be – but remember, you’re not writing a novel. Use attachments for more detailed information, ordinances and resolutions, etc. • Attachments: All attachments to the memo should be referenced somewhere in the body of the memo. All attachments should be titled as “Attachment”, “Exhibit” or “Schedule” with a letter following: Attachments: A - Exhibit One - Map ... B - Property Description C - Chart of Costs D - Resolution #97-1 P84 VII.g Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager THRU: Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager and Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director DATE OF MEMO: January 7, 2013 MEETING DATE: January 14, 2013 RE: 2013 Burlingame Phase IIA Owner’s Agent Project Management Services Contract Amendment REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests approval of amendment #7 to the IPD contract with Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB) in the amount of $428,740 for owner’s agent project management services in 2013 for the remaining Burlingame Phase IIA access/infrastructure (AI) construction as well as the vertical construction of buildings 1-4. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The approval history of the existing RLB contract is as follows: Original Contract approved 2/8/10 $301,400 Amendment No. 1, approved 9/27/10 $119,750 Amendment No. 2, approved 5/27/11 $24,000 Amendment No. 3, approved 6/27/11 $145,770 Amendment No. 4, approved 4/10/12 $212,960 Amendment No. 5, approved 8/14/12 $62,963 Amendment No. 6, service not purchased N/A Amendment No. 7, proposed 1/14/2013 $428,740 Total $1,295,583 BACKGROUND: A number of business process improvement recommendations in the 2008 Real Estate Development Process Improvement audit provided to the City of Aspen by Alvarez & Marsal related to augmenting the City staff to provide management and oversight to reduce the City's risk exposure and to maximize the effectiveness of the City staff without hiring additional full time employees. RLB staff have been providing owner’s agent project management services for the Burlingame Phase II project since 2010 and have been highly effective in assisting City staff to closely manage all aspects of Burlingame Phase II including project coordination, facilitation, documentation, scheduling, budget development, contract development, contract administration, permitting, construction management and project accounting as well as providing the City with expert advice and recommendations throughout the process. Professional services provided by Rob Taylor, Craig Roth and Scott Sumners of RLB have been invaluable to the City’s ability to act as developer of this complex, large-scale housing development. P85 VII.g Page 2 of 2 DISCUSSION: Professional services from RLB are based on hourly work. The contract sum of $428,740 is based on 2,416 hours of professional services to be provided in 2013 at a rate of $150 per hour plus associated expenses averaging $5,542 per month. This is a higher quantity of hours than in past years due to the extensive oversight which will be required for vertical construction. The attached contract amendment includes an estimated breakdown of hours by month. Historically RLB has adhered very closely to their proposed monthly estimated hours, and this will be closely tracked throughout 2013. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The 2013 budget includes the proposed contract amendment so this expenditure is entirely anticipated in the event that the proposed vertical construction of buildings 1-4 occurs. In 2009, RLB proposed that their services for the entire Burlingame Phase II project from design conceptualization through construction of 167 housing units would total $1,763,200. At the current pace of implementation, the originally proposed contract amount for these services would be reached upon completion of Phase IIA – about half of the housing units in Phase II. This is unrelated to the performance of RLB as a service provider and relates only to hours necessary due to the City’s long-range phasing plan for the project, which was unknown at the time of RLB’s 2009 fee proposal. Staff has been including fees for future owner’s agent project management services in long range budgets thus these will not show up as an increase to estimates which Council has already seen. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of amendment #7 to the IPD contract with Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB) in the amount of $428,740 for owner’s agent project management services in 2013 for the remaining Burlingame Phase IIA access/infrastructure (AI) construction as well as the vertical construction of buildings 1-4. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Rider Levett Bucknall Contract - Amendment #7 to existing contract P86 VII.g RESOLUTION # (Series of 2013) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND RIDER LEVETT BUCKNALL 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 owner’s agent project management services in 2013 for the remaining Burlingame Phase IIA access/infrastructure (AI) construction as well as the vertical construction of buildings 1-4, between the City of Aspen and Rider Levett Bucknall, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1; 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 owner’s agent project management services in 2013 for the remaining Burlingame Phase IIA access/infrastructure (AI) construction as well as the vertical construction of buildings 1-4, between the City of Aspen and Rider Levett Bucknall, 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 14th day of January, 2013. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, January 14, 2013. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk P87 VII.g Page 1 of 5 December 26, 2012 Mr Chris Everson email: chris.everson@ci.aspen.co.us Affordable Housing Project Manager City of Aspen 130 South Galena St Aspen, CO 81611 BURLINGAME RANCH PHASE II RLB AMENDMENT 7 – 2013 CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION Dear Chris, Since Rider Levett Bucknall commenced work on Burlingame Ranch Phase II, we have appreciated the opportunity to be involved with the planning, design and construction for this important City of Aspen project. We are confident that the IPD team’s efforts, well informed by the extensive public outreach program, have contributed to a design that achieves a balance between many competing interests and will deliver a fantastic community. We are excited that Aspen City Council gave the green light for the 2013 budget which included the Haselden 48 unit Building 1 to 4 GMP (dated November 2, 2012 ). As you are aware, our Amendment 4 and 5 fee proposals are for preconstruction and construction administration work for the 2012 calendar year. This proposal is to continue our preconstruction and construction administration services through the 2013 calendar year for the first of the vertical phases. Please refer to Exhibit A for excerpts from our original proposal and the A295 Contract we are currently working under. RLB confirms that we understand the scope of work per Exhibit A and that we will continue working as an extension of the City of Aspen to enable the completion of the Phase IIa Access Infrastructure Package and integration of the Phase IIa.i 2013 Buildings 1 to 4 vertical package with the target date of completion of Buildings 1 and 2 in late November/early December to meet CoA sales objectives. Given the current project phasing, RLB will also assist the City to meet 2014 planning goals for the construction award and budget approval for Buildings 5 to 7. As such, we see that in parallel with construction administration we will carry out pre-construction services including:  Oversight of the Phase IIa.i Building Permit process  Finalization of the Development Agreement, Plat and PUD set in conjunction with the Phase II a.i Building Permit  Identification of the 2014 and beyond package scope  Long range budgeting for 2014 and beyond P88 VII.g December 26, 2012 Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager BURLINGAME RANCH PHASE II RLB AMENDMENT 7 – 2013 CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION Page 2 of 5  Defining Phase IIa.ii vertical GMP parameters  Issuing, managing bid RFPs and Reviewing the Phase IIa.ii vertical GMP and recommending to the CoA as appropriate  Phase IIa.ii vertical A195 GMP addendum contract review and finalization (in conjunction with CoA legal counsel)  Providing oversight for the Phase IIa.ii vertical building permit process – including managing revision of the Drainage report as appropriate  Providing oversight for the Phase IIa.ii vertical 100% drawing issuance  Assisting CoA in adjusting the expense and revenue projections related to any potential project modifications due to unit category amendments and revision  Closing out design loose ends  Coordinating the City Electric design by Exponential and integrating this into the project  Aspen San District interface for the Sanitary Sewer work and associated tap fees  Recommendations and Council preparation for approvals of contracts, fee proposals and the way forward  Interfacing with gas, electric, water, TV, phone  Budget, cashflow and monthly reports PERSONELL We propose Rob Taylor will continue with the pre-construction activities. Craig Roth will be the key construction administration staff member, but both Rob and Craig will interface and cross between pre- con and A/I as required. We wish to note that in January and February, Craig Roth will be quarter time, ramping up to half time in March prior to the April 1, 2013 construction start on site. We feel this keeps continuity for CoA, but manages the fee level during the winter non-construction months. EXCLUSIONS Should the 2013 vertical construction work need to be re-bid to the market, we believe that our hours for January, February and March will be insufficient, and as such we would like to retain the right to review these services and level of effort with yourself. P89 VII.g December 26, 2012 Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager BURLINGAME RANCH PHASE II RLB AMENDMENT 7 – 2013 CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION Page 3 of 5 FEE Given the scope of work described above and in Exhibit A, we propose a fee of $428,740 including an estimate of reimbursable expenses (which will be invoiced at cost). We understand that this will be a modification to our prior Contract and that approval is required from the City Council - which is likely to occur on January 14, 2013. Given the project evolution and phasing, we have also attached a revised team responsibility matrix which we wish to finalize with CoA and the design team early in the New Year. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Rob Taylor As sociate, BE, PSP Rider Levett Bucknall Ltd Accepted: _____________________________________ Title: _____________________________________ Date: _____________________________________ P90 VII.g December 26, 2012 Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager BURLINGAME RANCH PHASE II RLB AMENDMENT 7 – 2013 CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION Page 4 of 5 Exhibit A Excerpt from RLB original proposal to CoA (dated 13 November 2009) Ac tivities – Construction Phase: 1) Oversee Construction: Manage the weekly project team meetings. Assist Aspen in achieving its objectives by actively overseeing the construction process, monitoring progress and quality, working collaboratively with the construction team, and preparing timely, comprehensive reports to keep Aspen officials informed about the progress and any major issues. 2) Manage Design and Construction Team Contract: Assist Aspen with management of the design & construction contract to assure on-schedule and on-budget completion of the scope of work outlined in the contract. 3) Manage Costs: Advise the city’s project team by providing guidance related to cost impact of construction decisions. Analyze and comment on the general contractor’s proposed GMP and any change order requests. Prepare budget to cost reports based on current status. Identify potential design and construction changes to reduce costs. 4) Manage Schedule: Actively monitor, review and comment to Aspen on construction team’s schedule and any outstanding issues that may impact schedule, while maintaining construction team’s contractual responsibility to meet the schedule; process and make recommendations on payment requests and any proposed time extension requests. 5) Review Change Orders: Review and verify conformance of proposed change orders to contract document requirements and owner direction; prepare cost estimates to confirm reasonableness of construction team’s pricing. 6) Review Pay Applications: Review and verify conformance of pay applications against in-the-field progress of the job. 7) Review Construction Plan: Assist city staff with review of general contractor’s plan to build the Project 8) Facilitate Stakeholder Review and Input on the Construction Plan: Assist Aspen in providing an overview of the construction plan and seeking input from city representatives, the Burlingame Ranch HOA, building inspectors, and other interested stakeholders. Assure this input is considered by the construction team. P91 VII.g December 26, 2012 Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager BURLINGAME RANCH PHASE II RLB AMENDMENT 7 – 2013 CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION Page 5 of 5 Excerpt from AIA A295 2008 – General Conditions of the Contract for Integrated Project Delivery P92 VII.g RLB Fee Worksheet - PROPOSED BILLING City of Aspen, Burlingame Ranch Phase II Program Manager / Owner's Agent - Contract Amendment No. 7 Final Submitted Dec 26, 2012 Jan-13 Feb-13 Mar-13 Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Total Fees Basic Services Project contract compilation, building permit oversight, budget oversight, project executive, preparation for 2014 work, 2013 closeout 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 80 80 800 $136,000 Construction Oversight, Manage design and Construction Contract, Manage Costs, Manage Schedule 12 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 228 $31,920 Review Change Orders, Pay Applications 12 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 228 $31,920 Provide Oversight to the Construction Plan and Facilitate Stakeholder review 12 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 228 $31,920 Monthly reporting and Progress Photos 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 216 $30,240 Management of Inspection regimes and co-ordination and dissemination of information flow 12 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 228 $31,920 General Project Administration 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 360 $50,400 Preconstruction activities relating to Phase 2a Vertical Work 48 48 32 128 $17,920 Subtotal 112 112 144 224 224 224 224 224 224 224 240 240 0 2416 $362,240 PROPOSED Monthly Billing 17,600$ 17,600$ 22,080$ 33,280$ 33,280$ 33,280$ 33,280$ 33,280$ 33,280$ 33,280$ 36,000$ 36,000$ -$ $362,240 EXPENSES Reimburseable expenses, to be invoiced at cost, for travel, accomodation and printing etc $4,500 $4,500 $5,750 $5,750 $5,750 $5,750 $5,750 $5,750 $5,750 $5,750 $5,750 $5,750 $66,500 TOTAL 22,100$ 22,100$ 27,830$ 39,030$ 39,030$ 39,030$ 39,030$ 39,030$ 39,030$ 39,030$ 41,750$ 41,750$ $428,740 RLB Contract Approvals to Date Original Contract, approved 2/8/10 301,400 Amendment No. 1, approved 9/27/10 119,750 Amendment No. 2, approved 5/27/11 24,000 Amendment No. 3 (approved 6/27/11)145,770 Amendment No. 4 (approved 4/10/12)212,960 Amendment No. 5 (approved 8/14/12)62,963 Current Contract Value 866,843 ESTIMATED HOURS PER MONTH P9 3 VI I . g BURLINGAME RANCH PHASE II TEAM RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX DRAFT FOR REVIEW RL B C A P M RL B P X OZ A r c h CO A A s s e t CO A H o u s i n g Ge n e r a l Co n t r a c t o r CONSULTANTS/CONTRACT Compile consultant RFIs Lead P P P Advertise consultant contracts P P Lead P Review and recommend consultant contracts P P Lead P Compile docs for council approval consultant contracts C P Lead C Manage consultant contracts/performance Lead P P P Review and recommend invoices Lead C P Record/track invoices Lead C P Process invoices for payment P Lead Manage insurance requirements P Lead P Compile construction contract addendum P P P Lead P Manage Grant process P P Lead P Master softcopy of key documents - ASI, RFI, Submittal, PayApps etc Lead C P P P DESIGN Issue & Coordinate Drawings P Lead P Construction Document management P Lead P Manage ASI register and ASI issuance P Lead P BUILDING PERMIT Plat P Lead P P PUD P Lead P P P Development Agreement P Lead P P Building Permit compilation/submittal P Lead P P P Building Permit update/response P Lead P CONSTRUCTION Architects observation/conformance to plans C Lead C Weekly site observation Lead C P C C Monthly summary observation report and compilation Lead C C C C Submittal register tracking C Lead C Submittal review and approval C Lead C RFI register tracking C Lead C RFI response C Lead C OAC meeting minutes/management Lead C P P C Manage allowances and contingencies Lead C P P C Manage contract Lead P C P C Schedule oversight and review Lead P P P P Produce punch list P Lead P P Monitor closure of punchlist P Lead P P QA/QC management - envelope P C Lead P QA/QC management - insurer reqts P C Lead P Interface with building dept/engineering dept P Lead P Commissioning Agent management P Lead P FF&E oversight P Lead External agency liaison (gas, elec, san, water, HX)Lead P P Community/HOA construction interface Lead P P CHANGE ORDERS Review XPCIs (CORs) & issue CO recommendation Lead P P Produce COs for signoff Lead P P Signoff COs P Lead P PAY APPLICATIONS Review pencil PayApp Lead P P Recommend PayApp Lead P P Signoff PayApp P Lead P Process PayApp for payment Lead OWNER COMMUNICATION Compile monthly update Lead P P P Manage master schedule P Lead P P P Monthly Owner/Developer meeting P Lead P P Budget compilation Lead Cashflow tracking Lead P P Council update and approvals P P Lead P COA X-drive document control P Lead Admin - hardcopy/invoices, payapps, COs C Lead C Lead = lead person, prime responsibility P = participant, active review C = copied on information, CC'd, interested P94 VII.g Burlingame Ranch Work Activities (v0.3)Lead Role  / Responsibility (based on June 25, 2012 meeting Barry Crook, Scott Miller, Steve Bossart, Chris Everson)BC/CE = Barry & Chris ASSET = Scott, Steve, John, Other Asset Resource Phase II Horizontal Public Outreach / Concept Design / Detail Design / Land Use Approval DONE Proposed Budget & Construction Schedule Scenarios DONE GMP Production DONE Council Presentations / Budget Approval DONE Review/Redline/Approve Design Drawings DONE GC Contract Production DONE Develop Owners Oversight/QA Program DONE Construction Oversight RFP / Contract Production DONE Oversee consultant contracts (services and invoices)ASSET Final Construction Drawing Production / Drainage Report / Plat / PUD / Survey ASSET Building Permit Application ASSET Building Permit Process Management ASSET Project documentation management ASSET Construction Management ASSET Review and Monitor Pay Applications ASSET Change Order Management ASSET Track and monitor allowances/contingencies ASSET Punch list ASSET Warranty ASSET Closeout ASSET Phase II Vertical Public Outreach / Concept Design / Detail Design / Land Use Approval DONE Proposed Budget & Construction Schedule Scenarios BC/CE GMP Production BC/CE Council Presentations / Budget Approval BC/CE Review/Redline/Approve Design Drawings DONE GC Contract Production ASSET Develop Owners Oversight/QA Program ASSET Construction Oversight RFP / Contract Production ASSET Oversee consultant contracts (services and invoices)ASSET Final Construction Drawing Production / Drainage Report / Plat / PUD / Survey ASSET Building Permit Application ASSET Building Permit Process Management ASSET Project documentation management ASSET Construction Management ASSET Review and Monitor Pay Applications ASSET Change Order Management ASSET Track and monitor allowances/contingencies ASSET Punch list ASSET Warranty ASSET Closeout ASSET Condo 1 HOA Density Agreement Parking Outreach ASSET Parking Plans & Drainage Report Production ASSET Building Permit Application ASSET Construction Management ASSET HOA Documentation Condo 2 Docs BC/CE Propose Revised Condo 1 Docs BC/CE & ASSET Propose revised Master Docs?BC/CE & ASSET HOA Participants BC/CE Establish Condo 2 Board BC/CE Integrate Condo 2 into Master BC/CE & ASSET Deed Restrictions Legal work / Jr. Lienholder / FHA Approval BC/CE Ordinance: Development Agreement ASSET PUD Plans ASSET Plat ASSET Presales Sales consultations BC/CE & APCHA Managing applicants with reservations BC/CE & APCHA Construction Tours ASSET & BC/CE & APCHA Convert Reservations to Sales Contracts BC/CE & APCHA Walkthroughs BC/CE & APCHA Closings BC/CE & APCHA Phase I Legacy? Master HOA Management ASSET Mechanical ASSET Siding ASSET Closeout / COs ASSET HOA / Parks Irrigation O&M Agreement ASSET Other / Additional New Owner Walkthrough / Punchlist ASSET HOA Site Handover Walkthrough / Punchlist ASSET P95 VII.g Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director THRU: Click here to enter text. DATE OF MEMO: 1/8/2013 MEETING DATE: 1/14/2013 RE: Temporary Outdoor Lighting - 300 E. Hyman REQUEST OF COUNCIL: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Click here to enter text. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FINANCE REVIEW: Click here to enter text. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Click here to enter text. RECOMMENDED ACTION: P97 VII.h Page 2 of 2 ALTERNATIVES: PROPOSED MOTION: CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Notes: • Please use page numbers on all memos and attachments, especially for work sessions • The memo should be as long as it needs to be – but remember, you’re not writing a novel. Use attachments for more detailed information, ordinances and resolutions, etc. • Attachments: All attachments to the memo should be referenced somewhere in the body of the memo. All attachments should be titled as “Attachment”, “Exhibit” or “Schedule” with a letter following: Attachments: A - Exhibit One - Map ... B - Property Description C - Chart of Costs D - Resolution #97-1 P98 VII.h 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Jim Pomeroy, Code Enforcement Officer RE: 300 E. Hyman, (Crystal Palace), Temporary Use permit – Consent Agenda DATE: January 14, 2013 REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This memo provides information on a proposed temporary use permit. Staff has approved most of the requests and seeks direction on one remaining aspect of the proposal. If approved on consent this last item will be approved. SUMMARY: Viva Beverages, through a local representative Debra Doyle, plans on using the old Crystal Palace building for a private function aimed at the athletes during X-Games from January 25th -27th. The building will be decorated in “Rastafarian” fashion, and includes outdoor lights in trees, decorations including banners and lights on the building, and projected lighting on the outside of the building. The attached exhibits give a clearer sense of what is proposed. Staff has approved the following items: • 2 – 6’x12’ red, green and yellow striped flags hanging on the outside of the building. • Windows will be curtained and lit from inside in red, yellow and green. • The applicant will coordinate with the Engineering department on putting 2 “stone lions” on the sidewalk flanking the entrance. • Following the approvals of the Parks department, the applicant plans on hanging colored lights on the trees in front of the building on Hyman and Monarch, and attaching light projecting “leko lights” to the trees projecting words on the sidewalk surface. The applicant has agreed to the recommendations Parks has made to ensure that these activities do not damage the trees. • The applicant plans on hanging burlap panels on the outside of the building and hanging colored lights over the “owl” painting on the Monarch side of the building. Amy Guthrie has reviewed the method being proposed to attach these elements, and deemed them to be acceptable for an historic building. P99 VII.h 2 SUMMARY (cont.): Staff seeks direction from Council on one item. If approved on consent, this item will be implemented: • The applicant has proposed lighting features that would involve gobo lights projected on the outside of the building. These would consist of projected words 15’ high and 30’ wide and be projected from a 12’ high pole mounted to the roof of the one story element of the building. These lights would be the words RASTAFARI and RESPECT on alternating nights. Added to these words, would be 3 lights up-lighting the wall where the words are projected in color – red, yellow and green. All of the light effects would be static, and all components and lights would be on private property only. EXHIBIT A: Application P100 VII.h P1 0 1 VI I . h P1 0 2 VI I . h P1 0 3 VI I . h Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 3, 2012 1 COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS .............................................................................................. 2 422 E. COOPER AVENUE – Conceptual Commercial Design and Major Development Call Up 2 RESOLUTION #112, SERIES OF 2012 – Contract Mitigating Transportation Impacts from Development ................................................................................................................................... 4 RESOLUTION #111, SERIES OF 2012 – Ruedi Reservoir Water Acquisition ........................... 5 616 E. HYMAN AVENUE - Conceptual Commercial Design Call Up ....................................... 7 ORDINANCE #35, SERIES OF 2012 - .3% Sales Tax – Education ............................................. 7 P105 VII.i Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 3, 2012 2 Mayor Ireland called the meeting to order at 4:07 PM with Councilmembers Johnson, Torre, and Frisch present. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Councilman Torre noted the Sardy Christmas Tree lighting was a wonderful community event. 2. Mayor Ireland said Aspen High School basketball starts soon. 422 E. COOPER AVENUE – Conceptual Commercial Design and Major Development Call Up Councilman Torre recused himself as living within 300 feet of the project. Chris Bendon, community development department, pointed out this is the shop to the east of the Red Onion. The proposal, which has been to HPC, is to demolish the poster shop and replace it with a 3 story building. This was approved by HPC and that approval was called up by Council. Council’s alternatives are to accept HPC decision or remand it back to HPC with or without directions. This is a one-story element on the front of the property; second floor is setback 12’. This HPC felt this setback was important in order to maintain the side of the Red Onion with the Red Onion sign. The third floor is setback 45’ from the street. Council reviewed the view plane during their call up discussion. Bendon noted there is an exemption in the view plane regulations that allows projects behind existing buildings already in the view plane. This view is blocked by the Paragon building and the Roaring Fork building and staff does not think these buildings will be going away soon. The overall height of the building is 38’ which complies with the zoning. Bendon told Council HPC used their design guidelines and made a fully informed decision. The HPC member who voted against the project did not want development on this parcel. Bendon recommended Council uphold HPC’s decision. Councilman Frisch stated he supports HPC’s decision. Councilman Johnson agreed. Councilman Johnson noted that the code does not allow call up because of view planes. Bendon answered HPC’s decision was on commercial design review based on a decision about the view plane. Mayor Ireland said he thought the Wheeler view plane was from the Wheeler. Bendon said it is a broad view plane about 160°. Mayor Ireland said it does not seem a building directly north would shadow the view plane and how much of the building is affected by the Wheeler view plane. Bendon said this view plane is blocked by two buildings. Mayor Ireland asked if the code addresses “partial blockage”. Jim True, city attorney, pointed out the code does not permit call-up of HPC’s view plane decision, only call up on the commercial design review so the amount of blockage is not relevant. Bendon told Council HPC reviews the view plane, the extent to which it is already blocked, whether mass could be moved around to open up the view, the aesthetics of the parcel. HPC did that and found that this project should be exempt from view plane review. Mayor Ireland read from the HPC minutes where Ms. Berko said this feels like chipping away at HPC’s mission, to preserve what Aspen has; the Red Onion deserves some prominence. Bendon P106 VII.i Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 3, 2012 3 told Council HPC has latitude over mass and scale; the code states mass and scale are not guarantees. Mayor Ireland asked if there might be covenants that the condominiumization of this building would preclude active uses. (Councilman Skadron arrived at the meeting). Council does not have the power to overturn HPC’s grant of an exemption from view plane. Bendon noted the view plan legislation looks at the practicality of the view plane being opened up. Bendon said the existing buildings in the view plane are not going away. Councilman Skadron asked the principle of the original view plane legislation. Bendon said it was to preserve quintessential views that define Aspen, views of the mountain. Bendon said at some point, it became a tool to limit development and a strong planning tool. Councilman Skadron stated he would support remanding the application back to HPC for further consideration on the mass and scale issues. Councilman Johnson said from the HPC minutes, it appears mass and scale is what the discussion was about. Stan Clauson, representing the applicant, told Council HPC expressed concerns for the historic Red Onion building and voted 4 to 1 to approve this project. Clauson said HPC deemed this building to have no historic significance; it is part of the same property as the Red Onion. This building has structural issues and needs to be replaced. The building has 1,043 square feet net leasable on the first floor and the proposal adds 2,000 square feet net livable two story residence for a total increase of 3,000 square feet including the basement. The Red Onion would be minimally impacted; this project is stepped back 12’ to 45’ to assure no interference with the vertical Red Onion sign. Clauson showed plan views, showed buildings that intercept the view plan, showed renderings of the projects from different viewpoints to illustrate what can and cannot be seen of the proposed addition. Clauson said he cannot address the covenants; these properties are within the Red Onion commercial complex and this would be the sole residential property. Councilman Skadron asked what the protection of historic resources is when new development abuts it. Clauson noted there are criteria having to do with assessment of compatibility and that the new construction does not detract from the quality of the historic resource. This project does not violate any criteria. Clauson said a key factor for HPC was preservation of the Red Onion sign. Councilman Skadron asked why this application falls only within HPC’s purview. Bendon answered it is within the historic district and is a landmarked property. Councilman Johnson moved to accept HPC’s decision to grant conceptual major development, conceptual commercial design; seconded by Councilman Frisch Councilman Skadron asked why this does not qualify for joint review of P&Z. Bendon reiterated HPC has jurisdiction for development review of properties within the historic district whether they have a historic resource or not. Bendon pointed out development in historic districts goes through an additional review to make sure the new development is compatible with the historic district. Bendon said design review, even with the best guidelines, is a subjective review and committees can disagree on the outcome of design review. Mayor Ireland agreed with Ms. Berko whether this property subordinates the historic Red Onion property. There has been an attempt by the applicant to maintain some prominence of the Red Onion. Mayor Ireland stated he is concerned about the vitality of downtown and there is evidence that allowing residential development suppresses vitality measured by population, vacancy rates, and local ownership. Councilman Skadron agreed the concerns about the covenants should be addressed and he would P107 VII.i Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 3, 2012 4 like this remanded to HPC to examine the criteria and the covenants. Councilman Skadron said P&Z review may have a different outcome. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Skadron. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #112, SERIES OF 2012 – Contract Mitigating Transportation Impacts from Development Trish Aragon, engineering department, reminded Council this is a multi-departmental project including community development, engineering, transportation and environmental health. This action was one of the top items for action from the AACP. Ms. Aragon noted the goal of the project is to understand traffic impacts from development and determine how these impacts can be mitigated and to make the process clear and consistent. Ms. Aragon said there are currently no clear standards in reviewing traffic mitigation. Staff sent out RFPs and Fehr and Peers had the best proposal to address traffic impacts of development, including traffic counts establishing Aspen specific triggers to create a traffic analysis. Fehr and Peers will develop user-friendly tools for applicants to understand impacts of traffic and options for mitigation. Ann Bowers, Fehr & Peers, said this product will provide the city with traffic impact study guidelines, when will a traffic study be required, what are the details, what are the time frames to analyze; there will be an Aspen-specific trip generator model. Fehr & Peers will collect data in Aspen specific to land uses and sites. There will be a traffic demand scoring tool for things that can be done to mitigate impacts. Ms. Bowers said every development will give the city an idea of the amount of traffic that will be generated. Councilman Frisch asked about all the previous traffic information. Ms. Bowers said their company does different types of traffic counts rather than counting at intersections. Fehr & Peers will take existing, operating land uses in Aspen to determine how many trips that type of business generates in a day – driveway counts versus intersection counts. Ms. Aragon said the point of this is to help understand what impact a development will have on traffic. With that information, staff can look how traffic can be mitigated. Councilman Frisch stated he supports having this information when asking developers to mitigate their traffic impacts. Councilman Frisch asked how this is quantified when people come to town for various reasons. Ms. Aragon said this could be done by surveys for a particular business. Jon told Council they will do traffic study guidelines first which will give traffic numbers for existing businesses. A new business can look at data from an existing site and apply it to their proposal. Councilman Frisch stated he supports trying to figure out factual mitigation causes. Is the data legally or rationally binding and can the data pinpoint what businesses are causing X many trips. Councilman Frisch asked what variables are used when getting data in resort towns. Jon said in resort towns, they know when most visitors tend to arrive, how long visitors stay, what they do, and the seasonality. Jon told Council they will work with staff to find out the best times to collect this data. Councilman Skadron asked if the $100,000 expenditure is necessary for the city to establish a mitigation standard. Jon said there is a lot of data to collect and the consultants are starting from scratch; also they will leave the city with a working tool for this mitigation. P108 VII.i Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 3, 2012 5 Ms. Bowers noted on trip generations, they go back and validate the data collection. Each location they work in is different. Councilman Frisch asked if the intent is to add new fees or adjust the current fees. Ms. Aragon said these are on the ground improvements, not just fees, but improvements to traffic mitigation measures, like improving crosswalks, providing bike fleets. Lynn Rumbaugh, transportation, reminded Council there is a traffic demand management air quality fee in the land use code; staff is not looking to increase the fee but standardize the mitigation process for every development in front of the city. Councilman Johnson said he favors data collection; new projects require starting fresh and guidelines make sense. Councilman Johnson stated a concern is once the data is collected, how the tools are implemented and will this make starting businesses in Aspen more expensive. Councilman Johnson noted one of the goals is to improve Aspen’s environmental metrics regarding air quality and that seems a stretch. Councilman Torre said he supports this because 3 city departments are requesting this process. Councilman Torre noted rather than hoping to increase mitigation fees, Council is looking at this to understand traffic, mitigation and future demand. Ms. Rumbaugh pointed out this will eliminate dueling traffic studies during development applications. The ambiguity of transportation mitigation measure will disappear and each applicant will be measured the same. Mayor Ireland moved to approve Resolution #112, Series of 2012; seconded by Councilman Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #111, SERIES OF 2012 – Ruedi Reservoir Water Acquisition Phil Overeynder, water department, noted this recommends the city acquire 400 acre feet from the Bureau of Reclamation for augmentation purposes for the city’s future water management plan. Overeynder said this resolution implements a reimbursement agreement for the NEPA process necessary and to initiate purchase of the water. The city will be paying $32,000/year for the purchase of the water while the NEPA process is going on. Overeynder told Council the Bureau of Reclamation will review all applications for the purchase of the available 20,000 acre feet through an environmental policy act. The BOR will do this through an environmental assessment and if they can still offer that 20,000 acre feet and the city is a purchaser, an agreement to actually purchase the water will be entered into. Overeynder said Council asked if the contingency for which they are purchasing this water does not come to pass and what can be done about that investment. Overeynder said the Colorado River Water Conservation District is setting up a process through the BOR to serve as BOR’s agent to take water from a purchaser and reconvey it to another purchase and keep everyone whole. The city can roll back part of their purchase if there are other buyers. Overeynder said staff feels there will be water shortages. Overeynder said Council asked if it is possible to use the water for in-stream flow purposes on an interim or long term basis. Overeynder said this can be done through an agreement with the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Overeynder said the city should make those intentions P109 VII.i Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 3, 2012 6 known to the BOR as information when they are doing their environmental assessment. Overeynder recommended the city plan on that as the highest and best use while they are looking at other alternative needs for that water. Councilman Torre asked if there are potential senior water rights between Aspen and Basalt. Overeynder said that depends on the seniority of the right. There are two key water rights upstream of the confluence of the Roaring Fork and Frying Pan; one is in-stream flow value in that section of stream and the other is the county has applied for a recreational in-channel diversion, a kayak course, which would have a junior priority but could be moved up. Overeynder noted another question is water conservation an alternative to purchasing Ruedi water. Staff notes there are circumstances the city has a water right they want to operate, like an exchange with the Salvation Ditch to leave more water in the roaring Fork and to improve the potable water supply, and that junior water right could affect the downstream users. Overeynder said in that instance, the city would release water from Ruedi which would enable the downstream users to be whole and allows the city to operate a project to improve water supply, maintain in stream flows or whatever the water management plan directs the city to do in response to tighter water supplies. The city has done a lot of water conservation and 1993, the city was using on a per connection basis 2/3 more water than today. This was done by plugging leaks, tightening up water management practices and billing, and encouraging conservation from the customers. Overeynder stated none of that buys the city one unit of credit in terms of consumptive use credits, which means water that is saved that would not get back to the stream. Overeynder said it is highly unlikely anything the city does in the future will result in gaining a credit in consumptive uses so in terms of buying more water, conservation does not work. Councilman Johnson stated he supports this; it is a one chance to purchase water and is a hedging strategy. Councilman Johnson asked if this is a mechanism to satisfy money owed to the BOR for Ruedi’s construction. Overeynder answered it satisfies the BOR’s need to go to Congress and tell them they have recovered the 1969 investment. Councilman Johnson said a large amount of money is due in 2019 and this is a negotiation to have that obligation go away and provides benefit to occur on the west slope. Councilman Frisch asked if this will decrease the need to dam up the Maroon and Castle Creeks rivers. Overeynder stated this acquisition is independent of that. Overeynder said there needs to be an analysis to look at all alternatives on the table, bring the public into the process, look at changes in how stream runoff occurs, look at these from an environmental standpoint, an economic standpoint, from public acceptability standpoint and which is preferred. The 1990 water management plan that building reservoirs filed on since 1970 is the last alternative and lowest priority. Overeynder said staff analyzed a more likely alternative, the pump back into the Salvation Ditch and exchange which would keep more water in the Roaring Fork and would meet more objectives, maybe at a lower cost and maintain environmental value, and costed out how much water would be needed for that. Dave Hornbacher, water department, presented an updated resolution removing the clause stating it is preferred to purchase water over a period of time so that Council can, once the BOR has gone through the steps, make a decision to purchase in one lump sum or over several years. Councilman Skadron moved to adopt Resolution #111, Series of 2012, as amended; seconded by Mayor Ireland. All in favor, motion carried. P110 VII.i Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 3, 2012 7 616 E. HYMAN AVENUE - Conceptual Commercial Design Call Up Jennifer Phelan, community development department, told Council this project was reviewed and approved by P&Z in October for expansion and remodel of a building for the same ground floor footprint, and expanded second story and a new recessed third story. A maximum height of 38’ was approved for a portion of a third story. Ms. Phelan told Council staff recommended a maximum height of 36’; P&Z granted up to 38’ as permitted in the land use code. Ms. Phelan said P&Z’s decision was in accordance with the code and with the land use criteria. Ms. Phelan told Council they may accept P&Z’s decision, may remand it back to P&Z with direction, or may continue the item for additional information. Councilman Torre said he wanted this called up because of the architectural features from ground through the second floor. Councilman Torre said his concern is not particularly this building but a development pattern in general, which is the use of glass as a material. Councilman Torre said he thought the design guidelines would look for more traditional development rather than vertical lines up two stories. Ms. Phelan pointed out conceptual review is for height, mass, placement of the building. Materials are not discussed at conceptual. There are guidelines regarding materials, type of materials, fenestration, and these were not discussed at conceptual but will be discussed at final review. The conceptual is to review whether the footprint is working, the height, massing, and setback and the skin is discussed at final. Councilman Frisch questioned waiting to final to bring up details that may be of concern to Council. Councilman Torre agreed Council should review their review to make sure the sequence is correct. Councilman Torre moved to accept P&Z’s decision to grant conceptual commercial design; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #35, SERIES OF 2012 - .3% Sales Tax – Education Councilman Johnson moved to read Ordinance #35, Series of 2012; seconded by Mayor Ireland. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #35 Series of 2012 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING SECTION 23.32.0606(a), 23.32.060(c) AND 23.32.070(a) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO IMPOSE A NEW 0.3% SALES TAX FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND TO CODIY OTHER RECENLTY ADOPTED MEASURES Don Taylor, finance department, told Council staff is in the process of negotiating the IGA. P111 VII.i Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 3, 2012 8 Moved to adopt Ordinance #35, Series of 2012, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Johnson. Roll call vote; Skadron, yes; Johnson, yes; Torre, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion carried. Council went into a work session to discuss the International Green conservation Code Mayor Ireland moved to go into executive session at 7:20 pm pursuant to 24-6-402(4)(b) for 3 items; 2 potential litigation and an update on Koch v. Branscombe and Marks; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Torre moved to come out of executive session at 7:52 pm; seconded by Councilman Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Torre moved to adjourn at 7:52 pm; seconded by Councilman Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. Kathryn Koch City Clerk P112 VII.i Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 10, 2012 1 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION .......................................................................................................... 2 COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS .............................................................................................. 2 CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................... 3 Resolution #114, 2012 - Contract - Avaya Phone System .................................................. 3 Resolution # 117, 2012 - Stormwater Conveyance Cleaning and Video ............................ 3 Resolution #108, 2012 - Revision to the EOTC 2012 1/2% Transit Sales & Use Tax Budget ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Resolution #109, 2012 - EOTC 2013 1/2% Transit Sales & Use Tax Budget .................... 3 Resolution #115, 2012 - Wheeler Balcony and Technology Upgrade Project Design Contract ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Resolution #116, 2012 State Energy Impact Assistance Grant Application for AABC Water Tie-In Project .................................................................................................................... 3 Minutes - November 26, 2012 ............................................................................................. 3 RESOLUTION #113, SERIES OF 2012 – Adopting 2013 Mil Levy ............................................ 5 ORDINANCE #35, SERIES OF 2012 - .3% Sales Tax for Education .......................................... 5 ORDINANCE #31, SERIES OF 2012 – Code Amendment- Master Plans ................................... 6 ORDINANCE #33, SERIS OF 2012 – Code Amendment – Historic Districts ............................. 6 ORDINANCE #32, SERIES OF 2012 – Code Amendment Affordable Housing Certificates ...... 7 RESOLUTION #118, SERIES OF 2012 – Code Amendment Policy Direction – Sign Code ....... 7 ORDINANCE #25, SERIES OF 2012 – Code Amendment CC and C1 Zone Districts ................ 8 ORDINANCE #23, SERIES OF 2012 – AspenModern Negotiation 610 E. Hyman ................... 10 ORDINANCE #34, SERIES OF 2012 - Code Amendment Accessory Dwelling Units .............. 13 P113 VII.i Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 10, 2012 2 Mayor Ireland called the meeting to order at 5:08 pm with Councilmembers Johnson, Frisch, and Torre present. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION There were no comments. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Councilman Torre wished everyone happy holiday. 2. Councilman Torre asked for an update on funding for health and human services. Steve Barwick, city manager, noted a meeting with city/county staff is scheduled in January to discuss the issues. Barwick said the short term issues will be dealt with in January; no one should be disrupted. 3. Councilman Johnson announced Aspen Highland is opening on Friday and there is new terrain being opened daily at Aspen Mountain and Snowmass. 4. Councilman Frisch noted the Aspen Ski Company has been offering meals to employees who are not yet back to work. 5. Councilman Frisch said the 5th annual Summit for Life was this weekend and 500 people participated; it is a great event. 6. Mayor Ireland noted the Aspen High School basketball team is 2 and 1. 7. Mayor Ireland said he did the Summit for Life uphill race and thanked Chris Klug for putting on a great event. 8. Mayor Ireland commended the streets department for moving 15” of snow off the streets so that people could get around. 9. Councilman Torre reported on the RWAPA meeting, which he attended as the alternate member. Mark Fuller’s contract was renewed with no changes from last year. The 2013 budget was discussed; the finances and budget look good. The invasive species inspection program costs were minimized by not doing inspections the days the reservoir is least used. There was an update on the Ruedi repayment. 10. Councilman Johnson reported the NWCCOG approved the 2013 budget. Councilman Johnson noted a number of communities are looking to adopt green building code and the city of Aspen’s Stephen Kanipe has taken a leadership role in green construction codes. 11. Councilman Frisch told Council the Frontiers group hopes to complete their mission by the end of 2013 and the APCHA board becoming more involved in strategic planning. (Councilman Skadron came to the meeting). P114 VII.i Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 10, 2012 3 12. Councilman Skadron complimented Gram Slaton and the Wheeler for a great and fun concert at the Wheeler last Saturday. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Ireland listed the consent calendar items: • Resolution #114, 2012 - Contract - Avaya Phone System • Resolution # 117, 2012 - Stormwater Conveyance Cleaning and Video • Resolution #108, 2012 - Revision to the EOTC 2012 1/2% Transit Sales & Use Tax Budget • Resolution #109, 2012 - EOTC 2013 1/2% Transit Sales & Use Tax Budget • Resolution #115, 2012 - Wheeler Balcony and Technology Upgrade Project Design Contract • Resolution #116, 2012 State Energy Impact Assistance Grant Application for AABC Water Tie- In Project • Minutes - November 26, 2012 Council requested the Stormwater Contract, EOTC 2012 and 2013 resolutions and the Wheeler Balcony contract be removed. Resolution #117, 2012 - Stormwater Conveyance Cleaning and Video Councilman Torre asked the area impacted and how much of the system this will take care of. April Long, engineering department, told Council this will be for 8500 linear feet Garmisch from Main to Durant, Aspen from Main to Durant and a portion of Neale street. Ms. Long said this is the third year of this project and staff intends to video and clean a portion of the system every year. Long told Council this video will identify any area where there is clogs and any deteriorated, leaking, cracked pipes. Resolution #108, 2012 – Revision to EOTC 2012 ½% Transit Sales & Use Tax Budget - Councilman Skadron asked why an additional $125,000 was requested. John Krueger, transportation department, reminded Council the original request to the EOTC was $250,000 and this request is for an additional $125,000 due to changes to the scope of the project, it became a CDOT project; there were different alternatives, coordination with the airport and with RFTA and the BRT project, the turn from the ABC. Councilman Skadron asked if there are more requests on this project. Krueger said this is the final request on this project. Krueger told Council it is important for the BRT project to be completed so they can satisfy federal grant requirements. Brian Petit, country transportation, told Council the BRT project is in a good position to have the full $3 million grant fulfilled. Krueger noted this funding was approved by the EOTC October 18th as long as staff gave more information about this extra funding; this extra funding has been approved both by Pitkin County and the town of Snowmass. Councilman Frisch asked of the $125,000 request how much was P115 VII.i Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 10, 2012 4 due to a different scope. Petit said this funding request is contributable to the public process and to the coordination required with BRT and RFTA, from additional information for elected officials, from becoming a CDOT project. Councilman Skadron asked if this money would come of out entrance to Aspen funds. Krueger said it comes out of the $3 million capital pool. Mayor Ireland moved to approve Resolutions #108, and #109, Series of 2012; seconded by Councilman Johnson. Councilman Torre said he cannot support a 100% increase in a contract and that the options were not vetted. Councilman Torre said this underpass should be funded by the county rather than by the EOTC, whose primary function is about the multi-modal system. Petit noted this is fully off the airport footprint and services the bus stop at the ABC and at the airport and is part of a multi- modal system to get people into town from the airport terminal. RFTA moved the bus stop in order to realign it with the future terminal. Mayor Ireland said he supports this request as the system is used by country residents who work in the city and safety is important. This is a request for Aspen, Pitkin County and Snowmass Village jointly fund the $125,000. All in favor of Resolution #108, with the exception of Councilman Torre. Motion carried. Resolution #109, 2012 EOTC 2013 ½% Transit Sales & Use Tax Budget - Councilman Torre contended that the Rubey Park facility is part of a system and the $200,000 redesign is being put on the city as an expense to come out of the entrance to Aspen funding. Councilman Torre said the entrance to Aspen funding has been identified to be spent on the physical entrance to Aspen to alleviate congestion. Councilman Torre stated the other governmental entities do not seem to want to partner on Rubey park expenses. Rubey Park is used by many parts of the transportation system and should be funded by EOTC. Councilman Torre said his overall goal is for Rubey Park improvements. All in favor of Resolution #109, motion carried. Resolution #115, 2012 – Wheeler Balcony and Technology Upgrade Project - Councilman Torre stated he supports the historic nature of the Wheeler Opera House. Councilman Torre said he also supports the balcony project and technology upgrades but has concern about the shape of the balcony and the front railing and about too much change to the interior of the building. Councilman Skadron agreed there are competing goals; maintenance of the historic structure versus pursuing comfort of audiences. Gram Slaton, Wheeler Opera House, told Council the consultants selected have a lot of experience with sensitive iconic historic projects. Slaton noted the goal is to get a design that works for a 21st century audience while preserving the shape and feel of the balcony. Slaton said staff has tried to alter the balcony the least possible way and to make it work. Councilman Skadron asked if any seats will be lost. Slaton said that depends on the shape of the tech booth. Brian O’Neil, Wheeler Board, said this piece is the culmination of the project to restore the Wheeler which started in 1980’s but ran out of money before all pieces were complete. O’Neil said this project is to both upgrade the projection booth and the seating in the balcony. O’Neil told Council the Wheeler Board has respect for the historic theatre. Richie Cohen, Wheeler Opera House Board, told Council this is an improvement that was planned for 30 years ago and with some technological improvements included. Councilman Skadron said it is important that P116 VII.i Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 10, 2012 5 the changes are judged against the user’s experience, not just change for the sake of change. O’Neil said there is an incongruity in having seats in the balcony that are very uncomfortable and better seats in the orchestra for the same ticket price. Councilman Johnson moved to approve the consent calendar as amended; seconded by Councilman Torre. Resolution #114, 2012 - Contract - Avaya Phone System Resolution # 117, 2012 - Stormwater Conveyance Cleaning and Video Resolution #115, 2012 - Wheeler Balcony and Technology Upgrade Project Design Contract Resolution #116, 2012. State Energy Impact Assistance Grant Application for AABC Water Tie-In Project Minutes - November 26, 2012 All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #113, SERIES OF 2012 – Adopting 2013 Mil Levy Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing. Mayor Ireland moved to adopt Resolution #113, Series of 2012; seconded by Councilman Frisch. There were no comments. Mayor Ireland closed the public hearing. Pete Strecker, finance department, said the mil levy funds go to the general fund, to AMP, the stormwater project. The mil levy for general fund and AMP is subject to TABOR limitations; there have been assessed value decreases over the past several years. The mil levy credit is being reduced to .755 mils. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #35, SERIES OF 2012 - .3% Sales Tax for Education Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing. Don Taylor, finance department, told Council this ordinance makes changes to the sales tax code to reflect the recent tax rate approved by the voters in November. The .3% sales tax is dedicated to education and will be granted to the education foundation. Mayor Ireland closed the public hearing. P117 VII.i Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 10, 2012 6 Mayor Ireland moved to adopt Ordinance #35, Series of 2012, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Torre. Roll call vote; Skadron, yes; Johnson, yes; Torre, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #31, SERIES OF 2012 – Code Amendment- Master Plans Jessica Garrow, community development department, noted this ordinance will adopt a new code section to create and adopt all comprehensive and master plans. This amendment creates a specific time lime, outlines when background work is done, when public outreach occurs and how Council adopts the plans. The section notes all plans will be guiding in nature. Ms. Garrow pointed out at first reading, Council asked to insure that HPC and P&Z could recommend specific changes to a master plan, which is included in step 5. Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Ireland closed the public hearing. Mayor Ireland moved to adopt Ordinance #31, Series of 2012, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Johnson. Councilman Torre stated he does not favor this as he has no faith in master plan processes and would like to see a more organic, community based process. Roll call vote; Torre, no; Frisch, yes; Johnson, yes; Skadron, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #33, SERIS OF 2012 – Code Amendment – Historic Districts Sara Adams, community development department, reminded Council they requested this code amendment as part of the downtown. Mayor Ireland said discussions about being designated historic become tangled with development negotiations. Mayor Ireland said HPC and Council should decide what should be preserved before development proposals come before them. Ms. Adams said there is an inventory of historic sites and structures, listing all historic landmarks. There is also an AspenModern map with properties that are potentially identified as historic and whose owners can negotiate their designation and development with Council. Mayor Ireland suggested a process by which Council lists the properties eligible for concessions. Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Ireland closed the public hearing. Councilman Johnson moved to adopt Ordinance #33, Series of 2012, on second reading; seconded by Mayor Ireland Roll call vote; Frisch, yes; Skadron, yes; Johnson, yes; Torre, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion carried. P118 VII.i Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 10, 2012 7 ORDINANCE #32, SERIES OF 2012 – Code Amendment Affordable Housing Certificates Chris Bendon, community development department, outlined the proposed change to the affordable housing certificate program, which allows a developer to build affordable housing and to sell mitigation credits to developers who need to satisfy mitigation requirements. Bendon proposed conversion between affordable housing categories, which was not thought of when the program was instituted; however, developers need to be able to match needs with city requirements. The housing board supports this amendment and staff recommends approval. Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing. Peter Fornell noted one of the best parts of this program is that the housing becomes available before the development that it mitigates. Fornell said being able to match categories to needs is critical. Fornell said each category the dollars for the sales of units and the cash-in-lieu will equal the same amount and allow the city to maintain the category mix as it gets developed. Mayor Ireland closed the public hearing. Mayor Ireland moved to adopt Ordinance #32, Series of 2012, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote; Skadron, yes; Frisch, yes; Johnson, yes; Torre, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #118, SERIES OF 2012 – Code Amendment Policy Direction – Sign Code Jim Pomeroy, community development department, told Council staff would like to modify the present sign code, to clarify the signs that can be allowed, an option for special event banners, address new technology for lighting of signs, business frontage as used in code needs to be clarified, and to propose a set amount of signage for each business, allow sandwich boards in all zone districts in the city, altering the window wrap section, addressing clothing being displayed on the public right-of-way. Councilman Johnson stated he does not favor a set amount of signage/business. Councilman Johnson suggested language addressing LED. Chris Bendon, community development department, noted at a previous work session, Council directed staff to address neon and anything that looks like neon. Mayor Ireland suggested staff come back with several proposals on how to allow sign/frontage and buildings. Councilman Skadron said his desired outcome is something that balances the retail shopping experience and needs of retailers. Gideon Kaufman agreed that all retail space is not equal and there has to be an understanding that some businesses do not have the benefit of street frontage. Councilman Johnson agreed staff needs to address windows wraps and their technology. Councilman Johnson said bins and boxes need to be allowed; there should be some standard for bins and boxes. Pomeroy noted there are sandwich boards for businesses that have a small amount of retail. Mayor Ireland said that should be looked at because every service business with small retail should not be able to have a sandwich board. Bendon said staff will work on options for that. Mayor Ireland moved to adopt Resolution #118, Series of 2012; seconded by Councilman Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. P119 VII.i Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 10, 2012 8 ORDINANCE #25, SERIES OF 2012 – Code Amendment CC and C1 Zone Districts Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing on Ordinance #25, Series of 2012. Gideon Kaufman brought up the code amendment for businesses north of Main street and emphasized they be allowed to have office space on first floors. Kaufman said not allowing offices on first floors arbitrarily penalizes those locations and this would be a positive change. Kaufman noted retail is difficult in Aspen with a good walk-in location. Jessica Garrow, community development department, reminded Council they asked for some revisions at the last meeting. These were allowing lodging and commercial uses in the CC and C1 zones, banning free market residential uses, to limit 3rd floors. The ordinance has been changed to limit 3rd floor to lodging and commercial uses, no free market residential is allowed in the zone district, 3rd floor is limited to 50% of the parcel size and the south side of the street requires a 35’ setback for the 3rd floor. At the last meeting, there was discussion about banning all 3rd floors on the south side of the street. Staff is concerned that would create an unequal zoning structure. The 35’ setback should address the visual impact concerns. The ordinance also lifts the office ban on the north side of Main street and allows ground floor lodge and conference facility for lodges. There is a minimum 15’ setback for mechanical equipment, which is limited to 6’ in height from attachment to the building. Ms. Garrow showed graphics illustrating visual impacts from the proposed changes, the mechanical equipment changes, the 3rd floor footprint with the 35’ setback and 50% site coverage. Ms. Garrow noted affordable housing is allowed on the 2nd and 3rd floors. Previously Council stated they would approve 3rd floors limited to lodging and commercial. Mayor Ireland noted existing zoning has created price points that price affordable housing and lodges out of the zone. Chris Bendon, community development department, noted allowing buildings on the south side with a substantial setback would allow parity and have minimum effects on shading and visual impact. Mayor Ireland said the city attorney should opine on whether to allow a more generous building on one side of the street. Mayor Ireland asked about the references to vacation rentals. Ms. Garrow reminded Council during their discussion on vacation rentals, they decided to allow vacation rentals anywhere in the city; same thing for home occupation. Mayor Ireland asked about time share units. Bendon said staff did a study in the last year on time shares and their effect on the short term market vs. traditional lodge. Bendon said time shares do not report as lodges do; the report concluded these function like lodges with slightly higher occupancy. Councilman Skadron stated a mix and variation of heights has been established by the past 10 years and not allowing that to continue diminishes what Aspen considers a competitive advantage – small town character and the physical nature of town. Councilman Skadron said if Aspen is a small town, it should be certain things, like lower building heights. Councilman Skadron said the town currently has enough higher buildings. Councilman Torre stated if solar access were the primary concern, he would not have a problem with a 3rd story. Councilman Torre said his issue is what is in the building. P120 VII.i Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 10, 2012 9 Mayor Ireland moved to amend Ordinance #25 to exclude 3rd floors on the south side; seconded by Councilman Skadron. Councilman Johnson stated he would not support that amendment and the commercial core is where vitality and mass need to be. Councilman Johnson noted buildings on both side of the street should be able to have 3rd floors. Councilman Johnson said there was vitality last summer and the built environment has served the community well. Councilman Skadron said the city had a less restrictive policy which created opportunity for redevelopment and the spirit of vitality; however, the reality is development removed vitality and replaced it with high end retailers and little vitality. Councilman Skadron stated a less restrictive development policy does not result in vitality but results in high-end retail allowing developers to recapture their investment. Councilman Skadron asserted vitality is more a function of the national economy than allowing 40’ buildings. Councilman Torre stated free market residential uses have had a dampening effect on the downtown. Councilman Torre said he would encourage spaces for local and start up businesses and does not want to preclude some uses. Mayor Ireland presented a study looking at 507 parcels in the CC and C-1 zones, not those north of Main street, and determined that local ownership has declined, vacancy rates have increased, and residential property is worth twice that of commercial, the number of people under 40 has declined. Mayor Ireland stated property that is not owned locally is not going to be as vital as property that is. Mayor Ireland noted Vail allows 80’ buildings and that community is not vital except maybe weekend crowds. Mayor Ireland said he does not feel it is worth it to allow 3 stories as there is no evidence that higher buildings add to vitality. Mayor Ireland asked if one could have a 3-story lodge with a basement under this amendment. Ms. Garrow said one can only have a lodge use on the basement or first floor if the entire building is dedicated to the lodge use. This ordinance would not allow free market residences, 3rd floor is limited to lodging and commercial uses, 28’ is the height limit. Bendon noted this amendment will lift the office prohibition on the 1st floor on the north side of Main street and in the CL zone, more clarity for setback requirements for mechanical equipment. Ms. Garrow entered a letter from the ACRA community affairs committee into the record. Councilman Frisch said for him vitality is not how the town is doing over the Fourth of July weekend but busy offices to indicate people living and working downtown. Councilman Frisch said he would like to see a mix of free market and affordable and commercial with the caveat that the 3rd floor does not turn off the 1st floor. Another evidence of vitality is to see people going to and from residences and to and from businesses. Councilman Frisch said this is not a code for the community but is a reaction to some development. The code keeps changing but the community’s core values have not changed. Councilman Frisch said he would support free market residences in the CC and C-1 districts. Councilman Frisch said there are 10 applications for development in the community development department and town will look different after these. Councilman Johnson said using census data is one thing; however, vitality has to be measured against Aspen as a resort community. Councilman Johnson agreed he does not want to have 3rd floors stifling 1st floors. Councilman Johnson said lodging is a priority for this Council. P121 VII.i Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 10, 2012 10 Councilman Johnson noted there are almost a dozen applications in waiting and suggested Council see how these development applications play out. Mayor Ireland moved to continue Ordinance #25, Series of 2012, to January 14, 2013; seconded by Councilman Skadron. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #23, SERIES OF 2012 – AspenModern Negotiation 610 E. Hyman Amy Guthrie, community development department, told Council this is a review for an AspenModern voluntary designation for a 1963 building designed by Ellie Brickham. Ms. Guthrie told Council the application proposes some remodel and is asking for some incentives for the project that would make landmark designation acceptable to them. Ms. Guthrie reminded Council a property needs to meet 3 of 5 of historic designation standards. This building was built in 1963, designed by Ellis Brickham, the first woman architect practicing in Aspen, representation of modernist style, part of a row of buildings down east Hyman Avenue. There is a scoring process where the condition of the building is evaluated, the representation of the building and it scored 15 out of 20 for integrity, which is on the threshold of better or best example. The applicant proposes an expansion of about 1,000 square feet of office space on the 2nd floor. There is an existing studio apartment on the top floor and the applicant would like to expand that unit. Two incentives requested are a growth management exemption of affordable housing for 1.75 employees, this is an existing incentive for historic landmarks. There is no affordable housing mitigation for the free market residential because it is an existing unit and as a landmark building this is exempt. The unit does pass the threshold size for units in the commercial core. The unit would be within the 2,000 square foot net livable but the floor area is over 3,000 square feet due to the requirement that any common areas have to divided up and shared between the office and residential. The building has a lot of staircases and circulation areas. The applicant requests 10 years vested rights. The proposed redevelopment involves a fraction of a parking space on site; the applicant requests waiving that space and the cash-in-lieu fee. The applicants would be eligible for the park development and transportation demand management fee waivers around $15,000. During HPC review, the lack of adequate trash and recycling areas were discussed. There is an agreement with the next door property for trash and recycling; there should be a more formal arrangement or an agreement in writing. An alternative would be to use one of the existing parking spaces for trash and recycling. Charles Cunniffe, applicant, told Council he has owned the property for over 20 years and lived in the building until his family got too large. Cunniffe said his long term goal is to live in the property when his kids are out of school. Ms. Guthrie reiterated staff and HPC feel the building is worth preserving; the applicants propose some restorations if it is designated. Mitch Haas, representing the applicant, noted the goals of historic preservation; to protect, enhance and preserve those properties and sites that represent distinctive elements of Aspen’s history. Haas argued that this property meets 4 of the 5 criteria for historic designation, meeting the criteria of buildings related to people who had a contribution to local history. Ellie Brickham had an important contribution to Aspen architecturally and politically. Haas told Council the applicants have committed to all 3 restoration efforts staff and HPC felt were important for the property. Haas said when the restorations are complete, the building will score best of AspenModern. Haas pointed out this is one of the few post WWII AspenModern commercial buildings. P122 VII.i Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 10, 2012 11 Haas said this is a chance to lock in HPC’s purview over this building; the building is located in the C-1 zone and there is currently no HPC review on the property. Haas said this is a chance to relieve future development pressure on the property. Haas said the requests are for more office space for the applicant, over the garage on the alley, and turn the existing studio into a one- bedroom, also expanding on the non-historic portion of the building. Haas said the canopy over the second floor courtyard will be removed, behind the courtyard is the 3rd story, which would be 53’ back off the property. The height in the alley would be 40’ and on the front of the building is 38’. The front of the building will remain 2 stories at 24’. Cunniffe noted all surrounding buildings will be 3 stories and he needs to keep some presence. Haas told Council this building is inefficiently laid out; the back half of the building was added after the front half; the floor levels do not meet up. Haas said the net livable would be 1909 square feet; the FAR of 3047 square feet and of that is 286 square feet is walls, 473 square feet is in stairs and hallways – non-unit space, and 385 square feet of deck space. Haas said if the property is landmarked, it becomes eligible for housing mitigation and other fee waivers, like any other landmarked property. Haas noted there are 3 code compliant parking spaces on site; 4 cars park there every day, there are 2 tandem spaces and the way the code is written you cannot count 2 spaces for a tandem space. Haas said HPC agreed to waive a fraction of a parking space because the application practically, but not technically, meets the code requirement. Haas reiterated the trash/recycling has been shared with the next door neighbor who has written a letter stating they are willing to continue that arrangement and the applicant can work on a legally binding agreement if Council agrees. Chris Bendon, community development department, told Council staff struggles with AspenModern designation as the historic qualities of post WWII are not obvious at first glance. Bendon suggested Council focus on the quality of the historic renovation; the fact this building will be in a restored state as part of the historic inventory and the value that brings to the overall community. Councilman Torre said he finds the proposed change in this block a contemporary modernization that could be in any town and not necessarily fitting for Aspen. Cunniffe noted the proposed renovation would decrease the mass as they are eliminating the second floor canopy. Councilman Torre said he feels a maximum on net livable of free market residential lends their use by more local residents. Councilman Torre stated he could not support vested rights for 10 years. Councilman Torre said there are trade offs for affordable housing and some Councilmembers are hesitant to use housing as a negotiating tool. In this application, the requirement for housing is triggered by the office space and there are impacts felt by the community. This cash-in-lieu payment is on the low side. Councilman Torre said he could support the proposed parking and trash/recycling arrangements. Councilman Torre said he would require the parks and transportation demand impact fees be paid. Councilman Torre said he understands the floor area bonus and the explanation of net livable. Councilman Frisch noted staff’s memo states, “support the award of the benefits that are requested if there is a dedicated effort to return to all the character, defining features of the building within reason” and asked if staff feels the applicant is proposing to do that. Ms. Guthrie said one of the more difficult parts of the negotiation was coming to an agreement about what could be reversed and put back the way the building was originally designed. Councilman Frisch suggested that scoring not be in two categories. Councilman Frisch said if he only had a P123 VII.i Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 10, 2012 12 certain amount of square footage and benefits to give away for AspenModern, this building does not rank that high for him. Cunniffe said his goal is to have his business remain in this location and remain healthy. Cunniffe said he sees as a benefit not disrupting this block right away. Councilman Johnson stated moving this structure into the next higher category, because of the restoration, adds more value and speaks to tradeoffs Council would be willing to give. Councilman Johnson stated he would like the application to pay the parks and transportation impact fees; they are not that large. Councilman Johnson said he is okay with the existing parking arrangement. Councilman Johnson said there should be some cash-in-lieu for affordable housing. Councilman Johnson stated he understands the request for 10 years vested rights; however, circumstances change. Councilman Johnson said he gets the FAR bonus, net livable. Councilman Skadron concurred with Council’s comments. Mayor Ireland noted there is no proposed restriction on this free market unit that it might not become exclusive or imposing on the other tenants. Mayor Ireland stated the free market unit will be impactive on affordable housing needs, regardless who lives in it and recommended the affordable housing fees be paid in full. Mayor Ireland said he could approve vested rights for 5 years. Councilman Frisch recapped the trade for Aspen Modern is to allow the size unit requested, the affordable housing, parks and transportation fees required to be paid, 5 year vesting. Haas stated the applicants did not request waiver of the affordable housing fees, which is what is currently allowed under code if a property is landmarked. Mayor Ireland said Council is requesting the affordable housing fees be paid as part of the negotiation. Cunniffe pointed out this will not be a high end residence; the entrance is in the alley through the back of the building. Mayor Ireland stated Council is negotiating on behalf of the people of Aspen and it is in the interest of the people of Aspen to maximize public benefits, one of which is getting fees paid. Councilman Johnson agreed everything is open to negotiation according to the code, and to balance the various items in order to come to an agreement. Haas reiterated the rule is that any historically designated property when expanded does not mitigate for up to 4 employees generated. Haas said this expansion is 900 square feet so 60% of 2.075 employees would be less than 4 employees generated. Haas said the incentives requested by the applicant are the floor area bonus and 10 years of vested rights. Mayor Ireland stated the issue is whether the applicant wants to accept Council’s offer of additional square feet for payment of housing, parks and transportation mitigation fees. Haas asked at what point the fees are determined. Mayor Ireland stated the rule is if fees are paid up front, they are frozen or one pays the fee in effect at the time of payment. Councilman Johnson said the amount of housing mitigation fee could be negotiated. Council and the applicant agreed to continue this for further negotiations. Mayor Ireland moved to continue Ordinance #23, Series of 2012, to January 14, 2013; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Ireland moved to extend the negotiating period 50 days seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried. P124 VII.i Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 10, 2012 13 ORDINANCE #34, SERIES OF 2012 - Code Amendment Accessory Dwelling Units Chris Bendon, community development department, told Council he is not requesting final adoption but continuation to the end of January so that everyone is aware of the significant changes being made and the proposed fee-in-lieu change from the housing office should be synchronized with this ordinance adoption. Bendon pointed out the changes are to discontinue mitigation by accessory dwelling units. When single family or duplexes are scraped and replaced, mitigation is required, like deed restriction of the main house, provide an ADU only if it is sold through a housing lottery, developing or buying down an offsite unit, provide a certificate of affordable housing or paying fee-in-lieu. Bendon pointed out the fee-in-lieu will increase in 2013. Bendon said an inclusionary housing requirement is more used for residential, which is what is used in downtown development in Aspen and is related to the square footage; if one develops 1,000 square feet of commercial, one is required to provide 300 square feet of affordable housing square footage. Bendon said Council can determine the proper ratio, like a 30% inclusionary requirement. The current system is $77/square foot when one is expanding a home. Bendon said an example of a 600 square foot expansion in a residence relates to a fee of $46,000; a 30% requirement in the proposed new fee structure would be $127,000. Bendon outlined some options; stay with the 30%, have 30% with a delayed effective date; have a lower requirement that ratchets up to 30%; adopt a lower requirement like 15%; have an 11% inclusionary requirement, which would mimic the current fee; have less than 11%. Council could go to a category 4 mitigation structure as opposed to category 3 and a 15% requirement would be close to the current fee. This ordinance outlines a process to vacate an existing ADU. There are about 200 ADUs in existence, typically a studio or one-bedroom. Bendon assumed 20 to 30% occupancy; when ADUs are vacated, there is an impact to the housing inventory like 25% of a unit going away. Bendon told Council a typical ADU houses 1.5 FTEs and the unit is lost, that is losing 25% of occupancy, there should be some mitigation of the ADU going away, which would be a .38 FTE and this could be mitigated through cash-in-lieu or a housing credit. Bendon said with the current fee schedule, that mitigation would be $85,000 and under the proposed schedule it would be $151,000. Bendon said this ordinance proposes that mitigation be required on any expansion of a single family or duplex. Under the current code, the mitigation is only required upon demolition of a single family or duplex. Bendon reminded Council the city’s impact fees are moving away from being triggered on demolition or construction techniques but are based on net increases or net expansion. Bendon said this legislation is only if one wants to get rid of their ADU. Bendon noted the city’s initial growth management plan, which was upheld in the courts and one of the reasons it was held up was because of the linkage requirements, an inclusionary housing requirement was seen as not being exclusionary. Mayor Ireland moved to continue Ordinance #34, Series of 2012, to January 28, 2013; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. P125 VII.i Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 10, 2012 14 Councilman Johnson moved to adjourn at 9:35 PM; seconded by Mayor Ireland. All in favor, motion carried. Kathryn Koch City Clerk P126 VII.i Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tom McCabe, Housing Director THRU: Barry Crook DATE OF MEMO: 12/18/2012 MEETING DATE: 1/14/2013 RE: Ordinance #1, 2013: Approval Fee in Lieu Methodology REQUEST OF COUNCIL: See attached staff memorandum PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: possible increased revenues for 150 fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FINANCE REVIEW: Click here to enter text. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Click here to enter text. RECOMMENDED ACTION: P127 VIII.a Page 2 of 2 ALTERNATIVES: PROPOSED MOTION: CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Notes: • Please use page numbers on all memos and attachments, especially for work sessions • The memo should be as long as it needs to be – but remember, you’re not writing a novel. Use attachments for more detailed information, ordinances and resolutions, etc. • Attachments: All attachments to the memo should be referenced somewhere in the body of the memo. All attachments should be titled as “Attachment”, “Exhibit” or “Schedule” with a letter following: Attachments: A - Exhibit One - Map ... B - Property Description C - Chart of Costs D - Resolution #97-1 P128 VIII.a P1 2 9 VI I I . a P1 3 0 VI I I . a P1 3 1 VI I I . a P1 3 2 VI I I . a P1 3 3 VI I I . a P1 3 4 VI I I . a P1 3 5 VI I I . a P1 3 6 VI I I . a P1 3 7 VI I I . a P1 3 8 VI I I . a P1 3 9 VI I I . a P1 4 0 VI I I . a P1 4 1 VI I I . a P1 4 2 VI I I . a P1 4 3 VI I I . a P1 4 4 VI I I . a P1 4 5 VI I I . a P1 4 6 VI I I . a P1 4 7 VI I I . a P1 4 8 VI I I . a P1 4 9 VI I I . a P1 5 0 VI I I . a P1 5 1 VI I I . a P1 5 2 VI I I . a P1 5 3 VI I I . a P1 5 4 VI I I . a P1 5 5 VI I I . a P1 5 6 VI I I . a P1 5 7 VI I I . a P1 5 8 VI I I . a P1 5 9 VI I I . a P1 6 0 VI I I . a P1 6 1 VI I I . a P1 6 2 VI I I . a P1 6 3 VI I I . a P1 6 4 VI I I . a P1 6 5 VI I I . a P1 6 6 VI I I . a P1 6 7 VI I I . a P1 6 8 VI I I . a P1 6 9 VI I I . a P1 7 0 VI I I . a P1 7 1 VI I I . a P1 7 2 VI I I . a P1 7 3 VI I I . a P1 7 4 VI I I . a P1 7 5 VI I I . a P1 7 6 VI I I . a P1 7 7 VI I I . a P1 7 8 VI I I . a P1 7 9 VI I I . a P1 8 0 VI I I . a P1 8 1 VI I I . a P1 8 2 VI I I . a Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planner Tech THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director DATE OF MEMO: 1/4/2013 MEETING DATE: 1/14/2013 RE: Temporary Use- AT&T Cell Tower REQUEST OF COUNCIL: See attached staff memorandum PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Click here to enter text. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FINANCE REVIEW: Click here to enter text. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Click here to enter text. RECOMMENDED ACTION: P183 IX.a Page 2 of 2 ALTERNATIVES: PROPOSED MOTION: CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Notes: • Please use page numbers on all memos and attachments, especially for work sessions • The memo should be as long as it needs to be – but remember, you’re not writing a novel. Use attachments for more detailed information, ordinances and resolutions, etc. • Attachments: All attachments to the memo should be referenced somewhere in the body of the memo. All attachments should be titled as “Attachment”, “Exhibit” or “Schedule” with a letter following: Attachments: A - Exhibit One - Map ... B - Property Description C - Chart of Costs D - Resolution #97-1 P184 IX.a 1 Figure A: Image of subject property w/COW MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planner Technician THROUGH: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director MEETING DATE: January 14, 2013 RE: AT&T Cell Tower – Temporary Use Request APPLICANT /OWNER: AT&T Mobility/Maroon Creek LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Elizabeth Walker, Vertical Real Estate Consulting Inc. LOCATION: Maroon Creek Club – 10 Club Circle CURRENT ZONING & USE: Park (P) with PUD and SPA overlays. The site is currently used primarily for recreational purposes, with a restaurant, private golf course, tennis courts and a fitness center on the site. PROPOSED LAND USE SUMMARY: Applicant seeks an extended Temporary Use approval from City Council to maintain a 60’ tall movable cellular tower, known as a Cell-on-Wheels or COW, in the rear parking lot of the subject site from January 31, 2013 until April 15, 2013. City Council has the authority to approve temporary uses for up to 180 days. Staff has again approved a 14-day installation for the 2013 X-Games. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council deny the Applicant’s request for Temporary Use extension. This facility was installed during last year’s X- Games and Staff asked the Applicant to pursue a permanent facility rather than rely on a COW. The Cell-on-Wheels installation is unsightly and not a long term solution. P185 IX.a 2 Figure B: Vicinity map with approximate location of COW unit. LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from City Council: • Temporary and Seasonal Uses: Temporary uses may be granted for a period not to exceed one hundred eighty (180) days from the date upon which the City Council approves the temporary use, unless a shorter period is specified in the approval. BACKGROUND: The Applicant is requesting permission to maintain a temporary mobile cellular tower, known as a Cell-on-Wheels or COW, on-site at the Maroon Creek Club rear parking lot for a period of 75 days, from January 31st through April 15th. This cell tower is proposed to provide additional cellular support for users of AT&T wireless services during the bulk of the winter ski season. The Applicant has been approved for a 14-day administrative temporary use permit to maintain the COW on-site at the Maroon Creek Club from January 17th – 30th, 2013, to support the increase in heightened cellular activity during the Winter X-Games event. The Applicant previously received a 14-day administrative temporary use permit during the 2012 Winter X-Games to maintain a similar portable cellular unit on the subject site. At that time, the Applicant was asked to pursue a more permanent solution. The proposed unit will be located within the existing rear parking lot of the Maroon Creek Club, as indicated in Figure B, below. The COW is expected P186 IX.a 3 to occupy approximately six parking spaces in the rear parking lot of the Maroon Creek Club. The body of the unit will measure 14’5” in height, with an extended telescopic mast measuring 60’ in height. Two antennas will be mounted on the mast at 51’8” and 57’8”, respectively. A chain link fence will be erected around the unit comprising an area of approximately 20’x50’. An on-site generator will serve as backup to the operation in the event of power failure of the main source, which is the existing maintenance facility. The Maroon Creek Club is located within the Park (P) zone district, and is also subject to PUD and SPA zoning overlays. STAFF EVALUATION: Staff has reviewed this request and has multiple concerns with the proposal. There are a number of standards that apply to wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment within the City. Section 26.575.130 Wireless telecommunication services facilities and equipment states that wireless telecommunication services facilities and equipment on property that is within the City’s jurisdiction will: “Preserve the character and aesthetics of areas which are in close proximity to wireless telecommunication services facilities and equipment by minimizing the visual, aesthetic and safety impacts of such facilities through careful design, siting and screening; placement, construction or modification of such facilities.” The proposed COW unit lacks sufficient screening. The body of the COW unit is proposed to be segregated from the rest of the parking lot by a chain link fence, which is not an acceptable fence material within the City. The 60’ tall antenna mast will be fully unscreened, and visible from the adjacent roadway, Hwy 82, and the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Dimensional requirements for all uses within the Park zone district are set by the adoption of the PUD, which limits the height of the buildings to 28’, and in some instances 33’, at the Maroon Creek Club. There is no place within the City that permits a structure of the proposed height. Staff does not find that the proposed telecommunication unit to be compatible with the surrounding area, nor its visual impact to be minimized or screened. This unit achieves the opposite of the intent of the Code’s regulations regarding equipment of this nature. The City takes pride in regulating aesthetics to ensure compatibility of structures and development and to minimize interference with the natural surroundings. This cellular unit also does not support the architectural standards for the Maroon Creek Club, the character of which is intended to be “natural, unimposing, and rural.” A goal of the Maroon Creek Club Design Guidelines, 2006 Edition, is to “retain the natural character of the site” and to “minimize visual impact from on and off the site.” The Maroon Creek Club PUD was approved with 325 parking spaces, per Board of County Commissioners Resolution No. 90-87, for all recreational aspects. This request creates a deficit of at least six parking spaces for a significant length of time for users to the area. P187 IX.a 4 Furthermore, Staff is concerned that allowing this type of structure in the community for the requested length of time will set a precedent that others requiring long term solutions will seek to emulate through a lengthy or recurring temporary use permit. The proposed request presents a temporary solution that is meant to address a permanent problem. The Applicant is attempting to increase the reliability of its service to users during a time of heightened activity in the Aspen area. Staff would like to encourage the Applicant to seek a permanent solution to the service issues it is experiencing. The issue of adequate coverage is not unique; other cellular service providers have faced the same service issues and sought a permanent solution that is compatible with the community. The Code encourages joint use and clustering of existing antenna sites to reduce the amount of equipment found throughout the area, and to encourage an attractive solution for service providers. Ultimately, Staff believes it is inappropriate to address permanent problems through the temporary use process, particularly when the impacts are as apparent as this application proposes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council deny this application and encourage the Applicant to pursue a permanent solution. RECOMMENDED MOTION (All motions are worded in the affirmative): “I find that the Temporary Use request meets the required standards of review, and recommend City Council approval of the request for an extended temporary use permit from January 31st, 2013 through April 15th, 2013.” CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Site Plan w/proposed COW location Exhibit B – Elevations Exhibit C – Review Criteria P188 IX.a 1 Resolution No. 5 (SERIES OF 2013) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING EXTENDED TEMPORARY USE OF A MOBILE CELLULAR TOWER ON THE PARKING LOT OF THE MAROON CREEK CLUB LOCATED AT 10 CLUB CIRCLE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS SECTION 2 AND SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, COLORADO Parcel Identification Number - 273502309051 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Vertical Real Estate Consulting Inc., on behalf of AT&T Wireless, requesting extended Temporary Use approval to permit a mobile cellular tower known as a Cell-on- Wheels or COW to be located in the parking lot of the Maroon Creek Club located at 10 Club Circle; and, WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77 and found a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation for Temporary Structure related to this request; and, WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the application and considered the Temporary Use proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the extended temporary use proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards associated with the request; and, WHEREAS, the City Council grants approval of the extended Temporary Use request as proposed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby approves an extended Temporary Use request to permit the installation of a temporary movable cellular tower, known as a Cell-on-Wheels or COW, to occupy approximately six (6) spaces in the rear parking lot of the Maroon Creek Club from January 31, 2013 through April 15, 2013. P189 IX.a 2 Section 2: All outdoor lighting associated with the COW shall be downcast and meet the requirements of the City of Aspen Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the temporary use proposal 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 effect 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. APPROVED BY the City Council of the City of Aspen on this ____ day of January, 2013. ___________________________________ Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Attest: ___________________________ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: ___________________________ James R. True, City Attorney P190 IX.a Exhibit A Site Plan P191IX.a Exhibit B Elevations P193IX.a 1 Exhibit C Review Criteria and Staff Findings Sec. 26.450.030. Criteria applicable to all temporary uses. When considering a development application for a temporary use or an insubstantial temporary use, the Community Development Director or City Council shall consider, among other pertinent factors, the following criteria as they or any of them, relate thereto: A. The location, size, design, operating characteristics and visual impacts of the proposed use. AT&T proposes to locate their Cell on Wheels (COW) unit on Lot 51 of the Maroon Creek Subdivision, 10 Club Circle, in Aspen, Colorado. The COW will be located in the Maroon Creek Club parking lot, occupying approximately 6 parking spaces. The body of the unit will measure 14’5” in height, with an extended telescopic mast measuring 60’ in height. Two antennas will be mounted on the mast at 51’8” and 57’8”, respectively. A chain link fence will be erected around the unit, comprising an area of approximately 20’x50’. An on-site generator will serve as backup to the operation should power fail, with the main source of power coming from the existing maintenance facility, run to the COW by a 100 pair Telco cable, routed inside the maintenance yard between the fence and material bins, and secured to the inside of the fence by conduit clips. The unit will create a noticeable visual impact on the surrounding area due to its height, which rises approximately 30’ higher than surrounding buildings, and its lack for both the body of the unit as well as the antenna mast. The proposed chain link is not an acceptable material for fencing per the Code. The height and the failure to screen the unit create a contextual conflict with the surrounding area, which the Maroon Creek Club architectural standards document refers to as “natural, unimposing, and rural”. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. B. The compatibility of the proposed temporary use with the character, density and use of structures and uses in the immediate vicinity. The Applicant is proposing to locate the COW in the parking lot of the Maroon Creek Club. The immediate vicinity includes a private club containing a golf course, tennis courts, a fitness center, as well as nearby residential units. The mast of the proposed cell tower reaches a height of 60’, whereas the buildings in the immediate vicinity are restricted to a height of 28 – 33’. The proposed unit will also encompass approximately six parking spaces on the site during the duration of the winter/spring 2013 ski season. Staff does not find the unit to be compatible with the character or structures in the surrounding area, nor the uses in the immediate vicinity. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. C. The impacts of the proposed temporary use on pedestrian and vehicular traffic and traffic patterns, municipal services, noise levels and neighborhood character. There are no anticipated impacts in regard to this temporary use on pedestrian and vehicular traffic, traffic patterns, municipal services, or noise levels in the immediate vicinity, unless the P195 IX.a 2 primary power source (the on-site maintenance building) is subject to power failure, in which case the backup generator will be used. The COW will be located within a parking lot of the Maroon Creek Golf Course, and will occupy approximately six parking spaces for a period of 75 days following an administrative temporary use request of 14 days. This disrupts the potential for parking at the Club by removing the use of these parking spaces for a total of 89 consecutive days. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. D. The duration of the proposed temporary use and whether a temporary use has previously been approved for the structure, parcel, property or location as proposed in the application. The temporary use is proposed for the period of time from January 31, 2013 through April 15, 2013. Staff has granted an administrative temporary use approval for the period of time from January 17th, 2013 through January 30th, 2013, during the Winter X-Games event. A 14-day temporary use approval was previously granted for the 2012 Winter X Games. This will be the second temporary use request of this nature for the Applicant during 2013, and the third request of this kind to date. F. The relation of the temporary use to conditions and character changes which may have occurred in the area and zone district in which the use is proposed. The proposed temporary use is in the Maroon Creek Club parking lot, adjacent to nearby multi-family residences. The COW will not directly interfere with the surrounding residences; however it will create a visual impact on the area as the proposed antenna mast will extend approximately 30’ higher than the surrounding buildings. The COW will have a direct impact on the amount of parking available at the Club, and will create a deficit in the 325 parking spaces that have been approved for the recreational use areas of the PUD in the final approval There have been no known changes in recent times to the zone district in which the use is proposed; however due to the height and the occupation of parking spaces that may be needed by Club members, Staff finds this criterion to not be met. E. The purposes and intent of the zone district in which the temporary use is proposed. The zone district where the temporary use is proposed is known as Park (P), with Specially Planned Area (SPA) and Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlays. The purpose of the Park zone district is to provide lands for recreation use, without disrupting the uses of surrounding zone districts. Allowed uses include recreational facilities and their accessory uses. Conditional uses include recreation buildings, sport shops, restaurant facilities, maintenance buildings, and farmers’ markets. Staff does not find this use to be compatible with the zone district in which it is proposed. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. G. How the proposed temporary use will enhance or diminish the general public health, safety or welfare. Enhancements may be made to the general public’s health, safety and welfare in their enhanced ability to receive cellular signals during a time of heightened activity within the Aspen city area that may otherwise experience difficulty. However, Staff finds the length of P196 IX.a 3 this request to be of issue, and would like the Applicant to seek a permanent solution to an issue to an ongoing issue. The City experiences a temporary population increase at many times throughout the year, and feels it would be an asset to the City to create a permanent solution for this issue. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P197 IX.a Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planner Tech THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director DATE OF MEMO: 1/4/2013 MEETING DATE: 1/14/2013 RE: Temporary Use - Above the Salt Airlock REQUEST OF COUNCIL: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Click here to enter text. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FINANCE REVIEW: Click here to enter text. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Click here to enter text. RECOMMENDED ACTION: P199 IX.b Page 2 of 2 ALTERNATIVES: PROPOSED MOTION: CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Notes: • Please use page numbers on all memos and attachments, especially for work sessions • The memo should be as long as it needs to be – but remember, you’re not writing a novel. Use attachments for more detailed information, ordinances and resolutions, etc. • Attachments: All attachments to the memo should be referenced somewhere in the body of the memo. All attachments should be titled as “Attachment”, “Exhibit” or “Schedule” with a letter following: Attachments: A - Exhibit One - Map ... B - Property Description C - Chart of Costs D - Resolution #97-1 P200 IX.b 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planner Technician THROUGH: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director MEETING DATE: January 14, 2013 RE: Above the Salt Restaurant – Temporary Use Request APPLICANT /OWNER: Craig Cordts-Pearce REPRESENTATIVE: Craig Cordts-Pearce LOCATION: 305-7 S. Mill St. CURRENT ZONING & USE Commercial Core (CC) zone district; current use is a restaurant named Above the Salt. PROPOSED LAND USE: Applicant seeks an extended Temporary Use approval from City Council to maintain a custom fabric airlock through the winter season. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council APPROVE the Applicant’s request for an extended Temporary Use Permit. SUMMARY: Applicant requests that the City Council approve a temporary use request to permit a custom fabric airlock to be maintained on-site, at the building’s southern entrance, through the winter season. City Council may approve a temporary use up to 180 days. This Applicant previously occupied this commercial space and had an external canvas airlock custom made for the building. The Code has since been amended and no longer permits temporary airlocks. The Applicant was unaware of this change when he reacquired the lease. In light of this situation, Staff recommends the Applicant be granted one season of use and find a permanent Code-compliant solution to meet future needs. Figure A, right: Image of subject property P201 IX.b 2 LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from City Council: • Temporary and Seasonal Uses: Temporary uses may be granted for a period not to exceed one hundred eighty (180) days from the date upon which the City Council approves the temporary use, unless a shorter period is specified in the approval. BACKGROUND: The Applicant is requesting permission to maintain a temporary custom fabric airlock on-site at the restaurant Above the Salt through the winter season. The airlock is requested to buffer patrons from the cold weather. Without the airlock, the door to the outside will open directly on to the dining area floor, bringing in cold air and potentially snow each time someone enters the restaurant. The Applicant previously occupied this commercial space, during which time the external custom fabric airlock was created for the building. Since this time the Code has been amended and no longer permits temporary airlocks. The Applicant was unaware of this change when he reacquired the lease to this commercial space in the fall of 2012, and therefore did not plan for an alternative Code compliant solution to the airlock issue. Prior to this request the Applicant received an administrative temporary use approval to maintain the airlock through January 14, 2013, the date of the City Council hearing. Approval was granted by Staff with the Applicant’s understanding that this administrative approval would be granted one time, and that a permanent solution to this issue must be sought. Figure B: Vicinity map indicating subject site. P202 IX.b 3 Figure C: Image of airlock at building’s southern entrance. The custom fabric airlock is proposed to be attached to the exterior of the restaurant’s southern entrance, as indicated in Figure C, right, approximately 30’ from the Mill Street pedestrian right-of-way, and towards the rear of the existing building. The airlock will measure approximately 16’6” in length, 6’6” in width, and 10’ in height. The structure is composed of a steel tube frame system covered in a black canvas material, and contains plastic windows. STAFF EVALUATION: Staff has reviewed the application and finds the request to be reasonable for a one-season period. Airlocks are used in commercial spaces to provide protection for patrons from cold weather elements. Typically the Code does not permit external airlocks anywhere within the City, primarily for aesthetic reasons. The airlock was custom made years ago specifically for use on this site, and therefore has a precise fit and does not appear to be out of context with the existing building to which it is attached. Its setback from the pedestrian way and black colored fabric makes it visibly unobtrusive to the surrounding development. The proposed airlock will have no impact on vehicular traffic, as the subject site is located on the Mill St. pedestrian right-of-way, which prohibits vehicular traffic. The airlock is located completely on the subject site, to the rear of the parcel, and therefore will not impede pedestrian flow throughout the area. Staff does not expect the airlock will have any impact on increasing the noise in surrounding area. As mentioned previously, the Applicant understands that should this request be granted, it is for the requested time period only, and a permanent Code compliant solution must be sought to rectify the issue beyond the date of this request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council APPROVE the Applicant’s request to maintain a custom fabric airlock on the subject site for a period not to exceed 180 days, beginning January 15, 2013. RECOMMENDED MOTION (All motions are worded in the affirmative): “I move approval of Resolution No 3, Series 2013 approving a temporary use for an airlock at Above the Salt.” P203 IX.b 4 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Site Plan Exhibit B – Review Criteria P204 IX.b 1 Resolution No. 3 (SERIES OF 2013) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING EXTENDED TEMPORARY USE OF AN EXTERNAL CUSTOM FABRIC AIRLOCK LOCATED AT 305/7 S. MILL STREET, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS H&I, BLOCK 82, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, COLORADO Parcel Identification Number - 273718217003 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Craig Cordts-Pearce, requesting extended Temporary Use approval to permit the use of an external custom fabric airlock to be attached to the south entrance of the existing commercial building; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director reviewed the application and considered the Temporary Use proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, and found the application to be consistent with the requirements of the Code; and, WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the application and considered the Temporary Use proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the extended temporary use proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards associated with the request; and, WHEREAS, the City Council grants approval of the extended Temporary Use request as proposed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby approves an extended Temporary Use request to permit the use of an external custom fabric airlock to be attached to the southern entrance of the existing building on the subject site through the winter season, for a period not to exceed 180 days, beginning January 15, 2013. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the temporary use proposal as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation P205 IX.b 2 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 3: This resolution shall not effect 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 4: 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 City Council of the City of Aspen on this ____ day of January, 2013. ___________________________________ Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Attest: ___________________________ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: ___________________________ James R. True, City Attorney P206 IX.b Exhibit A Site Plan Airlock P207 IX.b 1 Exhibit B Review Criteria and Staff Findings Sec. 26.450.030. Criteria applicable to all temporary uses. When considering a development application for a temporary use or an insubstantial temporary use, the Community Development Director or City Council shall consider, among other pertinent factors, the following criteria as they or any of them, relate thereto: A. The location, size, design, operating characteristics and visual impacts of the proposed use. Staff Response: The proposed airlock will be located on the exterior of the existing building, attached to the south-facing entrance, approximately 30’ from the Mill Street pedestrian way. The size of the temporary structure is approximately 16’6” in length, 6’6” in width, and 10’ in height. The structure is comprised of a steel tube frame system that will be covered in a black canvas material containing plastic windows. The proposed airlock will function as an entry door that will serve to protect restaurant patrons from exposure to the cold weather elements during their visit to the establishment. The visual impacts will be relatively minor for this temporary addition, as the height of the airlock is lower than that of the building, it is incorporated into the building’s southern entrance, it is setback from the public right-of-way by 30’, and it is composed of a black canvas material that will help to make it relatively unobtrusive as a temporary structure. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. The compatibility of the proposed temporary use with the character, density and use of structures and uses in the immediate vicinity. Staff Response: The Land Use Code does not allow external airlocks anywhere within this zone district, therefore in this sense the requested use is not compatible with the character, density and use of the structures in the immediate vicinity. However, an airlock is not out of character with the uses found throughout the area, as many of the nearby restaurants and businesses also contain airlocks; although these are generally internal to the building. The business has been located at the subject site for a few short months, and the Applicant has only begun to consider the impacts of the lack of airlock on the business during the winter season. This is a temporary request that has received a one-time administrative temporary use approval. The Applicant is required to appear in a duly noticed public hearing before City Council due to the extended time period associated with this request. The Applicant will need to explore a permanent or interior solution to satisfy this need in the future, which shall be compatible with the character, density and use of structures in the immediate vicinity. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. The impacts of the proposed temporary use on pedestrian and vehicular traffic and traffic patterns, municipal services, noise levels and neighborhood character. Staff Response: The proposed airlock will have no impact on vehicular traffic, as the subject site is located on the Mill St. pedestrian right-of-way, which prohibits vehicular traffic. The airlock is located completely within the subject site, and therefore will not impede the P209 IX.b 2 pedestrian flow throughout this area. There are no municipal services found within this area. Staff does not expect this temporary airlock to have any impact on the noise found at the subject site. Although generally airlocks are prohibited, due to the temporary nature of the request, Staff does not believe the airlock will pose a negative threat to the character of the neighborhood. The Applicant understands that this request, if granted, is for a limited period of time, and will explore permanent solutions for future needs. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. The duration of the proposed temporary use and whether a temporary use has previously been approved for the structure, parcel, property or location as proposed in the application. Staff Response: The Applicant is requesting the proposed temporary use to begin on January 15, 2013 and extend through a time period not to exceed 180 days. The Applicant has previously received an extended administrative temporary use approval to permit the airlock to be maintained on the subject site through January 14, 2013. F. The relation of the temporary use to conditions and character changes which may have occurred in the area and zone district in which the use is proposed. Staff Response: The proposed temporary airlock was used on the subject site in the past, and was removed by a previous tenant that is not the Applicant. Since the removal of the airlock changes were made to the Land Use Code that disallowed the use of temporary airlock structures. The area itself has not experienced significant changes in character or use since the time of its use, remaining predominantly commercial with a strong restaurant and retail component. Staff does not find that the temporary use of this airlock will have a significant impact on the area or zone district during the short duration of its allowed use. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. The purposes and intent of the zone district in which the temporary use is proposed. Staff Response: The subject site is located with the Commercial Core (CC) zone district, which permits land uses involving retail, restaurant, office, lodge, recreation, cultural and civic, academic, and service uses. The intent of the CC zone district is to foster uses that will enhance a vibrant, lively, and primarily pedestrian-oriented atmosphere, bringing people to the City’s downtown core. The requested temporary use is proposed at a restaurant location which is a permitted use within the zone district, and will serve to enhance the user experience of the subject site during the winter season. Staff finds this criterion to be met. G. How the proposed temporary use will enhance or diminish the general public health, safety or welfare. Staff Response: The proposed temporary use will enhance the general public’s health, safety and welfare while patronizing the restaurant at the subject site, as it will serve as a protective barrier from the winter elements that would otherwise be present due to the door opening to the dining area directly to the outside if the airlock were to not be erected at this location. In this way the airlock will assist in reducing heat loss in the main area of the restaurant, and P210 IX.b 3 reducing the time patrons will need to spend in the cold weather. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P211 IX.b Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director THRU: Click here to enter text. DATE OF MEMO: 12/27/2012 MEETING DATE: 1/14/2013 RE: Temporary Use - Nugget Gallery REQUEST OF COUNCIL: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Click here to enter text. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FINANCE REVIEW: Click here to enter text. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Click here to enter text. RECOMMENDED ACTION: P213 IX.c Page 2 of 2 ALTERNATIVES: PROPOSED MOTION: CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Notes: • Please use page numbers on all memos and attachments, especially for work sessions • The memo should be as long as it needs to be – but remember, you’re not writing a novel. Use attachments for more detailed information, ordinances and resolutions, etc. • Attachments: All attachments to the memo should be referenced somewhere in the body of the memo. All attachments should be titled as “Attachment”, “Exhibit” or “Schedule” with a letter following: Attachments: A - Exhibit One - Map ... B - Property Description C - Chart of Costs D - Resolution #97-1 P214 IX.c MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Nugget Gallery Temporary Use Permit – Public Hearing Resolution No. 2, Series of 2013. DATE: January 14, 2013 LAND USE REQUEST: The Applicant is requesting an extension to an existing Temporary Use Permit for the Nugget Gallery located in a common area of a commercial building at 415 East Hyman Avenue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, with conditions. LOCATION: 415 East Hyman Avenue (on the Hyman Mall). LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Condominium Units 1-16, Roaring Fork Condominiums, according to the Map thereof filed for record January 31, 1973 in Plat Book 4 at Page 355. APPLICANT: F&M Ventures, LLC; Ernie Fyrwald, principal. Horseshoe Holdings, LLC; Bruce Carlson and Greg Jurgenson, principals. REPRESENTATIVE: Ross Kribbs, Nugget Gallery SUMMARY: Ross Kribbs is applying to extend the temporary use permit to continue operating the Nugget Gallery in the lobby space of a downtown commercial building. The building is 415 East Hyman Avenue, on the mall, and houses Morris and Fyrwald Real Estate and several other offices upstairs. The creation of new commercial space in the City requires provision of housing and other mitigations, which can be cost-prohibitive. The mitigation is based on “net leasable area” and does not count common hallways, lobbies, and similar common areas of commercial buildings that are not typically rented to an individual business. The lobby space of this building is not considered net leaseable area. Merely hanging the pictures with information about the artists does not render the hallway a commercial space. This is a common practice for artist to display their work but does not come with P215 IX.c signage – the City does not permit off-site signage. For example, a home-based business cannot simply place a sandwich board on the mall. The active operation of the space as a store requires the space be approved as net leasable area. The Nugget Gallery has complied with last year’s temporary approval and Mr. Kribbs has been diligent about obtaining signage approvals. Businesses that use this lobby have provided their support to the application. City Council approved this request the last two years with an understanding that this was an experiment of sorts that may lead to relaxed code requirements for certain types of businesses. Council was clear with the applicant that subsequent temporary use approvals may not be granted. Staff remains concerned about the equity of allowing a business to operate in a non- commercial space. Differentiating this retail operation from others is difficult. All other galleries, for example, are operating within proper commercial space. Creation of those spaces requires substantial mitigation; the spaces are considered commercial by the County Assessor; and, the rent likely reflects the legitimacy of the space. It becomes difficult for staff to explain to other prospective galleries why they cannot “get the same deal.” Staff is also concerned about using the temporary use process for a perpetual operation. Temporary use permits are valid for up to 6 months. The code doesn’t prohibit an applicant from applying for consecutive permits; but, it calls into question the temporary purpose of the permit. Staff does believe a temporary use permit should terminate at some point. If approved, City Council should state the number of additional 6-month permits that this operation can apply for. Staff believes all criteria are met and recommends City Council grant this temporary use permit. Staff also suggests City Council define this as the last temporary use permit for this operation. Granting this permit will represent 30 months of “temporary” use, 5 times as much as is typically allowed. Staff recommends the Temporary Use Permit be granted as the final temporary permit for this business. PURSUE A CODE AMENDMENT FOR SPECIAL BUSINESSES?: This operation raises the idea of amending the City’s regulations to permit certain businesses to operate without meeting the standard requirements for all other businesses. Staff believes the City would have a difficult task in defining which businesses qualify. The community has had some version of a ‘locally-serving-commercial’ aspiration for nearly 40 years. The stumbling point has always been around definition – deciding who’s in and who’s not. Most-recently, the City installed a two-year moratorium with the aim of defining locally- serving commercial uses. The City looked at business quotas, special reviews by a new board to determine what businesses can open, ways to prohibit “chain” stores, ways to regulate non-local ownership, ways to regulate price-point, ways to dictate products, ways to prohibit “high-end” or “luxury” brands, etc. The City even researched direct subsidies for some essential business types. As part of this effort, the City contemplated P216 IX.c quotas or limits on jewelry stores, fur store, and galleries. None of the concepts gained community favor. The one idea that gained mediocre support was for the City to open its own store and sell whatever it decided to sell. After two years the City lifted the moratorium with no changes to the Code. Eventually all locally-serving discussions return to a fundamental question of definition – who’s in and who’s not in. Does a jewelry store qualify? Does a ski shop? The question gets tougher with real examples – is Peach’s locally-serving? Is Pitkin County Dry Goods locally-serving? The Gap, the gas station, the Wheeler, Ute Mountaineer, etc. Most of the work staff has done on this topic has been a way to deflect this core question of who’s in and who’s not in. Staff believes the question of which businesses can operate in unmitigated space would return to this question. It is worth discussing the land use tools that could be applied only if this fundamental question can be answered. The City does provide a 50 square foot exemption for food vendors. These must be on private property and can be outside or within interior mall spaces. The Ute City building and the North of Nell building have interior mall areas. The outdoor provision was done to invigorate the pedestrian scene downtown. The interior provision was made when a popular outdoor vendor wanted an interior space for the winter. The business in the Ute City building has been in operation for 3-4 years. A seasonal shaved ice stand near the Isis theater has also been around 3-4 years. This provision for food vendors may appear to be counter to staff’s comments above. Staff believes the 50 square-foot limitation and the food vendor provision is adequate differentiation. The program does not extend to general retail and does not extend to service uses (such as a masseuse). Staff does not see a ‘problem’ with allowing small food vending operations as these are clearly different than general retail. Staff does not recommend this program be extended to retail and service for the reasons stated above. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval, with conditions. Staff requests City Council state the number of additional temporary use permits to be granted for this business. RECOMMENDED MOTION: “I move approval of Resolution No.2, Series of 2013, approving a temporary use permit for the Nugget Gallery.” CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. ___, Series 2013. A – Application P217 IX.c Resolution No. __, Series 2013. Page 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2 (Series of 2013) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL EXTENDING A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FOR “THE NUGGET GALLERY,” AN ART GALLERY LOCATED WITHIN A COMMON LOBBY OF A COMMERCIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 415 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, ASPEN, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-182-16-801 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.450 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Applicant, The Nugget Gallery, represented by Ross Kribbs, has submitted an application for a Temporary Use Permit extension to continue operating an art gallery in the lobby of a commercial building located at 415 East Hyman Avenue; and, WHEREAS, the property is known as the Roaring Fork Condominiums and is owned by F&M Ventures, LLC; Ernie Fyrwald, principal, and Horseshoe Holdings, LLC; Bruce Carlson and Greg Jurgenson, principals. WHEREAS, the City did not receive complaints about the business or operation in the prior temporary permit period; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has reviewed the temporary use application and recommends that the City Council approve the temporary use permit; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the temporary use request 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 at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, City Council finds that the proposed temporary use is consistent with the character and existing land uses of the surrounding parcels and neighborhood and that granting the temporary use permit will not adversely impact the community or the neighborhood; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the temporary use request meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the 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, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Temporary Use P219 IX.c Resolution No. __, Series 2013. Page 2 In accordance with Section 26.450.020 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, does hereby grant the Nugget Gallery a temporary use permit to operate an art gallery in the lobby of 415 East Hyman Avenue, the Roaring Fork Condominiums for a period of six months from the adoption of this resolution, subject to the conditions listed herein. Section 2: Approval Conditions 1. As represented by the applicant, the artwork shall be predominantly the work of local artists. 2. All signage shall comply with the City of Aspen sign code regulations. 3. The City shall not accept additional temporary use applications or extensions for this use. Section 3: Severability 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 construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. FINALLY, Adopted, Passed, and Approved on this ___ day of ___________, 2013, at a duly noticed public hearing before City Council. APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: _________________________ __________________________ James R. True, City Attorney Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk P220 IX.c P221 IX.c P222 IX.c P223 IX.c P224 IX.c P225 IX.c P226 IX.c P227 IX.c P228 IX.c P229 IX.c P230 IX.c P231 IX.c P232 IX.c P233 IX.c P234 IX.c P235 IX.c P236 IX.c Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Amy Guthrie, Senior Planner Historic Preservation THRU: Chris Bendon DATE OF MEMO: 11/30/2012 MEETING DATE: 12/10/2012 RE: AspenModern Negotiation for Landmark Designation of 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Second Reading, Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 REQUEST OF COUNCIL: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Click here to enter text. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FINANCE REVIEW: Click here to enter text. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Click here to enter text. RECOMMENDED ACTION: P237 IX.d Page 2 of 2 ALTERNATIVES: PROPOSED MOTION: CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Notes: • Please use page numbers on all memos and attachments, especially for work sessions • The memo should be as long as it needs to be – but remember, you’re not writing a novel. Use attachments for more detailed information, ordinances and resolutions, etc. • Attachments: All attachments to the memo should be referenced somewhere in the body of the memo. All attachments should be titled as “Attachment”, “Exhibit” or “Schedule” with a letter following: Attachments: A - Exhibit One - Map ... B - Property Description C - Chart of Costs D - Resolution #97-1 P238 IX.d Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman , AspenModern Negotation Page 1 of 10 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012, AspenModern negotiation for historic designation of 610 E. Hyman Avenue, CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 10, 2012 DATE: January 14, 2013 610 E. Hyman Avenue was constructed for well known gallery owner Patricia Moore in 1963. It was designed by Ellie Brickham, who in 1951 was the first female architect to practice in Aspen. The offices of Charles Cunniffe Architects have been located in the building for twenty years. In late 2010, Charles Cunniffe proposed voluntary designation and a building expansion through the Ordinance #48 landmark negotiation process, which was the City’s first effort to incentivize designation of postwar era properties. HPC reviewed the project twice before the SUMMARY: Following are the staff memo and attachments that were presented to City Council at the December 10, 2012 public hearing on this application. This project is a negotiation for voluntary landmark designation and preservation incentives. Comments provided by City Council prior to the decision to continue the hearing appeared to be in favor of a requested floor area increase, in favor of 5 years of vested rights (rather than the 10 years that is proposed by the applicant), in favor of a waiver of on-site parking requirements and cash-in-lieu fees, and in favor of allowing a shared trash/recycling arrangement with the property to the east. Council was inclined to require the payment of Parks Impact Fees and Transportation Demand Management Fees, and at least a portion of the affordable housing mitigation generated by an upcoming remodel of the property. The appropriate amount of affordable housing mitigation, and whether or not it would be locked in to today’s calculations, was not resolved. The applicant would like to complete the negotiation and will propose an affordable housing fee at the hearing. Staff has revised the attached ordinance to reflect our understanding of Council’s direction. P239 IX.d Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman , AspenModern Negotation Page 2 of 10 application was terminated after no significant progress. In April 2012, the application was re-submitted in advance of reduced height limits going into effect in the downtown. The proposal now falls under the AspenModern ordinance (largely similar to Ordinance #48) within which the applicant can request special benefits. The special benefits entailed in this application are represented in a building expansion, which is being reviewed by HPC concurrent with the designation. The applicant has requested approval for a 949 square foot expansion of office space and a 1,546 square foot residential floor area increase for the expansion of an existing free market apartment. The apartment will not exceed the maximum net livable unit size for the zone district. In combination, the commercial floor area and the residential free market floor area will exceed what is allowed as a total development for the site by 692 square feet. An extended period of vested rights is requested to provide more flexibility on the start date for the project. The office expansion is on the second floor, along the alley, on top of a non-historic garage. The free market residential addition is a new third story which is located partially on the garage and partially on the roof of the historic building. HPC has granted Conceptual design approval for the new construction and has provided a recommendation that City Council pursue a negotiation for landmark designation. HPC’s support for this action is strongly conditioned upon a requirement that the applicant reverse certain changes that have been made to the original design of the building; namely the restoration of arched windows on the ground floor, restoration of the building’s original white stucco panels, and removal of an awning that covers an open air patio on the second floor. Throughout several previous HPC meetings the applicant has been unwilling to agree to restore the form of the ground floor windows, leading staff to have recommended denial of the application to HPC. HPC supported the project proceeding only with restoration. A restoration plan that meets HPC’s expectations was submitted in November and is Exhibit F of this packet. APPLICANT: 610 E. Hyman LLC, Charles Cunniffe, represented by Haas Land Planning. PARCEL ID: 2737-182-12-004. ADDRESS: 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: C-1, Commercial. P240 IX.d Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman , AspenModern Negotation Page 3 of 10 Historic Designation 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. At least two of the criteria a-d, and criterion e must be met: a. The property is related to an event, pattern, or trend that has made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific event, pattern or trend is identified and documented in an adopted context paper; b. The property is related to people who have made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific people are identified and documented in an adopted context paper; c. The property represents a physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman, or design philosophy that is deemed important and the specific physical design, designer, or philosophy is documented in an adopted context paper; d. The property possesses such singular significance to the City, as documented by the 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 Response: 610 E. Hyman Avenue was built in 1963 for owner Patricia Moore. The Patricia Moore Gallery was a respected business in town for many years, and displayed the work of many important artists on the main floor of the building. An upper floor residential studio unit was part of the original design. Ms. Moore sold the property in 1988. P241 IX.d Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman , AspenModern Negotation Page 4 of 10 610 E. Hyman was constructed for a woman who played an important role in the local arts community, and it was designed by Aspen’s first woman architect. This is one of the few Ellie Brickham buildings that remains in Aspen. Ellie Brickham (1923-2008) moved to Aspen in 1951 after attending the University of Colorado’s School of Architecture from 1941-1944. Construction was a family business, and her motivation to become a designer began as a child. According to the research paper, “Aspen’s Twentieth-Century Architecture: Modernism 1945-1975:” “Early in her career, Brickham worked in Fritz Benedict’s office and collaborated on projects with both Benedict and Bayer, participating in work going on at the Aspen Institute. Like Benedict, she had a strong interest in passive solar techniques. During her time in that office and, later, in her own practice out of her home, she designed a number of residences and commercial buildings in town, including houses for several Music Festival artists in Aspen Grove, the elegantly simple brick Strandberg Residence (1973, 433 Bleeker Street-demolished) and the Patricia Moore Building (1962, 610 E. Hyman Avenue). In Pitkin County, she designed numerous homes in Pitkin Green and Starwood, on Red Mountain, including her own house (1955), with south and west walls made completely of glass. Her works, which total at least sixty in the Aspen area, are generally characterized by spare, simple forms and minimal detailing. Brickham’s projects focus on an “impeccable sense of proportion and feeling of lightness,” according to a 1977 Aspen Times article.” The building that Ellie Brickham designed for Patricia Moore appears to have been influenced by “New Formalism,” an architectural approach of the early 1960s which emphasized symmetrical, smooth-skinned, flat roofed buildings with screens and grilles. The façade of 610 E. Hyman has six attenuated brick piers that extend from the base to the eaves and stucco arched spandrels for a more “decorated” look that reflected the 1960s evolution of modernist design. A related example is Phillip Johnson’s 1962 Lincoln Center in New York, below. HPC presented an Honor Award to Ellie Brickham in 2001, in recognition of her influence on the built environment in Aspen. The neighborhood where this structure was built includes several other AspenModern related properties. Relatively few of the noted postwar properties are commercial structures. It is important to carefully consider preservation opportunities for this small P242 IX.d Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman , AspenModern Negotation Page 5 of 10 collection of highly visible downtown structures. Staff finds that historic designation criteria a, c, and e are met. The second component of designation is scoring the physical integrity of the building. Staff’s score sheet is attached as Exhibit B. Several elements of this building were altered through previous remodels. The front entry door was originally centered on the façade. Now there are entries on both ends of the storefront level. Originally all of the street-facing opening were arched, but the ground floor windows have been changed to have square transom windows. A lightwell has been added to the front façade so the building no longer meets the sidewalk in the center, the basement office level is exposed to view, and there are no kickplates below the windows. The stucco color has been changed from white to a masonry color. A seasonal canopy has been added to enclose the rooftop courtyard. These alterations have affected the integrity score for the building and need to be taken into account when determining the appropriate package of preservation incentives to approve for the project. Staff scored the building as a “Better/Best” example of AspenModern, with 15 out of 20 points. ASPENMODERN NEGOTIATION: According to Municipal Code Section 26.415.025.C.1.b, the Historic Preservation Commission, using context papers and integrity scoring sheets for the property under consideration, shall provide Council with an assessment of the property’s conformance with the designation criteria of Section 26.415.030.C.1. When any benefits that are not included in Section 26.415.110 are requested by the property owner, HPC shall also evaluate how the designation, and any development that is concurrently proposed, meets the policy objectives for the historic preservation program, as stated at Section 26.415.010, Purpose and Intent. As an additional measure of the appropriateness of designation and benefits, HPC shall determine whether the subject property is a “good, better, or best” example of Aspen’s 20th century historic resources, referencing the scoring sheets and matrix adopted by City Council. The City Council may negotiate directly with the property owner or may choose to direct the Community Development Director, or other City staff as necessary, to negotiate with the property owner to reach a mutually acceptable agreement for the designation of the property. The City Council may choose to provide this direction in Executive Session, pursuant to State Statute. As part of the mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council may, at its sole discretion, approve any land use entitlement or fee waiver permitted by the Municipal Code and may award any approval that is assigned to another Board or Commission, including variations. Council shall consider the appropriateness of benefits in light of whether the property is identified as a “good, better, or best” example of Aspen’s 20th century history and shall also seek to be equitable in the benefits awarded through the negotiation process. The monetary value of benefits being requested shall be P243 IX.d Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman , AspenModern Negotation Page 6 of 10 defined, to the extent possible. Council shall seek compatibility with the neighborhood surrounding the subject property. The Land Use Code states that, as a further measure of the value of negotiation, the proposal should meet the Purpose and Intent Statements of the Historic Preservation program, which are: §26.415.010. Purpose and intent. The purpose of this Chapter is to promote the public health, safety and welfare through the protection, enhancement and preservation of those properties, areas and sites, which represent the distinctive elements of Aspen's cultural, educational, social, economic, political and architectural history. Under the authority provided by the Home Rule Charter of the City and Section 29-20- 104(c), C.R.S., to regulate land use and preserve areas of historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering and cultural importance, this Chapter sets forth the procedures to: A. Recognize, protect and promote the retention and continued utility of the historic buildings and districts in the City; B. Promote awareness and appreciation of Aspen's unique heritage; C. Ensure the preservation of Aspen's character as an historic mining town, early ski resort and cultural center; D. Retain the historic, architectural and cultural resource attractions that support tourism and the economic welfare of the community; and E. Encourage sustainable reuse of historic structures. F. Encourage voluntary efforts to increase public information, interaction or access to historic building interiors. The City does not intend by the historic preservation program to preserve every old building, but instead to draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the City's cultural, historic, and architectural heritage. This should be accomplished by ensuring that demolition of buildings and structures important to that heritage are carefully weighed with other alternatives. Alterations to historically significant buildings and new construction in historic areas shall respect the character of each such setting, not by imitating surrounding structures, but by being compatible with them as defined in historic preservation guidelines. Staff Response: The applicant requests the following special, site specific incentives through AspenModern negotiation, in exchange for landmark designation. P244 IX.d Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman , AspenModern Negotation Page 7 of 10 Floor area bonus The existing residential unit is currently just below the 1,500 square feet maximum floor area allowed for free market apartments on this property. The applicant wishes to enlarge the unit. As a preservation benefit, a floor area increase of 1,546 square feet is requested, making the total free market floor area 3,046 square feet. A portion of the FAR assigned to the residential use is actually common circulation area, garage, deck area, etc. If this benefit is approved, the combination of the commercial floor area and the residential floor area will also exceed what is allowed as a total development for the site by 692 square feet. Extension of vested rights The applicant requests extended vested rights. All projects receive an automatic three years of vested rights, or protection from changes to Land Use regulation. The applicant requests 10 years to allow for the start date of the project to be more flexible. The applicant requests the following standard benefits offered to landmarked properties. Affordable housing The new office space triggers affordable housing mitigation, however the applicant would like to take advantage of a preservation benefit which is already in place for all landmarks at Section 26.470.060.4 of the Municipal Code. The Community Development Director can grant an exemption to affordable housing requirements for up to 4 employees as part of the expansion of a mixed use, landmarked building. There are no review standards that must be met for the approval of this exemption. If the property is not landmark designated, and mitigation were required for this development, it would be for the equivalent of 1.725 employees, or $242,000 if paid as cash-in-lieu. Parking The expansion of the free market residential unit does not trigger additional parking requirements, but the new office space does generate the need for a fraction of one space. A full space could theoretically be provided on-site to meet the requirement (although it is apparently not physically possible), or the owner could pay cash-in-lieu. HPC has recommended that the review standards of Section 26.415.110.C of the Municipal Code are met and that no on-site parking or cash-in-lieu payment must be required. The cash-in-lieu payment would typically be $28,500. Park Development Impact Fee and Transportation Demand Impact Fee Historic Landmark properties are exempt from paying certain fees that offset the need for the City to develop more parks or transportation systems as a result of new development. The exemption is standard. There are no review criteria. P245 IX.d Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman , AspenModern Negotation Page 8 of 10 DESIGN REVIEW OUTCOMES The proposed development would result in a waiver of approximately $12,000 in Park Development Impact Fee and $1,400 in Transportation Demand Impact Fee. In conducting their Conceptual Design review for the proposed building expansion, HPC made two determinations that Council should be aware of. First, HPC allowed the rear addition to reach a height of 38’. The maximum height limit for the zone district, under the rules that were in place at the time of application, is 36’, which can be increased to as much as 40’ through Commercial Design Review. HPC determined that a 38’ height was acceptable because of the drop in elevation from the front of the property to the alley. The building already has a complex combination of floor levels, which the board acknowledged through their approval. The proposed drawings show a height of 38’11”, which must be amended for the Final HPC meeting. The second important determination that HPC made is related to Utility, Delivery and Trash Storage area. The Municipal Code requires this property to have an area parallel to the alley dedicated to the service needs of the building. This area is to be 15 feet long and 10 feet deep. The area cannot also be used as a parking space. This property currently has no service area that meets the code. The applicant proposes to maintain their existing arrangement to accept recycling items from adjacent properties, in exchange for those properties accommodating the trash disposal needs of 610 E. Hyman. The recycling area that 610 E. Hyman shares with others is not directly along the alley, but apparently has easy and workable access to the alley. HPC felt that a waiver of the requirement is allowable, if an agreement that is acceptable to Council can be provided during the negotiation. The applicant has provided a letter from the adjacent property owner, attached to this packet as Exhibit G. The letter indicates that shared trash and recycling can continue, however there is no detail about how the arrangement will work or be guaranteed into the future. Staff has provided diagrams of the proposed arrangement. Staff recommends Council direct one of the following: • Require the creation of a binding, recorded agreement, to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney’s Office, which details how the shared arrangement will function, including the size and type of trash and recycling bins that will be provided, how users of both buildings will have unlimited access to the facilities, which waste hauler will provide services. etc. Also require a plan for exact placement and size of trash and recycling containers for both the 610 E. Hyman property and the 616 E. Hyman property, to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department. Note that if the sites dealt with their needs P246 IX.d Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman , AspenModern Negotation Page 9 of 10 individually, the Environmental Health Department would expect to see a 4 yard dumpster and 4 recycling containers (comingled, office paper, newspapers/magazines, and cardboard) on each site. Locating all trash storage on one-site and all recycling on the other does not mean that half as many containers are sufficient. OR • Waive the requirement for one on-site parking space (requiring cash-in-lieu payment instead) so that one of the existing parking spaces along the alley can be converted to a trash and recycle area that serves the needs of the 610 E. Hyman property. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The negotiated benefits are policy matters for Council to decide. HPC used the designation criteria, adopted context papers, and scoring sheets to forward a recommendation to City Council regarding the importance of the building. During the three previous discussions of this project, HPC was focused on the importance of restoring the front façade of the building as much as possible, given the requested preservation incentives. Three particular actions were identified as important; restoring the arched windows on the lower half of the front facade, removing the canopy that currently covers the upper floor patio and restoring the original color of the stucco panels. Community Development and HPC only support the award of the benefits that are requested if there is a dedicated effort to return all of the character defining features of the building within reason. It is understood that moving the entry doors back to the center, and eliminating the lightwell are impractical. Nonetheless, on other AspenModern projects, including Mason and Morse and Aspen Core, the applicant’s financial commitment to restoration efforts are very substantial. Consistently high standards for the AspenModern process are important in staff’s opinion. Historic and current images of the building are depicted on the following page. The 610 E. Hyman building represents Ellie Brickham as an architect and is indicative of post-war commercial development in Aspen in the 1960s. This building, and the building immediately west of the subject site, are the only known examples of Ms. Brickham’s work left to preserve in Aspen. The building meets the designation criteria in its existing condition. With designation, some of the incentives involved in this project, such as affordable housing waiver and development impact fee waiver, are typically provided. Other incentives, including the floor area bonus, parking variance, height, utility/trash/storage and vested rights are all specific to this project. P247 IX.d Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman , AspenModern Negotation Page 10 of 10 An AspenModern negotiation period between the applicant and the City is limited to a 90 day duration. Council can grant extensions and approved an extension to February 21, 2013. If the negotiation is not successfully completed by that time, Council must either grant another extension or the process will expire and development on the site will be subject to the new regulations for the C-1 zone district, including a 28’ height limit. Staff finds that approval of this project, with HPC’s requirement to include restoration of the ground floor window form, is consistent with what has occurred on the four previous AspenModern negotations related to downtown properties. The architectural integrity of the building will be greatly enhanced. The restoration work is highly unlikely to occur outside of this process. The building could be demolished or heavily altered in other ways if it is not designated. The attached ordinance includes all of the negotiation requests, to be amended by City Council as desired. EXHIBITS: Ordinance #__, Series of 2012 Exhibit A: Integrity Score Sheet Exhibit B: Draft, October 24th, 2012 HPC minutes Exhibit C: HPC Resolution #27, Series of 2012 Exhibit D: Elevations Exhibit E: Floor plans Exhibit F: Restoration Plan Exhibit G: Letter and site plans related to trash and recycling areas P248 IX.d Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 1 of 5 ORDINANCE #23 (Series of 2012) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO APPROVING HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND BENEFITS THROUGH THE ASPENMODERN PROGRAM FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 610 E. HYMAN AVENUE, LOT M, BLOCK 99, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2737-182-12-004 WHEREAS, the applicant, 610 E. Hyman LLC, represented by Haas Land Planning, submitted an application on March 28, 2012, 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 properties located at 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, an AspenModern negotiation period ends 90 days after initiation unless extended by City Council. Council passed Resolution #119, Series of 2012 to extend this negotiation to February 21, 2013; and WHEREAS, Municipal Code Section 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 on May 23, 2012 and October 24, 2012; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 24, 2012, the HPC considered the application; found that 610 E. Hyman Avenue is a “better/best” example of the Modern style in Aspen evaluated the designation and proposed development; and, found that the policy objectives for the historic preservation program stated at Section 26.415.010, Purpose and Intent are met, and recommended City Council (“Council”) approval of Historic Landmark Designation and negotiation with conditions; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.025.C(1)(d), states that, during the negotiation period, “council may negotiate directly with the property owner or may choose to direct the Community Development Director, or other City staff as necessary, to negotiate with the property owner to reach a mutually acceptable agreement for the designation of the property”; and WHEREAS, Section 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 P249 IX.d Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 2 of 5 WHEREAS, in addition to Historic Landmark Designation and benefits available to Landmarked properties subject to the Aspen Municipal Code, the applicant has identified preservation incentives that are requested as part of the AspenModern negotiation process; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department performed an analysis of the application for Landmark Designation and found that the review standards are met, with conditions. 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: Historic Landmark Designation Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby approves Historic Designation for 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen subject to the conditions described herein. Upon the effective date of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall record with the real estate records of the Clerk and Recorder of the County, a certified copy of this ordinance. The location of the historic landmark property designated by this ordinance shall be indicated on the official maps of the City that are maintained by the Community Development Department. Section 2: Aspen Modern Negotiation Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby approves the following, with the conditions that the applicant is required to restore the building as represented in Exhibit F of the January 14, 2013 Council packet, and the applicant is required to pay Park Development Impact Fees and Transportation Demand Impact Fees for the proposed expansion. 1. A free market residential floor area increase of 1,546 square feet, making the total free market floor area 3,046 square feet. The combination of the commercial floor area and the residential free market floor area will exceed what is allowed as a total development for the site by 692 square feet, and 2. Waiver of the fraction of a parking space and the cash-in-lieu payment generated by the proposed expansion; and 3. Waiver of the on-site Utility/Trash/Recycling requirement generated by the proposed expansion based on a satisfactory written agreement to share Recycling and Trash P250 IX.d Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 3 of 5 Storage area with the property directly to the west (616 E. Hyman). A binding, recorded agreement, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney’s Office, detailing how the shared arrangement will function, including the size and type of trash and recycling bins that will be provided, how users of both buildings will have unlimited access to the facilities, and which waste hauler will provide services. In addition, there shall be a plan provided for exact placement and size of trash and recycling containers for both the 610 E. Hyman property and the 616 E. Hyman property, to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department; and 4. Waiver of mitigation for x% of the 1.725 FTE generated by the proposed expansion. The cash in lieu fee to be paid shall be $x, which is the mitigation calculation at the time of this Ordinance. Section 3: Vested Rights The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan and a vested property right attaching to and running with the Subject Property and shall confer upon the Applicant the right to undertake and complete the site specific development plan and use of said property under the terms and conditions of the site specific development plan including any approved amendments thereto. The vesting period of these vested property rights shall be for five (5) years which shall not begin to run until the date of the publications required to be made as set forth below. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of § 26.104.050, Void Permits. Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval by the Historic Preservation Commission, 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 five (5) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite 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. P251 IX.d Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 4 of 5 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 4: Material Representations 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 5: Litigation 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 6: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 7: Public Hearing A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 10th day of December, 2012 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 12th day of November, 2012. _______________________ Michael C. Ireland, Mayor P252 IX.d Ordinance #23, Series of 2012 610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 5 of 5 ATTEST: _____________________________ Kathryn Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of ____, 2013. _______________________ Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________ Kathryn Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ James R. True, City Attorney P253 IX.d P255 IX.d P256 IX.d P257 IX.d P258 IX.d P259 IX.d P260 IX.d P261 IX.d P262 IX.d RECEPTION#: 593974, 11/1512012 at 10:21:43 AM, 1 OF 3, R $21.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K.Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVE HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND PRESERVATION BENEFITS THROUGH THE ASPENMODERN PROGRAM FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 610 E. HYMAN AVENUE,LOT M, BLOCK 999 CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND GRANTINGCONCEPTUALMAJORDEVELOPMENTANDCOMMERCIALDESIGNREVIEW APPROVAL RESOLUTION #279 SERIES OF 2012 PARCEL ID: 2737-182-12-004 WHEREAS, on March 28, 2012, the applicant, 610 E. Hyman LLC, Charles Cunniffe, represented by Haas Land Planning, requested that the property located at 610 E. HymanAvenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, be considered for voluntary historic designation in exchange for specific benefits through the AspenModern negotiation process as described at Section 26.415.025 and Section 26.415.030 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, an AspenModern negotiation period ends 90 days after initiation unless extended by City Council. Council passed Resolution 453, Series of 2012 to extend this negotiation to December 23, 2012; and WHEREAS, an AspenModern negotiation requires that the Historic Preservation Commission, using context papers and integrity scoring sheets for the property under consideration, provideCouncilwithanassessmentoftheproperty's conformance with the designation criteria of Section 26.415.030.C.I- When any benefits that are not included in Section 26.415.110 are requested by the property owner, HPC shall also evaluate how the designation, and any development that is concurrently proposed, meets the policy objectives for the historic preservation program, as stated at Section 26.415.010, Purpose and Intent. As an additional measure of the appropriateness of designation and benefits, HPC shall determine whether the subject property is a "good, better, or best" example of Aspen's 20th century historic resources, referencing the scoring sheets and matrix adopted by City Council; and WHEREAS, concurrent with the designation application, Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval was requested for an expansion to the subject building; 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 adesignatedhistoricpropertyordistrictuntilplansorsufficientinformationhavebeensubmitted 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 ah Code and other Preservation appl able CodeSeSections.peThe HPC 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal 610 E. Hyman Avenue—AspenModern HPC Resolution#27, Series of 2012 P263 IX.d 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 at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Objectives and Guidelines per Section 26.412.040 of the Municipal Code. 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, the proposed expansion project includes a parking waiver, which HPC may grant according to the review standards of Section 26.415.110.C, Benefits, of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the proposed expansion project includes a reduction to the required Utility/Delivery and Trash Storage area, which HPC may grant based on the review standards of Section 26.430, Special Review; and WHEREAS, the proposed redevelopment includes a height increase, which HPC may grant according to the review standards of Section 26.412, Commercial Design Review, of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report to HPC dated October 24, 2012, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards. The staff recommendation was that the property should be designated a landmark as it meets the criteria for designation and the integrity score qualifies as the "better/best" category of historic resources. Staff recommended that the proposed incentives were not appropriate within the AspenModern program due to lack of adequate restoration work, and the project did not meet review standards related to Conceptual Design Review. Staff recommended denial of the project; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 24, 2012, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing, the staff memo and recommendation, and public comments, and recommended Council pursue negotiation for landmark designation for this "better/best" example of an AspenModern resource, with conditions. HPC approved Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design with conditions. The vote of the members was 3 to 1. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED: Block 99, CityThatHPCherebyfindsthatthepropertylocatedat610E. Hyman Avenue,Lot M, and Townsite of Aspen, meets the designation criteria of Land Use Code Section 26.415.030.C.1. HPC supports Council negotiation for voluntary designation of this property only with the condition that the applicant is required to restore the original arched form of the ground floor windows. This restoration work is considered necessary to support a package of preservation incentives which include the following: 1. A free market residential floor area increase of 1,546 square feet, making the total free market floor area 3,046 square feet. The combination of the commercial floor area and 610 E. Hyman Avenue—AspenModern HPC Resolution#27, Series of 2012 P264 IX.d the residential free market floor area will exceed what is allowed as a total development for the site by 692 square feet. 2. 10 years vested rights. 3. Growth Management affordable housing mitigation waiver for the 1.725 employees generated by the proposed 949 square feet of new net leasable space. (This waiver is available in the Municipal Code for all historic landmarks) 4. On-site parking waiver, and waiver of cash-in-lieu fee for the required 0.95 parking spaces generated by the proposed 949 square feet of new net leasable space. (This waiver is available in the Municipal Code for all historic landmarks) 5. Park Development and Transportation Demand Management mitigation fees generated by residential and commercial expansion. (This waiver is available in the Municipal Code for all historic landmarks) HPC hereby grants Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval with the following conditions: 1. HPC approves a full waiver of the required on-site Utility, Delivery and Trash Storage Area with the condition that the applicant provides City Council with an acceptable written agreement for shared Trash Storage area amongst adjacent property owner(s) on Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen. 2. The applicant must restudy the design of the new addition so the project does not exceed a maximum height of 38'. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 24th day of October, 2012. Vay a Vicc Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strick and, iefeputy Clerk 610 E. Hyman Avenue—AspenModern HPC Resolution#27, Series of 2012 P265 IX.d P2 6 7 IX . d P2 6 8 IX . d P2 6 9 IX . d P2 7 1 IX . d P2 7 3 IX . d P2 7 4 IX . d P275 IX.d P2 7 6 IX . d P2 7 7 IX . d Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director THRU: Click here to enter text. DATE OF MEMO: 12/3/2012 MEETING DATE: 12/10/2012 RE: Ordinance 25, 2012. Code Amendment: CC adn C1 Zone Districts REQUEST OF COUNCIL: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Click here to enter text. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FINANCE REVIEW: Click here to enter text. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Click here to enter text. RECOMMENDED ACTION: P279 IX.e Page 2 of 2 ALTERNATIVES: PROPOSED MOTION: CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Notes: • Please use page numbers on all memos and attachments, especially for work sessions • The memo should be as long as it needs to be – but remember, you’re not writing a novel. Use attachments for more detailed information, ordinances and resolutions, etc. • Attachments: All attachments to the memo should be referenced somewhere in the body of the memo. All attachments should be titled as “Attachment”, “Exhibit” or “Schedule” with a letter following: Attachments: A - Exhibit One - Map ... B - Property Description C - Chart of Costs D - Resolution #97-1 P280 IX.e 1.14.2013 – Downtown Zoning Changes 2nd Reading Page 1 of 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: CC & C-1 Zone District Code Amendments Second Reading, Ordinance 25, Series of 2012 DATE OF MEMO: January 7, 2013 MEETING DATE: January 14, 2013 SUMMARY: The attached Ordinance includes proposed code amendments to the downtown based on Council direction provided as part of the Policy Resolution passed August 27, 2012. In addition, associated code clean-ups are included. The objective of the proposed code amendments is to ensure new development in the CC and C-1 zone districts respects the historic character and development pattern in the City, and well as encourage continued vitality of the commercial uses in these zones. Based on Council direction at the last meeting, staff has included 3 options for Council to consider. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance as written (Option 1). LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: This is a continued 2nd reading on proposed code amendments for the downtown. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310, City Council is the final review authority for all code amendments. All code amendments are subject to a three-step process. This is the third step in the process: 1. Public Outreach 2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should the pursued 3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments. CHANGES SINCE 12.10.2012 MEETING: Based on comments from City Council at the last hearing, and after conferring again with the City Attorney, staff has identified three options related to the CC and C-1 zoning amendments. The text of these is attached as Exhibits J - L. Staff is recommending approval of the option presented at the December 10th meeting (Option 1). Each option is detailed below. OPTION 1 – THREE STORY DEVELOPMENT WITH SETBACKS: Option 1 would allow three story development in the CC and C-1 zone districts, while limiting all third stories to 50% of the parcel size, and limiting their uses to lodging, commercial, and affordable housing. Free-market residential development is not allowed under this option. The P281 IX.e 1.14.2013 – Downtown Zoning Changes 2nd Reading Page 2 of 4 revised ordinance reflects this option, including the following proposes the following building heights: CC C-1 Minimum 1st level floor-to-floor height 13 ft. 11 ft. Minimum upper level ceiling height 9 ft. 9 ft. Overall maximum height 38-40 ft. 36-38 ft. Mechanical Over-run 6 ft. from the point attached 6 ft. from the point attached South Side 3rd Story Setback 35 feet from property line 35 feet from property line Staff heard from Council that concerns related to third story development focused primarily on blocking views to the mountain and creating shading on the street. Staff reviewed some shading scenarios, and a setback of 35 feet from the property line for any third story will not result in significant shading on the street. It is also important to note that many buildings that are currently two-stories in height could not be increased to three stories because of the city’s adopted view planes. The above heights enable flexibility in the design process while providing a minimum standard that promotes quality interior spaces. Staff believes these heights are reflective of Aspen’s historic development pattern, which is important to maintain so that new buildings do not look “squished” or out of context with the rest of the buildings in the area. The C-1 zone district is a transitional zone, and as such staff is recommending lower heights than in the CC zone district. The current Commercial Design Guidelines require that all upper levels be lower in stature and heights than the first floor, which staff believes is critical to maintaining Aspen’s historic character and pedestrian scale. Staff has also incorporated this requirement into the proposed code language. The attached code language limits all third floors to no more than 50% of the parcel size. This will enable some flexibility for designers, while ensuring the third floor is minimized. OPTION 2 – THREE STORY DEVELOPMENT ONLY ON SOUTH SIDE PROPERTIES: Option 2 would allow three story development in the CC and C-1 zone districts only on properties on the North Side of the street. Any property on the South Side of the street would be limited to 28 feet. Under this option, all third stories are limited to 50% of the parcel size, and 3rd story uses are limited to lodging, commercial, and affordable housing. Free-market residential development is not allowed under this option. This option includes the following proposed building heights: CC C-1 Minimum 1st level floor-to-floor height 13 ft. 11 ft. Minimum upper level ceiling height 9 ft. 9 ft. Overall maximum height for properties on the north side of a Street 38-40 ft. 36-38 ft. P282 IX.e 1.14.2013 – Downtown Zoning Changes 2nd Reading Page 3 of 4 Overall maximum height for properties on the south side of a Street 28 ft. 28 ft. Mechanical Over-run 6 ft. from the point attached 6 ft. from the point attached While this option is legally defensible, staff remains concerned that simply banning south side development creates inequity and confusion within the zone district. OPTION 3 – TWO STORY DEVELOPMENT: Option 3 is essentially what is in place today: all development in the CC and C-1 zone districts would be limited to 28 feet in height. The main difference is that free-market residential uses would not be allowed in these zones. This option includes the following proposed building heights: CC C-1 Minimum 1st level floor-to-floor height 13 ft. 11 ft. Minimum upper level ceiling height 9 ft. 9 ft. Overall maximum height 28 ft. 28 ft. Mechanical Over-run 6 ft. from the point attached 6 ft. from the point attached OTHER CODE CLEAN-UPS: As staff was updating the code language, we found that the uses allowed in the CC zone district does not correspond to the on-the-ground reality in certain areas. All of the properties north of Main Street include ground floor office. The CC zone district technically does not allow this use, despite the fact that these businesses have been in operation for many years. Staff proposes lifting the ground floor office prohibition on all properties in the CC zone north of Main Street. In addition, the Commercial Lodge (CL) zone limits its basement and ground floor uses to those in the CC zone. Staff proposes amending the CL zone to more clearly outline what is permitted. Similarly to the discussion above, the CC reference in this zone prohibits all ground-floor offices and lodging. This prohibition does not relate to the existing uses in the CL zones. Staff proposes lifting this prohibition in the CL zone. Finally, staff recommends a required setback for all rooftop mechanical equipment. According to the Coburn height study, a 14 foot setback for a 38 foot tall building would eliminate the ability to see the equipment from the street. Staff recommends a 15 foot setback for all mechanical equipment in order to minimize the impact mechanical equipment has on the pedestrian environment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the attached code amendments to the CL zone district and mechanical equipment, as well as amendments to the CC and C-1 zone districts as outlined in Option 1. P283 IX.e 1.14.2013 – Downtown Zoning Changes 2nd Reading Page 4 of 4 RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): “I move to approve Ordinance No. 25, Series of 2012, approving code amendments to the CC and C-1 zone districts, implementing Option ___ [1, 2, or 3], and amending the CL zone district, and the allowances for rooftop heights.” CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENTS: (ONLY ATTACHMENTS IN BOLD ARE INCLUDED WITH THIS PACKET) Exhibit A – Staff Findings Exhibit B – Proposed CC Zone District changes – with redlines Exhibit C – Proposed C-1 Zone District changes – with redlines Exhibit D – Proposed CL Zone District changes – with redlines Exhibit E – Proposed mechanical equipment changes – with redlines Exhibit F – Policy Resolution 82, Series 2012 Exhibit G – Building Height and Mechanical Study Exhibit H – Public Outreach and Feedback: H.1 – Open City Hall H.2 – Online Survey H.3 – Small Group Meeting Summary H.4 – Individual email comments H.5 – Summary of P&Z and HPC Comments Exhibit I – Comparative Heights Study Exhibit J – 1.14.2013 Proposed CC and C-1 zoning changes, option 1 Exhibit K – 1.14.2013 Proposed CC and C-1 zoning changes, option 2 Exhibit L – 1.14.2013 Proposed CC and C-1 zoning changes, option 3 P284 IX.e City Council Ord #25 of 2012 Downtown Zoning Code Amendments Page 1 of 8 ORDINANCE No. 25 (Series of 2012) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMNETS TO THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE: 26.710.140 – COMMERCIAL CORE (CC); 26.710.150 – COMMERCIAL (C-1); 26.710.200(B)(1) – COMMERCIAL LODGE (CL), PERMITTED USES, USES ALLOWED IN BASEMENT AND GROUND FLOORS; 26.575.020(F)(4)(E) – MEASURING BUILDING HEIGHTS, ALLOWED EXCEPTIONS TO HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the Community Development Department to explore code amendments related to the allowed heights and land uses in the downtown; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall begin with Public Outreach, a Policy Resolution reviewed and acted on by City Council, and then final action by City Council after reviewing and considering the recommendation from the Community Development; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development Department conducted Public Outreach, including three small group meetings, an Open City Hall Forum, an on-line survey, and individual letters from members of the public, to gain feedback from the community on potential code changes to the CC and C-1 zone districts; and, WHEREAS, the more than 200 individuals were engaged in the Public Outreach process; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on August 27, 2012, the City Council approved a Policy Resolution, Resolution 82, Series of 2012, directing staff to process code amendments related to heights and land uses in the downtown, by a three - two (3 - 2) vote; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Sections 26.710.140 – Commercial Core (CC); 26.710.150 – Commercial (C-1); 26.710.200(B)(1) – Commercial Lodge (CL), Permitted Uses, Uses allowed in basement and ground floors; 26.575.020(F)(4)(e) – Measuring Building Heights, Allowed Exceptions to Height Limitations, Mechanical Equipment; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendments ad finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310.050; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and P285 IX.e City Council Ord #25 of 2012 Downtown Zoning Code Amendments Page 2 of 8 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: 26.710.140 – Commercial Core (CC), shall be amended as follows: A. Purpose. The purpose of the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District is to allow the use of land for retail, service, commercial, recreation and institutional purposes within mixed-use buildings to support and enhance the business and service character in the historic central business core of the City. The district permits a mix of retail, office, lodging, affordable housing, and short term vacation rental uses oriented to both local and tourist populations to encourage a high level of vitality. Retail and restaurant uses are appropriate for ground floors of buildings while residential, lodging and office uses are not permitted on ground floors. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District: 1. Uses allowed on basement floors: Retail and restaurant uses, office uses, uses and building elements necessary and incidental to uses on other floors. 2. Uses allowed on the ground floor: Retail and restaurant uses and uses and building elements necessary and incidental to uses on other floors. Office uses are prohibited on the ground floor except within spaces set back a minimum of forty (40) feet from a street and recessed behind the front-most street-facing façade. This prohibition shall not apply to split-level buildings (see definition) or properties north of Main Street. Parking shall not be allowed as the sole use of the ground floor. Automotive drive-through service is prohibited. 3. Uses allowed on upper floors: Retail and restaurant uses, office uses, lodging, timeshare lodge, affordable multi-family housing, Vacation rentals and home occupations. 4. Uses allowed on all building levels: Retail and restaurant uses, neighborhood commercial uses, service uses, arts, cultural and civic uses, public uses, recreational uses, academic uses, child care center, accessory uses and structures, storage accessory to a permitted use, uses and building elements necessary and incidental to uses on other floors, including parking accessory to a permitted use, and farmers' market, provided that a vending agreement is obtained pursuant to Section 15.04.350(B). Lodging uses are permitted on the basement and ground levels only when the entire building is dedicated to lodging and associated commercial uses. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425: 1. Gasoline service station. 2. Commercial parking facility, pursuant to Chapter 26.515. D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District: P286 IX.e City Council Ord #25 of 2012 Downtown Zoning Code Amendments Page 3 of 8 1. Minimum Gross Lot Area (square feet): No requirement. 2. Minimum Net Lot Area per dwelling unit (square feet): No requirement. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): No requirement. 4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): No requirement. 5. Minimum side yard setback (feet): No requirement. 6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet): No requirement 7. Minimum utility/trash/recycle area: Pursuant to Section 26.575.060. 8. Maximum height (feet): a. Twenty-Eight (28) feet for two-story elements of a building. b. Thirty-eight (38) feet for three-story elements of a building, which may be increased to forty (40) feet through commercial design review. See Chapter 26.412 and the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. i. Achieving the maximum height is subject to compliance with applicable design standards, view plane requirements, public amenity requirements and other dimensional standards. Accordingly, the maximum height is not an entitlement and is not achievable in all situations. ii. The footprint of all third story conditioned space shall not exceed 50% of the gross parcel square footage. The location of the third story is subject to review and compliance with Chapter 26.412 and the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. For all properties located on the south side of a Street, any third story shall be setback a minimum of thirty-five (35) feet from the property line abutting such Street. 9. Minimum floor heights: a. Minimum First Floor floor-to-floor: Thirteen (13) feet. b. Minimum Upper Floor-to-ceiling height: Nine (9) feet. c. Floor-to-Ceiling heights in upper floors shall be less than the floor-to-ceiling height of the first floor. 10. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot (feet): No requirement. 11. Public amenity space: Pursuant to Section 26.575.030. 12. Floor area ratio (FAR): The following FAR schedule applies to uses cumulatively up to a total maximum FAR of 2.75:1. Achieving the maximum floor area ratio is subject to compliance with applicable design standards, view plane requirements, public amenity P287 IX.e City Council Ord #25 of 2012 Downtown Zoning Code Amendments Page 4 of 8 requirements and other dimensional standards. Accordingly, the maximum FAR is not an entitlement and is not achievable in all situations. a. Commercial uses: 2:1. b. Arts, cultural and civic uses, public uses, recreational uses, academic uses, child care center and similar uses: 2.75:1. c. Affordable multi-family housing: No limitation. d. Lodging: 0.5:1, which may be increased to 2.5:1 if the individual lodge units on the parcel average five hundred (500) net livable square feet or less, which may be comprised of lock-off units. 14. Maximum lodge unit size (square feet): 1,500. When units are comprised of lock-off units, this maximum shall apply to the largest possible combination of units. 15. Commercial/residential ratio: The total residential net livable area shall be no greater than the total above-grade floor area associated with the uses described in Subparagraphs 26.710.140.D.12.a. and b. combined on the same parcel. Section 2: 26.710.150 – Commercial (C-1), shall be amended as follows: A. Purpose. The purpose of the Commercial (C-1) Zone District is to provide for the establishment of mixed-use buildings with commercial uses on the ground floor, opportunities for affordable multi-family residential density, and to support vacation rentals of residential dwelling units. A transition between the commercial core and surrounding residential neighborhoods has been implemented through a slight reduction in allowable floor area as compared to the commercial core, the ability to occupy the ground floor with offices, and a separate chapter in the commercial design guidelines B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Commercial (C-1) Zone District: 1. Uses allowed on upper floors: Lodging, affordable multi-family housing, vacation rentals and home occupations. 2. Uses allowed on all building levels: Retail and restaurant uses, neighborhood commercial uses, service uses, office uses, arts, cultural and civic uses, public uses, recreational uses, academic uses, child care center, bed and breakfast, accessory uses and structures, uses and building elements necessary and incidental to uses on other floors, including parking accessory to a permitted use, storage accessory to a permitted use, farmers' market, provided that a vending agreement is obtained pursuant to Section 15.04.350(b). Parking shall not be allowed as the sole use of the ground floor. Automobile drive-through service is prohibited. Lodging uses are permitted on the basement and ground levels only when the entire building is dedicated to lodging and associated commercial uses. P288 IX.e City Council Ord #25 of 2012 Downtown Zoning Code Amendments Page 5 of 8 C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Commercial (C-1) Zone District, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425: 1. Affordable multi-family housing, or home occupations on the ground floor. 2. Commercial parking facility, pursuant to Section 26.515. D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Commercial (C-1) Zone District: 1. Minimum Gross Lot Area (square feet): a. Bed and breakfast: 3,000. b. All other uses: No requirement. 2. Minimum Net Lot Area per dwelling unit (square feet): a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District. b. All other uses: No requirement. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District. b. All other uses: No requirement. 4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District. b. All other uses: No requirement. 5. Minimum side yard setback (feet): a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District. b. All other uses: No requirement. 6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet): a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District. b. All other uses: No requirement. 7. Minimum utility/trash/recycle area: Pursuant to Section 26.575.060. 8. Maximum height: a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District. b. All other uses: Twenty-Eight (28) feet for two-story elements of a building. Thirty- six (36) feet for three-story elements of a building, which may be increased to thirty- eight (38) feet through commercial design review. See Chapter 26.412 and the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines.. P289 IX.e City Council Ord #25 of 2012 Downtown Zoning Code Amendments Page 6 of 8 i. Achieving the maximum height is subject to compliance with applicable design standards, view plane requirements, public amenity requirements and other dimensional standards. Accordingly, the maximum height is not an entitlement and is not achievable in all situations. ii. The footprint of all third story conditioned space shall not exceed 50% of the gross parcel square footage. The location of the third story is subject to review and compliance with Chapter 26.412 and the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. For all properties located on the south side of a Street, any third story shall be setback a minimum of thirty-five (35) feet from the property line abutting such Street. 9. Minimum floor heights: a. Minimum First Floor floor-to-floor height: Eleven (11) feet. b. Minimum Upper Floor-to-ceiling height: Nine (9) feet. c. Floor-to-Ceiling heights in upper floors shall be less than the floor-to-ceiling height of the first floor. 10. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot (feet): a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District. b. All other uses: No requirement. 11. Public amenity space: Pursuant to Section 26.575.030. 12. Floor area ratio (FAR): The following FAR schedule applies to uses cumulatively up to a total maximum FAR of 2.5:1. Achieving the maximum floor area ratio is subject to compliance with applicable design standards, view plane requirements, public amenity requirements and other dimensional standards. Accordingly, the maximum FAR is not an entitlement and is not achievable in all situations. a. Commercial uses: 1.5:1. b. Arts, cultural and civic uses, public uses, recreational uses, academic uses, child care center and similar uses: 2.5:1. c. Affordable multi-family housing: No limitation. d. Lodging: .5:1, which may be increased to 2:1 if the individual lodge units on the parcel average five hundred (500) net livable square feet or less, which may be comprised of lock-off units. e. Bed and breakfast (as the sole use of parcel and not cumulative with other uses): Eighty percent (80%) of allowable floor area of a same-sized lot located in the R-6 Zone District. (See R-6 Zone District.) Extinguishment of historic TDRs shall not permit additional FAR for single-family or duplex development. 13. Maximum lodge unit size (square feet): 1,500. When units are comprised of lock-off units, this maximum shall apply to the largest possible combination of units. P290 IX.e City Council Ord #25 of 2012 Downtown Zoning Code Amendments Page 7 of 8 Commercial/residential ratio: The total residential net livable area shall be no greater than the total above-grade floor area associated with the uses described in Subparagraphs 26.710.150.D.12.a. and b. combined on the same parcel. Section 3: 26.710.200(B)(1) – Commercial Lodge (CL), Permitted Uses, Uses allowed in basement and ground floors, shall be amended as follows: B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Commercial Lodge (CL) Zone District: 1. Uses allowed in basement and ground floors: Lodging uses, conference facilities, retail and restaurant uses, office uses, neighborhood commercial uses, service uses, arts, cultural and civic uses, public uses, recreational uses, academic uses, and child care center. Uses and facilities necessary and incidental to uses on Upper Floors. Parking shall not be allowed as the sole use of the ground floor. Automobile drive-through service is prohibited. Section 4: 26.575.020(F)(4)(e) – Measuring Building Heights, Allowed Exceptions to Height Limitations, Mechanical Equipment, shall be amended as follows: e) Mechanical Equipment. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, and similar mechanical equipment or utility apparatus located on top of a building may extend up to six (6) feet above height of the building at the point the equipment is attached. This allowance is inclusive of any pad the equipment is placed on, as well as any screening. Mechanical equipment shall be screened, combined, and co-located to the greatest extent practicable. On structures other than a single-family or duplex residential building or an accessory building, all mechanical equipment shall be set back from any Street facing façade of the building a minimum of fifteen (15) feet. Section 5: Effect Upon Existing Litigation. 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 6: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 7: Effective Date. In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final passage. P291 IX.e City Council Ord #25 of 2012 Downtown Zoning Code Amendments Page 8 of 8 Section 8: A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 26th day of November, 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 12th day of November, 2012. Attest: __________________________ ____________________________ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of ______, 2013. Attest: __________________________ ___________________________ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Approved as to form: ___________________________ City Attorney P292 IX.e 1.14.2013 Downtown Zoning 2nd Reading; Exhibit A Page 1 of 1 Exhibit A: Staff Findings 26.310.050 Amendments to the Land Use Code Standards of review - Adoption. In reviewing an application to amend the text of this Title, per Section 26.310.020(B)(3), Step Three – Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. Staff Findings: The proposed code amendment is consistent with the Land Use Code. It amends the dimensional standards in the CC, C-1, and CL zones, and amends the allowed height and setback of mechanical equipment. In addition, it amends the uses permitted in these zones. These changes are consistent with city policy and the Land Use Code. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Whether the proposed amendment achieves the policy, community goal, or objective cited as reasons for the code amendment or achieves other public policy objectives. Staff Findings: The stated reasons for the code amendment to update the downtown zoning code were to ensure development is consistent with Aspen’s historic two and tree story development pattern, to maintain commercial uses in commercial zones, and to encourage lodging development. The code language is consistent with these reasons, and furthers general policy goals outlined in the Aspen Area Community Plan: The AACP calls for an examination of building heights, and includes a policy stating, “Establish lower maximum building heights to maintain Aspen’s small town character.” (Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability Policy I.6) It also calls for an examination of commercial zone districts: “Ensure that the City Land Use Code results in (commercial) development that reflects our architectural heritage in terms of site coverage, mass, scale, density and a diversity of heights...” (Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability Policy V.3) In addition, the AACP discusses the importance of maintaining commercial uses in the commercial zones. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment are compatible with the community character of the City and in harmony with the public interest and the purpose and intent of this Title. Staff Findings: The intent of the proposed amendments are to ensure new development in the CC and C-1 zone districts respects the historic character and development pattern in the City, and well as encourage continued vitality of the commercial uses in these zones. This is consistent with the intent of the City’s Land Use Code. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P293 IX.e Exhibit D – CL Downtown Zoning Changes Page 1 of 1 Exhibit D – Redline changes to 26.710.200 Commercial Lodge (CL). B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Commercial Lodge (CL) Zone District: 1. Uses allowed in basement and ground floors: Lodging uses, retail and restaurant uses, office uses, neighborhood commercial uses, service uses, arts, cultural and civic uses, public uses, recreational uses, academic uses, and child care center. Those uses allowed in Basement and Ground Floors, respectively, within the Commercial Core Zone District. Uses and facilities necessary and incidental to uses on Upper Floors. Parking shall not be allowed as the sole use of the ground floor. Automobile drive-through service is prohibited. P295 IX.e Exhibit E – Mechanical Downtown Zoning Changes Page 1 of 1 Exhibit E – Redline changes to 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements F. Measuring Building Heights. 4. Allowed Exceptions to Height Limitations. e) Mechanical Equipment. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, and similar mechanical equipment or utility apparatus located on top of a building may extend up to five six (65) feet above height of the building at the point the equipment is attached. This allowance is inclusive of any pad the equipment is placed on. Mechanical equipment shall be combined and co-located to the greatest extent practicable. On structures other than a single-family or duplex residential building or an accessory building, all mechanical equipment shall be set back from any Street facing façade of the building a minimum of twenty fifteen (1520) feet. Mechanical equipment shall be combined and co-located to the greatest extent practicable. P297 IX.e Exhibit J – CC and C-1 Downtown Zoning Changes, Option 1 Page 1 of 7 Exhibit J – 1.14.2013 Proposed CC and C-1 zone district changes, Option 1 Option 1 allows three story development in the CC and C-1 zone districts, with a 35 foot setback for any three story development on the south side of a Street. The redlines below are labeled as Section 1 and Section 2. These section headings correspond to the Ordinance sections for CC and C-1. Section 1: 26.710.140 – Commercial Core (CC), shall be amended as follows: A. Purpose. The purpose of the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District is to allow the use of land for retail, service, commercial, recreation and institutional purposes within mixed-use buildings to support and enhance the business and service character in the historic central business core of the City. The district permits a mix of retail, office, lodging, affordable housing, free-market housing, and short term vacation rental uses oriented to both local and tourist populations to encourage a high level of vitality. Retail and restaurant uses are appropriate for ground floors of buildings while residential, lodging and office uses are not permitted on ground floors. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District: 1. Uses allowed on basement floors: Retail and restaurant uses, office uses, uses and building elements necessary and incidental to uses on other floors. 2. Uses allowed on the ground floor: Retail and restaurant uses and uses and building elements necessary and incidental to uses on other floors. Office uses are prohibited on the ground floor except within spaces set back a minimum of forty (40) feet from a street and recessed behind the front-most street-facing façade. This prohibition shall not apply to split-level buildings (see definition) or properties north of Main Street. Parking shall not be allowed as the sole use of the ground floor. Automotive drive-through service is prohibited. 3. Uses allowed on upper floors: Retail and restaurant uses, office uses, lodging, timeshare lodge, affordable multi-family housing, free-market multi-family housing, Vacation rentals and home occupations. 4. Uses allowed on all building levels: Retail and restaurant uses, neighborhood commercial uses, service uses, arts, cultural and civic uses, public uses, recreational uses, academic uses, child care center, accessory uses and structures, storage accessory to a permitted use, uses and building elements necessary and incidental to uses on other floors, including parking accessory to a permitted use, and farmers' market, provided that a vending agreement is obtained pursuant to Section 15.04.350(B). Lodging uses are permitted on the basement and ground levels only when the entire building is dedicated to lodging and associated commercial uses. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425: 1. Gasoline service station. P299 IX.e Exhibit J – CC and C-1 Downtown Zoning Changes, Option 1 Page 2 of 7 2. Commercial parking facility, pursuant to Chapter 26.515. D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District: 1. Minimum Gross Lot Area (square feet): No requirement. 2. Minimum Net Lot Area per dwelling unit (square feet): No requirement. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): No requirement. 4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): No requirement. 5. Minimum side yard setback (feet): No requirement. 6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet): No requirement 7. Minimum utility/trash/recycle area: Pursuant to Section 26.575.060. 8. Maximum height (feet): a. Ttwenty-Eeight (28) feet for two-story elements of a building. b. Thirty-eight (38) feet for three-story elements of a building, which may be increased to forty (40) feet through commercial design review. See Chapter 26.412 and the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. i. Achieving the maximum height is subject to compliance with applicable design standards, view plane requirements, public amenity requirements and other dimensional standards. Accordingly, the maximum height is not an entitlement and is not achievable in all situations. i.ii. The footprint of all third story conditioned space shall not exceed 50% of the gross parcel square footage. The location of the third story is subject to review and compliance with Chapter 26.412 and the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. For all properties located on the south side of a Street, any third story shall be setback a minimum of thirty-five (35) feet from the property line abutting such Street. b. Upon passage of future code amendments by City Council, three-story structures may be permitted to encourage certain uses deemed important, as may be defined at the time. 8.9.Minimum floor to floor heights: a. Minimum First Floor floor-to-floor: Ten (10) feet to a maximum of fifteen (15) feet Thirteen (13) feet. b. Minimum Upper Floor-to-ceiling height: Nine (9) feet. P300 IX.e Exhibit J – CC and C-1 Downtown Zoning Changes, Option 1 Page 3 of 7 a.c. Floor-to-Ceiling heights in upper floors shall be less than the floor-to-ceiling height of the first floor. 9.10. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot (feet): No requirement. 10.11. Public amenity space: Pursuant to Section 26.575.030. 11.12. Floor area ratio (FAR): The following FAR schedule applies to uses cumulatively up to a total maximum FAR of 2.75:1. Achieving the maximum floor area ratio is subject to compliance with applicable design standards, view plane requirements, public amenity requirements and other dimensional standards. Accordingly, the maximum FAR is not an entitlement and is not achievable in all situations. a. Commercial uses: 2:1. b. Arts, cultural and civic uses, public uses, recreational uses, academic uses, child care center and similar uses: 2.75:1. c. Affordable multi-family housing: No limitation. d. Lodging: 0.5:1, which may be increased to 1.52.5:1 if the individual lodge units on the parcel average five hundred (500) net livable square feet or less, which may be comprised of lock-off units. Free-market multi-family housing: For non-historic properties: 0.5:1, if affordable housing equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the free-market residential floor area is developed on the same parcel. For Historic Landmark Properties: 0.5:1. 12. Maximum multi-family residential dwelling unit size (square feet): two thousand (2,000) square feet of net livable area. a. The property owner may increase individual multi-family unit size by extinguishing historic transferable development right certificates ("certificate" or "certificates"), subject to the following: 1) The transfer ratio is 500 square feet of net livable area for each certificate that is extinguished. 2) The additional square footage accrued may be applied to multiple units. However, the maximum individual unit size attainable by transferring development rights is 2,500 square feet of net livable area (i.e., no more than five hundred [500] additional square feet may be applied per unit). 3) This incentive applies only to individual unit size. Transferring development rights does not allow an increase in the FAR of the lot. Commentary: Refer to Chapter 26.535 for the procedures for extinguishing certificates. 14. Maximum lodge unit size (square feet): 1,500. When units are comprised of lock-off units, this maximum shall apply to the largest possible combination of units. 15. Commercial/residential ratio: The total lodging and free-market residential net livable area shall be no greater than the total above-grade floor area associated with the uses described in Subparagraphs 26.710.140.D.121.a. and b. combined on the same parcel. P301 IX.e Exhibit J – CC and C-1 Downtown Zoning Changes, Option 1 Page 4 of 7 Section 2: 26.710.150 – Commercial (C-1), shall be amended as follows: A. Purpose. The purpose of the Commercial (C-1) Zone District is to provide for the establishment of mixed-use buildings with commercial uses on the ground floor, opportunities for affordable multi-family and free-market residential density, and to support vacation rentals of residential dwelling units. A transition between the commercial core and surrounding residential neighborhoods has been implemented through a slight reduction in allowable floor area as compared to the commercial core, the ability to occupy the ground floor with offices, and a separate chapter in the commercial design guidelines B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Commercial (C-1) Zone District: 1. Uses allowed on upper floors: Lodging, affordable multi-family housing, free-market multi-family housing, vacation rentals and home occupations. 2. Uses allowed on all building levels: Retail and restaurant uses, neighborhood commercial uses, service uses, office uses, arts, cultural and civic uses, public uses, recreational uses, academic uses, child care center, bed and breakfast, accessory uses and structures, uses and building elements necessary and incidental to uses on other floors, including parking accessory to a permitted use, storage accessory to a permitted use, farmers' market, provided that a vending agreement is obtained pursuant to Section 15.04.350(b). Parking shall not be allowed as the sole use of the ground floor. Automobile drive-through service is prohibited. Lodging uses are permitted on the basement and ground levels only when the entire building is dedicated to lodging and associated commercial uses. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Commercial (C-1) Zone District, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425: 1. Lodging, aAffordable multi-family housing, free-market multi-family housing or home occupations on the ground floor. 2. Commercial parking facility, pursuant to Section 26.515. D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Commercial (C-1) Zone District: 1. Minimum Gross Lot Area (square feet): a. Bed and breakfast: 3,000. b. All other uses: No requirement. 2. Minimum Net Lot Area per dwelling unit (square feet): a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District. b. All other uses: No requirement. P302 IX.e Exhibit J – CC and C-1 Downtown Zoning Changes, Option 1 Page 5 of 7 3. Minimum lot width (feet): a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District. b. All other uses: No requirement. 4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District. b. All other uses: No requirement. 5. Minimum side yard setback (feet): a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District. b. All other uses: No requirement. 6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet): a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District. b. All other uses: No requirement. 7. Minimum utility/trash/recycle area: Pursuant to Section 26.575.060. 8. Maximum height: a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District. b. All other uses: Ttwenty-Eeight (28) feet for two-story elements of a building. Thirty- six (36) feet for three-story elements of a building, which may be increased to thirty- eight (38) feet through commercial design review. See Chapter 26.412 and the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines.. i. Achieving the maximum height is subject to compliance with applicable design standards, view plane requirements, public amenity requirements and other dimensional standards. Accordingly, the maximum height is not an entitlement and is not achievable in all situations. i.ii. The footprint of all third story conditioned space shall not exceed 50% of the gross parcel square footage. The location of the third story is subject to review and compliance with Chapter 26.412 and the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. For all properties located on the south side of a Street, any third story shall be setback a minimum of thirty-five (35) feet from the property line abutting such Street. b. Upon passage of future code amendments by City Council, three-story structures may be permitted to encourage certain uses deemed important, as may be defined at the time. 9. Minimum floor to floor heights: a. Minimum First Floor floor-to-floor height: Nine (9) feet to a maximum of thirteen (13) feet Eleven (11) feet. P303 IX.e Exhibit J – CC and C-1 Downtown Zoning Changes, Option 1 Page 6 of 7 b. Minimum Upper Floor-to-ceiling height: Nine (9) feet. a.c. Floor-to-Ceiling heights in upper floors shall be less than the floor-to-ceiling height of the first floor. 10. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot (feet): a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District. b. All other uses: No requirement. 11. Public amenity space: Pursuant to Section 26.575.030. 12. Floor area ratio (FAR): The following FAR schedule applies to uses cumulatively up to a total maximum FAR of 2.5:1. Achieving the maximum floor area ratio is subject to compliance with applicable design standards, view plane requirements, public amenity requirements and other dimensional standards. Accordingly, the maximum FAR is not an entitlement and is not achievable in all situations. a. Commercial uses: 1.5:1. b. Arts, cultural and civic uses, public uses, recreational uses, academic uses, child care center and similar uses: 2.5:1. c. Affordable multi-family housing: No limitation. d. Lodging: .5:1, which may be increased to 1.52:1 if the individual lodge units on the parcel average five hundred (500) net livable square feet or less, which may be comprised of lock-off units. Free-market multi-family housing: For non-historic properties: 0.5:1, if affordable housing equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the free-market residential floor area is developed on the same parcel. For Historic Landmark Properties: 0.5:1. e. Bed and breakfast (as the sole use of parcel and not cumulative with other uses): Eighty percent (80%) of allowable floor area of a same-sized lot located in the R-6 Zone District. (See R-6 Zone District.) Extinguishment of historic TDRs shall not permit additional FAR for single-family or duplex development. 13. Maximum multi-family residential dwelling unit size (square feet): 2,000 square feet of net livable area. a. The property owner may increase individual multi-family unit size by extinguishing historic transferable development right certificates ("certificate" or "certificates"), subject to the following: 1) The transfer ratio is five hundred (500) square feet of net livable area for each certificate that is purchased. 2) The additional square footage accrued may be applied to multiple units. However, the maximum individual unit size attainable by transferring development rights is two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of net livable area (i.e., no more than five hundred [500] additional square feet may be applied per unit). P304 IX.e Exhibit J – CC and C-1 Downtown Zoning Changes, Option 1 Page 7 of 7 3) This incentive applies only to individual unit size. Transferring development rights does not allow an increase in the FAR of the lot. Commentary: Refer to Chapter 26.535 for the procedures for extinguishing certificates. 14.13. Maximum lodge unit size (square feet): 1,500. When units are comprised of lock-off units, this maximum shall apply to the largest possible combination of units. Commercial/residential ratio: The total lodging and free-market residential net livable area shall be no greater than the total above-grade floor area associated with the uses described in Subparagraphs 26.710.150.D.121.a. and b. combined on the same parcel. P305 IX.e Exhibit K – CC and C-1 Downtown Zoning Changes, Option 2 Page 1 of 7 Exhibit K – 1.14.2013 Proposed CC and C-1 zone district changes, Option 2 Option 2 allows three story development only on properties on the south side of the Street in the CC and C-1 zone districts. The redlines below are labeled as Section 1 and Section 2. These section headings correspond to the Ordinance sections for CC and C-1. Section 1: 26.710.140 – Commercial Core (CC), shall be amended as follows: A. Purpose. The purpose of the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District is to allow the use of land for retail, service, commercial, recreation and institutional purposes within mixed-use buildings to support and enhance the business and service character in the historic central business core of the City. The district permits a mix of retail, office, lodging, affordable housing, free-market housing, and short term vacation rental uses oriented to both local and tourist populations to encourage a high level of vitality. Retail and restaurant uses are appropriate for ground floors of buildings while residential, lodging and office uses are not permitted on ground floors. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District: 1. Uses allowed on basement floors: Retail and restaurant uses, office uses, uses and building elements necessary and incidental to uses on other floors. 2. Uses allowed on the ground floor: Retail and restaurant uses and uses and building elements necessary and incidental to uses on other floors. Office uses are prohibited on the ground floor except within spaces set back a minimum of forty (40) feet from a street and recessed behind the front-most street-facing façade. This prohibition shall not apply to split-level buildings (see definition) or properties north of Main Street. Parking shall not be allowed as the sole use of the ground floor. Automotive drive-through service is prohibited. 3. Uses allowed on upper floors: Retail and restaurant uses, office uses, lodging, timeshare lodge, affordable multi-family housing, free-market multi-family housing, Vacation rentals and home occupations. 4. Uses allowed on all building levels: Retail and restaurant uses, neighborhood commercial uses, service uses, arts, cultural and civic uses, public uses, recreational uses, academic uses, child care center, accessory uses and structures, storage accessory to a permitted use, uses and building elements necessary and incidental to uses on other floors, including parking accessory to a permitted use, and farmers' market, provided that a vending agreement is obtained pursuant to Section 15.04.350(B). Lodging uses are permitted on the basement and ground levels only when the entire building is dedicated to lodging and associated commercial uses. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425: 1. Gasoline service station. 2. Commercial parking facility, pursuant to Chapter 26.515. P307 IX.e Exhibit K – CC and C-1 Downtown Zoning Changes, Option 2 Page 2 of 7 D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District: 1. Minimum Gross Lot Area (square feet): No requirement. 2. Minimum Net Lot Area per dwelling unit (square feet): No requirement. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): No requirement. 4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): No requirement. 5. Minimum side yard setback (feet): No requirement. 6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet): No requirement 7. Minimum utility/trash/recycle area: Pursuant to Section 26.575.060. 8. Maximum height (feet): a. For properties located on the south side of a Street: i. Ttwenty-Eeight (28) feet for two-story elements of a building. b. For properties located on the north side of a Street: i. Twenty-Eight (28) feet for two story elements of a building. ii. Thirty-eight (38) feet for three-story elements of a building, which may be increased to forty (40) feet through commercial design review. See Chapter 26.412 and the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. 1. Achieving the maximum height is subject to compliance with applicable design standards, view plane requirements, public amenity requirements and other dimensional standards. Accordingly, the maximum height is not an entitlement and is not achievable in all situations. 1.2.The footprint of all third story conditioned space shall not exceed 50% of the gross parcel square footage. The location of the third story is subject to review and compliance with Chapter 26.412 and the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. b. Upon passage of future code amendments by City Council, three-story structures may be permitted to encourage certain uses deemed important, as may be defined at the time. 8.9.Minimum floor to floor heights: a. Minimum First Floor floor-to-floor: Ten (10) feet to a maximum of fifteen (15) feet Thirteen (13) feet. P308 IX.e Exhibit K – CC and C-1 Downtown Zoning Changes, Option 2 Page 3 of 7 b. Minimum Upper Floor-to-ceiling height: Nine (9) feet. a.c. Floor-to-Ceiling heights in upper floors shall be less than the floor-to-ceiling height of the first floor. 9.10. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot (feet): No requirement. 10.11. Public amenity space: Pursuant to Section 26.575.030. 11.12. Floor area ratio (FAR): The following FAR schedule applies to uses cumulatively up to a total maximum FAR of 2.75:1. Achieving the maximum floor area ratio is subject to compliance with applicable design standards, view plane requirements, public amenity requirements and other dimensional standards. Accordingly, the maximum FAR is not an entitlement and is not achievable in all situations. a. Commercial uses: 2:1. b. Arts, cultural and civic uses, public uses, recreational uses, academic uses, child care center and similar uses: 2.75:1. c. Affordable multi-family housing: No limitation. d. Lodging: 0.5:1, which may be increased to 1.52.5:1 if the individual lodge units on the parcel average five hundred (500) net livable square feet or less, which may be comprised of lock-off units. Free-market multi-family housing: For non-historic properties: 0.5:1, if affordable housing equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the free-market residential floor area is developed on the same parcel. For Historic Landmark Properties: 0.5:1. 12. Maximum multi-family residential dwelling unit size (square feet): two thousand (2,000) square feet of net livable area. a. The property owner may increase individual multi-family unit size by extinguishing historic transferable development right certificates ("certificate" or "certificates"), subject to the following: 1) The transfer ratio is 500 square feet of net livable area for each certificate that is extinguished. 2) The additional square footage accrued may be applied to multiple units. However, the maximum individual unit size attainable by transferring development rights is 2,500 square feet of net livable area (i.e., no more than five hundred [500] additional square feet may be applied per unit). 3) This incentive applies only to individual unit size. Transferring development rights does not allow an increase in the FAR of the lot. Commentary: Refer to Chapter 26.535 for the procedures for extinguishing certificates. 14. Maximum lodge unit size (square feet): 1,500. When units are comprised of lock-off units, this maximum shall apply to the largest possible combination of units. P309 IX.e Exhibit K – CC and C-1 Downtown Zoning Changes, Option 2 Page 4 of 7 15. Commercial/residential ratio: The total lodging and free-market residential net livable area shall be no greater than the total above-grade floor area associated with the uses described in Subparagraphs 26.710.140.D.121.a. and b. combined on the same parcel. Section 2: 26.710.150 – Commercial (C-1), shall be amended as follows: A. Purpose. The purpose of the Commercial (C-1) Zone District is to provide for the establishment of mixed-use buildings with commercial uses on the ground floor, opportunities for affordable multi-family and free-market residential density, and to support vacation rentals of residential dwelling units. A transition between the commercial core and surrounding residential neighborhoods has been implemented through a slight reduction in allowable floor area as compared to the commercial core, the ability to occupy the ground floor with offices, and a separate chapter in the commercial design guidelines B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Commercial (C-1) Zone District: 1. Uses allowed on upper floors: Lodging, affordable multi-family housing, free-market multi-family housing, vacation rentals and home occupations. 2. Uses allowed on all building levels: Retail and restaurant uses, neighborhood commercial uses, service uses, office uses, arts, cultural and civic uses, public uses, recreational uses, academic uses, child care center, bed and breakfast, accessory uses and structures, uses and building elements necessary and incidental to uses on other floors, including parking accessory to a permitted use, storage accessory to a permitted use, farmers' market, provided that a vending agreement is obtained pursuant to Section 15.04.350(b). Parking shall not be allowed as the sole use of the ground floor. Automobile drive-through service is prohibited. Lodging uses are permitted on the basement and ground levels only when the entire building is dedicated to lodging and associated commercial uses. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Commercial (C-1) Zone District, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425: 1. Lodging, aAffordable multi-family housing, free-market multi-family housing or home occupations on the ground floor. 2. Commercial parking facility, pursuant to Section 26.515. D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Commercial (C-1) Zone District: 1. Minimum Gross Lot Area (square feet): a. Bed and breakfast: 3,000. b. All other uses: No requirement. 2. Minimum Net Lot Area per dwelling unit (square feet): P310 IX.e Exhibit K – CC and C-1 Downtown Zoning Changes, Option 2 Page 5 of 7 a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District. b. All other uses: No requirement. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District. b. All other uses: No requirement. 4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District. b. All other uses: No requirement. 5. Minimum side yard setback (feet): a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District. b. All other uses: No requirement. 6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet): a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District. b. All other uses: No requirement. 7. Minimum utility/trash/recycle area: Pursuant to Section 26.575.060. 8. Maximum height: a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District. b. All other uses: c. For properties located on the south side of a Street: i. Twenty-Eight (28) feet. d. For properties located on the north side of a Street: i. Ttwenty-Eeight (28) feet for two-story elements of a building. Thirty-six (36) feet for three-story elements of a building, which may be increased to thirty-eight (38) feet through commercial design review. See Chapter 26.412 and the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines.. ii. Achieving the maximum height is subject to compliance with applicable design standards, view plane requirements, public amenity requirements and other dimensional standards. Accordingly, the maximum height is not an entitlement and is not achievable in all situations. i.iii. The footprint of all third story conditioned space shall not exceed 50% of the gross parcel square footage. The location of the third story is subject to review and compliance with Chapter 26.412 and the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. P311 IX.e Exhibit K – CC and C-1 Downtown Zoning Changes, Option 2 Page 6 of 7 b. Upon passage of future code amendments by City Council, three-story structures may be permitted to encourage certain uses deemed important, as may be defined at the time. 9. Minimum floor to floor heights: a. Minimum First Floor floor-to-floor height: Nine (9) feet to a maximum of thirteen (13) feet Eleven (11) feet. b. Minimum Upper Floor-to-ceiling height: Nine (9) feet. a.c. Floor-to-Ceiling heights in upper floors shall be less than the floor-to-ceiling height of the first floor. 10. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot (feet): a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District. b. All other uses: No requirement. 11. Public amenity space: Pursuant to Section 26.575.030. 12. Floor area ratio (FAR): The following FAR schedule applies to uses cumulatively up to a total maximum FAR of 2.5:1. Achieving the maximum floor area ratio is subject to compliance with applicable design standards, view plane requirements, public amenity requirements and other dimensional standards. Accordingly, the maximum FAR is not an entitlement and is not achievable in all situations. a. Commercial uses: 1.5:1. b. Arts, cultural and civic uses, public uses, recreational uses, academic uses, child care center and similar uses: 2.5:1. c. Affordable multi-family housing: No limitation. d. Lodging: .5:1, which may be increased to 1.52:1 if the individual lodge units on the parcel average five hundred (500) net livable square feet or less, which may be comprised of lock-off units. Free-market multi-family housing: For non-historic properties: 0.5:1, if affordable housing equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the free-market residential floor area is developed on the same parcel. For Historic Landmark Properties: 0.5:1. e. Bed and breakfast (as the sole use of parcel and not cumulative with other uses): Eighty percent (80%) of allowable floor area of a same-sized lot located in the R-6 Zone District. (See R-6 Zone District.) Extinguishment of historic TDRs shall not permit additional FAR for single-family or duplex development. 13. Maximum multi-family residential dwelling unit size (square feet): 2,000 square feet of net livable area. a. The property owner may increase individual multi-family unit size by extinguishing historic transferable development right certificates ("certificate" or "certificates"), subject to the following: P312 IX.e Exhibit K – CC and C-1 Downtown Zoning Changes, Option 2 Page 7 of 7 1) The transfer ratio is five hundred (500) square feet of net livable area for each certificate that is purchased. 2) The additional square footage accrued may be applied to multiple units. However, the maximum individual unit size attainable by transferring development rights is two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of net livable area (i.e., no more than five hundred [500] additional square feet may be applied per unit). 3) This incentive applies only to individual unit size. Transferring development rights does not allow an increase in the FAR of the lot. Commentary: Refer to Chapter 26.535 for the procedures for extinguishing certificates. 14.13. Maximum lodge unit size (square feet): 1,500. When units are comprised of lock-off units, this maximum shall apply to the largest possible combination of units. Commercial/residential ratio: The total lodging and free-market residential net livable area shall be no greater than the total above-grade floor area associated with the uses described in Subparagraphs 26.710.150.D.121.a. and b. combined on the same parcel. P313 IX.e Exhibit L – CC and C-1 Downtown Zoning Changes, Option 3 Page 1 of 6 Exhibit L – 1.14.2013 Proposed CC and C-1 zone district changes, Option 3 Option 3 allows two story development in the CC and C-1 zone districts. The redlines below are labeled as Section 1 and Section 2. These section headings correspond to the Ordinance sections for CC and C-1. Section 1: 26.710.140 – Commercial Core (CC), shall be amended as follows: A. Purpose. The purpose of the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District is to allow the use of land for retail, service, commercial, recreation and institutional purposes within mixed-use buildings to support and enhance the business and service character in the historic central business core of the City. The district permits a mix of retail, office, lodging, affordable housing, free-market housing, and short term vacation rental uses oriented to both local and tourist populations to encourage a high level of vitality. Retail and restaurant uses are appropriate for ground floors of buildings while residential, lodging and office uses are not permitted on ground floors. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District: 1. Uses allowed on basement floors: Retail and restaurant uses, office uses, uses and building elements necessary and incidental to uses on other floors. 2. Uses allowed on the ground floor: Retail and restaurant uses and uses and building elements necessary and incidental to uses on other floors. Office uses are prohibited on the ground floor except within spaces set back a minimum of forty (40) feet from a street and recessed behind the front-most street-facing façade. This prohibition shall not apply to split-level buildings (see definition) or properties north of Main Street. Parking shall not be allowed as the sole use of the ground floor. Automotive drive-through service is prohibited. 3. Uses allowed on upper floors: Retail and restaurant uses, office uses, lodging, timeshare lodge, affordable multi-family housing, free-market multi-family housing, Vacation rentals and home occupations. 4. Uses allowed on all building levels: Retail and restaurant uses, neighborhood commercial uses, service uses, arts, cultural and civic uses, public uses, recreational uses, academic uses, child care center, accessory uses and structures, storage accessory to a permitted use, uses and building elements necessary and incidental to uses on other floors, including parking accessory to a permitted use, and farmers' market, provided that a vending agreement is obtained pursuant to Section 15.04.350(B). Lodging uses are permitted on the basement and ground levels only when the entire building is dedicated to lodging and associated commercial uses. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425: 1. Gasoline service station. 2. Commercial parking facility, pursuant to Chapter 26.515. P315 IX.e Exhibit L – CC and C-1 Downtown Zoning Changes, Option 3 Page 2 of 6 D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District: 1. Minimum Gross Lot Area (square feet): No requirement. 2. Minimum Net Lot Area per dwelling unit (square feet): No requirement. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): No requirement. 4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): No requirement. 5. Minimum side yard setback (feet): No requirement. 6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet): No requirement 7. Minimum utility/trash/recycle area: Pursuant to Section 26.575.060. 8. Maximum height (feet): Ttwenty-Eeight (28) feet for two-story elements of a building. a. Achieving the maximum height is subject to compliance with applicable design standards, view plane requirements, public amenity requirements and other dimensional standards. Accordingly, the maximum height is not an entitlement and is not achievable in all situations. 8. a. Upon passage of future code amendments by City Council, three-story structures may be permitted to encourage certain uses deemed important, as may be defined at the time. 9. Minimum floor to floor heights: a. Minimum First Floor floor-to-floor: Ten (10) feet to a maximum of fifteen (15) feet Thirteen (13) feet. b. Minimum Upper Floor-to-ceiling height: Nine (9) feet. a.c. Floor-to-Ceiling heights in upper floors shall be less than the floor-to-ceiling height of the first floor. 10. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot (feet): No requirement. 11. Public amenity space: Pursuant to Section 26.575.030. 12. Floor area ratio (FAR): The following FAR schedule applies to uses cumulatively up to a total maximum FAR of 2.75:1. Achieving the maximum floor area ratio is subject to compliance with applicable design standards, view plane requirements, public amenity requirements and other dimensional standards. Accordingly, the maximum FAR is not an entitlement and is not achievable in all situations. a. Commercial uses: 2:1. b. Arts, cultural and civic uses, public uses, recreational uses, academic uses, child care center and similar uses: 2.75:1. P316 IX.e Exhibit L – CC and C-1 Downtown Zoning Changes, Option 3 Page 3 of 6 c. Affordable multi-family housing: No limitation. d. Lodging: 0.5:1, which may be increased to 1.52.5:1 if the individual lodge units on the parcel average five hundred (500) net livable square feet or less, which may be comprised of lock-off units. Free-market multi-family housing: For non-historic properties: 0.5:1, if affordable housing equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the free-market residential floor area is developed on the same parcel. For Historic Landmark Properties: 0.5:1. 13. Maximum multi-family residential dwelling unit size (square feet): two thousand (2,000) square feet of net livable area. a. The property owner may increase individual multi-family unit size by extinguishing historic transferable development right certificates ("certificate" or "certificates"), subject to the following: 1) The transfer ratio is 500 square feet of net livable area for each certificate that is extinguished. 2) The additional square footage accrued may be applied to multiple units. However, the maximum individual unit size attainable by transferring development rights is 2,500 square feet of net livable area (i.e., no more than five hundred [500] additional square feet may be applied per unit). 3) This incentive applies only to individual unit size. Transferring development rights does not allow an increase in the FAR of the lot. Commentary: Refer to Chapter 26.535 for the procedures for extinguishing certificates. 14. Maximum lodge unit size (square feet): 1,500. When units are comprised of lock-off units, this maximum shall apply to the largest possible combination of units. 15. Commercial/residential ratio: The total lodging and free-market residential net livable area shall be no greater than the total above-grade floor area associated with the uses described in Subparagraphs 26.710.140.D.121.a. and b. combined on the same parcel. Section 2: 26.710.150 – Commercial (C-1), shall be amended as follows: A. Purpose. The purpose of the Commercial (C-1) Zone District is to provide for the establishment of mixed-use buildings with commercial uses on the ground floor, opportunities for affordable multi-family and free-market residential density, and to support vacation rentals of residential dwelling units. A transition between the commercial core and surrounding residential neighborhoods has been implemented through a slight reduction in allowable floor area as compared to the commercial core, the ability to occupy the ground floor with offices, and a separate chapter in the commercial design guidelines B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Commercial (C-1) Zone District: 1. Uses allowed on upper floors: Lodging, affordable multi-family housing, free-market multi-family housing, vacation rentals and home occupations. P317 IX.e Exhibit L – CC and C-1 Downtown Zoning Changes, Option 3 Page 4 of 6 2. Uses allowed on all building levels: Retail and restaurant uses, neighborhood commercial uses, service uses, office uses, arts, cultural and civic uses, public uses, recreational uses, academic uses, child care center, bed and breakfast, accessory uses and structures, uses and building elements necessary and incidental to uses on other floors, including parking accessory to a permitted use, storage accessory to a permitted use, farmers' market, provided that a vending agreement is obtained pursuant to Section 15.04.350(b). Parking shall not be allowed as the sole use of the ground floor. Automobile drive-through service is prohibited. Lodging uses are permitted on the basement and ground levels only when the entire building is dedicated to lodging and associated commercial uses. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Commercial (C-1) Zone District, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425: 1. Lodging, aAffordable multi-family housing, free-market multi-family housing or home occupations on the ground floor. 2. Commercial parking facility, pursuant to Section 26.515. D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Commercial (C-1) Zone District: 1. Minimum Gross Lot Area (square feet): a. Bed and breakfast: 3,000. b. All other uses: No requirement. 2. Minimum Net Lot Area per dwelling unit (square feet): a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District. b. All other uses: No requirement. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District. b. All other uses: No requirement. 4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District. b. All other uses: No requirement. 5. Minimum side yard setback (feet): a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District. b. All other uses: No requirement. 6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet): a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District. P318 IX.e Exhibit L – CC and C-1 Downtown Zoning Changes, Option 3 Page 5 of 6 b. All other uses: No requirement. 7. Minimum utility/trash/recycle area: Pursuant to Section 26.575.060. 8. Maximum height: a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District. b. All other uses: Ttwenty-Eeight (28) feet for two-story elements of a building. . i. Achieving the maximum height is subject to compliance with applicable design standards, view plane requirements, public amenity requirements and other dimensional standards. Accordingly, the maximum height is not an entitlement and is not achievable in all situations. i. b. Upon passage of future code amendments by City Council, three-story structures may be permitted to encourage certain uses deemed important, as may be defined at the time. 9. Minimum floor to floor heights: a. Minimum First Floor floor-to-floor height: Nine (9) feet to a maximum of thirteen (13) feet Eleven (11) feet. b. Minimum Upper Floor-to-ceiling height: Nine (9) feet. a.c. Floor-to-Ceiling heights in upper floors shall be less than the floor-to-ceiling height of the first floor. 10. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot (feet): a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District. b. All other uses: No requirement. 11. Public amenity space: Pursuant to Section 26.575.030. 12. Floor area ratio (FAR): The following FAR schedule applies to uses cumulatively up to a total maximum FAR of 2.5:1. Achieving the maximum floor area ratio is subject to compliance with applicable design standards, view plane requirements, public amenity requirements and other dimensional standards. Accordingly, the maximum FAR is not an entitlement and is not achievable in all situations. a. Commercial uses: 1.5:1. b. Arts, cultural and civic uses, public uses, recreational uses, academic uses, child care center and similar uses: 2.5:1. c. Affordable multi-family housing: No limitation. d. Lodging: .5:1, which may be increased to 1.52:1 if the individual lodge units on the parcel average five hundred (500) net livable square feet or less, which may be comprised of lock-off units. P319 IX.e Exhibit L – CC and C-1 Downtown Zoning Changes, Option 3 Page 6 of 6 Free-market multi-family housing: For non-historic properties: 0.5:1, if affordable housing equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the free-market residential floor area is developed on the same parcel. For Historic Landmark Properties: 0.5:1. e. Bed and breakfast (as the sole use of parcel and not cumulative with other uses): Eighty percent (80%) of allowable floor area of a same-sized lot located in the R-6 Zone District. (See R-6 Zone District.) Extinguishment of historic TDRs shall not permit additional FAR for single-family or duplex development. 13. Maximum multi-family residential dwelling unit size (square feet): 2,000 square feet of net livable area. a. The property owner may increase individual multi-family unit size by extinguishing historic transferable development right certificates ("certificate" or "certificates"), subject to the following: 1) The transfer ratio is five hundred (500) square feet of net livable area for each certificate that is purchased. 2) The additional square footage accrued may be applied to multiple units. However, the maximum individual unit size attainable by transferring development rights is two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of net livable area (i.e., no more than five hundred [500] additional square feet may be applied per unit). 3) This incentive applies only to individual unit size. Transferring development rights does not allow an increase in the FAR of the lot. Commentary: Refer to Chapter 26.535 for the procedures for extinguishing certificates. 14.13. Maximum lodge unit size (square feet): 1,500. When units are comprised of lock-off units, this maximum shall apply to the largest possible combination of units. Commercial/residential ratio: The total lodging and free-market residential net livable area shall be no greater than the total above-grade floor area associated with the uses described in Subparagraphs 26.710.150.D.121.a. and b. combined on the same parcel. P320 IX.e Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director DATE OF MEMO: 12/11/2012 MEETING DATE: 1/14/2013 RE: 223 East Hallam Ave. - Notice of Call up for Partial Demolition and MInor Development for a landmark REQUEST OF COUNCIL: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Click here to enter text. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FINANCE REVIEW: Click here to enter text. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Click here to enter text. RECOMMENDED ACTION: P321 X.a Page 2 of 2 ALTERNATIVES: PROPOSED MOTION: CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Notes: • Please use page numbers on all memos and attachments, especially for work sessions • The memo should be as long as it needs to be – but remember, you’re not writing a novel. Use attachments for more detailed information, ordinances and resolutions, etc. • Attachments: All attachments to the memo should be referenced somewhere in the body of the memo. All attachments should be titled as “Attachment”, “Exhibit” or “Schedule” with a letter following: Attachments: A - Exhibit One - Map ... B - Property Description C - Chart of Costs D - Resolution #97-1 P322 X.a MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Notice of HPC approval of partial Demolition and Minor Development: 223 E. Hallam Avenue, HPC Resolution #29, Series of 2012 MEETING DATE: January 14, 2013 BACKGROUND: On November 14, 2012, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) approved partial Demolition and Minor Development Review for a project at 223 E. Hallam Ave. located in the West End across from the Red Brick Arts Center. The Applicant requested removal of a non- historic 1967 addition to the historic Victorian residence on the side and restoration. ACTION TAKEN BY HPC: HPC granted approval to remove the non-historic addition after reviewing historic drawings and maps to confirm that the addition was insignificant and met the guidelines for demolition. HPC approved the restoration of the side façade where the addition is to be removed. HPC Staff supported the project and recommended approval with conditions. HPC approved the reviews with conditions by a vote of 5:0. A copy of the approved project is attached as Exhibit A. A copy of the HPC Resolution and Minutes are attached as Exhibits B and C, respectively. PROCESS: For this application, City Council may vote to Call Up the project at their January 14, 2013 meeting. If City Council decides to exercise the Call Up provision, it will be placed on the January 28, 2013 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 with an application for a building permit. This application is not subject to future land use review. If you have any questions about the project, please contact the staff planner, Sara Adams, 429-2778 or sara.adams@cityofaspen.com RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the HPC applied the review criteria in accordance with the Land Use Code and the Historic Preservation program and recommends that City Council accept the decision and not call up the project. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Approved Plans Exhibit B: HPC Resolution 29, Series 2012 Exhibit C: HPC draft minutes P323 X.a To: Ms. Amy Guthrie; Director The Aspen Historic Preservation Commission From: Derek Skalko, Principal 1 Friday Design Collaborative E-mail: Amy.Guthrie@ci.aspen.co.us Date: June 28th , 2012 / Revised July 19th, 2012 Phone: 970.429.2758 Pages:5 Re: 223 East Hallam Street – Explanation for Partial Demolition / Subdivision Lot Split CC: File 223 East Hallam Residence Request for Dining Addition Removal – Victorian / Subdivision Lot Split – Lots C & D / E & F Dear Amy & Members of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, We are approaching the commission on behalf of Mr. David Fleisher & Mrs. Gina Berko and 223 Elm LLC, care of Mr. Howie Mallory & Mrs. Nora Berko, managers and property owners of the 223 East Hallam Street Residence, a 12,000 sq ft property located in the West End District of Aspen. The property is legally defined as Lots C, D, E & F, Block 72 within the Townsite of Aspen and is, by definition, a legally conforming lot according to land use code. The site contains two detached residential structures in addition to a non-habitable garage. The main Victorian residence initially dates to the 1890’s time period to which one, with the possibility of two, major time period additions were added prior to the final additions planned in 1967. The first addition likely dates from between the late 1890’s - early 1900’s to 1925 with the most recent additions dating to construction occurring in or after 1967 per the architectural plans. The existing studio located on the property was also constructed in or after 1967. The garage located behind the Victorian structure dates between 1925 and 1957. Clerk and recording information places the studio construction and most recent additions to the Victorian at 1970. Packet Submission: The 24 x 36” drawing packet included for your review of 223 East Hallam includes the following: Initial Sheet: Existing Site Survey with vicinity map, noted structures, topography, and all existing property and easement setback conditions as recorded per Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. Sheet A1-1: A historical breakdown of the building timeline history as understood to the best of our research via existing records and personal accounts. Additionally, an existing site general locate plan is provided as with Zoning and FAR site specific information for 223 East Hallam. Sheet A1-2: Existing site plan of 223 East Hallam with roof depictions of existing structures. Sheet A1-3: Proposed site plan of 223 East Hallam with roof depictions of proposed alteration to Victorian residence. Sheet A1-4: Existing plans and FAR calculations of the residential studio. (NO CHANGES) Sheet A1-5: Existing elevations of the residential studio. (NO CHANGES) Sheet A1-6: Existing and proposed plans and FAR calculations of the lower level Victorian. Sheet A1-7: Existing and proposed plans and FAR calculations of the main level Victorian. Sheet A1-8: Existing and proposed plans and FAR calculations of the upper level Victorian. Sheet A1-9: Existing and proposed roof plans of the Victorian. Garage plan and FAR information provided additionally. (NO CHANGES TO GARAGE) PO BOX 7928 Aspen, CO 81612-7928 Phone: 970.309.0695 E-mail / Web: derek@1friday.com / www.1friday.com 1 friday design collaborative P325 X.a Sheet A-10: Existing and proposed north elevations (Hallam) of main Victorian. Sheet A-11: Existing and proposed west elevations (side) of main Victorian. Sheet A-12: Existing and proposed south elevations (alley) of main Victorian. Sheet A21: Original Architectural Planning Information of Existing Additions Proposed – October 31, 1967. Proposed Project Overview & Variance Requests sought regarding 223 East Hallam Residence: We are requesting to remove approximately 227 square feet from the existing Victorian residence currently situated across Lots D, E, & F of the four lot parcel. The existing dining area of the main Victorian, which was one of the two additions to the residence occurring in or after 1967, currently extends into lot D by approximately 8’-3”. We are proposing to eliminate the addition as developed per the 1967 plans and restore the bay wall as it historically existed prior to the addition, which would place the Victorian within Lots E & F of the parcel in its entirety. The intended purpose for requesting removal the home’s dining addition is to allow for two 6,000 square foot independent parcels to be created without any possible complications and encumbrance that may prove detrimental in the future should the residence be left unaddressed and in its existing location. The current 12,000 square foot size of the property enables the existing parcel to be split equally to create two conforming 6,000 square foot parcels in accordance with the standard R-6 zoning of the neighborhood and per Aspen Land Use Code, Section 26.480.030 A2. We are utilizing the process of a Subdivision Lot Split with the intention of creating two 60’ wide by 100’ deep parcels. Lots C & D, Block 72 are intended to comprise one parcel, with Lots E & F, Block 72 comprising the other. In regards to variances, we are not requesting to alter any areas beyond the dining room mass of the Victorian, which, upon removal, would be in compliance of a west 5’ side yard setback should our partial request for demolition be granted. In regards to existing non-conformities upon the parcel, currently, the Victorian is non-compliant regarding its south front yard setback (2’ Existing – 10’ Required) and east side yard setback (12’-10” Existing – 15’ Required). This would be improved in a lot split scenario with the east side yard turning compliant (5’ Required). The front yard non-conformity would remain as it exists. The studio residence is currently 6’-2” from its west side property, with 15’ being required. A lot split would eliminate this non-conformity. The garage’s existing east side is 1’-6” from the property, with 15’ being the required side yard. Although a lot split would reduce this non- conformity, the building will still be 3’-6” into the east side yard setback. Residential Design Standards & compliance / applicability towards 223 East Hallam: The partial demolition of the dining area does not positively or adversely alter or affect any aspects of the residential design standards. Conditions are to remain “as is” in relation to this subject matter when discussing Aspen Land Use Code, Chapter 26.410. Request for Partial Demolition / Restoration of the Dining Room Addition Area – Victorian Residence: The intention of the existing parcel is to create two 6,000 square foot lots legally defined as such. We are seeking the removal of the 227 square foot dining area specifically to eliminate any possibility of encumbrance in the future potential rights of the created parcels. Per Aspen Land Use Code, Section 26.415.080, we do believe our request for the partial demolition of the secondary addition to the Victorian is warranted per the following requirement, which at least one characteristic must be met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, P326 X.a c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance The proposed 1967 addition provides no historical benefit to the greater whole of the existing Victorian residence, nor is it feasible or even possible to attempt to relocate the existing home in its entirety due to the existing limitations of the building’s footprint. We are seeking the removal of the dining room area and propose to return the affected area to its original 1890’s condition to eliminate any possible encumbrance to the created parcels a lot split may present in the future. Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. We believe our request for partial demolition of the dining protrusion does meet all additional criterion as described per the Aspen Land Use Code, Section 26.415.080. For reasons already stated, we do not believe the building’s said addition contributes to the historical time period of significance specific to the main historical Victorian aspect of the property. We believe the removal of the said addition will, in fact, begin to enhance the historic amenity of the property and improve the overall land use nature of the area by eliminating the potential creation of an encroachment into the neighboring west side property. All will be presented to further assist in demonstrating our partial demolition request upon our hearing. In closing, we would simply like to express our sincere gratitude in considering our request regarding 223 East Hallam Street. We look forward to presenting and discussing this matter with you further. Supplemental graphic information is provided on the pages following for additional description and clarification purposes. Thank you very much, Derek Skalko Principal, 1 Friday Design Collaborative P327 X.a 223 East Hallam Victorian showing post 1967 dining room addition proposed for removal. May 2012 Image of 223 East Hallam showing house pre 1967 dining room addition. P328 X.a Sanborn Information for 223 East Hallam Residence – 1898 P329 X.a To: Ms. Sara Adams, AICP ; Senior Planner The City of Aspen From: Derek Skalko, Principal 1 Friday Design Collaborative E-mail: [Sara.Adams@ci.aspen.co.us] Date: July 31st, 2012 Phone: 970.429.2778 Pages:2 Re: 223 East Hallam Street – Materials Description – Request for Information CC: File 223 East Hallam Residence Request for Information: Materials Description for Proposed Wall Remodel Dear Sara & Members of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, Per your addendum request for information regarding the proposed materials to be utilized towards the restoration of the east Victorian bay wall area, please find attached a brief outline pertaining to the matter. We anticipate utilizing a “match existing conditions” approach for the area due to the minimal amount of impact we will likely experience to the existing structure. Foundation (D) : We intend to fully inspect the ability and condition of the original painted sandstone or Colorado Buff stone foundation and utilize this if possible. If this cannot be achieved, the foundation is anticipated to be a comprised of an 8” concrete block foundation to match the remaining existing conditions found consistently around the home on all additions post 1925. Walls (A) / Windows: (C) : Bay walls are comprised of roughly 50% painted wood siding and 50% wooden fixed and operable windows. It is our intention to simply “match existing construction and detailing conditions” found consistent with the existing historic structure. The wooden siding is to be a painted 5” horizontally applied traditional lap siding detail with a traditional vertically applied 1 x 6” painted wooden trim surround on corner edging and windows per existing conditions. If it is possible to retain and re-use the existing wooden windows in their height and respective locations within the wall, we anticipate to do so. Should conditions for this proposal turn adverse, A painted wooden window substitute to comparative in scale operability, and detailing will be utilized from a modern provider. Loewen Windows and Doors is the likely anticipated provider should this be necessary. Wall/ Roof Overhang Awning (24” Band) (B) : The proposed upper awning “band” is intended to be clad with a traditional asphalt shingle consistent with the historical detailing found throughout the residence. The intended colour of the shingles area will match existing conditions. We look forward to presenting and discussing this matter with you further. Supplemental graphic information is provided on the page following for additional description and clarification purposes. PO BOX 7928 Aspen, CO 81612-7928 Phone: 970.309.0695 E-mail / Web: derek@1friday.com / www.1friday.com 1 friday design collaborative P330 X.a Thank you very much, Derek Skalko Principal, 1 Friday Design Collaborative P331 X.a P3 3 2 X. a P3 3 3 X. a P3 3 4 X. a P3 3 5 X. a P3 3 6 X. a P3 3 7 X. a P3 3 8 X. a P3 3 9 X. a P3 4 0 X. a P341X.a P3 4 2 X. a P3 4 3 X. a P3 4 4 X. a P3 4 5 X. a EXHIBIT B Notice of Call Up 223 E. Hallam Avenue – Minor Development and Demolition HPC Resolution # 29, Series of 2012 Page 1 of 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING MINOR DEVELOPMENT AND PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 223 EAST HALLAM AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS C, D, E AND F, BLOCK 72, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION # 29, SERIES OF 2012 PARCEL ID: 2737-073-16-003 WHEREAS, the applicant, Gina Berko 25%, David Fleisher 25%, and 223 ELM LLC 50%, represented by Derek Skalko of 1Friday Design Collaborative, submitted an application requesting Minor Development review and Partial Demolition of the property located at 223 East Hallam Avenue, legally described as Lots C, D, E and F, Block 72, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, 223 East Hallam Avenue is included in AspenVictorian and listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures; and WHEREAS, 223 East Hallam Avenue is located in the R-6 zone district; 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, at their regular meeting on November 14, 2012 the Historic Preservation Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing, took public comment, considered the application, the staff memo, staff recommendation, and public comments, and found that the application for Minor Development and Demolition met the review standards with conditions and the “City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines,” by a vote of five to zero (5-0). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants Minor Development and Demolition approvals with conditions for the property located at 223 East Hallam Avenue, Lots C, D, E and F Block 72, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 1. Partial demolition of the west elevation of the Victorian residence as represented in the application is approved. 2. The west elevation shall be restored using the 1967 plans included in the application. 3. The horizontal wood siding shall match the existing profile. 4. The existing wood windows shall be reused in the restoration of the west elevation as presented in the application. P347 X.a EXHIBIT B Notice of Call Up 223 E. Hallam Avenue – Minor Development and Demolition HPC Resolution # 29, Series of 2012 Page 2 of 3 5. Asphalt shingles are approved for the roof of the west elevation. The shingles shall match the existing roof on the Victorian. A material sample shall be reviewed and approved by Staff and Monitor. 6. The foundation shall be sandstone to match existing condition. A material sample shall be reviewed and approved by Staff and Monitor. 7. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board. 8. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 223 East Hallam Avenue, Lots C, D, E, and F, Block 72, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. [see following page for signatures] P348 X.a EXHIBIT B Notice of Call Up 223 E. Hallam Avenue – Minor Development and Demolition HPC Resolution # 29, Series of 2012 Page 3 of 3 APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 14th day of November, 2012. ______________________ Ann Mullins, Chair Approved as to Form: ___________________________________ Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: ___________________________ Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P349 X.a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14, 2012 1 Chairperson, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jay Maytin,Willis Pember, Jane Hills and Sallie Golden. Jamie McLeod, Nora Berko and Patrick Sagal were absent. Staff present: Jim True, City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Sara Adams, Senior Planner Motion: Jane moved to approve the minutes of October 10th and 24th; second by Willis. Motion carried 4-0. Jay was seated at 5:30 p.m. Disclosure – 223 E. Hallam. Jane disclosed that Nora’s son in law works for her. Jim True said Nora’s son in law works for Jane Hills firm and has no investment in the property at 223 E. Hallam. That property is owned by Nora and her Sister and Jeffrey has no financial interest in the property. Under our ethics rules this is not a conflict. 420 E. Hyman – City Council Remand, Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design Review Jim True said the affidavit of posting was in order and the applicant can proceed. Exhibit I Sara said council decided to call up this conceptual approval. Council had concerns with condition #5 regarding a full review of mass and scale with materials shall occur at final HPC review. There are problems with leaving mass and scale to final because there are other reviews that need to happen before it gets back to the board for final. Hopefully we can come to an agreement on mass and scale so that they can go to growth management and subdivision knowing what size the box is going to be. The height has been lowered to 38 feet and there is a 15 foot setback for the third floor. The packet information reflects the height change and setback that were conditions. HPC concern was how the materials affect mass and scale because they are proposing largely a glass building and how does the glass P351 X.a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14, 2012 2 work with mass and scale. The applicant has brought samples of materials for tonight’s meeting even though this is conceptual and we usually don’t talk about materials. Staff has concern about the alley elevation. Guideline 6.24 talks about rear facades stepping down toward the alley. There is a car port that you can drive under on the first floor and the second and third floor is straight up. We were a little concerned that that guideline has not been met. The decision tonight would be final. Brian West, Cunniffe architects Brian said they got rid of the separation wall because the adjacent building already has one. Charles Cunniffe, Cunniffe architects Charles said they have provided imagery of the back of the building. One of the reasons the mass is where it is on this building is because it is a 1 to 1 replacement requirement and we have to provide far more affordable housing on this particular site which pushes the building out to the back on the third floor instead of being setback. The affordable housing part is 50 % of the residential portion of the building. We would carry the solid banding around the building. The ground floor has been setback 30 feet due to the trash and parking. The mechanical on the third floor is setback from the mall side. The second floor has a cut out in the corner and there is a walkway that accesses the units which steps back the second floor the width of the walkway. We would prefer to have a roof over the walkway to cover it but the consensus at the time was to not have that roof. It could be a glass canopy roof in order to protect it from the rain. The property to the east is three stories on the alley. Brian West said the bronze colored banding coincides with the front of the building so there is continuity from front to back. Charles said we wanted to have the building transparent so that you can see through it. We wanted to keep the building simple and elegant. It is a building of today. The bronze tinted glazing could tie into the spandrels and it would be a non-reflective glass with just a tint. Charles and Brian did a power point on the different elevations of the building. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. P352 X.a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14, 2012 3 Sara said the elks lodge sent a letter asking that the view plane of Aspen Mountain be protected, Exhibit II . Sara said the building is not in the adopted view plane. Chairperson, Ann Mullins closed the public comment portion of the agenda item. Jane said the city is upgrading the transformers in the core and how would that be an issue with your building and the utilities? Charles said they met with the city on parking and trash and they said our proposal is acceptable. Willis asked about the soffit and cornice. Charles said the soffit is wood and the cornice would be metal. Ann and Jane agreed that there doesn’t need to be another step back in the alley. Jane said for safety issues some kind of canopy over the walkway would be acceptable. Willis said he appreciates the renderings and the attempt to address the reflectiveness of the materials. The wood on the back of the balcony and second floor are appropriate and a good contrast. The mass and scale in the alley is OK. On the cornice as a suggestion make sure it doesn’t look like stone and restudy the mullions on the third floor for final. Sallie said she has no problem with the height. Sallie said she likes the walkway without a canopy or glass canopy. MOTION: Ann moved to approve resolution #28 which approves mass and scale, and omitting condition #5; second by Willis. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. 222 E. Hallam – Minor review and partial demolition Jay was seated. Affidavit of posting – Exhibit I P353 X.a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14, 2012 4 Jim said one of the owner’s son in law works for Jane Hills. Under our code that is not a conflict that would require recusal. Jane said she would like to stay for the meeting. Sara said this is for minor development and partial demolition of 223 E. Hallam. The property is located on a 12,000 square foot lot and there are a few structures on it now. There is a two story 1893 Victorian that has two residential units in it. There is a one story residence that was built in the 1960’s and an out building along the alley that was used for storage. The subject of tonight’s minor development and partial demolition is the two story Victorian. There is a non-historic addition that was added in 1967 and that is being requested to be removed. In the future the applicant is interested in pursuing a subdivision and the newly created property line would go right through the addition. To be pro active they are requesting demolition approval. The minor development portion of the application is to restore the wall and how they restore the wall once they tear off the 1967 addition. Staff is supportive of the project with conditions. Staff also finds that the demolition criteria are met. The addition does not have historic significance to the property. This will be a good restoration effort. The only condition is for the foundation that needs to occur once they take the addition off. We would like them to use sandstone to match the existing rather than concrete block. Derek Skalko, architect Derek said the property at 223 E. Hallam is a 12,000 square foot parcel essentially right across from the Red Brick. We are not touching anything on the property except the 1967 east side addition to the Victorian itself. We have two owning families of this property and simply we are basically easing the way into a subdivision process so we don’t have any contentions down the road. Essentially there would be two 6,000 square foot lots. There is a bump out on the house and we would like to restore it back to its original condition between 1957 and 1967. The foundation is intact and when the extension comes off there is a sandstone base that is existing. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public comment portion of the agenda item was closed. P354 X.a ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14, 2012 5 Sara clarified that HPC will be able to give a recommendation to city council over the two lots. MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution #29 second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. Jay and Sallie will be the monitors. MOTION: Ann moved to adjourn; second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk P355 X.a Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director DATE OF MEMO: 12/13/2012 MEETING DATE: 1/14/2013 RE: 434 E. Cooper Ave. - Notice of Call Up for Conceptual Commercial Design and Conceptual Major Development for a property within the Historic District REQUEST OF COUNCIL: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Click here to enter text. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FINANCE REVIEW: Click here to enter text. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Click here to enter text. RECOMMENDED ACTION: P357 X.b Page 2 of 2 ALTERNATIVES: PROPOSED MOTION: CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Notes: • Please use page numbers on all memos and attachments, especially for work sessions • The memo should be as long as it needs to be – but remember, you’re not writing a novel. Use attachments for more detailed information, ordinances and resolutions, etc. • Attachments: All attachments to the memo should be referenced somewhere in the body of the memo. All attachments should be titled as “Attachment”, “Exhibit” or “Schedule” with a letter following: Attachments: A - Exhibit One - Map ... B - Property Description C - Chart of Costs D - Resolution #97-1 P358 X.b Page 1 of 1 422 E. Cooper Street Staff Memo for Notice of Call Up MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Notice of HPC approval of Conceptual Commercial Design, Conceptual Major Development: 434 E. Cooper Avenue, HPC Resolution #33, Series of 2012 MEETING DATE: January 14, 2013 BACKGROUND: On December 12, 2012, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) approved Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Conceptual Major Development Review for a project at 434 E. Cooper Ave. (aka the Bidwell Building). 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. Demolition approval was granted in 2006 and remains valid. ACTION TAKEN BY HPC: HPC granted conceptual approval for a two story building with the second floor significantly setback from the street facing facades (23’7” from Cooper and 19’ 11” from Galena). A large deck is proposed to be accessed from the second floor commercial space. A viewplane exemption was granted due to other development (the Roaring Fork Building and Paragon Building) already blocking the Wheeler viewplane. The project is proposed to be a 100% commercial building with 3 tenant spaces. Off-site public amenity in the form of pedestrian mall improvements, subject to Parks Department review and approval, was granted. Staff found that the review design guidelines were not met and recommended continuation of the project for a restudy. HPC granted approval of the design reviews with conditions by a v ote of 5:0. A copy of the approved massing is attached as Exhibit A. A copy of the HPC Resolution and Minutes from the HPC meeting are attached as Exhibits B and C. PROCESS: For this application, City Council may vote to Call Up the project at their January 14, 2012 meeting. If City Council does not exercise the Call Up provision, the HPC Resolution shall stand, and the applicant will move forward with an application for Final HPC Review. This application is NOT subject to Growth Management or Subdivision reviews. If you have any questions about the project, please contact the staff planner, Sara Adams, 429-2778 or sara.adams@cityofaspen.com RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the HPC applied the review criteria in accordance with the Land Use Code and the Historic Preservation program and recommends that City Council accept the decision and not call up the project. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Approved Plans Exhibit B: HPC Resolution 33, Series 2012 Exhibit C: HPC Minutes - December 12, 2012 P359 X.b UP UP UP UP DN UP DN DNDN 66 0 . 6 S F SP A C E C . 0 85 2 . 3 S F SP A C E B 36 4 9 . 5 SF SP A C E A 12 8 5 . 1 S F SP A C E C . 1 14 7 6 . 7 SF SP A C E D 67 4 . 1 S F SP A C E E 97 5 . 4 S F SP A C E F 574.0 SFSPACE G CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSCwww.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557 A0.2434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO 11/16/12TOTAL EXISTING NET LEASABLE AREA NAMEAREA SPACE A3649.5 SF SPACE B852.3 SF SPACE C.0660.6 SF SPACE C.11285.1 SF SPACE D1476.7 SF SPACE E674.1 SF SPACE F975.4 SF SPACE G574.0 SF SPACE J943.5 SF SPACE K498.4 SF SPACE L1153.1 SF SPACE M177.5 SF SPACE N1500.5 SF SPACE P572.1 SF Grand total14992.8 SF 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 EX I S T I N G L O W E R L E V E L N E T L E A S A B L E A R E A 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 EX I S T I N G M A I N L E V E L N E T L E A S A B L E A R E A EXISTING EX I S T I N G M A I N L E V E L NE T L E A S A B L E A R E A NA M E A R E A SP A C E C . 1 1 2 8 5 . 1 S F SP A C E D 1 4 7 6 . 7 S F SP A C E E 6 7 4 . 1 S F SP A C E F 9 7 5 . 4 S F SP A C E G 5 7 4 . 0 S F EX I S T I N G L O W E R LE V E L N E T L E A S A B L E AR E A NA M E A R E A SP A C E A 3 6 4 9 . 5 S F SP A C E B 8 5 2 . 3 S F SP A C E C . 0 6 6 0 . 6 S F P361X.b DN DN 94 3 . 5 S F SP A C E J 49 8 . 4 S F SP A C E K 11 5 3 . 1 S F SP A C E L 17 7 . 5 S F SP A C E M 15 0 0 . 5 SF SP A C E N 572.1 SFSPACE P CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSCwww.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557 A0.3434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO 11/16/12 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 EX I S T I N G U P P E R L E V E L N E T L E A S A B L E A R E A EXISTINGEXISTING UPPER LE V E L N E T L E A S A B L E AREA NAMEAREA SP A C E J 9 4 3 . 5 S F SP A C E K 4 9 8 . 4 S F SP A C E L 1 1 5 3 . 1 S F SP A C E M 1 7 7 . 5 S F SP A C E N 1 5 0 0 . 5 S F SP A C E P 5 7 2 . 1 S F P362X.b UP UPDN 42 3 2 . 6 SF SP A C E B . 0 19 4 0 . 8 SF SP A C E A 43 9 1 . 2 SF SP A C E B . 1 1495.1 SFSPACE C CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSCwww.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557 A0.4434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO 11/16/12 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 PR O P O S E D L O W E R L E V E L N E T L E A S A B L E A R E A TOTAL PROPOSED NET LEASABLE AREA NameArea SPACE A1940.8 SF SPACE B.04232.6 SF SPACE B.14391.2 SF SPACE B.22932.5 SF SPACE C1495.1 SF Grand total14992.2 SF 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 PR O P O S E D M A I N L E V E L N E T L E A S A B L E A R E A PROPOSED PR O P O S E D L O W E R LE V E L N E T L E A S A B L E AR E A Na m e A r e a SP A C E B . 0 4 2 3 2 . 6 S F PR O P O S E D M A I N LE V E L N E T L E A S A B L E AR E A Na m e A r e a SP A C E A 1 9 4 0 . 8 S F SP A C E B . 1 4 3 9 1 . 2 S F SP A C E C 1 4 9 5 . 1 S F P363X.b DN 29 3 2 . 5 SF SP A C E B . 2 CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSCwww.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557 A0.5434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO 11/16/12 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 PR O P O S E D U P P E R L E V E L N E T L E A S A B L E A R E A PROPOSED PR O P O S E D U P P E R LE V E L N E T L E A S A B L E AR E A Na m e A r e a SP A C E B . 2 2 9 3 2 . 5 S F P364X.b UP UP UP UP DN UP DN DNDN DN DN 57 6 7 . 7 SF EX I S T I N G L O W E R LE V E L 79 ' - 0 " 60'-0" 15'-2" 21 ' - 0 " 29'-2" 63 ' - 8 " 46'-10" 26'-8" 74 7 . 5 S F BA C K F I L L E D GR A D E 8'- 0 " 2 8 ' - 4 " 14'-0" 11 2 . 0 S F DE C K 55 7 3 . 9 SF EX I S T I N G M A I N L E V E L 20 2 . 4 S F DE C K 56 2 3 . 0 SF EX I S T I N G U P P E R L E V E L 64 7 . 4 S F DE C K 74.6 SFDECKCHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSCwww.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557 A0.6434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO 11/28/12 1 " = 2 0 ' - 0 " 1 EX I S T I N G L O W E R L E V E L F A R 1 " = 2 0 ' - 0 " 2 EX I S T I N G M A I N L E V E L F A R 1 " = 2 0 ' - 0 " 3 EX I S T I N G U P P E R L E V E L F A R BE L O W G R A D E W A L L A R E A 60 ' - 0 " 21 ' - 0 " 29 ' - 2 " 63 ' - 8 " 26 ' - 8 " 28 ' - 4 " 14 ' - 0 " 8'- 0 " 46 ' - 1 0 " + 7 9 ' - 0 " 37 6 ' - 8 " x 9 ' - 0 " 33 9 0 S F NO R T H WE S T NO R T H EA S T SO U T H EA S T SO U T H EA S T SO U T H WE S T TO T A L L E N G T H WA L L H E I G H T TO T A L W A L L A R E A EX P O S E D W A L L B E L O W G R A D E 15 ' - 2 " x 6 ' - 0 " = 9 1 S F 26 ' - 8 " x 9 ' - 0 " = 2 4 0 S F 28 ' - 4 " x 9 ' - 0 " = 2 5 5 S F 14 ' - 0 " x 4 ' - 6 " = 6 3 S F 64 9 S F LI G H T W E L L N O R T H CO U R T Y A R D S O U T H CO U R T Y A R D E A S T ST A I R S O U T H TO T A L E X P O S E D W A L L A R E A % O F B E L O W G R A D E E X P O S E D 64 9 S F 33 9 0 S F = 1 9 . 1 % 57 6 7 . 7 S F 19 . 1 % 11 0 1 . 6 S F LO W E R L E V E L G R O S S A R E A % A P P L I E D LO W E R L E V E L F L O O R A R E A EX I S T I N G F L O O R A R EA C A L C U L A T I O N S 11 0 1 . 6 S F 55 7 3 . 9 S F 56 2 3 . 0 S F 0 S F 12 2 9 8 . 5 S F LO W E R L E V E L F L O O R A R E A MA I N L E V E L F L O O R A R E A UP P E R L E V E L F L O O R A R E A AP P L I E D D E C K A R E A TO T A L F L O O R A R E A BE L O W G R A D E F L O O R A R E A CU M M U L A T I V E F L O O R A R E A 11 2 . 0 S F 20 2 . 4 S F 72 2 . 0 S F 10 3 6 . 4 S F 0 S F LO W E R L E V E L D E C K A R E A MA I N L E V E L D E C K A R E A UP P E R L E V E L D E C K A R E A TO T A L D E C K A R E A DE C K A R E A O V E R A L L O W A B L E DE C K A R E A ZO N E D I S T R I C T : C O M M E R C I A L C O R E ( C C ) LO T A R E A : 9 0 0 0 S F CO M M E R C I A L F L O O R A R E A R A T I O : 2 : 1 - 1 8 , 0 0 0 S F AL L O W A B L E A R E A O F D E C K S O V E R 3 0 " A B O V E G R A D E : 1 5 % - 2 7 0 0 S F P365X.b UP UP DN DN 47 4 7 . 7 SF PR O P O S E D L O W E R LE V E L 82 8 0 . 2 SF PR O P O S E D M A I N LE V E L 34 4 2 . 5 SF PR O P O S E D U P P E R LE V E L 49 0 5 . 9 SF DE C K CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSCwww.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557 A0.7434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO 11/16/12 47 4 7 . 7 S F 0% 0 S F LO W E R L E V E L G R O S S A R E A % A P P L I E D LO W E R L E V E L F L O O R A R E A PR O P O S E D F L O O R A R E A C A L C U L A T I O N S 0 S F 82 8 0 . 2 S F 34 4 2 . 5 S F 22 0 5 . 9 S F 13 9 2 8 . 6 S F LO W E R L E V E L F L O O R A R E A MA I N L E V E L F L O O R A R E A UP P E R L E V E L F L O O R A R E A AP P L I E D D E C K A R E A TO T A L F L O O R A R E A BE L O W G R A D E F L O O R A R E A CU M M U L A T I V E F L O O R A R E A 49 0 5 . 9 S F 49 0 5 . 9 S F 22 0 5 . 9 S F UP P E R L E V E L D E C K A R E A TO T A L D E C K A R E A DE C K A R E A O V E R A L L O W A B L E DE C K A R E A ZO N E D I S T R I C T : C O M M E R C I A L C O R E ( C C ) LO T A R E A : 9 0 0 0 S F CO M M E R C I A L F L O O R A R E A R A T I O : 2 : 1 - 1 8 . 0 0 0 S F AL L O W A B L E A R E A O F D E C K S O V E R 3 0 " A B O V E G R A D E : 1 5 % - 2 7 0 0 S F 1 " = 2 0 ' - 0 " 1 PR O P O S E D L O W E R L E V E L F A R 1 " = 2 0 ' - 0 " 2 PR O P O S E D M A I N L E V E L F A R 1 " = 2 0 ' - 0 " 3 PR O P O S E D U P P E R L E V E L F A R P366X.b S 75°09'11"E 90.22' (90.26' RECORD) (N 1 4 ° 5 0 ' 4 9 " E 1 0 0 . 0 0 ' ) (S 1 4 ° 5 0 ' 4 9 " W 1 0 0 . 0 0 ' ) N 75°09'11"W 90.22' (90.26' RECORD) 7 9 1 6 .1 7 7 9 1 7 .2 0 7 9 1 6 .9 4 7 9 1 8 .3 6 7 9 1 8 .9 1 7 9 1 7 .7 77918.5 2 7 9 1 8 .9 5 7 9 1 6 .4 7 7 9 1 7 .0 8 7 9 1 9 .7 1 7 9 1 8 .0 77918.0 8 7 9 1 7 .8 4 7 9 1 9 .5 9 7 9 1 9 .9 3 7 9 1 6 .1 7 7 9 1 9 .8 0 7 9 1 9 .8 3 7 9 2 0 .2 1 7 9 1 7 .4 2 7 9 1 9 .4 1 7 9 1 9 .6 07919.5 9 7 9 1 9 .5 87920.8 47932.5 7 7 9 3 2 .4 7 7 9 3 0 .4 2 7 9 1 1 .0 9 7 9 2 0 .7 7 7 9 1 9 .7 77920.1 37919.9 0 7 9 2 0 .0 97919.5 9 7 9 2 0 .0 9 7 9 2 0 .2 07920.1 9 7 9 2 0 .1 2 7 9 2 0 .0 07919.7 0 7 9 1 9 .9 3 7 9 2 0 .2 0 7 9 2 0 .7 8 7 9 2 0 .8 9 7 9 2 0 .8 77920.8 5 7 9 2 0 .3 7 7 9 2 0 .2 4 7 9 2 0 .3 1 C P 6 M A R K B L D G P O S T D 5 " D 7 " B L D GBLDG B L D G C C T B C T B C E L E C P E DELEC P E D P R K /M E T E R S I G N C P 2 2 M A R K B S C K 2 2 B S C K 2 2 F I R E H Y D H Y D L P S I G N S I G N S I G NPOST B L D G F L O O R D O O R F L O O R D O O R D E C K 2 n d f l o o r D E C K 2 n d f l o o r L O W E R F L O O R D 6 " D 7 "D 8 "D 7 "D 1 5 "D 6 " O S /P O S T O S /P O S TOS/P O S T O S /P O S T O S /P O S TOS/P O S T B L D G B L D G B L D G R A I L R A I LRAIL B R W B R W B R W B S C K 2 2 F L O O R D O O R 1 0 1102 1 0 3 1 0 4 T W O S T O R Y B R I C K B U I L D I N G W I T H G A R D E N L E V E L 0. 8 W E S T O F B O U N D A R Y FO U N T A I N FO U N T A I N V I E W P O I N T F L O O R 7 9 3 2 .6 F L O O R 7 9 2 0 .8 7 9 1 9 .9 7 9 1 8 .5 7 9 1 8 .1 7 9 1 7 .2 O L D H Y D R A N T C U R B C U T R O O F R O O F R O O F 7 9 3 6 .7 3 P A R K I N G M E T E R ALLEY BLOCK 89 SO U T H G A L E N A S T R E E T Q R S PAVED G H I COOPER AVENUE MALL U T E R O C K S GRATE 6.8 14 . 3 65 . 1 21 . 0 BA C K O F C U R B CO V E R E D C O N C . W A L K ST A I R S ELEC. BRICK WALL BR I C K W A L L STAIRS BOARD WALK R E D M O U N T A I N TW O S T O R Y B R I C K B U I L D I N G G A R D E N L E V E L P A T I O 7 9 1 1 .9 (73.70' R.O.W.) (7 4 . 0 0 ' R . O . W . ) (20.20' R.O.W.) 78 . 7 B U I L D I N G O N B O U N D A R Y + / - S I G N B O A R D COVERED WALK 60.0' ME C H . 33.1 BRICK ON BOUNDARY 20 . 4 50.0 UTILITIES 8"X8" COLUMNS 8" X 8 " C O L U M N S 8" X 8 " C O L U M N S 29.2 BUILDING O.2 S. OF BOUNDARY LOADING DOCK C O V E R E D W A L K O P E N P A T I O BRICK WALL PAVED PARKING ST E P BR I C K W A L L S 20°15'46"W 817.81' S 11°39'43"W 429.24' 7 9 2 0 .2 A S P E N G P S M O N U M E N TQ-1 5 9 , E L =7 9 0 6 .6 7 A S P E N G P S M O N U M E N T N O . 2 , E L =7 9 2 7 .7 2 R O O F MAIN S TREET VIEW PLANE WHEE L ER OPERA HOUS E VI EW PLANE 7 9 3 4 .7 8 W H E E L E R 8 0 2 1 .6 7 M A I N S T . 7 9 3 6 .7 5 W H E E L E R 8 0 2 8 .6 3 M A I N S T . 7 9 3 5 .1 4 W H E E L E R 8 0 2 6 .6 0 M A I N S T . 8 0 1 6 .7 6 M A I N S T . 8 0 2 0 .5 2 M A I N S T . 8 0 3 0 .6 5 M A I N S T . 2 8 6 4 328643 L S 2 5 9 4 7 L S 2 8 6 4 31" D I A M E T E R D I S K 1 " D I A M E T E R D I S K 1 " D I A M E T E R D I S K S E T 1 .5 " A L U M D I S K 9.7 7. 0 U T I L I T Y E A S E M E N T R E C . N O . 1 8 9 3 3 7 6 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 213 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 819 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 435 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 041424344 4 5 4 647 4 8 4 950 5 1 5 2 5 3 5 4 5 556 5 7 5 8 5 9 6 4 9 5 F EL . 1 2 5 ' - 7 5 / 8 " T. O . R O O F P A R A P E T 79 4 6 . 3 1 0 ' = CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSCwww.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557 A1.1434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO 11/28/12 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 EX I S T I N G S I T E P L A N EXISTING P367X.b BA C K O F C U R B SO U T H G A L E N A S T R E E T COOPER AVENUE MALL ALLEY MU L T I - S T O R Y A D J A C E N T B U I L D I N G WH EEL ER & MAI N S T REE T VI E W PL AN ES 79 3 4 . 7 8 W H E E L E R 80 2 1 . 6 7 M A I N S T . 79 3 6 . 7 5 W H E E L E R 80 2 8 . 6 3 M A I N S T . EL . 1 3 0 ' - 0 " EL . 1 2 8 ' - 0 " 79 4 8 . 6 7 5 ' = T. O . R O O F P A R A P E T T. O . E L E V . O V E R R U N = 7 9 5 0 . 6 7 5 ' TR E E S T O R E M A I N TR E E S T O RE M A I N CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSCwww.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557 A1.2434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO 11/28/12 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 PR O P O S E D S I T E P L A N PROPOSED P368X.b UP UP UPDN DN UP ST A I R W E L L 89'-2" 10 0 ' - 0 " 24 ' - 8 " 50 ' - 8 " 24 ' - 8 " SP A C E B . O DE C O M M I S S I O N E D SP A C E DE C O M M I S S I O N E D SP A C E EL E V A3 . 3 2 A3.41 A3 . 3 1 SP A C E ' A ' SP A C E ' B . 1 ' SPACE 'C' ST A I R W E L L 10 0 ' - 0 " 89'-2" 24 ' - 6 " 51 ' - 0 " 24'-6"UTILITY/TRASH/RECYCLE 15'-0 1/2"21'-6" EL E V CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSCwww.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557 A2.1434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO 11/28/12 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 PR O P O S E D L O W E R L E V E L F L O O R P L A N 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 PR O P O S E D M A I N L E V E L F L O O R P L A N PROPOSED P369X.b DN DN A3 . 3 2 A3 . 4 1 A3 . 3 1 23 ' - 7 " 52 ' - 1 0 " 23 ' - 7 " SP A C E ' B . 2 ' ME C H A N I C A L ST A I R W E L L RO O F DE C K 89'-2" 10 0 ' - 0 " 23 ' - 7 " 52 ' - 4 " 24 ' - 1 " 29'-11"59'-3" 23'-6"65'-8" EL E V A3 . 3 2 A3.41 A3 . 3 1 FL A T R O O F PA R A P E T RO O F D E C K B E L O W EL E V A T O R O V E R R U N CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSCwww.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557 A2.2434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO 11/28/12 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 PR O P O S E D U P P E R L E V E L F L O O R P L A N 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 PR O P O S E D R O O F P L A N PROPOSED P370X.b T. O . F . F . @ M A I N L E V E L 100'-0" T. O . F . F . @ E X I S T . U P P E R L E V E L 1 109'-8"T.O. UPPER EXIST. ROOF 122'-11 5/8" T. O . F . F . @ E X I S T . U P P E R L E V E L 2 111'-8"T.O. LOWER EXIST. ROOF 119'-4 5/8"T.O. EXIST PARAPET 125'-7 5/8" 11'-8"11'-3 5/8"2'-8" 25'-7 5/8" 9'-8"9'-8 5/8"3'-7"2'-8" 2'-8"3'-7"9'-8 5/8"9'-8" 2'-8"11'-3 5/8"11'-8"25'-7 5/8"28'-4 3/8" GRADE TO PARAPETCHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSCwww.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557 A3.1434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO 11/16/12 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 EX I S T I N G S O U T H E L E V A T I O N 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 EX I S T I N G E A S T E L E V A T I O N EXISTING P371X.b T.O.F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL 100'-0"T.O. UPPER EXIST. ROOF 122'-11 5/8" T. O . F . F . @ E X I S T . U P P E R L E V E L 2 111'-8"T.O. EXIST PARAPET 125'-7 5/8"CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSCwww.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557 A3.2434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO 11/16/12 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 EX I S T I N G N O R T H E L E V A T I O N EXISTING P372X.b T.O.F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL 100'-0"T.O. PROPOSED ROOF 128'-0" T. O . F . F . @ P R O P O S E D U P P E R L E V E L 115'-0" 3'-6" 4'-0" 3'-6" 5'-6" 3'-6" 3'-6" 4'-0" 7920.675' = T. O . E L E V A T O R O V E R R U N 130'-0"T.O.F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL 100'-0"T.O. PROPOSED ROOF 128'-0" T. O . F . F . @ P R O P O S E D U P P E R L E V E L 115'-0" 5'-6" 3'-6" 3'-6" 3'-6" 3'-6" 4'-0" 4'-0" 7920.675' =T.O. ELEVATOR OVERRUN 130'-0"CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSCwww.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557 A3.3434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO 11/28/12 PROPOSED 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 PR O P O S E D S O U T H E L E V A T I O N 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 PR O P O S E D E A S T E L E V A T I O N P373X.b T.O.F.F. @ MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" T. O . P R O P O S E D R O O F 128'-0" T. O . F . F . @ P R O P O S E D U P P E R L E V E L 115'-0" 3'-6" 4'-0" 3'-6" 7920.675' = T. O . E L E V A T O R O V E R R U N 130'-0"CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSCwww.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557 A3.4434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO 11/28/12 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 PR O P O S E D N O R T H E L E V A T I O N P374X.b CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSCwww.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557 A3.5434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO 11/16/12 1 " = 2 0 ' - 0 " 1 CO O P E R S T R E E T E L E V A T I O N 1 " = 2 0 ' - 0 " 2 GA L E N A S T R E E T E L E V A T I O N P375X.b CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSCwww.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557 A3.6434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO 11/16/12 1 VI E W F R O M M A L L N E A R R A L P H L A U R E N P376X.b CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSCwww.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557 A3.7434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO 11/16/12 1 VI E W F R O M C O O P E R S T P377X.b CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSCwww.cunniffe.com 610 EAST HYMAN AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611TEL: 970.925.5590FAX: 970.920.4557 A3.8434 EAST COOPER 434 EAST COOPER ASPEN, COLORADO 11/16/12 1 VI E W F R O M G A L E N A S T P378X.b P3 7 9 X. b P3 8 0 X. b 434 East Cooper Avenue HPC Resolution # 33, Series of 2012 Page 1 of 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW (CONCEPTUAL), AND VIEWPLANE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 434 EAST COOPER AVENUE, LOTS Q, R, AND S, BLOCK 89, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION # 33, SERIES OF 2012 PARCEL ID: 2737-182-16-011. WHEREAS, the applicant, 434 East Cooper Avenue, LLC with consent from the owner Bert Bidwell Investments Corporation, represented by Haas Land Planning, LLC and Charles Cunniffe Architects, has requested Major Development (Conceptual), Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review, and Viewplane Reviews the property located at 434 East Cooper Avenue, Lots Q, R, and S Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, 434 East Cooper Avenue is located within the Commercial Core Historic District; and WHEREAS, 434 East Cooper Avenue received Demolition approval by the Historic Preservation Commission on May 24, 2006 via Resolution number 14, Series of 2006; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;” and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Commercial Design 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 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 P381 X.b 434 East Cooper Avenue HPC Resolution # 33, Series of 2012 Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, pursuant to 26.435.050.C., Mountain Viewplane Review Standards, of the Land Use Code, no development shall be permitted within a mountain view plane unless the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided below. When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable building height otherwise provided for in this Title, development shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445 as a Planned Unit Development so as to provide for maximum flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and pedestrian space and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building height requirements and view plane height limitations. The Planning and Zoning Commission, after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Department, may exempt a development from being processed as a Planned Unit Development when the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the proposed development has a minimal effect on the view plane. When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to re-open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view plane and re-redevelopment to reopen the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall exempt the development from the requirements of this Section; and WHEREAS, during the December 12, 2012 meeting the applicant demonstrated compliance with Land Use Code Section 26.304.035 Neighborhood Outreach; and WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report to HPC dated December 12, 2012 performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards had not been met and recommended continuation of the hearing to restudy the mass; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on December 12, 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 five to zero (5 - 0). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants HPC Major Development (Conceptual), Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review, and Viewplane Review for the property located at 434 East Cooper Avenue, Lots Q, R, and S, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: P382 X.b 434 East Cooper Avenue HPC Resolution # 33, Series of 2012 Page 3 of 3 1. Conceptual approval is granted as presented in the application. 2. The applicant shall restudy the parapet/cornice in greater detail for Final Review. 3. Off-site public amenity improvements to the Pedestrian Malls is approved in accordance with Land Use Code Section 26.575.030.C(2) Off-site provision of public amenity and is subject to review and approval by the Parks Department. The improvements shall equal or exceed the value of the cash in lieu payment of $67,500. 4. The trash/utility area is approved as presented with the following conditions: a. A detailed mechanical plan shall be submitted for Final Review. b. Trash/alley access for all of the retail spaces shall be demonstrated and reviewed at Final Review. 5. The proposal is determined to have a minimal impact on the viewplane due to the existing development that already blocks the viewplane and is hereby exempt from being processed as a PUD in accordance with Section 26.435.050.C.1. Any mechanical equipment placed within the viewplane shall comply with Section 26.435.050, which may require a new viewplane review. 6. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, 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. ______________________ Ann Mullins, Chair Approved as to Form: ___________________________________ Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: ___________________________ Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P383 X.b ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2012 1 Chairperson, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jay Maytin , Jamie McLeod, Nora Berko and Patrick Sagal. Absent were Sallie Golden, Willis Pember and Jane Hills. Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Senior Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Ann moved to approve the minutes of November 28th; second by Nora. All in favor, motion carried. 434 E. Cooper Ave. Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design and View plane review – public hearing Deborah Quinn said the affidavit of posting is in order and the applicant can proceed. Exhibit I Sara said this property received demolition in 2007 from HPC which remains valid. The proposal is to replace the existing building with a new two story building. It will be built out to the lot line and is primarily a one story with a second story setback from both street facing facades. They are proposing an off-site public amenity and they are also partially within the view plane but there are other buildings blocking the view plane so we found that not to be a concern. Staff’s main concern has to do with the location of the second story. Traditional development downtown you typically have a strong one story and strong two story element and sometimes a three story at the street edge. We are concerned about the significant setback of the second floor that it does not reflect the traditional patterns that you see downtown. We are suggesting that the second floor be moved closer to the street and respects the strong street edge that the guidelines are looking for especially on a prominent street corner such as Cooper and Galena. Guideline 6.18 and 6.25 are not met. Staff feels there needs to be a strong one story and two story element downtown. The other concern is the height variation. Guideline 6.28 talks about achieving height variation using setbacks and varying the height along the façade. The applicant is proposing changes to the parapet wall along the first story and staff is not completely supportive of that. We don’t feel it meets the intent of the variation. This is a 9,000 square foot lot and we think by pushing the second story to the street you will get more of that height variation. We also have concerns that this P385 X.b ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2012 2 project is very similar to the Gap project down the street two blocks away. The form is very similar and the detail is similar. Staff is recommending continuation to restudy the location of the second floor mass and to better reflect the height variations that are intended in the guidelines. Sara said the applicant is proposing off-site public amenity which we find appropriate in this location. They would be required to do 10% which is about 900 square feet. With the mall and Paradise across the street we didn’t’ want to have a redundancy of open spaces and staff feels it is appropriate to have the off-site public amenity and it is consistent with guideline 6.7. Sara said overall the trash/utility is fine. We have some concerns about the mechanical on the roof that they aren’t showing a comprehensive plan. At conceptual it is difficult to have a plan. We are recommending for final a complete mechanical plan so we can see what is happening. On the trash/utility standard #3 states that delivery services are integral to the building and two of the retail spaces don’t have access to the alleys or trash area which can be resolved by adding a hallway. Sara said the corner of the building falls into the view plane but it is already blocked by buildings and one is an historic landmark. We also have much lower height limits right now. Staff is recommending approval of the view plane review. Charles Cunniffe said this is a scrape and replace of an existing building. We are trying to make this building compatible with Aspen. This location is unique and a square building is appropriate for this corner. Across the street is the Casa Tua building which is set back. The only truly historic building on the corner is the Independence Building and it is a three story building. Our material selection is cut sandstone which creates a pattern that is more reminiscent of an historic layering of a building. The store fronts have a vertical orientation with the mullion pattern. The building is edge to edge on the Cooper Street and Galena Street side. The existing building never had a step down parapet and it is actually compatible with the Aspen Block building. There is a nice pedestrian pattern as you come up the street and we want that to continue to read. This is one building and we do not feel it appropriate to step the building. It should express itself as a single floor plate and a single roof line. The kick plate section as you come to the alley is stepped down. We also returned a store front along the alley corner which P386 X.b ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2012 3 we feel more buildings should do in town to engage the alley with the pedestrian. We feel the second floor setback is appropriate. If we push the second floor to the street and to the corner we would have a large void dead space on the roof. On the mechanical we can show a mechanical area but you can’t do a final mechanical plan before you have your tenants. We can show a corral where the mechanical can remain. Mitch Haas, Haas planning Page of the HPC guidelines Exhibit IV Mitch said in the guidelines it states that not every guideline will apply to each project. Mitch said this project is 100 % on the sidewalk edge and we are fully built out to the sidewalk edge. The most troubling guideline in the memo is 6.25. The guideline says maintain a two story height at the sidewalk edge or provide a horizontal design element at this level. This project does provide a horizontal design element at this level and meets the sidewalk edge. There have been two previous redevelopments proposed for this property. Both of those had either two or three stories built out to the property line. Both failed before council and public opinion. We don’t want to make that mistake again. Given the existing patterns of properties adjacent in the core this single guideline is overstated. It was quite clear in the past that the public did not want a three story at this corner. By stepping back you will see the historic Red Onion sign on the side. Second story step backs are common in town. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. E-mail from Mari Rainer, Exhibit II Letter from Junee Kirk, Exhibit III Terry Butler said she has lived in the Aspen Block building next door for the last 26 years. I was probably the one that led the charge the hardest for the demise of the last project and it was three stories and built right out to the corner and threw a giant shadow on the entire corner and it would certainly shadow my building behind. This building I actually like a lot. Usually in this town we see developers push it right out to the edge and want every square inch they can get and I understand how expensive it is in town. Here we have someone that isn’t asking for anything extra and is trying to work with the community. The end product will be something that we can all live with. One of the things I’ve always liked about the Fritz Benedict building P387 X.b ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2012 4 is the setback and all the openness of the corner. Even though they are building over the patio they have a lot of glass in the building and the setback on the second floor will be actually about where it is today. Every inch of light on the alley and the glass you will get a lot less ice in that alley. I am for the setback and having the sky, light and view plane is so much more important than having it build out to the edge. Junee Kirk said she agrees with everything that has been said. In this location it doesn’t fit to bring the second story to the street. By setting back the second floor it opens up views. You will also be able to see the entire shape of the Red Onion building. I hope you approve the mass and scale as it is appropriate for this area. As a suggestion putting a little arcade over Galena might give it a little Western texture. It would also be a way to keep out of the rain. I am 100% in favor of approving this plan. Chairperson, Ann Mullins closed the public hearing. Ann stated the issues: Mass and scale Location of the second floor Height variation Public amenity Trash/utility and mechanical plan View plane Jamie thanked the applicant for the application. We can address the mechanical and trash at final. My only issue is that I thought we were reviewing the Gap. Maybe with materials and details we can distinguish this building differently. Setback, location and height are all acceptable. Ann said she is OK with the trash/utility and public amenity. I actually think in this part of town it works to have the second floor set back because there is already an openness in that area with the old Guido’s and Paradise bakery. If we work with the materials we can distinguish the building from the Gap. I am supportive of the application. Nora echoed Ann and Jamie’s comments. I am celebrating the two stories. Nora commented that most of the buildings in town have a truncated corner which makes it much more communal and a crowd assembly area. It is great that the windows are coming around the alley. P388 X.b ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2012 5 Jay said this is a great project. I don’t agree that the second floor should be brought forward because it would look like a bookend. It does look somewhat like the Gap building. I would like to see a different material rather than stone or rock. When you snowmelt possibly snow melt across the alley and work with the City. I would request at final that the mechanical be explained as best possible and that the materials are identified. This is the best project for this corner. Patrick said he feels this building will pass the public review which is the most important thing to me. It is a masterful job. I would recommend keeping the stone like the Wheeler and City Bank because of this premier location. I agree with Nora about the truncated corner and I walked around today and there were about 97 buildings that had setbacks or truncated corners that were lively. The heavy stone has been in Aspen since the 1880’s. The window alleys lighten the area and bring people in. I am not in favor of off-site amenities. The parapet and the differences in setbacks on Galena work well. This building is far apart from the Gap and I see no problem between the two. Jamie said she is not in favor of chamfering that corner due to the mall being right there. Jay and Nora also agreed. Charles said between this building and the Gap purposefully we want the Gap building clean, simple and contemporary. This building is an anchor and a more stately building. This building has to hold its own on the corner and we are proposing a red sandstone cut. Mark Hunt, developer said the scale of the Gap is important and getting the verticality. I look at this building very differently. The rhythm might be similar. This is one of the best retail corners in Aspen and this building will kind of pay tribute to the Ute City building. We made a stronger base on this building which is horizontal. MOTION: Patrick moved to approve Resolution #33and grant conceptual approval as presented; second by Jay. Jamie asked for a friendly amendment that the parapet/cornice needs to get restudied for final. Patrick said he would not accept Jamie’s amendment. P389 X.b ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2012 6 Charles said they have not refined the details and the parapet would be part of that. There will be a greater level of detail for final. This is the mass and scale that we want approved. Amended motion: Jamie moved to amend the motion that the parapet and cornice get studied in greater detail at final. Nora said the mass and scale would not change. Amended motion second by Ann. Motion carried 4-1. Patrick voted no. Sara listed the conditions for conceptual: Granted as presented Off-site amenity Trash/utility access be reviewed at final Mechanical plan presented at final View plane Applicant shall study the parapet/cornice at greater detail at final Applicant has to submit for final within one year. Vote on motion and amendment: Jay, yes, Nora, yes, Patrick, yes; Jamie, yes, Ann, yes. Motion carried 5-0. 204 S. galena, Final Major Development and Final Commercial Design Review – Public Hearing Deborah Quinn said the affidavit of posting is in order and the applicant can proceed, Exhibit I. Amy said this proposal is for a new building on S. Galena Street and it is a complete replacement . There is an existing parking lot and the building will encompass that area. Staff recommends approval with 8 conditions. All new buildings are required to have an airlock or two sets of doors before you enter the space and that is in an effort to be energy efficient. That needs to be accomplished before building permit and it doesn’t need to be reviewed by HPC. There is not enough information about the mechanical plan and it is not shown on the roof plan. There is a condition that nothing should be put on top of restaurant roof top and everything should be clean. The proposal is that the façade will be a buff color and sandstone and there really aren’t any other buildings in the historic core that use that color tone of P390 X.b