Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.council.regular.20130318
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA March 18, 2013 5:00 PM I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Scheduled Public Appearances IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes) V. Special Orders of the Day a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments b) Agenda Deletions and Additions c) City Manager's Comments d) Board Reports VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion) a) Resolution #25, 2013 - Burlingame Phase IIA(i) Construction Contracts b) Minutes - February 25, 2013 (P.47) VII. First Reading of Ordinances a) Ordinance #11, 2013 - 605/675 S. Alps Road, Moses Lot Split - PUD Amendment P.H. 4/22 (P. 57) b) Ordinance #8, 2013 - Approving Annexation of South Portion of Lot 1, Moses Lot Split P.H. 4/22 (P.195) VIII. Public Hearings a) Resolution #26, 2013 - Trash, Utility, Recycle Area Code Amendment (P.201) b) Ordinance #10, 2013 - AspenModern negotiation for historic designation of 602 E. Hyman Avenue (P. 225) c) Ordinance # 6, 2013 - 401 Castle Creek Rd., Aspen Valley Hospital, Final PUD - Phases III & IV (P. 211) d) Ordinance #7, 2013 - Business Friendly Code Amendments (P. 277) IX. Action Items X. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting April 08, 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 Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager THRU: Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director DATE OF MEMO: 3/11/2013 MEETING DATE: 3/18/2013 RE: 2013 Burlingame Phase IIA(i) Construction-Related Contracts REQUEST OF COUNCIL: SEE ATTACHED MEMO PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: SEE ATTACHED MEMO BACKGROUND: SEE ATTACHED MEMO DISCUSSION: SEE ATTACHED MEMO FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: SEE ATTACHED MEMO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FINANCE REVIEW: Click here to enter text. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Click here to enter text. RECOMMENDED ACTION: P1 VI.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 P2 VI.a Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager and Steve Bossart, Capital Asset Project Manager THRU: Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director DATE OF MEMO: March 11, 2013 MEETING DATE: March 18, 2013 RE: 2013 Burlingame Phase IIA(i) Construction-Related Contracts REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff seeks approval of the following contracts related to 2013 Burlingame Phase IIA(i) vertical construction of buildings 1 through 4 (48 affordable units): 1) Contract amendment, Summit Consulting (Construction Observation Services) $20,101.31 2) Contract amendment, Engineering Economics (Commissioning Services) $95,000.00 3) Contract amendment, HP Geotech (Geotechnical Services), $45,641.00 4) Contract amendment, Lockton Companies (Owner Controlled Insurance Program), $383,364 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: At a budget work session on November 13, 2012, Council approved funding for the construction of buildings #1 through #4 (48 affordable housing units) at Burlingame Phase II. On January 14, 2013, Council approved a contract amendment with Haselden Construction for the physical construction of same. BACKGROUND: The services requested herein are necessary to provide insurance coverage as well as third-party project oversight. These services are all planned elements which were included in the budget request for 2013. DISCUSSION: Staff is assembling the construction management and oversight team who will report directly to the City of Aspen (not to Haselden Construction) and thus serve the City’s best interests in ensuring construction quality and schedule. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Total amount budgeted in 2013 for the items herein requested for approval: $455,000.00 Total amount requested for approval for these items: $544,106.30 Amount under (over) budget: ($ 89,106.31) While these expenses have been anticipated, the total contract amount requested for these items is above total amount budgeted for these items by approximately $89,000 (20%). Offsetting this deficit is a savings in the ‘final bidding and award’ allowance within the GMP of approximately $300,000. So while staff does anticipate a need to use more contingency for soft cost items previously either unforeseen or underestimated such as the items presented herein, the net effect is that we have seen the project contingency grow from an originally budgeted contingency level of $700,000 to a current contingency level of approximately $900,000 available for use in 2013. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval. See also Exhibit E attached. P3 VI.a Page 2 of 2 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: “Exhibit A”: Summit Consulting Contract Amendment “Exhibit B”: Engineering Economics Contract Amendment “Exhibit C”: HP Geotech Contract Amendment “Exhibit D”: Lockton Companies Contract Amendment “Exhibit E”: Rider Levett Bucknall Memo, Owner’s Agent recommendation P4 VI.a Summit Consulting, Inc PO Box 4342 Basalt, CO 81621 970-279-4212 info@cosummitconstruction.com Proposed Change Order #_002 Project: Burlingame Ranch Phase II Initiation Date: 03/05/13 Project #: C12-109 Contract Date: 04/23/12 You are directed to make the following changes in the Contract: The schedule for the Installation of the Storm Sewer system was delayed from the original contractual schedule dated 02/13/12. The new schedule shows the completion of the Storm Sewer system occurring from May 6th thru June 18th (32 working days or 6.4 weeks). Summit has been requested to provide costs for the completion of the storm sewer system that are coordinated with this new construction schedule. This change order will be billed at the contractual weekly rate which was $3,140.83 / week. . Proposed Change Order - $3,140.83 x 6.4 = $20,101.31 Exclusions: Saturday Work Overtime Signature of the Owner and Contractor indicates their agreement herewithin, including any adjustment to the Contract Sum or Contract Time. The Contract Value will be changed by $20,101.31 The date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is NA Consultant: Owner: Summit Construction, LLC City of Aspen By: Mak Keeling Date: 03/05/2013 Date: P5 VI.a F:\01-CO\01-09576 Burlingame\Proposal\Construction Phase\Revised 2013\BGR 2 Construction Phase Cx Proposal 3-06-13.docx Engineering Economics, Inc. 780 Simms Street, Suite 210 Golden, Colorado 80401 telephone: 303.239.8700 facsimile: 303.239.9982 March 6, 2013 Chris Everson Affordable Housing Project Manager City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Burlingame Ranch – Phase II Construction Phase - Commissioning and Building Leakage Testing Services Proposal No.: 01-09576 Dear Chris: Engineering Economics, Inc. (EEI) is pleased to present this proposal for commissioning and building leakage testing services for the Construction Phase of the Burlingame Ranch Phase II. This proposal is based on the Implementation Documents dated 8/31/12 and the currently permitted construction phasing for the A1 and A2 phases of the projects. SCOPE OF WORK - Commissioning Building Commissioning services will be provided per the Scope of Work described below to achieve building performance for functionality, energy efficiency, reliability and maintainability. 1. Conduct up to 7 on site commissioning meetings for each phase. 2. Review key submittals for systems to be commissioned in parallel with design team and provide relevant comments. 3. Utilize information from submittals to finalize functional test procedures. 4. Coordinate with the construction manager to incorporate commissioning activities into the overall project schedule. 5. Perform strategic site visits to verify construction progress and quality, documenting activities and issues to be addressed by others. 6. Execute functional test procedures to verify acceptability of systems to be commissioned in all modes of operation. 7. Document commissioning issues, recommending specific corrective action as necessary, confirming acceptability when completed, and logging and tracking issues to closure. 8. Conduct meetings to review and resolve issues. 9. Review as-built documentation and operations and maintenance documentation for completeness and accuracy. 10. Verify contractor-provided training 11. Execute appropriate seasonal testing of systems. 12. Review post-occupancy operation and performance through the warranty period, documenting issues for warranty claims as appropriate. 13. Provide a commissioning project record of all commissioning documentation, from review comments, to issues log, to completed functional test procedures and training documentation. P6 VI.a Chris Everson March 6, 2013 Page 2 F:\01-CO\01-09576 Burlingame\Proposal\Construction Phase\Revised 2013\BGR 2 Construction Phase Cx Proposal 3-06-13.docx An allowance up to 15% of the functional testing effort for repeat testing of failed functional tests is included in this scope. Additional repeat testing and extensive troubleshooting will be billed as additional services; our specifications allow you to back-charge such services to the responsible contractors. Systems and equipment to be commissioned are to include the following: Mechanical 1. Fan coil units 2. Heat recovery ventilators 3. Hot water circulation pumps 4. Baseboard heaters 5. Unit Heaters 6. Dryer booster fans 7. Domestic water heaters 8. Domestic water pressure reducing valves Electrical 1. Service, distribution and metering; verify correct installation, review contractor’s testing and /or documentation. 2. Lighting control system SCOPE OF WORK – Building Leakage Testing Building Leakage Testing services will be provided per the Scope of Work described below to verify the integrity of the building envelope. Preliminary Testing - Blower Door Testing - Perform Blower door testing to analyze a unit’s air‐leakage in order to discover problem areas prior to completion of the unit. This will include unit depressurization and an investigation of the envelope assemblies using infrared thermography to identify proper insulation/air‐barrier alignment prior to final finish installation. The testing will be done to check for compliance against the City of Aspen’s standard of .25 cfm/sf (surface area) @ 50 pascal (test pressure). A report of the findings will be provided for correction by the installing contractors. Completed Unit Testing - Blower Door Testing – Perform blower door testing to measure the unit’s air‐leakage. This will include pressure diagnostics to measure the amount of air‐leakage to outside. The testing will be done to meet the City of Aspen’s standard of 0.25 cfm/sf (surface area) @ 50 pascal (test pressure). This service will include a report of the results for each building broken‐out by individual unit. SCHEDULE We are prepared to commence planning and review activities immediately upon Approval to Proceed. P7 VI.a Chris Everson March 6, 2013 Page 3 F:\01-CO\01-09576 Burlingame\Proposal\Construction Phase\Revised 2013\BGR 2 Construction Phase Cx Proposal 3-06-13.docx FEE We propose to complete the above Scope of Work on a lump sum basis, inclusive of expenses, per the following fee breakdown: Construction Phase A1, Buildings 1 through 4, 48 units Commissioning $57,000 Building Leakage Testing - $38,000 Total $95,000 Note: Minimum testing of one building per visit is assumed. FEE ALTERNATES As discussed, the following fee alternates can be provided for the project: Additions 2014 - Construction Phase A2, Buildings 5 through 7, 34 units Commissioning $46,400 Building Leakage Testing - minimum testing of two units per visit $28,200 Total Note: Minimum testing of one building per visit is assumed. This price is valid until March 15th, 2014 $74,600 Deductions Construction Phase A1, Building Leakage Preliminary Testing Sampling. Because the preliminary testing of the building leakage is meant find construction issues that will be corrected in the tested and subsequent units, we propose that a sampling strategy be used for the preliminary testing. We propose to test a total of 25% of the units with three of the first five units built tested first and the remaining units to follow. -$13,000 Construction Phase A2, Building Leakage Preliminary Testing Sampling. Because the preliminary testing of the building leakage is meant find construction issues that will be corrected in the tested and subsequent units, we propose that a sampling strategy be used for the preliminary testing. We propose to test a total of 25% of the units with three of the first five units built tested first and the remaining units to follow. -$9,500 Any additional services requested beyond the agreed scope will be performed at our standard hourly rates. Our standard rate schedule is attached. P8 VI.a Chris Everson March 6, 2013 Page 4 F:\01-CO\01-09576 Burlingame\Proposal\Construction Phase\Revised 2013\BGR 2 Construction Phase Cx Proposal 3-06-13.docx TERMS AND CONDITIONS Terms and conditions will be per the City of Aspen’s standard Agreement of Professional Services. We very much look forward to working with you again. Sincerely, Engineering Economics, Inc. James E. Bagrowski, PE, LEED® AP Approved and accepted this ___________ day of _____________________, 2013. CITY OF ASPEN By: Title: IF APPROVED, PLEASE SIGN AND RETURN A COPY OF THIS AGREEMENT. P9 VI.a P1 0 VI . a P1 1 VI . a AN INSURANCE PROPOSAL Prepared for City of Aspen for the Burlingame Ranch Phase II Project – Vertical Phase 2ai Lockton Companies thanks you for the opportunity to discuss your insurance and risk management program. This summary is a brief overview of that program and is based on the exposure information you provided. Please refer to the policies for complete terms, conditions, limitations, definitions, and exclusions. Higher limits may be available upon request. Lockton Companies does not guarantee, or make any representation in regard to, and expressly disclaims responsibility for, the financial condition of insurance companies with which we place business. Any rating information contained in this document has been obtained by a third-party rating agency, and we do not represent or warrant its accuracy. Lockton® Companies 8110 East Union Avenue, Suite 700 Denver, CO 80237-2966 Phone (303) 414-6000 Fax (303) 865-6000 P12 VI.a TABLE OF CONTENTS 52494: City of Aspen - CIP\W - (Phase 2) Burlingame Ranch Bldgs 1-4\Props and Sums\prop 0313.docx City of Aspen/March 6, 2013 - 2 Page Account Management Team ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Important Issues ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 Acknowledgement ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 Summary of OCIP Quotes .......................................................................................................................................... 7 Lockton Administration and General Services ........................................................................................................ 8 Commercial General Liability ..................................................................................................................................... 11 Excess Liability .............................................................................................................................................................. 18 Contractors Environmental Impairment Liability ................................................................................................... 20 Builders Risk (including Earthquake and Flood) ..................................................................................................... 24 OCIP Financial Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 28 P13 VI.a ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT TEAM 52494: City of Aspen - CIP\W - (Phase 2) Burlingame Ranch Bldgs 1-4\Props and Sums\prop 0313.docx City of Aspen/March 6, 2013 - 3 Lockton Companies 8110 East Union Ave., Suite 700 Denver, CO 80237 Phone (303) 414-6000 Fax (303) 865-6000 EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, PRODUCER: Marc Beasley ............................................................................................. (303) 414-6406 E-mail address: marc.beasley@lockton.com VICE PRESIDENT, OCIP ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE: Stacy Pocrass ............................................................................................. (303) 414-6174 E-mail address: stacy.pocrass@lockton.com OCIP ACCOUNT MANAGER: Matt Goss .................................................................................................. (303) 414-6215 E-mail address: matt.goss@lockton.com OCIP ACCOUNT ADMINISTRATOR: Emmy Jennings ........................................................................................ (303) 414-6483 E-mail address: emmy.jennings@lockton.com OCIP ADMINISTRATOR: Sandy Gibbons ......................................................................................... (303) 414-6011 E-mail address: sandy.gibbons@lockton.com OCIP ADMINISTRATOR: Diane Gibbons ......................................................................................... (303) 414-6408 E-mail address: diane.gibbons@lockton.com P14 VI.a IMPORTANT ISSUES 52494: City of Aspen - CIP\W - (Phase 2) Burlingame Ranch Bldgs 1-4\Props and Sums\prop 0313.docx City of Aspen/March 6, 2013 - 4 Lockton Companies thanks you for the opportunity to handle your insurance and risk management program. This insurance proposal provides an overview of that program and is based on the exposure information you provided. Please refer to the policies for complete terms, conditions, limitations, definitions, and exclusions. Higher limits may be available upon request. As part of our commitment to you, the following provides a summary of important information you should know: Broker Disclosure Lockton represents you as an insurance broker in soliciting insurance coverage proposals from insurers and placing insurance contracts on your behalf. Lockton may be eligible to receive the following types of compensation as a result of the sale of insurance to you: Base commission (may differ depending on the product, insurer, and/or other intermediary) Additional compensation based upon other factors, such as premium volume placed with a particular insurer or through a particular intermediary and loss or claims experience Interest or investment income on premiums or return premiums temporarily held by Lockton Service fees or other compensation from premium finance companies for administrative services provided to, or on behalf of, the premium finance companies relative to the financing of client insurance premiums Communication Any requests that you make to confirm, bind, or alter your insurance program through e-mail, voice mail, or other automated systems will not take effect until you receive written communication from your Lockton representative. Claim Reporting Requirements Changing market conditions have had an adverse effect on many carriers’ claim reporting terms and conditions. Many policy forms now include verbiage that severely restricts or negates coverage should a carrier not be immediately notified of a claim or potential claim. Refer to your policies for a more complete explanation of your carrier’s reporting requirements. FEMA Flood Zone Information This proposal is based on information regarding the FEMA flood zone determination for your property that is currently available to Lockton. Such determinations are subject to change at any time and Lockton cannot be held responsible for any changes in the flood zone determination reflected herein subsequent to the date of this proposal. State Assessments and Surcharges Your policy may be subject to state assessments and surcharges that may alter your base premium. Although we routinely try to gather this information in the quotation process, it is not always available. P15 VI.a IMPORTANT ISSUES 52494: City of Aspen - CIP\W - (Phase 2) Burlingame Ranch Bldgs 1-4\Props and Sums\prop 0313.docx City of Aspen/March 6, 2013 - 5 Nonadmitted Carriers (Surplus Lines) This is to inform you that some of your policies may have been placed with a nonadmitted carrier. If all or part of your coverage is written through a nonadmitted carrier, it will be so indicated in the individual coverage section. Nonadmitted carriers are neither licensed by nor under the supervision of the state department of insurance. If a nonadmitted carrier becomes insolvent, it is unlikely that the State Guaranty Fund will respond (State Guaranty Funds typically only apply to admitted carriers and provide limited, if any, coverage). For an overview of each state’s provisions, go to: http://ncigf.org/GF-laws-and-summaries-by-state P16 VI.a ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 52494: City of Aspen - CIP\W - (Phase 2) Burlingame Ranch Bldgs 1-4\Props and Sums\prop 0313.docx City of Aspen/March 6, 2013 - 6 Proposal Acknowledgement Please let us know if you have any questions concerning any definitions, terms, conditions, or exclusions contained in this proposal. I have read the proposal and acknowledge that the terms, limits of liability, and exposures are accurate. This proposal must be accepted by April 1, 2013 otherwise it may be subject to renegotiation and may result in different terms or conditions for which Lockton Companies cannot be responsible. Acknowledgement Signed Title Company P17 VI.a SU M M A R Y O F O C I P Q U O T E S 52 4 9 4 : C i t y o f A s p e n - C I P \ W - ( P h a s e 2 ) B u r l i n g a m e R a n c h B l d g s 1 - 4 \ P r o p s a n d S u m s \ p r o p 0 3 1 3 . d o c x City of Aspen/March 6, 2013 - 7 Na m e o f Po l i c y In s u r e r Po l i c y N u m b e r Po l i c y T e r m Li m i t s Ty p e o f C o v e r a g e Premium incl. taxes, fees, terrorism Sp e c i f i c P r o j e c t W r a p - Up L i a b i l i t y Ho u s t o n C a s u a l t y Co m p a n y – No n A d m i t t e d Ra t i n g : A + X I V H1 2 P C 3 0 0 6 5 - 0 0 4 8 M o n t h s Ph a s e 2 a i $2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $5 0 , 0 0 0 Ex c l u d e d $ $2 5 , 0 0 0 Po l i c y L i m i t – E a c h O c c u r r e n c e Ge n e r a l A g g r e g a t e Pr o d u c t s A g g r e g a t e / C o m p l e t e d O p e r a t i o n s Pe r s o n a l I n j u r y / A d v e r t i s i n g I n j u r y Fi r e L e g a l L i a b i l i t y Me d i c a l P a y m e n t s De d u c t i b l e – Pe r O c c u r r e n ce 25 % M i n i m u m E a r n e d P r e m i u m a t I n c e p t i o n $149,968 Wr a p - U p E x c e s s Li a b i l i t y Ir o n s h o r e S p e c i a l t y In s . C o . C o m p a n y – No n A d m i t t e d Ra t i n g : A - X I I I 00 1 3 4 6 6 0 0 4 8 M o n t h s Ph a s e 2 a i a n d 2a i i $1 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ea c h O c c u r r e n c e Ag g r e g a t e Ex c e s s o f t h e L i m i t s s h o w n i n U n d e r l y i n g L i m i t s S e c ti o n . $78,023 Co n t r a c t o r ’ s P o l l u t i o n Li a b i l i t y Ch a r t i s S p e c i a l t y In s u r a n c e C o m p a n y – No n A d m i t t e d Ra t i n g : A X V CP O 1 8 4 2 6 8 4 4 6 0 M o n t h s (e f f e c t i v e 4/ 3 0 / 2 0 1 2 ) $3 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $3 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $2 5 , 0 0 0 Po l i c y L i m i t – E a c h O c c u r r e n c e Ag g r e g a t e De d u c t i b l e s : Ea c h L o s s $34,972 Pr o p e r t y / B u i l d e r s R i s k – C o u r s e o f Co n s t r u c t i o n AC E A m e r i c a n In s u r a n c e C o m p a n y – No n A d m i t t e d Ra t i n g : A + X V TB D 1 2 M o n t h s Ph a s e 2 a i $2 0 , 2 0 0 , 3 7 7 $2 0 , 2 0 0 , 3 7 7 $2 0 , 2 0 0 , 3 7 7 $2 0 , 2 0 0 , 3 7 7 $2 0 , 2 0 0 , 3 7 7 $1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $2 5 , 0 0 0 $2 5 , 0 0 0 $2 5 , 0 0 0 15 - D a y W a i t i n g P e r i o d Pe r j o b - s i t e l i m i t Fl o o d s u b l i m i t Ea r t h q u a k e s u b l i m i t Wa t e r D a m a g e s u b l i m i t ( o t h e r t h e f l o o d ) Wi n d s t o r m s u b l i m i t ( o t h e r t h a n N a m e d ) Tr a n s i t l i m i t De d u c t i b l e s : Al l O t h e r P e r i l s Fl o o d Ea r t h q u a k e Wa t e r D a m a g e So f t C o s t s $59,401 OC I P A d m i n i s t r a t i o n an d 3r d P a r t y Q A / Q C Lo c k t o n 4 8 M o n t h s Ph a s e 2 a i a n d 2a i i O C I P A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 3r d P a r t y Q A / Q C ( E s t i m a t e d a t $ 5 0 0 / d o o r ) $20,00 $41,000 TO T A L $383,364 * E s t i m a t e d a d d i t i o n a l c o s t s t o a d d t h e V e r t i c a l P h as e 2 a i i i s $ 1 3 3 , 1 3 1 P18VI.a LOCKTON ADMINISTRATIVE AND GENERAL SERVICES 52494: City of Aspen - CIP\W - (Phase 2) Burlingame Ranch Bldgs 1-4\Props and Sums\prop 0313.docx City of Aspen/March 6, 2013 - 8 General Services Burlingame Ranch Phase II Project Services for which Lockton receives commission I. Program Marketing/Management A. Market the (General Liability, Excess Liability, Builders Risk and Contractor Pollution Liability) coverage based on the project’s needs in conjunction with Client Risk Management parameters. 1. Prepare insurance coverage specifications. 2. Compile underwriting data and prepare market submission 3. Analyze carrier proposals and present recommendations 4. Bind coverage as directed by Client 5. Review policies for compliance with terms and conditions bound B. Process changes, endorsements and premium invoices. C. Issue required certificates of insurance in a timely manner. D. Review premium audits for accuracy and correctness. E. Conduct Client meetings as necessary. F. Provide periodic reports relative to the bound program including a description of open items. G. Provide research and advice in response to Client questions as needed. II. Claims Management Services A. Act as client claims advocate for all claims. B. Establish claims service standards with carrier(s). C. Review loss runs for accuracy and resolve any incorrectness with carrier. D. Review denied claims for correct application of coverage. E. Process claim notifications to appropriate insurance carriers. III. Loss Control Services A. Provide Loss Control consulting as needed. P19 VI.a LOCKTON ADMINISTRATIVE AND GENERAL SERVICES 52494: City of Aspen - CIP\W - (Phase 2) Burlingame Ranch Bldgs 1-4\Props and Sums\prop 0313.docx City of Aspen/March 6, 2013 - 9 OCIP Services Burlingame Ranch Phase II Project Project Specific Lockton shall serve as the OCIP Administrator for the project known as “Burlingame Ranch Phase II Project” I. OCIP Administration A. Provide sample OCIP contract language to the Client and assist the Client’s legal counsel in finalizing the contract document. B. Prepare an OCIP Manual that includes claims reporting procedures and enrollment procedures and support the project team in the preparation of all bid packages as relates to the OCIP. C. Provide copies of the OCIP policies upon request by a contractor/subcontractor for review with the approval of the client. D. Ensure enrollment by all contractor and subcontractors required to participate in the OCIP, and verify compliance with the OCIP requirements. E. Obtain (on Acord Form 27) certificates of insurance from enrolled contractors evidencing required coverages and provide certificates of insurance to enrolled contractors evidencing OCIP coverage. F. Maintain Project documentation related to the OCIP. G. Provide reports to Clients summarizing OCIP activities, progress and costs. II. Program Closeout A. Coordinated the insurance carrier(s) audit review. B. Additional close-out activities as dictated by actual program design. P20 VI.a LOCKTON ADMINISTRATIVE AND GENERAL SERVICES 52494: City of Aspen - CIP\W - (Phase 2) Burlingame Ranch Bldgs 1-4\Props and Sums\prop 0313.docx City of Aspen/March 6, 2013 - 10 Fees Burlingame Ranch Phase II Project FEE FOR SERVICES General Services Lockton will be compensated via commissions that will be a part of the premiums paid for those coverages. All commissions are earned at the inception of the program. OCIP Services General Liability Program Administration and Close-Out $ 20,000 All fees are earned at the inception of the program. Third-Party QA/QC (estimated $500/door) $ 41,000 (estimated) P21 VI.a COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY Coverage does not apply unless a “” appears in the box. 52494: City of Aspen - CIP\W - (Phase 2) Burlingame Ranch Bldgs 1-4\Props and Sums\prop 0313.docx City of Aspen/March 6, 2013 - 11 INSURER: Houston Casualty Co. (Best’s Rating: A+ XIV) Admitted Carrier Nonadmitted Carrier Surplus Lines Tax POLICY NUMBER: H12PC30065-00 POLICY TERM: 48 months (Effective binding of Phase 2ai and term will include Phase 2aii) LIMITS OF LIABILITY: General Aggregate limit (other than Products aggregate) .............. $ 2,000,000 Products—Completed Operations aggregate limit .......................... $ 2,000,000 Personal and Advertising Injury limit ................................................ $ 2,000,000 Bodily Injury and Property Damage occurrence limit .................... $ 2,000,000 Damages to premises rented to you ................................................... See Fire Legal Fire Legal Liability limit (any one fire) ............................................... $ 50,000 Medical Expense limit (any one person) ........................................... Excluded DEDUCTIBLE(S): No deductible applies Per claim .......................................................................................... Not Applicable Per occurrence ................................................................................ $ 25,000 Aggregate ........................................................................................ Not Applicable Defense: Deductible applies to damages only Deductible applies to damages and defense costs Deductible applies to: Bodily Injury only Both Property Damage only Other: Deductible reduces policy limit DEFENSE: Inside the limit of liability Outside the limit of liability PROJECT: Project: Burlingame Ranch Phase II Address: Aspen, Colorado 81611 Sponsor: City of Aspen Description: Vertical Phase 2ai including buildings #1-4 and 48 units, Phase 2aii to be endorsed thereafter for additional premium P22 VI.a COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY Coverage does not apply unless a “” appears in the box. 52494: City of Aspen - CIP\W - (Phase 2) Burlingame Ranch Bldgs 1-4\Props and Sums\prop 0313.docx City of Aspen/March 6, 2013 - 12 FORM EXTENDED TO INCLUDE: Wrap-up program change endorsement Extend products/completed operations period – statute of limitations or repose, or ten years, whichever is less Exclusion j, k, and l are deleted from CG0001 Who is an insured includes your enrolled contractors while performing duties related to the covered project Limits apply for the policy period including the extended completed operations period and do not reinstate Per project endorsement Per location endorsement Blanket additional insured (as required by written contract) Primary and noncontributory wording applies Completed operations included; length: not applicable Additional insureds: Club members Volunteers Users of golfmobiles Church members Lessors of leased equipment Elected and/or appointed officers State of Politic Subdivisions Permits Mortgagee, assignee, or receivee Blanket vendors (as required by written contract) Fellow employee exclusion deleted Limited to key personnel—Who: Pollution exclusion amended to cover: Building heating equipment Contractor’s site (limited coverage—refer to the policy form) Hostile fire Products Other: Employee benefit liability: Claims made Claims made and reported # of days to report claim: N/A Limit: _______________ Per claim Per employee Retroactive date: _____________ Aggregate _______________ Deductible: _______________ Per claim Per employee P23 VI.a COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY Coverage does not apply unless a “” appears in the box. 52494: City of Aspen - CIP\W - (Phase 2) Burlingame Ranch Bldgs 1-4\Props and Sums\prop 0313.docx City of Aspen/March 6, 2013 - 13 FORM EXTENDED TO INCLUDE: CONTINUED Broad form named insured (# of days N/A) Worldwide territory Broad knowledge of occurrence Unintentional errors and omissions Host liquor Personal injury—contractual exclusion deleted Discrimination (non-employment-related only) Definition of bodily injury includes resultant mental anguish, etc. Waiver of subrogation (as per written contract and where allowed by law) Preloss wording Blanket wording EXPOSURES: State Description Basis Rate Premium CO Units u) 82 Flat $ 140,000 Basis a) c) e) f) p) m) r) s) n) u) Area Cost Each Frontage Payroll Admissions Receipts Sales Number Unit ADDITIONAL INTERESTS/ CERTIFICATE RECIPIENTS: (See attached schedule on file with the company.) NOTES: Higher limits may be available on request. P24 VI.a COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY Coverage does not apply unless a “” appears in the box. 52494: City of Aspen - CIP\W - (Phase 2) Burlingame Ranch Bldgs 1-4\Props and Sums\prop 0313.docx City of Aspen/March 6, 2013 - 14 TERM PREMIUM: $ 140,000 Flat premium $ 4,200 CO surplus lines tax $ 144,200 Total Minimum and deposit apply – 100% Minimum earned premium applies – 25% Optional TRIA quote – $5,768 OPTIONAL QUOTE FOR VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION: Upon notification from the Insured and prior to the beginning of construction other than what is listed above, we will endorse the policy with the following: Increase the policy term no longer than five years in total. Amend Description of Operations and form HPC 040 09 01 12 to include the following wording: Construction of 82 rent-to-own townhomes within seven frame buildings (three stories of frame over concrete pads) for deed restricted city workers. Form CG 2153 01 96 – vertical construction exclusion – will be removed from the policy. Notification to endorse Phase 2ai must be given prior to April 15, 2013. Vertical Phase 2aii can be endorsed for an additional estimated premium of $93,636 and to be included within the above summarized 48-month term. IMPORTANT: Certain contracts that are entered into contain an indemnity or hold-harmless agreement. The contractual liability created by the hold-harmless agreement is the assumption, by contract, of another’s liability. The contractual liability coverage part of the Commercial General Liability policy has limitations and exclusions that may apply to portions of the hold-harmless agreement. MONTROSE WORDING: Most Commercial General Liability policies now contain what is referred to as “Montrose” wording. Essentially, coverage is precluded if any owner, partner, director, officer, or employee authorized by an insured to give or receive notice of an “occurrence” knew of an occurrence involving “Bodily Injury” or “Property Damage” prior to the policy period. Refer to your policy for complete terms and conditions. Generally, these losses are not covered if they are the subject of “Prior or Claims Litigation.” Some “Montrose” endorsements preclude coverage for continuing losses where the per “occurrence” first happened prior to the policy period, regardless of when there was knowledge that the occurrence had taken place or whether a claim or litigation was already pending. P25 VI.a COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY Coverage does not apply unless a “” appears in the box. 52494: City of Aspen - CIP\W - (Phase 2) Burlingame Ranch Bldgs 1-4\Props and Sums\prop 0313.docx City of Aspen/March 6, 2013 - 15 SUBJECT TO: These terms are subject to review of additional documentation at which time pricing is subject to change or quote may be pulled: 1. An updated and signed ACORD and Wrap Application – required within 15 days of binding. 2. Signed terrorism selection form prior to binding. 3. Trades not allowed to be enrolled: environmental remediation contractors and architects and engineers. At Binding: 1. Prior to the start of construction the insured must contract with an approved provider for third-party engineering services to be performed during the course of construction. We require 100% inspection for all condo or townhome construction and at least 50% inspection for single family homes. Prior to binding, we must review and approve the proposal for third-party engineering services. The cost of the service is paid by the insured. As a condition of coverage, we require receipt of the complete third-party documentation upon completion of the project. Approved providers include: 2. LJP (LaJolla Pacific): M-L McKinley de Vance 949-336-8903 3. Builders Protective Group: Adam Shaw 310-356-4840 4. Or other agreed firm MAJOR EXCLUSIONS: (Refer to the policy for a complete list.) Bodily Injury/Property Damage Expected or intended acts Liquor liability (exclusion applies only if you are in the business of manufacturing, distributing, selling, servicing, or furnishing alcoholic beverages) Any obligation under a workers’ compensation, disability benefits, or unemployment law or similar law Bodily injury to any employee (including a spouse, child, parent, brother, or sister of that employee as a consequence of the above, but does not apply to an insured contract) Pollution Bodily injury/property damage arising out of ownership, maintenance, use, or entrustment of any aircraft, automobile, or watercraft owned or operated by or rented or loaned to any insured (except nonowned watercraft under 26 feet) War Property damage to property that you: Own, rent, or occupy (except property damage to premises rented to you for less than seven [7] days—excluding fire damage) Sold, gave away, or abandoned Have loaned to you Have in your care, custody, or control P26 VI.a COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY Coverage does not apply unless a “” appears in the box. 52494: City of Aspen - CIP\W - (Phase 2) Burlingame Ranch Bldgs 1-4\Props and Sums\prop 0313.docx City of Aspen/March 6, 2013 - 16 MAJOR EXCLUSIONS: CONTINUED Property damage to your product or your work arising out of or any part of it (except coverage is excess for work performed for you by subcontractors) Property damage to impaired property arising from a defect, deficiency, inadequacy, or dangerous condition in “your product or work” or a delay Withdrawal, recall, etc. Contractual (except as provided below): Lease of premises Sidetrack agreement Any other easement except in connection with construction or demolition operations of or within 50 feet of railroad Indemnification of a municipality as required by ordinance, except in connection with work for municipality Elevator maintenance agreement (TORT LIABILITY) coverage will apply for liability assumed in a contract for a third party. Tort liability is a civil wrong. Personal Injury and Advertising Injury By or at the direction of the insured with the knowledge that the act would violate the rights of another and would inflict personal and advertising injury Oral and/or written publication—known falsity Prior publication (prior to inception date) Criminal act committed by or at the direction of the insured Willful violation of statute Contractual except tort liability Breach of contract except an implied contract to use another’s advertising ideas in your advertisement Failure to conform to advertised quality and/or performance Wrong description of price and/or goods, etc. Any offense if the insured is in the business of advertising, broadcasting, or telecasting Medical Payments Bodily injury to insured Bodily injury to person hired to work for the insured Bodily injury to a person injured on that part of premises you own or rent that the person normally occupies Workers’ compensation Taking place in athletics Exclusions as shown in bodily injury/property damage War In products and/or completed operations hazard P27 VI.a COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY Coverage does not apply unless a “” appears in the box. 52494: City of Aspen - CIP\W - (Phase 2) Burlingame Ranch Bldgs 1-4\Props and Sums\prop 0313.docx City of Aspen/March 6, 2013 - 17 MAJOR EXCLUSIONS: CONTINUED Other Terrorism Mold, fungi, etc. Exterior insulation finishing systems (EIFS) Silica Subsidence Violation of economic and trade sanctions Violation of statutes in connection with sending, transmitting, or communicating any material or information (unless otherwise provided) Asbestos Arsenic Wrap-up cross suits Lead Sulfates Coverage C – medical payments Employment-related practices Total pollution Designated exclusion: any vertical construction Construction management errors and omissions Engineers, architects, or surveyors professional liability Real estate errors or omissions The above narrative is intended only as a guideline. Policy provisions determine coverage. P28 VI.a EXCESS LIABILITY Coverage does not apply unless a “” appears in the box. 52494: City of Aspen - CIP\W - (Phase 2) Burlingame Ranch Bldgs 1-4\Props and Sums\prop 0313.docx City of Aspen/March 6, 2013 - 18 INSURER: Ironshore Specialty Insurance Co. (Best’s Rating: A- XIII) Admitted Carrier Nonadmitted Carrier Surplus Lines Tax POLICY NUMBER: 001346600 POLICY TERM: 48 Months (Effective binding of Phase 2ai and term will include Phase 2aii) LIMITS: Combined bodily injury and property damage Each occurrence ............................................................................ $ 10,000,000 Annual aggregate (single general and products/completed operations aggregate – no aggregate reinstatements) ............... $ 10,000,000 UNDERLYING LIMITS: Combined bodily injury and property damage Each occurrence ............................................................................ $ 2,000,000 Aggregates ....................................................................................... $ 2,000,000 UNDERLYING INSURER: Houston Casualty Co. DEFENSE: Inside the limit of liability Outside the limit of liability FORM: Pay on behalf Indemnity Follow form of primary general liability “Per job” aggregate applies “Per location” aggregate applies MAJOR EXCLUSIONS: (Refer to the policy for a complete list.) Nuclear energy liability Pollution Asbestos Terrorism (unless otherwise provided) Mold, fungi, etc. Exclusions listed in underlying policies P29 VI.a EXCESS LIABILITY Coverage does not apply unless a “” appears in the box. 52494: City of Aspen - CIP\W - (Phase 2) Burlingame Ranch Bldgs 1-4\Props and Sums\prop 0313.docx City of Aspen/March 6, 2013 - 19 MAJOR EXCLUSIONS: CONTINUED Crisis management exclusion War or military Other laws NOTE: Higher limits may be available on request. TERM PREMIUM: $ 75,000 Premium $ 2,250 CO surplus lines tax $ 79,250 Total Minimum and deposit apply – 100% Minimum earned premium applies – 25% Optional TRIA quote – $773 VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION: Vertical construction of 82 rent-to-own townhomes within seven frame buildings (three stories of frame over concrete pads) for deed restricted city workers. Policy term to be increased to a maximum of five years total. Notification must be provided prior to April 15, 2013. The above summarized premium and term encompasses both Phase 2ai and Phase 2aii. SUBJECT TO: Due at time of binding: Signed TRIA form Details of quality assurance/quality control Applicable tax forms if bound P30 VI.a CONTRACTORS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAIRMENT LIABILITY Coverage does not apply unless a “” appears in the box. 52494: City of Aspen - CIP\W - (Phase 2) Burlingame Ranch Bldgs 1-4\Props and Sums\prop 0313.docx City of Aspen/March 6, 2013 - 20 INSURER: Chartis Specialty Insurance Co. (Best’s Rating: A XV) Admitted Carrier Nonadmitted Carrier Surplus Lines Tax POLICY NUMBER: To Be Determined POLICY TERM: Five years (Effective April 30, 2012 to April 30, 2017) COVERAGE: Covers loss that an insured is legally obligated to pay as a result of an environmental impairment from a covered operation and includes, if so indicated, completed operations. FORM: Claims made Claims made and reported Occurrence Pay on behalf Project-specific Indemnity DEFENSE: Inside the limit of liability – after claim expenses reach $750,000 Outside the limit of liability – until claim expenses reach 25% of aggregate (or $750,000) DEDUCTIBLE(S): $ 25,000 LAE* inside the deductible – after claim expenses reach $750,000 LAE* outside the deductible until claim expenses reach 25% of aggregate (or $750,000) *Loss-adjustment expenses RETROACTIVE DATE: Not Applicable COVERED OPERATIONS: Burlingame Ranch Phase II 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611 Construction of townhomes Seven buildings, 82 units P31 VI.a CONTRACTORS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAIRMENT LIABILITY Coverage does not apply unless a “” appears in the box. 52494: City of Aspen - CIP\W - (Phase 2) Burlingame Ranch Bldgs 1-4\Props and Sums\prop 0313.docx City of Aspen/March 6, 2013 - 21 LIMITS OF LIABILITY*: Per loss .................................................................................................... $ 3,000,000 Per policy ................................................................................................ $ 3,000,000 Emergency response costs ................................................................... $ 250,000 * Limits do not reinstate on an annual basis for multi-year policy terms unless specifically stated. TERRITORY: The United States, its territories or possessions, or Canada, its provinces or territories MAJOR EXCLUSIONS: (Refer to the policy for a complete list.) Prior impairment, if any officer, director, partner, or employee responsible for environmental affairs knew or could have reasonably foreseen Claims seeking injunctive or equitable relief Arising out of the ownership or operation of an offshore facility Workers’ compensation, etc. Bodily injury to any employee or spouse, etc. Contractual (except when indicated below) Cleanup costs (except when indicated below) Ownership, maintenance, use, operation, loading, and/or unloading of any automobile, aircraft, watercraft, or rolling stock (covers mobile equipment) Nuclear Arising out of goods and/or products manufactured, sold, etc. Bodily injury and/or property damage to products manufactured, sold, etc. Intentional noncompliance with any statute, regulation, etc. Acid rain War Asbestos (except when indicated below) Disposal, transportation, etc. (except when indicated below) Underground storage tanks, including repair and maintenance Taxes, assessments, punitive damages, etc. Rendering or failing to render professional services Sites deemed as “superfund” or that are on the National Priorities List Terrorism (unless otherwise provided) Mold, fungi, etc. (unless specifically covered) Lead-based paint (except when indicated below) P32 VI.a CONTRACTORS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAIRMENT LIABILITY Coverage does not apply unless a “” appears in the box. 52494: City of Aspen - CIP\W - (Phase 2) Burlingame Ranch Bldgs 1-4\Props and Sums\prop 0313.docx City of Aspen/March 6, 2013 - 22 EXTENDED REPORTING CONDITIONS: Number of days to purchase ............................................................. Not Applicable Length of “tail” .................................................................................... Not Applicable Additional premium ............................................................................ Yes No Limit reinstated .................................................................................... Yes No Premium fully earned ......................................................................... Yes No Insured can purchase irrespective of who cancels or nonrenews ..................................................................................... Yes No FORM EXTENDED TO INCLUDE: Contractual exclusion amended to cover: Scheduled contracts Blanket contractual when required by written contract Limited to contracts between named insured and their clients Definition of bodily injury includes mental anguish, shock, and emotional distress Natural resource damage Definition of bodily injury includes medical monitoring Definition of pollutant includes mold, fungi, and bacteria (microbial matter) Claims made Retro date: _________________ Occurrence Definition of pollutant includes legionella Definition of pollutant includes electromagnetic fields Nonowned disposal sites for three years after expiration Blanket Scheduled Transportation First party Contingent third party Including illicit abandonment Includes insured locations—first-party clean up Waiver of subrogation Covers punitive damages, fines, and penalties (silent) Additional defense costs outside of the limit Limited asbestos/lead coverage clean-up in soil/ groundwater Third-party bodily injury for asbestos/lead Owner Controlled Insurance Program Endorsement Covers contractor and subs Covers owned property Project Protect Project Owner Controlled Endorsement Completed operations – eight years P33 VI.a CONTRACTORS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAIRMENT LIABILITY Coverage does not apply unless a “” appears in the box. 52494: City of Aspen - CIP\W - (Phase 2) Burlingame Ranch Bldgs 1-4\Props and Sums\prop 0313.docx City of Aspen/March 6, 2013 - 23 NOTE: Higher limits may be available on request. TERM PREMIUM: $ 34,972 Premium (last installment of two installments) $ 0 3% CO surplus lines tax (paid during first installment) $ 34,972 Total Minimum and deposit apply Minimum earned premium applies Subject to audit Rate: TRIA – additional $629 plus 3% surplus lines tax Surplus lines tax 50% of premium due at inception, 50% due 12 months thereafter Both installments total $72,041 P34 VI.a BUILDERS RISK (INCLUDING EARTHQUAKE AND FLOOD) Coverage does not apply unless a “” appears in the box. 52494: City of Aspen - CIP\W - (Phase 2) Burlingame Ranch Bldgs 1-4\Props and Sums\prop 0313.docx City of Aspen/March 6, 2013 - 24 INSURER: ACE American Insurance Co. (Best’s Rating: A+ XV) Admitted Carrier Nonadmitted Carrier Surplus Lines Tax POLICY NUMBER: To Be Determined POLICY TERM: 12 Months COVERAGE: Builders Risk: Covers buildings, structures, or projects under construction and, if so indicated, extends to include property that will become a permanent part of the building while in transit or at a temporary location. PERILS INSURED: Special form TERRITORY: Fifty states of the United States of America, including the District of Columbia and Canada. Property in transit from Hawaii or Alaska is not covered. WARNING: (Refer to your policy for complete terms and conditions.) Policy language dictates “when coverage ceases” on a per project basis. MAJOR EXCLUSIONS: (Refer to the policy for complete terms and conditions.) Increased cost of construction Wear and tear Dishonest acts Inadequate or defective planning or design Delay Freezing Testing Mechanical breakdown Existing structures Occupancy Flood and earthquake unless shown as covered above Terrorism (unless otherwise provided) Mold, fungi, etc. (unless specifically covered) Exterior Insulation Finishing Systems (EIFS) (unless specifically covered) P35 VI.a BUILDERS RISK (INCLUDING EARTHQUAKE AND FLOOD) Coverage does not apply unless a “” appears in the box. 52494: City of Aspen - CIP\W - (Phase 2) Burlingame Ranch Bldgs 1-4\Props and Sums\prop 0313.docx City of Aspen/March 6, 2013 - 25 LIMITS OF LIABILITY: Per job-site limit .................................................................................... $ 20,200,377 Flood sublimit (annual aggregate) (except Zone A) ........................ $ 20,200,377 Earthquake sublimit (annual aggregate) ............................................. $ 20,200,377 Water damage (other than flood) sublimit ........................................ $ 20,200,377 Windstorm (other than named) sublimit ........................................... $ 20,200,377 Transit limit ............................................................................................ $ 1,000,000 Temporary location limit ..................................................................... $ 1,000,000 DESCRIPTION: Remaining infrastructure work, retaining walls, and Vertical Phase 2ai for planned townhome community, Burlingame Ranch Phase II, Aspen, CO DEDUCTIBLES: All other perils ....................................................................................... $ 10,000 Flood ....................................................................................................... $ 25,000 Earthquake ............................................................................................. $ 25,000 Water damage ........................................................................................ $ 25,000 Soft costs/rental income ...................................................................... # of days 15 COINSURANCE: None VALUATION: Actual cash value Replacement cost FORM: Completed value Reporting form Monthly Quarterly (Reports must be submitted within _____ days of the last day of the month. Failure to do so may result in a coinsurance penalty.) OPTIONAL COVERAGES: Waiver of subrogation (as per written contract and where allowed by law) ................................................................... Covered Definition of flood includes: Backup of sewer and drain Standard deductible Flood deductible Surface water Standard deductible Flood deductible Mudflow P36 VI.a BUILDERS RISK (INCLUDING EARTHQUAKE AND FLOOD) Coverage does not apply unless a “” appears in the box. 52494: City of Aspen - CIP\W - (Phase 2) Burlingame Ranch Bldgs 1-4\Props and Sums\prop 0313.docx City of Aspen/March 6, 2013 - 26 OPTIONAL COVERAGES: CONTINUED Definition of earthquake includes: Subsidence Mudflow Volcanic activity Glass ................................................................................................ Covered Testing – cold testing only ........................................................... Covered Freezing (except damage to landscaping) .................................. Covered Soft costs ......................................................................................... Not Covered Describe: Covers interest of owners, subs, and sub’s subs Loss of income/rents .................................................................... Not Covered Riggers ............................................................................................. Not Covered No legal liability requirement Partial occupancy allowed for purposes intended for this project Scaffolding, form, falsework ........................................................ Included Land exclusion deleted (excavation cost covered) Waterborne coverage .................................................................... Not Covered Property located underground ..................................................... Not Covered Increased cost of construction .................................................... Not Covered Debris removal ............................................................................... 25% of Loss, $1,000,000 max. Pollution .......................................................................................... $ 100,000 Faulty design and/or workmanship exclusion amended to cover resultant damage by a covered peril Artificial current exclusion amended to cover resultant damage by a covered peril Rust, corrosion, etc., exclusion modified to cover resultant damage by a covered peril Mechanical breakdown exclusion modified to cover resultant damage by covered peril .................................... Not Covered Covers building material after it has become part of the building (installation floater only) .................................... Not Covered “When interest ceases” section modified to: When financial interest ceases You abandon with no intent to complete 90 days after completion NOTE: Higher limits may be available on request. P37 VI.a BUILDERS RISK (INCLUDING EARTHQUAKE AND FLOOD) Coverage does not apply unless a “” appears in the box. 52494: City of Aspen - CIP\W - (Phase 2) Burlingame Ranch Bldgs 1-4\Props and Sums\prop 0313.docx City of Aspen/March 6, 2013 - 27 ESTIMATED ANNUAL PREMIUM: $ 57,671 (($18,700,377 HC x .28) + $1,500,000 SC x $.354))/100 Minimum and deposit apply – 100% Minimum earned premium applies – 25% Subject to audit – $0.28 annual rate HC; $.354 SC Optional TRIA – 3% or $1,730 Future values and vertical work will be reviewed annually as additional coverage and policies are needed SUBJECTIVITIES AND CONDITIONS: Itemized soft costs Fire protection class 5 with working fire hydrants at project site Security must include fenced, locked project site, lighting, and on premises security during non-working hours P38 VI.a OCIP FINANCIAL SUMMARY 52494: City of Aspen - CIP\W - (Phase 2) Burlingame Ranch Bldgs 1-4\Props and Sums\prop 0313.docx City of Aspen/March 6, 2013 - 28 Project Rating Base Construction of Townhomes Total Construction Value for Infrastructure:$4,063,637 Total Construction Value for 2013 & 2014 (Bldgs 1-4, 48 units, and parking) - Phase 2ai:$19,116,676 Total Construction Value for 2015 (Bldgs 5-7, 34 units, and parking) - Phase 2aii:$12,299,000 Soft Costs $2,500,000 Total Construction Values:$37,979,313 Construction/Coverage Term for Infrastructure:8 Months (4/15/2012 to 12/15/2012) Total Construction Value for 2013 & 2014 (Bldgs 1-4, 48 units, and parking) - Phase 2ai:14.5 Months (4/1/2013 to 6/15/2014) Total Construction Value for 2015 (Bldgs 5-7, 34 units, and parking) - Phase 2aii:8 Months (12/1/2014 to 6/1/2015) No. of Units:82 InfrastructureVertical ConstructionInfrastructureVertical Phase 2aiVertical Phase 2aii $96,408$214,240$96,408$149,968$93,636 $104,030$78,023$104,030$78,023$0 $37,699$34,972$37,699$34,972$0 $8,000$61,000$8,000$61,000$0 $5,047$77,250$5,047$59,401$39,495 $251,184$465,484$251,184$383,363$133,131 InfrastructureVertical ConstructionInfrastructureVertical Phase 2aiVertical Phase 2aii * 12 Months48 Additional Months12 Months $7,000,000$24,000,000$4,063,637$19,116,676$12,299,000 $90,000$200,000$90,000$140,000$87,412 $2,700$6,000$2,700$4,200$2,622 $3,708$8,240$3,708$5,768$3,601 $96,408$214,240$96,408$149,968$93,636 Option to endorse vertical work and increase term up to 5 years total for the additional premium, notification must be given prior to 4/15/2013 25% minimum earned at inception, 100% after 12 months / 100% minimum and deposit Houston Casualty has agreed to breakout the vertical premium requirements by phase Subject to geotech and GC letter stating will comply and have reviewed construction plans and geotech recs, Risk review and 3rd Party QA/AC, signed application * Since the Phase 2aii CVs may potentially increase from the original bound liability program, Houston Casualty may require additional premium, but we feel this can be negotiated once Phase 2aii's CVs are determined. InfrastructureVertical ConstructionInfrastructureVertical Phase 2aiVertical Phase 2aii 12 Months48 Additional Months12 Months $100,000$75,000$100,000$75,000$0 $3,000$2,250$3,000$2,250$0 $1,030$773$1,030$773$0 $104,030$78,023$104,030$78,023$0 Option to endorse vertical work and increase term up to 5 years total for $75,000 AP, notification must be given prior to 4/15/2013 100% of $104,030 is due at binding and 100% of $78,023 is due when notification of vertical work is provided 25% minimum earned at inception, 100% after 12 months / 100% minimum and deposit Subject to signed application and details of Risk Management and Quality Assurance InfrastructureVertical ConstructionInfrastructureVertical Phase 2aiVertical Phase 2aii $34,972$34,972$34,972$34,972$0 $2,098$0$2,098$0$0 $629$0$629$0$0 $37,699$34,972$37,699$34,972$0 Remaining $34,972 due on 4/30/2013 InfrastructureVertical ConstructionInfrastructureVertical Phase 2aiVertical Phase 2aii $3,000$0$3,000$0$0 $5,000$20,000$5,000$20,000$0 $0$41,000$0$41,000$0 $8,000$61,000$8,000$61,000$0 Infrastructure INDICATION ONLY InfrastructureVertical Phase 2ai Phase 2aii ESTIMATE 12 MonthsTBD12 Months12 Months12 Months $7,000,000$24,000,000$7,000,000$18,700,377$12,431,000 Included$2,500,000Included$1,500,000$1,000,000 $7,000,000$26,500,000$7,000,000$20,200,377$13,431,000 $7,000,000$26,500,000$7,000,000$20,200,377$13,431,000 $7,000,000$26,500,000$7,000,000$20,200,377$13,431,000 $10,000$10,000$10,000$10,000$10,000 $25,000$25,000$25,000$25,000$25,000 $50,000$50,000$50,000$25,000$25,000 $50,000$50,000$50,000$25,000$25,000 15 Days15 Days15 Days15 Days15 Days $0.07$0.36$0.07$0.29$0.29 $4,900$75,000$4,900$57,671$38,345 $4,900$75,000$4,900$57,671$38,345 $0$0$0$0$0 $147$2,250$147$1,730$1,150 $5,047$77,250$5,047$59,401$39,495 Burlingame Ranch Phase II Insurance Program Financial Estimate As of: 3/08/2013 Project Address:Aspen, CO 81611 (at the end of Harmony Rd and immediately to the west of the Burlingame Ranch Phase I) Insurance Cost Summary Initial Bound Program $716,668 Houston Casualty Excess Liability Contractor's Pollution Liability (Optional Terrorism) Other Insurance Program Costs Builders Risk (Optional Terrorism) Subtotals - includes taxes, fees and Terrorism Coverage Description Revised Program Primary General Liability (Optional Terrorism) General Liability Primary Limits $2M/$2M/$2M Policy Term Program Premium Total (1) - includes taxes, fees and Terrorism $767,678 Cost Breakdown by Line of Coverage Houston Casualty $2M/$2M/$2M 48 Additional Months Fixed Costs (premium) Fees & Taxes TRIPRA (Optional Terrorism) Subtotal Total Premium, Fees and Taxes including Terrorism Deductible $25,000 Hard Costs Rate - Term Flat Rate $25,000 Flat Rate $310,648 Policy Term Fixed Costs (premium) Fees & Taxes TRIPRA (Terrorism) Subtotal $340,012 Ironshore Specialty Excess Liability Excess Limits $10,000,000 Ironshore Specialty $10,000,000 48 Additional Months CPL Limits $3,000,000 Policy Term 60 Months Total Premium, Fees and Taxes including Terrorism $182,053 Chartis Contractors Pollution Liability $182,053 Chartis $3,000,000 60 Months Rate - Term $2.17 Fixed Costs (premium) Fees & Taxes Deductible $25,000 Completed Operations Period 8 Years $25,000 8 Years $2.17 $72,670 Lockton TRIPRA (Optional Terrorism) Subtotal Total Premium, Fees and Taxes including Terrorism $72,670 Lockton Carrier Project Risk Review Lockton Administrative Fees (3) - Term: 48 months 3rd Party QA/QC (2) - Not a Lockton Fee Total Other Insurance Program Costs ACE Policy for Each Phase/3 Total Other Insurance Costs ACE Policy for Each Phase/3 Total Flood Limit Deductibles Physical Damage All Other Losses Builders Risk Policy Term Hard Costs Soft Costs Total Limit Earthquake Limit $103,943 Rate - Annual Blended Fixed Costs (premium) Deposit Premium Water Damage Earthquake Flood Delay in Completion Soft Costs $82,297 Fees & Taxes TRIPRA (Optional Terrorism) Subtotal Total Premium, Fees and Taxes including Terrorism P39 VI.a OCIP FINANCIAL SUMMARY 52494: City of Aspen - CIP\W - (Phase 2) Burlingame Ranch Bldgs 1-4\Props and Sums\prop 0313.docx City of Aspen/March 6, 2013 - 29 ACE quoted Phase 2ai, but can only provide an indication for Phase 2aii: 100% of premium due at inception adjusted at end of policy period, 25% minimum earned Indicated rates may change due to future market fluctuations Premium is estimated based on provided phased construction schedule and budget Existing Retaining Walls are included Security fence, locked site, lighting and after hours security required or agreed security procedures by GC Required Fire Protection Class 5 and operational fire hydrants at project site Notes: 1. Does not include estimated losses paid within the deductible. 2. QC is required; an estimate of the cost for condos would be $500 per door. Owner required to contract with third party directly. 3. Lockton has been approved to provide administration on wrap-ups. Lockton will provide an administrative fee for services agreement for signature by the Owner. 4. A favorable loss control survey is required within 45 days of binding. Note: Lockton will receive commission from the carrier on any issued policy. This is in addition to our Administrative Fee for Service. P40 VI.a P41 VI.a memorandum To Scott Miller, Chris Everson City of Aspen CC Steve Bossart City of Aspen From Rob Taylor Date 11 March 2013 Subject Burlingame Ranch Phase II 2013 Misc Consultant Recommendations Reference No. Scott/Chris The purpose of this memo is to recommend four contracts for the Burlingame Ranch Phase II project. These are for Construction Inspection, Commissioning, Geotechnical and Material Testing and OCIP Insurance. Background The four contracts recommended under the cover of this memo were anticipated during the November 2012 budget request. The only “new” scope of work, not detailed in the budget was blower door testing, this is discussed below. 1. Construction Oversight – Summit $20,101 The Summit scope includes inspection of some carry over work from 2012 and new stormwater systems as part of the vertical package. Summit carried out inspection in 2012 and we were satisfied with their work and recommend this contract modification for new scope. This change will be in addition to their carry over scope in their base contract for permeable pavers and irrigation $4,940. This contract modification, plus rollover equals $25,041 and is under budget. 2. Commissioning and Blower Door Testing – EEI $95,000 EEI have been the design commissioning agent and have proven to be very thorough in their analysis. New scope under this package is blower door/building leakage testing – which at $38,000 is the main thrust that this package is over budget. This leakage testing is a critical part of validating our high efficiency thermal envelope and at less than $800/unit is a sound investment. Project contingency is sufficient to cover this overage, but there are also opportunities to reduce the blower door cost by having a sampling regime for the preliminary leakage tests. 3. Geotechnical and Material Testing – HP Geotech $45,641 HP were involved in the design phase and competitively won the construction phase this time last year. For project continuity, their continuation of service is recommended, but also their work has been timely and consistent. We are overbudget for this line item primarily due to us underestimating the material testing component but this is easily covered by contingency. 4. Owners Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP) – Lockton - $383,364 Lockton are brokering the OCIP program and have worked diligently to respond to the project phasing. Continuation of insurance is a key part of minimizing the City’s project risk. Based on draft proposals from Lockton, we had $350,000 budgeted and this was affected by escalation and the rollover of the A/I package, and also the fact excess liability, pollution and program costs are paid up front for the vertical work. Although we are $33,000, 9% over budget this year, it appears we are $30,000 UNDER budget for 2014 building 5 through 7, so this balances out as far as the project budget is concerned. P42 VI.a 11 March 2013 Memorandum Page 2 Recommendation The four contracts detailed above versus budget is below: Scope Nov 2012 Budget Recommendation Construction Oversight $40,000 $20,101+$4,940 carry over= $25,041 Commissioning and Blower Door Testing $50,000 $95,000 Geotechnical and Material Testing $20,000 $45,641 Owners Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP) $350,000 $383,364 TOTAL $460,000 $549,046 Project contingency is still in very good shape, and after accounting for this overage above we still have 148% of the budgeted project contingency available and only 2% of planned contracts are yet to be confirmed. We recommend Council approve these four Contracts amendments for the 2013 Burlingame vertical work. Please contact me for any queries relating the attached or above. Sincerely, Rob Taylor Associate Principal Rider Levett Bucknall Ltd Encl. P43 VI.a RESOLUTION # (Series of 2013) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING CONTRACT AMENDMENTS WITH SUMMIT CONSULTING, ENGINEERING ECONOMICS, HP GEOTECH AND LOCKTON COMPANIES AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT AMENDMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council contract amendments for construction-related services, true and accurate copies of which are attached hereto; 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 said Contract Amendments with Summit Consulting, Engineering Economics, HP Geotech and Lockton Companies and copies of which are annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement s on behalf of the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 18th day of March, 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 March 18, 2013. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk P45 VI.a Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 11, 2013 1 HONORARY COUNSUL GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA .......................... 2 CITIZEN COMMENTS ................................................................................................................. 2 COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS .............................................................................................. 2 CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................... 3 ORDINANCE #10, SERIES OF 2012 – 602 E. Hyman Historic Designation/Aspen Modern ..... 4 ORDINANCE #9, SERIES OF 2013 – Code Amendment Small Campaign Contribution ........... 5 ORDINANCE #5, SERIES OF 2013 – 223 E. Hallam Lot Split ................................................... 6 ORDINANCE #6, SERIES OF 2013 – 401 Castle Creek Road Aspen Valley Hospital final PUD phases III and IV ............................................................................................................................. 6 P47 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 11, 2013 2 Mayor Ireland called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm with Councilmembers Frisch, Johnson, Skadron and Torre present. HONORARY COUNSUL GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA Dr. John Prunskis told Council Lithuania allows its citizens to live abroad and still be full Lithuanian citizens. Prunskis noted 23 years ago March 11 Lithuania redeclared its independence. Prunskis said due to the diverse nature of Aspen and its stature as an international hub with business, culture, arts and politics, it is the perfect location for a consul of Lithuania. Mayor Ireland and Council welcomed Prunskis as the honorary consul general of Lithuania in Aspen. CITIZEN COMMENTS 1. Dorothea Farris, representing the White River national forest, told Council the forest service had a project to restore the Coal Basin, which was a cooperative project with cattle ranchers using livestock as a restoration tool, selecting appropriate seeds and using compost and biochar. There is interest to do this for another year and they need to raise $21,000. Ms. Farris said if this is successful, it could be a global example. Ms. Farris requested $2,000 from the city; they have asked other governments in the valley to commit to funds. Mayor Ireland said Council will put this on a work session agenda with other funding requests. 2. Neil Siegel brought up Ordinance #9, small campaign contributions and suggested if Council adopts this on first reading, they delay the second reading or the effective date until after this election cycle so the rules do not change in the middle of the election. 3. Lindsay Smith, representing the wildlife sanctuary in Rifle, thanked Council for their continued support and gave them bear-shaped cookies made by a small business, Boden’s Butter. 4. Heather Gustafson and Britta, both of whom were raised in Aspen, told Council they are bringing back the tradition of the Easter egg hunt at the historical society. Britta requested financial support from the city; their costs are about $1200 including the eggs, event insurance, and promotion. Council asked they submit a written request to the city manager to be included in the work session with other funding requests. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Councilman Johnson said the peewee hockey players A and B are going to the state championships. Aspen Junior Hockey put on a great show. Everyone should be proud of the kids and their hockey accomplishments. P48 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 11, 2013 3 2. Councilman Johnson noted the Daily awards are going on right now at the ARC. These awards are given for team members who treat teammates with respect and who put the team interest ahead of themselves. 3. Councilman Torre wished best of luck to Aspen skiers who are travelling for competitions; Miles Pember is heading to the junior Olympics. There are 4 kids from AVSC going to Abetone, Italy, for the Pinocchio downhill. 4. Councilman Frisch commended the art teachers in the valley who hosted the empty bowl fundraiser which raised money for Lift Up. 5. Councilman Frisch noted it is the 25th anniversary for Roaring Fork Leadership, who had Governor Hickenlooper to speak to them. 6. Councilman Frisch said he spent the morning helping to search for Jeff Walker who is missing at Highlands. Councilman Frisch said hats off to Mountain Rescue and the ski patrol for their hard work in looking for Walker. Councilman Frisch said it is nice to know the community is behind people. 7. Councilman Frisch brought up the Mountain House and the article in the newspaper. Councilman Frisch stated it is not good for the community when mid-price lodging is lost; town needs a variety of visitors. Councilman Frisch said he would like to discuss this topic in public rather than in an executive session. Councilman Frisch said the highest and best use of this property is for public discussion. The value of the property as a residence is about double that for a lodge. Mayor Ireland said he requested an executive session to discuss legal means the city may have available that should not be public discussion. 8. Mayor Ireland congratulated the Aspen High School basketball team for their efforts in this season. 9. Mayor Ireland stated he is going to Abetone, Italy, to support the Aspen kids and to support their application to be a sister city. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Ireland moved to adopt the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman Frisch. The consent calendar is: Resolution #24, 2013 - Agreement and Release with Aspen FSP-ABR, LLC Resolutions #21, 22, 23 - 2013 - Rio Grande Park Restroom Building & Pumphouse construction and supply contracts Minutes - February 25, 2013 All in favor, motion carried. P49 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 11, 2013 4 ORDINANCE #10, SERIES OF 2012 – 602 E. Hyman Historic Designation/Aspen Modern Mayor Ireland moved to read Ordinance #10, Series of 2013; seconded by Councilman Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #10 (Series of 2013) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO APPROVING ASPENMODERN HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 602 E. HYMAN AVENUE, LOTS K AND L, BLOCK 99, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO Amy Guthrie, community development department, told Council this is a voluntary designation through the AspenModern program. This is a mixed use commercial and residential building. Ms. Guthrie reminded Council they saw this with a proposed third floor; since then the owners have rethought the design and have offered voluntary designation. The applicants are not requesting any incentives other than those offered with historic designation. Ms Guthrie pointed out this is an opportunity for Council to call up HPC’s conceptual approval. Councilman Johnson noted there is a request to waive the $90,000 cash-in-lieu parking payment. Ms. Guthrie said that is a preservation benefit; the applicant is not asking for more floor area or other benefits. Councilman Frisch said he supports this and is not interested in calling it up. Councilman Skadron asked why the applicant is pursuing designation rather than the original plan. Sunny Vann, representing the applicant, said this project came up before an ordinance that would have reduced the allowable height in the zone district. The applicant purchased the property and filed an application, which did not require historical designation; residential uses were permitted in the zone in non-designated buildings. The applicant went to HPC, who approved it; Council called that approval up and then declined to refer it back. Vann said he submitted an application for subdivision review. During that time, the owner was working with the architect and came up with a simple approach to reach the same goals and which did not require a third floor. Vann told Council they looked at whether the existing free market unit in the building could be expanded to accommodate the owner’s needs and without a 3rd floor. The applicant decided to take that route. The city has a code requirement that two applications cannot be pursued simultaneously so the applicant withdrew the application with a 3rd floor. During then Council adopted a code amendment reducing the allowable height and that free market residences can only be in historically-designated structures. The project as redesigned is 100% in compliance with the underlying zone requirements. The issue of parking at the rear of the property has to be addressed; ADA requirement have to be met, which reduces parking. Under historic designation, one may request a reduction in parking as well as the parking fee be waived. Vann pointed out this is a small 800 square foot increase in floor area; HPC felt waiving the parking fee was reasonable. P50 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 11, 2013 5 Councilman Johnson moved to adopt Ordinance #10, Series of 2013, on first reading; seconded by Mayor Ireland. Roll call vote; Torre, yes; Skadron, yes; Frisch, yes; Johnson, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #9, SERIES OF 2013 – Code Amendment Small Campaign Contribution Jim True, city attorney, told Council this amendment would require the disclosure of the name and address for any amount campaign donation. True stated this is a policy decision for Council to make. The intent of the state law was that these contributions were De minimis and reporting requirements were extensive so small donations were not required to be disclosed. True told Council he has not researched the legislative intent. True said it is within the city’s authority to make stricter requirements, including the requirement all donors be disclosed no matter the amount. True said if this ordinance went through the normal procedure, it would be effective April 17th in the middle of the election cycle and it makes sense to have an effective date after the elections. Councilman Johnson asked if this amendment would impinge on any freedoms. True said that is not the issue and there is case law associated with donations and candidates. This is not about constitutional rights for donors to remain anonymous in donation to candidates. Councilman Skadron said the issue should be whether the current law harms the election process and if it does, it should be discussed by Council. Councilman Torre said it would surprise him that reporting under $20 donations would be difficult for any candidate. Councilman Torre stated he favors starting the public conversation; Councilman Torre said he has not heard arguments for keeping under $20 donations anonymous. Councilman Frisch stated he does not want the rules to change in the middle of the election. Mayor Ireland said he feels anonymity encourages name calling; national campaigns have become increasingly negative because there is no accountability. Mayor Ireland said there is no constitutional right to anonymity in a candidate race in Aspen. Candidates are required to keep track of the name and address of every contributor regardless of the amount and the only difference this ordinance would mean is reporting those who contributed less than $20. Councilman Johnson moved to read Ordinance #9, Series of 2013; seconded by Mayor Ireland. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 9 (Series of 2013) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING CHAPTER 9.04 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 9.04.020 RELATING TO MINIMUM DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO CITY CANDIDATES, POLITICAL COMMITTEES AND ISSUE COMMITTEES Mayor Ireland moved to adopt Ordinance #9, Series of 2013, on first reading; set the public hearing for April 8 and amend the ordinance to have it take effect July 1, 2013; seconded by P51 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 11, 2013 6 Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote; Torre, yes; Frisch, yes; Johnson, yes; Skadron, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #5, SERIES OF 2013 – 223 E. Hallam Lot Split Sara Nadolny, community development department, told Council this is a 12,000 square foot lot across from the Red Brick school. The request is to subdivide it into two 6,000 square foot lots; no non-conformities will be created and a modern addition will be deleted. Mayor Ireland moved to adopt Ordinance #5, Series of 2013, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Frisch. Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Ireland closed the public hearing. Roll call vote; Frisch, yes; Skadron, yes; Johnson, yes; Torre, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #6, SERIES OF 2013 – 401 Castle Creek Road Aspen Valley Hospital final PUD phases III and IV Jennifer Phelan, community development department, reminded Council phase II is under construction and conceptual approval for the entire hospital plan was given in 2009 and final approval for phase II was granted in 2010. Ms. Phelan noted staff has scheduled 4 public hearings so the topics surrounding this application can be discussed thoroughly. Dave Ressler, representing the Aspen Valley Hospital, noted Council attended a site visit at the hospital last week. Ressler said AVH receives many awards for its care and operations, despite the facilities. The goal for the completion of the facility is to bring the facility up to the same quality as the care provided. This facility is 35 years old and was built in a different time with an orientation toward in-patient services. Phases III and IV upgrade the out-patient services, many of which did not exist 35 years ago. Ressler said the current facility is undersized and crowded. The contemporary standard for hospitals is to have medical offices space on-site. The hospital started this process in 2005 with a detailed needs assessment and an evaluation whether this could be accomplished on the existing site. The architect, Russ Sedmak, recommended the hospital stay on the existing site. The design is to right size the facility from the inside out, look at each department’s needs and the total needs represented the envelop for the whole facility. Ressler said the benefits to the community of office space on site are more timely and efficient care. Ressler said the hospital has been concerned about the view corridors and trying to meld the facility into the landscape. The hospital has set up monthly neighborhood meetings, maintained a community advisory committee to keep the community informed about what the hospital is trying to do. Ressler said Council asked about the 20-year vision; the hospital said this project P52 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 11, 2013 7 will serve multiple generations. There is no expiration date; they have built in flexibility within the size of the campus and trying to keep it melded into the landscape. Ressler showed the hospital before phase II was started, areas that have been re-purposed. The board has stated this facility should reflect the green goals of the community, focusing on re- using materials and energy consumption. Ressler noted the size of the facility has been expanded and there has not been an increase in utility bills. Ressler said not only are they right sizing this facility but re-balancing it from in-patient to an out-patient facility. Ressler told Council 75% of the revenues are out-patient oriented; there were over 24,000 out-patients in 2012 and about 80% of the surgeries are out-patient. Ressler said emergency room visits have increased by 43% even in a down economy. Ressler showed old versus new areas of the hospital corridors, patient rooms, physical therapy areas, there is more privacy and room for staff to work. Ressler showed areas that still need work, emergency department, same day surgery, diagnostic imaging areas, laboratory, and admissions area. These areas need privacy and separation between patients. Russ Sedmak, architect for applicant, said in order to meet all needs, the building needs to be added on around four sides as well as vertically and only one section can accommodate a second floor. Sedmak said they first need to build outside the box of the existing hospital, move services into those areas, and then renovate the interior spaces. Phase II was the most significant phase including patient wings, new food service area, new lobby, the parking structure, site improvements for affordable housing. Phase III is possible by the completion of the parking structure, expansion of surgery and imaging department and the emergency department. Phase IV is the last piece and cannot be constructed until the emergency department is relocated. No phase is more or less important than any other, they have to work in concert to right size the building, to fix the functions, to fix the internal flow. Once this is complete, it will be the maximum footprint that can be fit on the site. Sedmak showed photos illustrating how the construction will be fitted into the landscape and they will excavate to bury part of the structure. Nancy Clanton, lighting expert, said she has joined the team to determine what can be done about the exterior lighting. Ms. Clanton told Council the city’s lighting code works well with standard technology; LED are being introduced, which is a new technology. Ms. Clanton looked at the site in context of the city’s lighting ordinance. Ms. Clanton recommended replacing the back plate with a darker background and put shields on all the lights. The existing parking lot lights will have shielding; they have a lot of back light which will also be shielded. Ms. Clanton said although LED light appear bright, they will be 2700 Kelvin; the city’s lighting code has a maximum of 3000 Kelvin. There is one light on site at this lower Kelvin. Another solution is to replace every bollard with bollards that are shielded and have darker color. The parking garage lights will also be shielded. Ms. Clanton said the lights will be dimmed in the middle of the night when there is low activity; the lighting can be tooled. The amount of light will be reduced from two and three light bars to one light bar. Ms. Clanton said the lighting will be more low level and pedestrian oriented rather than relying on poles. Along the Loop road, the lighting will be imbedded in the retaining walls facing toward the hospital, not the residences. Sedmak pointed on by phase IV there will be no exposed light fixtures, no hanging pendant, no chandeliers; the lighting will be concealed within P53 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 11, 2013 8 the spaces. Councilman Torre asked by what percentage the lighting will be reduced. Ms. Clanton said it should be at least 50% if not more. Councilman Skadron noted a Time magazine article on the state of health care. Councilman Skadron asked about the internal hospital charge master and hospital non-profits generating large revenues that drive hospitals to expand facilities, hire more staff, and offer more services. Councilman Skadron asked the degree to which Aspen Valley hospital fits the above description. Ressler said the magazine article has generated much-needed discussion. Ressler agreed the health care delivery system is unsustainable, costs are escalating and they need to be controlled. Ressler said he feels quantity of service is a greater contributor to costs; 70% of health care costs are related to chronic illness. The population is aging and is not taking care of themselves. Ressler told Council the hospital is working with 5 employers to improve wellness and to improve health care delivery. Ressler said all hospitals operate with a charge master; however, a difference in Aspen is that a majority of patients pay a percentage of charges. Ressler said Aspen Valley hospital compares prices to make sure they are competitive. Another question is whether the facility is driving the prices or are the prices accomplishing the expansion; Ressler stated it is the latter. Aspen Valley hospital experiences operating margins at 5% over the last few years. The CFO looks at cash accumulation and the hospital started to put away money for the expansion. The hospital is contributing $30 million combined with the $50 million of GO bonds, which is possible because of the operating margins. The hospital sets their prices based on what it will take to accomplish facility expansion and invest in technology that make sense for care in Aspen and focusing on patient needs and to provide a contemporary level of care. The hospital board, elected by the community, holds staff accountable to those ends. Ressler said they also make sure they have a cash reserve of 180 days. The salaries are maintained where it is necessary to keep the staff needed. John Sarpa, hospital board, said hospitals do get challenged on their large overhead and staff and these hospitals grow by expanding services, increasing their market share, etc. Aspen Valley hospital is not growing to maintain the ability to cover costs or to find new patients. This proposal is to keep the same kind of services for the next twenty years and create flex space to allow the hospital to adapt over the next 30 years. Sarpa said the philosophy is not build it and they will come. Councilman Johnson asked the time line for construction, how many total years will the hospital be under construction. Sedmak said if the money is available, these two phases should take 3 years; the total construction will be about 10 years. Councilman Johnson asked if there is phase III and phase IV or is it phase III++. Sedmak said these are distinct phases; phases IV will have little new construction. Councilman Johnson asked why the helipad was moved to the roof. Sedmak told Council there is an increase in gross square footage in this building from conceptual approval. Sedmak said it is almost entirely in the basement and a reduction of square feet on the second floor as a result of putting the helipad on the roof of the first floor. This location will eliminate the helipad on the highest portion of the building where it can be seen throughout the neighborhood and will eliminate the elevator tower to accommodate the helipad. They added square footage to the basement to locate 3 of the 5 air handling units in the basement, which helps to reduce the bulk and mass of the building. P54 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 11, 2013 9 Councilman Torre said during the site visit, he was struck by all that was going on; it is becoming a community health center and not just a hospital. Councilman Torre said he had massing and size concerns with phase II along with it being tacit approval of the next phase. Councilman Torre said he had concerns about the loading dock and its proximity to the senior center as well as impacts about the entire project on neighbors and that these impacts are being taken seriously. Ressler said there are sound monitors all around the project to see how noise impacts adjacent property owners. Frank Goldsmith told Council he is the construction community liaison and he deals with the neighborhood. Goldsmith said he holds monthly meetings with HOAs and with the senior center. Goldsmith said there is not a lot of activity at the loading dock and it has not been a problem for the neighborhood. Ressler noted the applicants added patios in the front and back of Whitcomb terrace. Mayor Ireland asked if the applicant will be bound to the commitments outlined in their protocol. Ms. Phelan said this is a PUD site specific approval and that can be added as a condition to the agreement. Mayor Ireland asked if the city has an independent evaluation of the lighting proposal; is this something the building department can do. Ms. Phelan said she will investigate that. Mayor Ireland said he would some mathematical ways to compare lighting before and lighting after. Mayor Ireland said he is concerned about the point of view in the Time article; how much that applies to Aspen. There are suggestions on how to contain costs; one is not ordering too many diagnostic tests and does that apply to the hospital. Mayor Ireland said he is concerned that this expansion could drive costs and would like an evaluation that this is not creating something that in order to pay for, the prices of health care will be raised. This is a community hospital and it is supposed to serve the needs of the community. Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing. Eric Stahl, chief medical officer and orthopedic surgeon, told Council the previous hospital projects he has been involved in decreased the cost of care significantly. These projects increase safety, efficiency and quality. This hospital needs to be finished and up to par with what Aspen has to offer. Mary Janss, volunteer, told Council patients need to have more privacy and more separation from germs. This hospital is wonderful and people do not need to go to Denver to get their medical needs taken care of. Kathryn Bernard, emergency room physician, said their department is a hallway with curtains; there is only 1 negative pressure room. This expansion is to address privacy, safety and excellence of care. The emergency room has to be larger, has to be renovated and has to come up to the state of the art. Dave Parry, Aspen Ski Company, told Council he is part of the community advisory committee reviewing the master facility plan. Parry said the committee has been able to ask any questions necessary; the hospital did not have an agenda; the process has been detailed, the committee has taken time to get input and to make changes. The neighborhood outreach has been outstanding; the applicant has been open-minded and responsive. Parry said he is confident this is a right-sized hospital. Bill Rodman, surgeon, told Council there are not updated operating suites. Rodman said it is up to him to order the diagnostic tests he feels appropriate for the patients. Rodman reassured Council they are looking at cost containment. Rodman said this is a project that has to happen. P55 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 11, 2013 10 Bobby Mason, patient, told Council the hospital project feels comfortable; a new emergency room is needed. Mason stated he is totally supportive of this project. Councilman Johnson moved to continue Ordinance #6, Series of 2013, to March 18; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried. Jim True, city attorney, requested an executive session for 3 litigation matters, Marks v. Koch, Koch v. Branscombe, the Burlingame HOA suit and potential litigation, as well as property acquisition according to C.R.S. 24-6-402(a)(b)(e). Councilman Frisch stated he opposes discussing the property acquisition in executive session; there is nothing to be lost in talking about this in open session. Mayor Ireland moved to go into executive session pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4) (a) The purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest; except that no executive session shall be held for the purpose of concealing the fact that a member of the local public body has a personal interest in such purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale at 8:10 pm; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Frisch, motion carried. Mayor Ireland moved to go into executive session pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(b) Conferences with an attorney for the local public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions and (e) Determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations; and instructing negotiators to discuss the 3 items listed above; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried. Council went into executive session at 8:45 pm after dinner break. Councilman Johnson moved to come out of executive session at 9:35 pm; seconded by Mayor Ireland. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Johnson moved to adjourn at 9:35 pm; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried. Kathryn Koch City Clerk P56 VI.b 605 & 675 S. Alps Road, Moses Lot Split PUD and Subdivision Amendment City Council Memo, 3/18/13 Page 1 of 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: 605 & 675 S. Alps Road, Lots 1 and 2, Moses Lot Split – Subdivision – Other Amendment, PUD-Other Amendment, 1st Reading Ordinance No.___, Series of 2013 MEETING DATE: March18, 2013 APPLICANT /OWNER: South Alps Road, LLC and Icie Jackson LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman Planning Services LOCATION: 605 and 675 S. Alps Road, Lots 1 and 2 of the Moses Lot Split CURRENT ZONING: Moderate-Density Residential (R-15), with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay SUMMARY: The Applicant seeks to amend the configuration of the two lots and amend the individual floor area permitted for each lot, while maintaining the overall floor area cap. Approval of PUD - Other Amendment and Subdivision – Other Amendment is required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the ordinance on first reading and set the public hearing date for April 22nd Lot 2, Moses Lot Split P57 VII.a 605 & 675 S. Alps Road, Moses Lot Split PUD and Subdivision Amendment City Council Memo, 3/18/13 Page 2 of 5 Figure 1: Vicinity Map Figure 2: Moses Lot Split Subdivision LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the City Council: • PUD – Other Amendment – An application for PUD – Other Amendment pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.100 B., Other Amendment, requires the City Council, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions or deny the PUD Amendment. The City Council is the final decision-making body after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. • Subdivision – Other Amendment - An application for Subdivision – Other Amendment pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480.080 B., Other Amendment requires approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the amendment. The City Council is the final decision-making body. On February 19, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved an 8040 Greenline review to construct an addition to the residence located on Lot 2 and recommended City Council approve the PUD – Other Amendment, allowing for a reallocation of floor area for the subdivision, via Resolution No. 5 (Series of 2013). BACKGROUND/ PREVIOUS APPROVALS: P58 VII.a 605 & 675 S. Alps Road, Moses Lot Split PUD and Subdivision Amendment City Council Memo, 3/18/13 Page 3 of 5 The Moses Lot Split is a two lot subdivision that is located at the top of S. Alps Road, which is accessed off of Ute Avenue. The subdivision is adjacent to the 700 building of Aspen Alps South and backs up against Aspen Mountain and the boundary of the ski area. Both lots contain steep slopes. The Moses Lot Split contains a single family residence on Lot 2 (675 S. Alps Road), while Lot 1 is currently vacant. The subdivision has been through a number of changes over time as noted below: • Originally, the subdivision was approved in 1987. It created two lots and required that the existing houses on the site “become single-family residences,” provided a maximum floor area per lot of 3,800 sq. ft. and dedicated a 15 foot trail easement along part of Lot 1 for the Ajax Trail. • In 1992, the property owner of Lot 2 acquired land surrounding certain buildings of the Aspen Alps and negotiated an increase of the allowable floor area of Lot 2 (5,000 sq. ft) as well as an increase in the lot size. The balance of land that the owner of Lot 2 acquired surrounding the Aspen Alps was conveyed by the owner to the Aspen Alps. • In 2006, an 8040 Greenline review was approved for Lot 2 and the present house was constructed. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: The applicant proposes to amend the maximum allowable floor area for Lot 1 and 2 while maintaining the overall total for the lots as noted in the following table. Table 1: Proposed Changes in Floor Area Existing Proposed Difference Lot 1 3,800 3,000 -800 Lot 2 5,000 5,800 +800 Total 8,800 8,800 0 The existing floor area allowances do not correspond with the floor area that is permitted by the underlying zone district for each lot, based upon lot area and factoring in a reduction of floor area due to the presence of steep slopes. Essentially, the existing numbers were negotiated during the subdivision process and the Applicant is asking to renegotiate the individual lot allowances. In addition to requesting an amendment of the allowable floor area of each individual lot, the applicant is proposing to: 1) expand the width of the existing trail easement to twenty (20) feet per the request of the Parks Department for the Ajax Trail which traverses a portion of the subdivision; and P59 VII.a 605 & 675 S. Alps Road, Moses Lot Split PUD and Subdivision Amendment City Council Memo, 3/18/13 Page 4 of 5 2) increase the overall lot size of Lot 2 with a corresponding reduction in Lot 1; and, 3) extinguish a Transferable Development Right on Lot 2. Additionally, a portion of Lot 1 sits outside the municipal boundary of the city and the applicant has agreed to correct this discrepancy by annexing that portion of the lot into the city. Table 3: Proposed Changes in Lot size Existing Proposed Difference Lot 1 26,223 15,072 -11,151 Lot 2 44,780 54,762 +9,982 Total 71,003 69,834 1,169* Note: * There was a discrepancy in the boundary of the property and the surveyor has used the more conservative land area. The ordinance requires the discrepancy to be rectified. STAFF COMMENTS: PUD – Other Amendment: The Applicant is requesting to amend the PUD in order to memorialize a reallocation of floor area between the two lots within the existing subdivision. The proposal is to develop an addition on Lot 2 and limit it to an area that is already developed with a single-family residence and locate it on existing hardscape areas of the property. Undisturbed areas on the lot are uphill, steeper slopes leading towards the ski area that will remain undisturbed. The mass and scale impacts of the addition are minimal and create some benefits for the area by reducing the developable floor area on Lot 1. Additionally, the reallocation of some of Lot 1’s land area to Lot 2 will concentrate any future development on Lot 1 away from the subdivision’s steeper slopes and create further distance between potential development and the Ajax Trail, a recreational resource for the community. The proposal will provide a larger, standard trail easement for the Ajax Trail, also a benefit. Extinguishing a TDR encourages a program that reduces development pressures on historic resources and lands it on a lot that is part of a subdivision with an existing cap in floor area. Subdivision – Other Amendment: The Moses lot split subdivision was originally platted as a two lot subdivision in 1987. This application does not affect the number of lots within the subdivision as it will remain two. The subdivision amendment permits the reconfiguration of the lots by decreasing the size of Lot 1 and increasing the size of Lot 2. As the number of lots remains the same staff considers the proposed amendment to be consistent with the approved plat. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: During first reading, staff recommends the Council focus on questions it may have on the project or any clarifications or details members would like to have answered at the public hearing. Staff recommends approval on first reading with a public hearing and second reading scheduled for April 22, 2013. P60 VII.a 605 & 675 S. Alps Road, Moses Lot Split PUD and Subdivision Amendment City Council Memo, 3/18/13 Page 5 of 5 PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Ordinance No. ___, Series of 2013, approving PUD Other Amendment and Subdivision Other Amendment on first reading and setting second reading for April 22, 2013.” CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Staff Findings, Subdivision – Other Amendment Exhibit B – Staff Findings, PUD – Other Amendment Exhibit C - P&Z Resolution No. 5 (Series of 2013) Exhibit D – Renderings of the proposed Addition Exhibit E – Application P61 VII.a City Council Ordinance No. --, Series 2013 Page 1 of 5 ORDINANCE NO. 11 (SERIES OF 2013) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A PUD- OTHER AMENDMENT AND SUBDIVISION-OTHER AMENDMENT FOR LOTS 1 AND 2 OF THE MOSES LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION, COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 605 AND 675 S. ALPS ROAD, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel IDs: 273718256003 and 273718256001 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from S. Alps Road LLC and Icie Jackson LLC (Applicant), represented by Alan Richman of Alan Richman Planning Services, requesting approval of an 8040 Greenline review from the Planning and Zoning Commission and approval for PUD-Other Amendment and Subdivision–Other Amendment by the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requests 8040 Greenline review to build an addition to the residence located on 675 S. Alps Road, PUD-Other Amendment to amend the individual floor area allowances for Lot 1 and 2 of the Moses Lot Split but not increase the total floor area granted to the two lots, and Subdivision-Other Amendment to adjust the lot lines between the two lots; and, WHEREAS, as part of the application, Applicant offers to extinguish a Historic Transferable Development Right (TDR) on Lot 2; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed 8040 Greenline review and PUD–Other Amendment and recommended approval with conditions to the Planning and Zoning Commission; and, WHEREAS, during a meeting on February 19, 2013 the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposal and approved an 8040 Greenline review as well as a recommendation of approval for PUD-Other Amendment for City Council by a four to zero (4-0) vote, via Resolution No. 5 (Series of 2013); and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed PUD–Other Amendment and Subdivision-Other Amendment and recommended approval with conditions to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, during a meeting on April 22, 2013 the City Council opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposal and approved a PUD-Other Amendment and a Subdivision–Other Amendment by a ---to --- (__-___) vote; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all the applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: P63 VII.a City Council Ordinance No. --, Series 2013 Page 2 of 5 Section 1: Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Aspen City Council hereby approves a PUD – Other Amendment to amend the allocation of the individual Floor Area allowances for Lot 1 and 2 as well as a Subdivision - Other Amendment to amend the size and boundaries of Lot 1 and 2. A. Floor Area and Lot Size. The City Council approves the change in the size of Lots 1 and 2 (as submitted with this application) and approves the amended Floor Area allowance for each lot as noted in the table below. A building envelope has been established for Lot 2. All other applicable dimensional standards shall meet the underlining zone district requirements. Lot 1 Lot 2 Maximum Floor Area 3,000 5,800 Minimum Lot Size 15,072 54,762 B. TDR Extinguishment. As part of the land use application, the Applicant has offered and the City has accepted the extinguishment of one Historic Transferable Development Right (TDR) as part of the PUD Amendment on Lot 2. The TDR shall be extinguished prior to the issuance of a building permit to construct the residential addition approved through this ordinance and Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 5 (Series of 2013) for Lot 2; however, the extinguishment of the TDR shall not increase the maximum allowable floor area of Lot 2. Section 2: Plat and Agreement The Applicant shall record a subdivision/PUD plat that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.445.070, Recording a Final PUD Development Plan, within 180 days of approval by City Council. A subdivision agreement is not required. The plat shall be recorded prior to the submission of a building permit application. The building envelope for Lot 2 shall be amended to contain the existing footprint of the building, proposed addition, and existing hardscape improvements to the lot such as retaining walls, etc. so that the requirements of Section 26.575.110, Building envelopes, are met. The plat shall include the enlarged trail easement for the Ajax Trail as outlined in the pre- annexation agreement between the City and Applicant. As a result of minor and non-material discrepancies in survey boundaries for the area in and around the property of Applicant, there appears to be overlap between the Applicant’s property boundary and the adjacent property boundary of the Aspen Chance Subdivision. The Applicant agrees to accept the the Aspen Chance plat. Thus, the final plat recorded pursuant to this development shall reflect the boundaries set forth in the Aspen Chance plat. A plat note shall reflect the basis of the change. P64 VII.a City Council Ordinance No. --, Series 2013 Page 3 of 5 Section 3: Engineering The Applicant’s design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. The Applicant’s design shall also be compliant with the Urban Runoff Management Plan. The application shall meet the mitigation requirements of the Mud and Debris Flow Analysis prepared by Tetra Tec, Inc., dated August 29, 2012 and provided in Exhibit D of the staff memo reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission dated February 19, 2013. Additionally, Applicant shall meet the terms and conditions of the Indemnification and Land Use Process Agreement for Lot 2. Section 4: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met per building permit. Section 5: Utilities The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards. Section 6: Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and specifications, at the time of construction, which are on file at the District office. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Section 7: Exterior Lighting All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City’s Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 8: Impact Fees and School Lands Dedication Fee-in-Lieu The Applicant shall pay all impact fees and the school lands dedication fee-in-lieu assessed at the time of building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance. Section 9: Building Permit Application The Applicant, the Applicant’s General Contractor, the Architect that produced the construction drawings, and representatives from the Building Department, Community Development Department and any other person deemed necessary by the City shall attend a meeting prior to the submission of any type of Building Permit for the Subject Property. The purpose of the meeting shall be to ensure clarity relative to the submission requirements, the requirements of this Ordinance, timeframes for processing Building Permits, and any other issues raised by any party. The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of this Ordinance and Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 5 (Series of 2013). b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. P65 VII.a City Council Ordinance No. --, Series 2013 Page 4 of 5 d. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which meets adopted City standards. e. A construction management plan (CMP) pursuant to the Building Department’s requirements. f. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department. g. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall be addressed to satisfactorily meet adopted building codes. Section 10: Vested Rights The development approvals granted pursuant to Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Number 5, Series of 2013 and herein shall be vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of the development order. No later than fourteen (14) days following the final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a vested property right, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: Lots 1 and 2 of the Moses Lot Split Subdivision and commonly known as 605 and 675 S. Alps Road, City of Aspen, CO, by Ordinance No. -- Series of 2013, of the Aspen City Council. Section 11: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 12: 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 13: 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. P66 VII.a City Council Ordinance No. --, Series 2013 Page 5 of 5 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 14: A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 22nd day of April, 2013, 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 18th day of March, 2013. 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: ___________________________ James R. True, City Attorney P67 VII.a Exhibit A – Subdivision 3/18/2013 Page 1 of 1 Exhibit A Subdivision Review Criteria 26.480.080. Amendment to subdivision development order. B. Other amendment. Any other amendment shall be approved by the City Council, provided that the proposed change is consistent with the approved plat. If the proposed change is not consistent with the approved plat, the amendment shall be subject to review as a new development application for plat. Staff Finding: The Moses lot split subdivision was originally platted as a two lot subdivision in 1987. This application does not affect the number of lots within the subdivision as it will remain two. The subdivision amendment permits the reconfiguration of the lots by decreasing the size of Lot 1 and increasing the size of Lot 2. As the number of lots remains the same staff considers the proposed amendment to be consistent with the approved plat. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P69 VII.a Exhibit B - PUD 3/18/2013 Page 1 of 8 Exhibit B 26.445.050. Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD. A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited issues associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall compatible with the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcels in terms of density, height, bulk, and architecture, as well as any adopted regulatory master plan. Staff Finding: The area close to the subject property is a mix of single family residences and multi-family development. Adjacent residences are also located in the same zone district (R-15) so underlying dimensional requirement are the same as the subject parcel. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: As mentioned above, the area close to the subject property is a mix of single family residences and multi-family development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of the area, as the area is substantially built out and appropriate utilities and access are in place if any development occurs. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding: Under the current proposal, the application is exempt from growth management review. Staff finds this criterion to not be applicable. B. Establishment of dimensional requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the P71 VII.a Exhibit B - PUD 3/18/2013 Page 2 of 8 underlying Zone District shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking and historical resources. Staff Finding: The underlying zone district permits a single-family residence on each lot and the sites are located next to multi-family buildings that are similar in mass and scale. The addition being proposed on Lot 2 is minimal and any natural hazards can be mitigated through appropriate construction techniques. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The Applicant is proposing to concentrate the addition to an area that is already developed with a single-family residence on Lot 2. The areas that are currently undisturbed on the lot are uphill, steeper slopes leading towards the ski area that will remain undisturbed. The reapportioning of some of Lot 1’s floor area to Lot 2, as well as some of the lot’s acreage will concentrate any future development on Lot 1 away from the site’s steeper slopes and permit less square footage than currently permitted. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any nonresidential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. P72 VII.a Exhibit B - PUD 3/18/2013 Page 3 of 8 d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the City. Staff Finding: The residence meets the minimum off-street parking requirement by providing a two stall garage and the vacant lot will meet the required parking standards if developed. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance to the proposed development. Staff Finding: Sufficient infrastructure exists to service both lots and the maximum density, a single-family residence, is already constructed on the Lot 2. Staff finds that this standard is not applicable. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Staff Finding: Both lots have areas of steep slopes that may contain natural hazards; however, appropriate mitigation techniques can be instituted when construction commences as out lined in the technical report provided for the proposed addition to Lot 2. Staff finds the criterion not applicable. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more adopted goals of the community as expressed in an applicable adopted regulatory master plan. P73 VII.a Exhibit B - PUD 3/18/2013 Page 4 of 8 b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses and characteristics. Notes: a) Lot sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher or lower rate than specified in the underlying Zone District as long as, on average, the entire PUD conforms to the maximum density provisions of the respective Zone District or as otherwise established as the maximum allowable density pursuant to a final PUD Development Plan. b) The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD are required to be reflected in the final PUD development plans. Staff Finding: The applicant is not proposing an increase in the permitted density on either lot; therefore this standard is not applicable. C. Site design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. 7. For nonresidential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. P74 VII.a Exhibit B - PUD 3/18/2013 Page 5 of 8 Staff Finding: The subdivision contains two lots and is permitted a single-family residence on each lot. Development is located on the flatter sections of the lots. Both lots have existing access to the street system via S. Alps Road. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Landscape plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the City, with surrounding parcels and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well-designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding: As single-family residences, no landscape plan is required. As part of the annexation application for a portion of Lot, the existing Ajax Trail will be enhanced with a wider trail easement. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Architectural character. 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. 4. Emphasize quality construction and design characteristics, such as exterior materials, weathering, snow shedding and storage, and energy efficiency. Staff Finding: The addition proposed to the existing house is minimal and provides a mass and scale that is similar to other buildings in the neighborhood. Quality materials P75 VII.a Exhibit B - PUD 3/18/2013 Page 6 of 8 are used on the existing house and the house exhibits typical architectural features of a residence. Staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both Public Safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Finding: Both sites are required to meet the outdoor lighting standards for residential development as adopted by the city which requires full-cut-off light fixtures for lighting over a certain height and requires glazed glass on lower fixtures. Staff finds this criterion to be met. G. Common park, open space or recreation area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location and design of the common park, open space or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial or industrial development. Staff Finding: There is no specific common open space for the benefit of the development; however, one trail on the site is for the benefit of the public and is being provided an appropriate easement. Staff finds this criterion to be met. H. Utilities and public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the P76 VII.a Exhibit B - PUD 3/18/2013 Page 7 of 8 public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff Finding: Both lots within the subdivision either contain or have previously contained a single-family residence. Utilities and infrastructure are available for each lot. Staff finds this criterion to be met. I. Access and circulation. (Only standards 1 & 2 apply to minor PUD applications) The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way or other area dedicated to public or private use. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. Staff Finding: S. Alps Road provides adequate access to the lots and each lot is required to provide a certain amount of off-street parking with the development of a residence. Staff finds this criterion to be met. J. Phasing of development plan. (does not apply to conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: P77 VII.a Exhibit B - PUD 3/18/2013 Page 8 of 8 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. Staff Finding: The development is not proposed to be phased. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable. P78 VII.a RESOLUTION NO. 5 SERIES OF 2013) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING AN 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PUD-OTHER AMENDMENT FOR LOTS 1 AND 2 OF THE MOSES LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION, COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 605 AND 675 S. ALPS ROAD,CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel IDs: 273718256003 and 273718256001 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from S. Alps Road LLC and Icie Jackson LLC (Applicant), represented by Alan Richman of Alan Richman Planning Services, requesting approval of a 8040 Greenline review and a recommendation of approval for PUD-Other Amendment from the Planning and Zoning Commission and also requesting Subdivision — Other Amendment, which is only subject to review by the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requests 8040 Greenline review to build an addition to the residence located on 675 S. Alps Road, PUD-Other Amendment to amend the individual floor area allowances for Lot 1 and 2 of the Moses Lot Split but not increase the total floor area granted to the two lots, and Subdivision - Other Amendment to adjust the lot lines between the two lots; and, WHEREAS, as part of the application, Applicant offers to extinguish a Historic Transferable Development Right (TDR) on Lot 2; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed 8040 Greenline review and PUD—Other Amendment and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, during a meeting on February 19, 2013 the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposal and approved an 8040 Greenline review as well as a recommendation of approval for PUD-Other Amendment for City Council by a four to zero (4-0) vote, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the 8040 Greenline review to build an addition onto the existing single family residence located on Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split (675 S. Alps Road) and recommends approval of the PUD — Other Amendment to amend the allocation of the individual Floor Area allowances for Lot 1 and 2. A. 8040 Greenline review. The 8040 Greenline review is approved as represented in Exhibit 1 of this resolution. The approval is subject to the terms and conditions of the Land Use Code RECEPTION#: 597478, 03/06/2013 at 10:09:48 AM, Planning and Zoning Commission 1 OF 7, R $41.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Resolution No. 5, Series 2013 Page 1 of 4 Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO P79 VII.a unless outlined below. As part of the 8040 Greenline approval, the following conditions shall be met: 1. Building Envelope. The building envelope for Lot 2 shall be amended to contain the existing footprint of the building, proposed addition, and existing hardscape improvements to the lot such as retaining walls, etc. so that the requirements of Section 26.575.110, Building envelopes, are met. The amended envelope shall be depicted on the ls' amended lot line adjustment plat that is to be approved by City Council. 2. Residential Design. Recognizing the existing conditions of the site and residence, the 8040 Greenline approval permits the development of a site specific design that is compatible with the local terrain and mountain character; however, the new additions shall be subject to applicable residential design standards with the exception of secondary mass (section 26.410.040 B.1.). The addition shall replicate the design approved by the Planning Commission and incorporated as Exhibit 1 of this resolution. B. PUD-Other Amendment. The Commission recommends that the City Council approve the change in the size of Lots 1 and 2, amend the Floor Area allowance for each lot as noted in the table below, and require the extinguishment of one Historic Transferable Development Right as part of the amendment to the PUD. Lot 1 Lot 2 Floor Area 300 5,800 Lot Size 15,072 54,762 Section 2: Engineering The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. The Applicant's design shall also be compliant with the Urban Runoff Management Plan. The application shall meet the mitigation requirements of the Mud and Debris Flow Analysis prepared by Tetra Tee, Inc., dated August 29, 2012 and provided in Exhibit D of the staff memo reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission dated February 19, 2013. Section 3: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met per building permit. Section 4: Utilities The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 5,Series 2013 Page 2 of 4 P80 VII.a Section 5• Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, at the time of construction, which are on file at the District office. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Section 6: Exterior Lighting All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 7• Impact Fees and School Lands Dedication Fee-in-Lieu The Applicant shall pay all impact fees and the school lands dedication fee-in-lieu assessed at the time of building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance. Section 8• Building Permit Application The Applicant, the Applicant's General Contractor, the Architect that produced the construction drawings, and representatives from the Building Department, Community Development Department and any other person deemed necessary by the City shall attend a meeting prior to the submission of any type of Building Permit for the Subject Property. The purpose of the meeting shall be to ensure clarity relative to the submission requirements, the requirements ofthisOrdinance, timeframes for processing Building Permits, and any other issues raised by any party. The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final Ordinance and Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 9 Series of 2012). b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which meets adopted City standards. e. A construction management plan (CMP) pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. f. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department. g. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall be addressed to satisfactorily meet adopted building codes. Sect= All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvalsandthesameshallbecompliedwithasiffullysetforthherein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 5, Series 2013 Page 3 of 4 P81 VII.a Section 10: 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 11: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reasonheldinvalidorunconstitutionalinacourtofcompetentjurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 19th day of February, 2013. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMM ON: Deb Quinn,Assistant City Attorney Ersparner, hair ATTEST: a Lothian,Deputy City Clerk Exhibit 1 —Exterior elevations and site plan Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 5,Series 2013 Page 4 of 4 P82 VII.a 11111 , 111 „ 1 :111 ) Jlll W I L L I A M T. GEORGIS A R C H I T E C T I C TERING KITCHE ADDIT ON GE 1 5 SOFT. IR y PIT - i ii OFFICE/Y0 STUDIO ADDITION OVER I EXISTING TERRACE 0 Oa II 295 SOFT. oe I I TOTAL ADDED SOFT. = 630.00 MUDROOM ADDITION aoa O150SOFT. N L-ITTLE NELL RESIDENCE UPPER LEVEL PLAN-PROPOSED ADDITIONAL SQ.FT. 675 SOUTH ALPS ROAD ASPEN,COLORADO 7 NOVEMBER 2011 SCALE:1/8 P8 3 VI I . a rr ® ® • ® ® r • • ® ® • • ® ® • 11i • i iiiiiiiii iiiiiii • GEORGIS 4 I I. PROPOSEDED YOGPOS A STUDIC OFFICE 7 E514 iPi PROPOSED MUD ROOM ADDTION r h I I, .._..._ _{-'7' Fe c•v ?eel I I I I 1 , O (J EAST ELEVATION (FF ONT) i' J fill I T 7f I I r i': A I. 3 _ r PROPOSED MUD ROOM ADDITION r 'F I I i I I n SOUTH ELEVATION I a 1J o a–100-0•.Lo74.67 .. .— - I/4'.P_O c I I LITTLE NELL RESIDENCE 675 SOUTH ALPS ROAD ASPEN,COLORADO 27APPIL 2011 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS P8 4 VI I . a GEORGIS r— i1 li [Jf 7 r`= 1 `f" T q » i ` a• A ( + r•,` k a 41,P s ILL ION El- 1 I PROPOSED KITCHEN ENCLOSURE L a L_ l`! % d-O•I tkTF.6'! I.ni \ .1 C.LA1 G/ I _ r I PROPOSED YOGA STUDIO/OFFICE r J. 1 et•f r #h i .:._! L, t F li_._c L t r _.Q.;H-_ Fow11 II 1 J LITTLE NELL RESIDENCE 675 SOUTH ALPS ROAD ASPEN,COLORADO 27APPIL 2011 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS P8 5 VI I . a P8 7 VI I . a P8 8 VI I . a P8 9 VI I . a P9 0 VI I . a RECEIVE DEC 6 2012 CITY OF ASPEtl OOMWUMTY WL0PWfff LOT 1 AND LOT 2 MOSES LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION/PUD AMENDMENT AND 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW SUBMITTED BY ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES P.O. BOX 3613 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 920-1125 DECEMBER, 2012 P91 VII.a TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I.Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. History of Prior Development Approvals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 III. Summary of Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 IV. Subdivision/PUD Amendment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 V. 8040 Greenline Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 VI. Vested Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 VII. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 EXHIBITS 1. Title Insurance Policy for Lot 1 2. Title Insurance Policy for Lot 2 3. Letter Authorizing Submission of Application 4. Pre-Application Conference Summary 5. Recorded Statement of Subdivision Exception 6. City Council Ordinance 31, Series of 1992 7. P&Z Resolution 17, Series of 2006 8. P&Z Resolution 19, Series of 2008 9. City Council Resolution 47, Series of 2011 10. Proposed Annexation Petition for South Portion of Lot 1 11. 1992 Letter from Nicholas Lampiris 12. May 13, 2011 Letter from Hans Brucker, P.E. 13. May 13, 2011 Letter from Steve Pawlak, P.E. 14. May 23, 2012 Letter from Tricia Aragon, P.E. 15. June 18, 2012 Letter from Richard Johnson, P.E. 16. Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan for Lot 2 17. Tetra Tech Mud Flow Analysis 18. Indemnification and Land Use Process Agreement DRAWINGS Vicinity Map Proposed Amended Subdivision Plat Proposed Floor Plans Existing and Proposed Elevations P92 VII.a I.Introduction This is an application requesting amendments to the floor area limitations that apply to Lots 1 and 2 of the Moses Lot Split. The Moses Lot Split is located near the top of Aspen Alps South Road, across from the Aspen Alps 700 Building. (see Drawing # 1, the vicinity map). Following is a summary of the ownership of the two parcels: Address Parcel ID Number Owner Lot 1 605 S. Alps Road 273718256003 South Alps Rd. LLC Lot 2 675 S. Alps Road 273718256001 Icie Jackson LLC Proof of the ownership of the properties is provided via title insurance policies issued for Lot 1 and Lot 2 (see Exhibit #1 and Exhibit #2). Both of the owners (hereinafter, "the applicants") have designated Alan Richman Planning Services as their representative for this application (see the letter attached hereto as Exhibit#3). The applicants propose to amend a condition that the City of Aspen previously applied to these lots which established the maximum allowed floor area for Lot 1 as 3,800 sq. ft. and Lot 2 as 5,000 sq. ft. Unlike most residential properties in Aspen, where maximum floor area is a direct function of the size of the lot, the floor area for these lots was the outcome of a negotiation that occurred during a previous land use review procedure. The applicant proposes to maintain the overall floor area limit between the two lots at 8,800 sq. ft. but to alter the total allowed for each lot, such that Lot 1 would be limited to 3,000 sq. ft. and Lot 2 would be permitted a maximum of 5,800 sq. ft. The purpose of this amendment is to allow some minor additions to be made to the existing house on Lot 2. Several pre-application discussions were held between the applicants and staff of the Community Development Department. A copy of the pre-application form staff provided to the applicants is attached hereto as Exhibit #4. According to the form, the applicants have been directed to respond to the following sections of the Land Use Code: 26.480.080: Amendment of Subdivision Development Order (Other Amendment); 26.445.100: Amendment of PUD Development Order (Other Amendment); and 26.435.030: 8040 Greenline Review. The applicants also request that vested rights be granted to the proposed development, pursuant to Sec. 26.308 of the Land Use Code. The following sections of this application are organized to demonstrate how the proposal complies with the applicable review standards of the Aspen Land Use Code. First however, some background information is presented describing the existing conditions of each of these lots and tracing the history of the prior land use approvals granted to these lots by which the current floor area limits were established. Subdivision/PUD Amendment and 8040 Greenline Review: Lots 1 and 2, Moses Lot Split Pagel P93 VII.a II. History Of Prior Development Approvals The Moses Lot Split is a two lot subdivision that was originally approved by the City of Aspen in 1987. The original subdivision plat is recorded in Plat Book 19 at Page 83 of the Pitkin County Records. A Statement of Subdivision Exception is recorded in Book 540 at Page 186 of the Pitkin County records (see Exhibit#5). The plat divided the original 1 acre property into two lots. Lot 1 was approximately 0.602 acres in size (26,223 sq. ft.) while Lot 2 was approximately 0.398 acres (17,337 sq. ft.). Each lot contained an older residential structure. According to the staff report addressing that application, both of those structures were non-conforming uses under the zoning that was applied to the property at that time (Conservation) because each structure contained more than one kitchen and was therefore considered to be a duplex. As a condition of the approval of the lot split and the accompanying rezoning of the property to R-15 PUD, the then-owner agreed to convert each structure into a single family residence. The owner also agreed to a 3,800 sq. ft. floor area limitation that would apply to each of the houses as a condition of obtaining the lot split. This limitation is memorialized on the plat and in the statement of subdivision exception. In 1992 the Aspen Alps, together with the then-owner of Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split, applied for an amendment to the conditions of the lot split and for 8040 Greenline Review. The purpose of that application was to increase the floor area allowance for Lot 2 from 3,800 sq. ft. to 5,000 sq. ft. As part of that application the owner of Lot 2 obtained title to the land surrounding the 300, 400 and 500 buildings of the Aspen Alps, which up to that time had remained in the ownership of the original developers of the Aspen Alps, Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Bornefeld. These lands were conveyed to the Aspen Alps by the owner of Lot 2 and a restriction was placed on these lands that they would not be utilized to obtain additional floor area or density by the Aspen Alps. A small portion of this land area was retained by the owner of Lot 2, thereby increasing the size of Lot 2 to its present area of approximately 1.002 acres (43,662 sq. ft.). This additional lot area was meant to support the request for the increased floor area of Lot 2, although there was not a direct relationship between the increased lot area and the proposed increase in floor area. These amendments were approved by the City of Aspen pursuant to Ordinance 31, Series of 1992, based on P&Z Resolution No. 92-6 (see Exhibit #6). The first amended plat for Lot 2 was recorded in Plat Book 29 at Page 65 of the Pitkin County Records. In 2006 an application was submitted to the City for 8040 Greenline Review to re-develop Lot 2 with a new residence. 8040 Greenline Review approval was obtained pursuant to P&Z Resolution 17, Series of 2006 (see Exhibit #7). An amended plat depicting the revised building envelope for the lot was recorded in Plat Book 80 at Page 5 of the Pitkin County Records. A residence that complies with the lot's maximum allowable floor area of 5,000 sq. ft. has since been built and a certificate of occupancy was issued for it. Subdivision/PUD Amendment and 8040 Greenline Review: Lots 1 and 2, Moses Lot Split Page 2 P94 VII.a In 2008 an application was submitted for the re-development of Lot 1. 8040 Greenline Review approval was obtained pursuant to P&Z Resolution 19, Series of 2008 (see Exhibit 8). Re-development of the property has not yet commenced, although the house that previously existed on the property was torn down in 2011, leaving the property as vacant. Subsequently, in 2011, the new owner of Lot 1 applied for an extension of the vested rights associated with the 8040 approval. The City Council granted a 2 year extension of those vested rights pursuant to Resolution 47, Series of 2011 (see Exhibit #9). The extended vested rights for the re-development of Lot 1 remain in effect through June 22, 2013. More recently, in April, 2012 the applicant submitted an application for exemption from 8040 Greenline Review-for- some limited landscaping changes to the two lots. These plans included transplanting a number of existing trees from the boundary between the two lots to the edge of Lot 1 and installing a gate along the driveway to Lot 2. These plans received administrative approval from staff and the landscaping work was completed in June of 2012. Subdivision/PUD Amendment and 8040 Greenline Review: Lots 1 and 2, Moses Lot Split Page 3 P95 VII.a III. Summary of Existing Conditions The vicinity map that has been prepared using the City's GIS depicts existing conditions on Lots 1 and 2 and on the properties immediately surrounding these lots. It shows that the immediately adjacent uses to the subject lots include the 300, 400, 500 and 700 buildings at the Aspen Alps (north of the subject property) and the single family residences of the Aspen Chance Subdivision (east of the subject property). The Aspen Mountain Gondola passes immediately to the west of, and looks down upon, these lots. The map shows that access is provided to Lot 1 and Lot 2 via South Alps Road, a private road that intersects with Ute Avenue just past the lower entrance to the Aspen Alps. Lot 1 and Lot 2 are situated at the top of this road, directly across from the Aspen Alps 700 Building. There are existing driveways in place to serve these two lots. The vicinity map shows the location of the City/County boundary line which cuts across the top of Lot 1. The area above this line is currently unincorporated. Therefore, the applicant has also submitted an annexation petition to accompany this land use application, requesting that the City annex this small area so the entire subdivision is within the City limits. A copy of that annexation petition is attached hereto as Exhibit# 10. The drawing shows topography on each of the lots. Generally, the portion of each lot that is immediately above Aspen Alps Road is relatively flat and suitable for development. Further above these flat areas the slopes rise steeply beyond the building areas and are densely covered with mature vegetation. Lot 2 also includes an extensive area below South Alps Road that is too steep to be suitable for development. Although not shown on the vicinity map, the zoning that applies to these lots is R-15 PUD). A PUD plan has never been processed for the two lots since each is a single family lot and a single family residence is exempt from PUD review. Surrounding zoning includes the Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR ) zoning of the Aspen Alps, R-15 zoning of Aspen Chance, and Conservation (C) zoning of lands on Aspen Mountain and lands above the 8040 Greenline. Lot 1 had previously been developed with a residence containing approximately 3,800 sq. ft. of floor area. That residence was demolished in the fall of 2011 and so the lot is vacant with the exception of a small shed/children's play structure that is located in the upper portion of the lot. Lot 2 is improved with a new residence that has a floor area of approximately 5,000 sq. ft. Subdivision/PUD Amendment and 8040 Greenline Review: Lots 1 and 2, Moses Lot Split Page 4 P96 VII.a IV. Subdivision/PUD Amendment The applicant proposes two amendments to the Subdivision Plat/PUD Plan for these lots: 1. Ordinance 31, Series of 1992 and the resulting amended plat for Lot 2 that is recorded in Book 29 at Plat 65 limit the buildout of the residence on Lot 2 to 5,000 sq. ft. Prior land use approvals granted to Lot 1 limit its allowable floor area to 3,800 sq. ft. The applicant proposes that these limitations be amended to swap 800 sq. ft. of floor area between Lot 1 and Lot 2. This would increase the floor area allowed on Lot 2 to 5,800 sq. ft. and would decrease the floor area allowed on Lot 1 to 3,000 sq. ft. 2. The applicant also proposes to amend the lot lines between lots 1 and 2. The lot lines would be amended to reduce the size of Lot 1 to approximately 15,072 sq. ft. and to increase the size of Lot 2 by a corresponding amount, to approximately 54,762 sq. ft. (1.26 acres). The purpose of this amendment is to increase the land area of Lot 2, to make it more consistent with the increase in floor area that is proposed for that lot. The land area of Lot 1 would be decreased to a size that is consistent with the reduced floor area proposed for that lot. An amended subdivision plat showing the proposed new configuration of the lots is included in this application booklet. Section 26.480.080 of the Aspen Land Use Code authorizes amendments to approved subdivisions. It provides for what are identified as "insubstantial amendments" (Sub- section A) and 'other amendments" (Sub-section B). An insubstantial subdivision amendment is limited to "technical or engineering considerations first discovered during actual development which could not reasonably be anticipated during the approval process or any other minor change to a plat that has no effect on the conditions and representations limiting the original plat". An insubstantial amendment may be authorized administratively. Other subdivision amendments (that is, amendments which do not qualify as insubstantial amendments) require review and approval by the Aspen City Council, "provided the proposed change is consistent with the approved plat". The proposed amendments do not qualify as an insubstantial subdivision amendment because they are not technical or engineering considerations. Therefore, by definition the amendments are considered to be an "other amendment". This means that the amendments must be determined to be consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final plat in order for them to be approved. The PUD procedure addresses amendments in a similar manner. Section 26.445.100 provides for insubstantial PUD amendments and for other PUD amendments. Sub-section 26.445.100 A lists the types of activities that do not qualify as insubstantial PUD Subdivision/PUD Amendment and 8040 Greenline Review: Lots 1 and 2, Moses Lot Split Page 5 P97 VII.a amendments. One such activity is "Any change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project's original approval or which requires granting a variation from the project's approved use or dimensional requirements". The applicant's proposal to amend the applicable floor area limitations on the lots represents this type of change. Therefore, the proposed amendments do not qualify as an insubstantial PUD amendment and must instead be processed as an "other" PUD amendment. Sub-section 26.445.100 B. provides the standards for review of an "other" PUD amendment. It states that "An amendment found to be consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final development plan by the Community Development Director, but which does not meet the established thresholds for an insubstantial amendment is subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Commission". As explained above, there has never been an approved final PUD plan for the lots in the Moses Lot Split since each lot was separately developed as a single family residence which is exempt from review pursuant to Sec. 26.445.020 of the Code. Since there is not an adopted PUD Plan to amend, the Code considers existing conditions to be the approved plan for the property (see Sec. 26.445.100 C. of the Land Use Code). Therefore, the amendments must be found to be consistent with or an enhancement of existing conditions for them to be approved. In response to these standards, the applicant hereby states that the proposed amendments are consistent with the approved subdivision plat for the following reasons: 1. The Moses Lot Split will continue to be composed of just two single family residential lots. No change in the number of approved lots or the allowed uses is proposed. 2. The total floor area permitted on the two lots will not change. The previously- allowed floor area will simply be re-distributed between Lot 1 and Lot 2. 3. Although the configuration of the lots is proposed to be amended, the resulting building envelopes for the two lots will not change in any meaningful manner. The same area of the lots that has previously been developed with residences will remain the developed portion of the subdivision and the remainder of the lots will continue to be undeveloped open space. 4. The proposed additions have quite limited visibility to the public and represent quite minor extensions of the existing building mass and scale. Please see the responses to the 8040 Greenline Review standards in the next section of the application for a more complete description of the limited visual impacts of the proposed additions. 5. The square footage that is proposed to be added to the house on Lot 2 will cause no increase in community impacts since it will be used for a mud room, Subdivision/PUD Amendment and 8040 Greenline Review: Lots 1 and 2, Moses Lot Split Page 6 P98 VII.a study/exercise area and kitchen addition. There will be no new bedrooms or greater occupancy in the residence as a result of these additions. Furthermore, the applicant hereby states that the proposed amendments will be an enhancement of existing conditions and an enhancement of the recorded plat for the lots and are of benefit to the community for the following reasons: 1. As a condition of approval of the amendment, the applicant hereby agrees to purchase and retire one (1) Aspen historic preservation TDR. The Code authorizes the use of one historic preservation TDR in the R-15 zone district to increase the allowable floor area of a property by 250 sq. ft. While this is not exactly what is being proposed for Lot 2 (the applicant is instead proposing to trade some of the allowable floor area from Lot 1 to Lot 2), the result will nonetheless be an increase in the allowable floor area of this lot. Therefore, the applicant has decided to propose to retire a TDR as a way of acknowledging and mitigating for this increased floor area. The applicant recognizes that the City may have concerns about an increase in the allowable house size of Lot 2 and that retiring a historic preservation TDR is one accepted way for an applicant in the City to mitigate the impacts from this activity. Therefore, the applicant is proposing to voluntarily agree to retire one such TDR even though there is no provision in the City Code that would require this to be done as a precursor to approving the proposed amendment. 2. As part of this application the portion of Lot 1 that is currently under the jurisdiction of Pitkin County will be annexed to the City of Aspen. This will eliminate the dual jurisdiction over the property and will simplify the City's administration of its land use controls over this property. Staff has recommended that the applicant pursue this annexation as part of this application and the applicant has agreed to do so. 3. The portion of Lot 1 that is suitable for development and within the building envelope is a relatively limited area that contains only approximately 4,500 sq. ft. While this area is large enough to support the proposed house size of 3,000 sq. ft. in fact, this envelope contained the prior house that was 3,800 sq. ft. in size), reducing the allowable floor area of Lot 1 to 3,000 sq. ft. will result in a more compatible development on this property and better preserve the open character of this lot. Moreover, two geo-technical analyses conducted for Lot 1 and Lot 2 in the summer of 2012 demonstrate that Lot 2 is the least constrained of the two lots, while Lot 1 appears to have a greater potential to be impacted by a mud flow hazard (see response to 8040 Greenline review standards in Section V of this application for more detail on this issue). Therefore, reducing the size of the house allowed on Lot 1 will provide more open area on that lot to properly mitigate the potential mud flow hazard, while transferring the floor area to Lot 2 is reasonable and appropriate since it is subject to a much lesser degree of this geologic hazard. Subdivision/PUD Amendment and 8040 Greenline Review: Lots 1 and 2, Moses Lot Split Page 7 P99 VII.a One additional issue that the staff has asked the applicants to address as part of the PUD amendment is whether the amended size of Lot 1 and Lot 2 is sufficient to justify the proposed floor area of 3,000 sq. ft. on Lot 1 and 5,800 sq. ft. for Lot 2. This analysis is shown in the table below then is explained in the text which follows. Proposed Gross floor 25% reduction Net floor area lot size area allowed for steep allowed after b zonin 9 slopes 25% reduction Lot 1 15,072 sq. ft.4,085 sq. ft. 1,021 sq. ft. 3,064 sq. ft. Lot 2 54,762 sq. ft.6,695 sq. ft. 1,674 sq. ft. 5,021 sq. ft. Lot 1 Floor Area Analysis Following the annexation of the unincorporated land to Lot 1 and the subsequent transfer of land to Lot 2, Lot 1 would have a gross lot area of approximately 15,072 sq. ft. A 15,072 sq. ft. lot has an allowable floor area of 4,085 sq. ft. in the R-15 zone district. However, Lot 1 contains areas with steep slopes. Code Section 26.575.020 C. provides that the maximum deduction for steep slopes is 25% of the allowable floor area (1,021 sq. ft.). Therefore, the allowable floor area on Lot 1 after the maximum possible slope reduction is 3,064 sq. ft. This exceeds the proposed 3,000 sq. ft. floor area for this lot. Therefore, if the City were to set a maximum allowable floor area for Lot 1 of 3,000 sq. ft. as is proposed in this application, the development that would occur on that lot would conform to what is allowed by underlying zoning. Lot 2 Floor Area Analysis Following the transfer of land from Lot 1, Lot 2 would have a gross lot area of approximately 54,762 sq. ft. A 54,762 sq. ft. lot has an allowable floor area of 6,695 sq. ft. in the R-15 zone district, which is considerably larger than the 5,800 sq. ft. of floor area proposed for this lot. However, Lot 2 contains areas with steep slopes. Code Section 26.575.020 C. provides that the maximum deduction for steep slopes is 25% of the allowable floor area (1,674 sq. ft.). Therefore, if the City were to set a maximum allowable floor area for Lot 2 of 5,800 sq. ft. as is proposed in this application, the development that would occur on that lot would exceed what is allowed by underlying zoning. This non-conformity would be the result of the deduction for steep slopes on the lot, a deduction which was not taken into account when the floor areas were originally set for these lots in the 1987 and 1992 applications. To address the technical inconsistency in floor area limitations that is caused by the presence of the steep slopes on this lot, the applicant requests that a floor area PUD variation be granted to Lot 2. This variation is appropriate and consistent for this lot for the reasons specified above responding to the standards for the PUD amendment. Subdivision/PUD Amendment and 8040 Greenline Review: Lots 1 and 2, Moses Lot Split Page 8 P100 VII.a V. 8040 Greenline Review The applicant proposes three relatively minor additions to the existing residence on Lot 2. These additions are shown on the floor plans and elevations that are included in this application booklet. The additions are as follows: An office/yoga studio (approximately 295 sq. ft.) would be built by covering and enclosing an existing side deck/terrace; A kitchen addition (approximately 185 sq. ft.) would be made by enclosing a small outdoor cooking area on the existing rear terrace; and A mudroom (approximately 150 sq. ft.) would be added to the front of the residence. Since Lot 2 is located at an elevation of 8,080' above mean sea level, the proposed development is subject to 8040 Greenline Review. The standards for 8040 Greenline Review are found in Section 26.440.030 of the Aspen Land Use Code. The applicants' responses to these standards are as follows: 1.The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development, considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the City. Response: Lot 2 has previously been found to be physically suitable for development during 8040 Greenline Reviews conducted in 1987, 1992, and 2006. Detailed studies prepared by geologists and engineers accompanied each of those applications. The proposed minor additions to the existing residence will not alter or affect the conclusions reached as part of those studies. Condition 9 (f) of Resolution 17, Series of 2006 provides the most recent determination of the City with regard to the geologic suitability of Lot 2 for development. It requires that as part of the building permit application for the development of Lot 2, the applicant was required to submit: A letter from a registered professional engineer addressing the applicable geotechnical concerns of the letter by consulting geologist Nicholas Lampiris submitted as Exhibit C and referenced in Condition 2 of the Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 92-6. This letter shall be accepted by the City Engineer." The 1992 letter from Nicholas Lampiris is attached hereto as Exhibit#11. When Icie Jackson LLC purchased the house on Lot 2 in June, 2011 the applicant sought evidence that the letter from a registered professional engineer required in Condition 9 (f) Subdivision/PUD Amendment and 8040 Greenline Review: Lots 1 and 2, Moses Lot Split Page 9 P101 VII.a had in fact been submitted to the City as part of the building permit application for the house and that the City Engineer had accepted the letter. This seller was unable to provide this evidence. Therefore, on May 13, 2011, Hans Brucker, a registered professional engineer working on behalf of the seller, submitted a letter to the City Engineer addressing each of the mitigation requirements described in the Lampiris letter. Mr. Brucker's letter is attached as Exhibit#12. Mr. Brucker concluded that the residence as constructed is more than sufficient to address the debris flow and seismic issues identified in the Lampiris letter. He also found that the design and construction of the residence took into account the slope instability concerns soil nails were used) and the limitations of building on hydrocompactive soils (an engineered foundation was constructed) that Mr. Lampiris had identified. At the same time that Mr. Brucker's analysis was being prepared, the purchaser of the property had an analysis of the geotechnical issues prepared by Steve Pawlak, P.E. of HP Geotech. His analysis is attached as Exhibit#13. Mr. Pawlak reaches essentially identical conclusions to those reached by Mr. Brucker. His report concludes that "The potential impacts to the property identified by Mr. Lampiris have been adequately mitigated by the current development". In May of 2012, the City Engineer sent a letter to the applicant stating that "it is the position of the City that neither letter provided to the City Engineer adequately addresses the concerns set forth in Condition 91 (see Exhibit #14). Therefore, the applicant engaged Richard Johnson, P.E. of Yeh and Associates to provide a response to the City Engineer see Exhibit #15). Mr. Johnson conducted field work, reviewed the building plans and supporting documents for the existing residence, reviewed the Brucker and Pawlak reports and conducted his own independent analysis. Mr. Johnson concluded that "the debris flow hazard for Lot 2 is negligible and mitigation is not required". He reached similar satisfactory conclusions with respect to the seismicity, slope instability and hydrocompactive soils issues that were first brought up in the Lampiris letter. On July 10, 2012 the City Engineer responded to the Johnson letter (see Exhibit#16). Ms. Aragon indicated that the letter had adequately addressed the seismic concerns, slope instability concerns and hydrocompactive soils concerns that the City had raised. However, she concluded that his report did not address the debris flow concerns in the manner specified by the City's Urban Runoff Management Plan and that yet another study would be needed. The applicant engaged Tetra Tech, a firm that specializes in this kind of analysis, to complete the mud and debris flow analysis. Their report is attached as Exhibit #17. The report finds that based on the design storm specified in the City's guidelines, a mud flow event with mud depths of 1.5 feet could occur. The report then recommends that the walls at the rear of the residence have 3 feet of freeboard above this mud depth, with no breakable openings below this depth. Subdivision/PUD Amendment and 8040 Greenline Review: Lots 1 and 2, Moses Lot Split Page 10 P102 VII.a Two possible mitigation options are then outlined in the report. The first option would be to increase the height of the existing retaining wall behind the residence or to construct a second wall above the existing retaining wall, to capture and divert the mud and debris. The second option would be to reinforce the windows and doors along the rear face of the residence (including the use of impact resistant glass) to withstand mud and debris impact loads. The applicant has reviewed these options and concurs with the engineer's recommendations.The applicant hereby agrees to implement the reinforcement option as part of the development planned for the property. To further ensure that the engineer's recommendations are implemented, the applicant agreed to the City's request that an indemnity agreement be provided to the City (see Exhibit #18). This document ensures that the engineer's recommendations will be implemented in 2013, regardless of whether this 8040 Greenline Review application is approved by the City. The City Attorney and the City Engineer have therefore agreed that this land use application can be submitted at this time. In conclusion, the most recent geotechnical investigation has quantified the potential debris flow hazard posed to the existing residence on Lot 2 and has identified the appropriate mitigation strategy for that hazard. The applicant has provided legal assurances that the required mitigation will be implemented. Other studies the applicant has performed have determined that the re-development of Lot 2 adequately addressed the other geotechnical concerns that could pose hazards to the residence. Finally, the Tetra Tech reports finds that the proposed additions to the house, which involve enclosure of two existing paved deck areas and construction of a mud room at the front of the house, will not alter any of these conclusions and do not require any additional mitigation to be accomplished. 2.The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. Response: The proposed development will not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, nor cause increased runoff, drainage or soil erosion. Since two of the additions are proposed to occur on an existing paved deck or terrace while the third will be an enclosure of the existing entrance, there will not be a change to the amount of impervious surface on the site and so there should not be any measurable change to drainage either. Furthermore, drainage on the site was fully addressed in a 2007 report regarding grading, drainage, and erosion control prepared by Hans Brucker, P.E. of Pinnacle Design Consulting Group (see Exhibit #16). Nevertheless, if the City so requires the applicant will submit an update to this drainage report at the time of building permit review to ensure that the additions comply with all applicable City drainage standards. Subdivision/PUD Amendment and 8040 Greenline Review: Lots 1 and 2, Moses Lot Split Page 11 P103 VII.a 3.The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the City. Response: The proposed minor expansion of the existing residence will not have any impact on air quality in the City. No new bedrooms are planned so the occupancy of the residence will not change. No special equipment that would create air quality emissions is planned as part of the expansion project. 4.The design and location of any proposed development, road or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. Response: The proposed additions all occur within or directly-adjacent to the approved building envelope which was previously determined to be the compatible location on the property within which development should be permitted to occur. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural features. Response: There will be no impacts on the terrain, vegetation and natural features since one addition will enclose an existing paved deck, another will enclose an area on a paved terrace and the third will enclose the entry area to the house. 6.The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. Response: The proposed additions will have no effect on roads, trails or open space. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. Response: Elevations have been provided showing the existing conditions and the proposed additions to the residence. The elevations show that the three additions all fit within the existing mass of the structure. The mudroom addition and the office/studio enclosure both fit within existing decking/roof overhangs and essentially fill in areas that are currently open. The catering kitchen addition is at the rear of the structure and is not visible to the public. Overall, the public will perceive no more than a minimal change to the appearance of the existing residence. 8.Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. Response: The existing house is served by City of Aspen water service, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District sewage disposal service, and other basic utilities. These facilities are all adequate. No changes to the existing level of service is needed to accommodate the proposed minor additions to the residence. Subdivision/PUD Amendment and 8040 Greenline Review: Lots 1 and 2, Moses Lot Split Page 12 P104 VII.a 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development and said roads can be properly maintained. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. Response: Ingress and egress is provided from Aspen Alps Road. This private road, which also serves the multi-family units at the Aspen Alps, is more than adequate to provide access for fire protection and snow removal purposes. 11. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use. Response: It is the applicants' understanding that the referenced Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan map has been superseded by the pedestrian and bikeway maps in the Aspen Area Community Plan. Those maps show a trail in the vicinity of the subject property. An easement for this trail was granted to the City as part of the 1987 application for this property. No additional trails recommendations apply to this property. Subdivision/PUD Amendment and 8040 Greenline Review: Lots 1 and 2, Moses Lot Split Page 13 P105 VII.a VI. VESTED RIGHTS The proposed additions to the house on Lot 2 represent a site specific development plan. Therefore, the approvals requested herein are eligible for vested rights, pursuant to Sec. 26.308 of the Land Use Code. Therefore the applicants request that if the planned addition to the house on Lot 2 is approved, then that approval be granted vested rights. The applicants also request vested rights for Lot 1. The vested rights that are currently in place for Lot 1 were extended by City Council Resolution 47, Series of 2011. These vested rights are due to expire on June 22, 2013. When this extension was granted in 2011, the applicants had just purchased Lot 1 and needed time to evaluate the approvals so an appropriate course of action could be determined. That evaluation led to the preparation of this land use application, in which the applicants propose to trade some of the floor area from Lot 1 to Lot 2 and to make some minor additions to Lot 2. It also led to the demolition of the house on Lot 1 in 2011, leaving that lot vacant for the time being. The applicants had anticipated submitting this application early in 2012 so action could be taken on it sufficiently in advance of the June, 2013 expiration date to give the applicants the time needed to move forward with a development plan for Lot 1. In fact, the applicants' initial pre-application meeting with staff for this land use application took place on January 10, 2012. However, just as the application was being completed the applicants received written notice from the City Engineer that an application would not be accepted by the City until the potential geo-hazard issues that the City felt could affect the property were fully addressed. Although this decision seemed to the applicants to be unduly harsh, given the fact that the house was built pursuant to all required building permits and received a certificate of occupancy from the City, they nonetheless agreed to cooperate with staff on that request. This required the applicants to hire a series of engineering consultants to provide the information the City has requested. However, fully satisfying the City's concerns required the applicants to go through several iterations of technical study and took from May through December, significantly delaying the submission of this application. Considering the extensive delays that have resulted, the applicants will not have the time once this land use application is decided to prepare a building permit or other application for Lot 1 before the vested rights expire. Therefore, the applicants would request an extension of the vested rights granted to Lot 1 regardless of whether or not this application is approved. The applicants would request an extension of no less than 1 year and would prefer the full three years of vested rights that are authorized by state statutes. VII. Conclusion The above responses and the attached exhibits and drawings provide the information that the City has requested to process this application. The materials submitted demonstrate that the application complies with the applicable provisions of the Aspen Land Use Code. Please do not hesitate to contact us if there is anything else that is needed during the review process. Subdivision/PUD Amendment and 8040 Greenline Review: Lots 1 and 2, Moses Lot Split Page 14 P106 VII.a EXHIBITS P107 VII.a EXHIBIT#1 ALTA OWNER'S POLICY(6/17/06) SCHEDULE A Name and Address of Stewart Title Guaranty Company Title Insurance Company: P.O. Box 2029, Houston, TX 77252 Prepared by: Colorado Regional Production Center Title Officer: Linda Williams File No.: 01330-1426 Policy No.: 0-9301-001840979 Address Reference: 605 South Alps Road,Aspen, CO 81611 For Company Reference Purposes Only) Amount of Insurance: Premium: Date of Policy: June 06, 2011 at 12:01 pm 1. Name of Insured: South Alps Road LLC 2. The estate or interest in the Land that is insured by this policy is: Fee Simple 3. Title is vested in: South Alps Road LLC 4. The Land referred to in this policy is described as follows: Lot 1, MOSES LOT SPLIT according to the plat recorded June 26, 1987 in Plat Book 19 at Page 83 as Reception No. 290474. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. File No.01330-1426 Page 1 of 1 + 5 CO STG ALTA Owner's Policy Sch A P108 VII.a ALTA OWNER'S POLICY(6/17/06) SCHEDULE B File No.: 01330-1426 Policy No.: 0-9301-001840979 EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE This policy does not insure against loss or damage(and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys'fees or expenses)that arise by reason of: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession, not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Unpatented mining claims, reservations or exceptions in patents, or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof. 6. Water rights, claims or title to water. 7. All taxes for 2011 and subsequent years,which are a lien not yet payable. The effect of inclusions in any general or specific water conservancy, fire protection, soil conservation or other district or inclusion in any water service or street improvement area. 8. Reservations and exceptions as contained in United States Patents recorded in Book 136 at Page 173 and recorded in Book 175 at Page 213 as follows: "That the premises hereby granted, with the exception of the surface may be entered by the proprietor of any other vein or ledge, the top or apex of which lies outside of the boundary, should the same in its dip be found to penetrate, intersect or extend into said premises, for the purpose of extracting and removing the ore from such other vein, lode or ledge. 9. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted, and right of way thereon for ditches and canals constructed by the authority of the United States as reserved in United States Patents recorded Book 136 at Page 173 and in Book 175 at Pam 9. 10. Reservation of all the minerals, mineral deposits, mineral oils and natural gases of every kind and nature,together with the right of ingress and egress for the purpose of mining, drilling and exploring said land for minerals as reserved in Deed recorded April 28, 1961 in Book 193 at Page 595 as Reception No. 111295. 11. Statement of Exception from the Full Subdivision Process for the Purpose of Subdividing the Moses Property as set forth in instrument recorded June 26, 1987 in Book 540 at Page 186 as Reception No. 290476. Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. File No.01330-1426 Page 1 oft _.stew CO STG ALTA Owner's Policy Sch B SE eg—°M^y -=Pwy P109 VII.a ALTA OWNER'S POLICY(6/17/06) SCHEDULE B 12. Terms, conditions,provisions and obligations contained in the Restated Easement Agreement recorded September 3, 1992 in Book 687 at Page 915 as Reception No. 348321. 13. All matters shown on the plat of Moses Lot Split recorded June 26, 1987 in Plat Book 19 at Page 83 as Reception No. 290474. 14. All matters shown on the Little Nell Residence Site Plan Lot 1 Moses Lot Split recorded January 28, 2009 in Book 90 at Page 34 as Reception No. 556039. 15. Easement Agreement by and between LNR, LLC and Gerald Grayson recorded August 7, 2007 as Reception-No. 540749. 16. Resolution by City Of Aspen Planning and Zoning recorded June 25, 2008 as Reception No. 550520. 17. Administrative Decision by Community Development Pitkin County recorded December 9, 2008 as Reception No. 554912. 18. Amended Resolution recorded July 8, 2010 as Reception No. 571868 19. Any rights, easements, interests or claims which may exist by reason of or reflected by the following facts shown on the survey dated 5-4-11 by Pinnacle Design Consulting Group Inc.: encroachments of gravel drive, lawn fence, woven wire fence gate, gravel foot path, foot bridge and wall onto adjoining property known as The Aspen Chance Subdivision; wall, cone. walk, steps, concrete drive eaves, gravel drive sitting outside of building envelope; wood rail fence going onto adjoining property to the north Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. era 11W All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. File No.01330-1426 Page 2 of 2 CO STG ALTA Owner's Policy Sch B SE nom Burn ,, P110 VII.a EXHIBIT#2 AMERIe.4N American Land Title Association Owner's Policy Attorneys iA vtari4ir. (6-17-06) Title Guaranty Msdiiars<v Fund,Inc. r= OWNER'S POLICY NO. OP201105004319 SCHEDULE A Effective Date : 5/18/2011 at exact time of recording Amount of Insurance: 1. Name of Insured: Icie Jackson LLC, a Colorado limited liability company 2. The estate or interest in the Land that is covered by this policy is: Fee Simple 3. Title is vested in: Icie Jackson LLC, a Colorado limited liability company 4. The land referred to in this policy is described as follows: See Schedule C attached hereto. For informational purposes only, the property address is: 675 South Alps Road, Aspen, Colorado 81611. Gary A. Wright Authorized cer or Agent 2622 Member Number Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association.All rights reserved.The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use.All other uses are prohibited.Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. P111 VII.a SCHEDULE B Exceptions from Coverage This policy does not insure against loss or damage, and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses that arise by reason of: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to water. 6. Taxes for 2011, not yet due or payable. 7. Reservations and exceptions as contained in United States Patent dated April 22, 1896, and recorded May 20, 1949, in Book 175 at Page 213, as Reception No. 096377 as follows: "That the premises hereby granted,with the exception of the surface may be entered by the proprietor of any other vein or ledge, the top or apex of which lies outside the boundary, should the same in its dip be found to penetrate, intersect or extend into said premises, for the purpose of extracting and removing the ore from such other vein, lode or ledge." 8. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted, and right of way thereon for ditches and canals as constructed by the authority of the United States as reserved in United States Patents dated July 3, 1911, and recorded August 26, 1949, in Book 175 at Page 299, as Reception No. 096828, and dated November 4, 1899, and recorded August 26, 1949, in Book 175 at Page 299, as Reception No. 096829. 9. Reservation of all the minerals,mineral deposits, mineral oils and natural gases of every kind and nature,together with the right of ingress and egress for the purpose of mining, drilling, and exploring said lands for minerals as reserved in the Quit Claim Deed dated April 13, 1961, and recorded April 28, 1961, in Book 193 at Page 595,as Reception No. 111295. 10. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the Easement by and between the Board of County Commissioners for Pitkin County, Colorado and George P. Mitchell and H.A.Bornefeld,Jr., dated December 9, 1965, and recorded December 20, 1965, in Book 217 at Page 593, as Reception No. 122970, and recorded August 1, 1968, in Book 235 at Page 722, as Reception No. 131762. 11. An easement for ingress and egress, city water lines and sewer line as reserved in the Special Warranty Deed dated June 18, 1973, and recorded July 2, 1974, in Book 288 at Page 899, as Reception No. 168549. 12. Grant of Easement as specified in the Special Warranty Deed dated May 16, 1977, and recorded June 24, 1977, in Book 330 at Page 946, as Reception No. 195389, and Agreement of Amendment Concerning that Certain Grant of Easement Recorded in Book 330 at Page 946,Pitkin County Colorado, dated December 26, 1986, and recorded January 27, 1987, in Book 528 at Page 684, as Reception No. 285628, and Second Agreement of Amendment Concerning that Certain Grant of Easement Recorded in Book 300 at Page 946, Pitkin County, Colorado, dated July 9, 1987, and recorded August 27, 1987, in Book 544 at Page 652, as Reception No. 292313. 13. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the Easement Agreement by and between George P. Mitchell and Cynthia Mitchell, H.A. Bornefeld,Jr., and Mary Bornefeld and Aspen Chance, Inc., a Texas corporation and The Aspen Alps Condominium Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association.All rights reserved.The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use.All other uses are prohibited.Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. P112 VII.a Association dated July 23, 1984, and recorded July 27, 1984, in Book 470 at Page 780, as Reception No. 261361. 14. Terms, conditions,provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the Statement of Exception for the Full Subdivision Process for the Purpose of Subdividing the Moses Property, City of Aspen, Colorado dated April 23, 1987, and recorded June 26, 1987, in Book 540 at Page 186, as Reception No. 290476. 15. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the Restated Easement Agreement by and between George P. Mitchell and H.A. Bornefeld,Jr., Gaard Hopkins Moses and Mary Lynn Patton, Aspen Alps Condominium Association, a Colorado non-profit corporation and Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc., a Colorado corporation, dated September 3, 1992, and recorded September 3, 1992, as Reception No. 348321. 16. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the Subdivision Agreement for the Replat of Lot 2, Moses Lot Split (A Lot Line Adjustment) and The George P. Mitchell and H.A. Bornefeld,Jr.Property by and between Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc., a Colorado corporation and George P. Mitchell and H.A. Bornefeld,Jr., and The City of Aspen, dated August 25, 1992, and recorded September 3, 1992, in Book 687 at Page 895, as Reception No. 348316, 17. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under An Ordinance of the Aspen City Council Granting Subdivision for Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split,A Lot Line Adjustment Between the Mitchell Parcel and the Mitchell/Bornfeld Parcel, and Vested Rights for 8040 Greenline Review, Subdivision, and the Lot Line Adjustment All Located on Aspen Alps South Road, City and Townsite of Aspen, (Ordinance No. 31 -Series of 1992) dated June 8, 1992, and recorded September 3, 1992, in Book 687 at Page 901, as Reception No. 348316, and recorded December 18, 1992, in Book 698 at Page 141, as Reception No. 352013. 18. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the Shared Sewer Service Line Agreement by and between Aspen Alps Condominium Association, Inc., a Colorado non-profit corporation and Moses Aspen View Homesite,Inc., a Colorado corporation dated September 4, 1992, and recorded January 15, 1993, in Book 700 at Page 676, as Reception No. 352949. 19. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the License Agreement by and between George P. Mitchell and Cynthia W. Mitchell and the Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc., a Colorado corporation dated September 4, 1992, and recorded January 19, 1993, in Book 701 at Page 40, as Reception No. 353059. 20. Any and all notes, easements and recitals as disclosed on the recorded Moses Lot Split Plat recorded June 26, 1987, in Plat Book 19 at Page 83, as Reception No. 290474, and the Replat of Lot 2,Moses Lot Split (A Lot Line Adjustment) and Final Subdivision Plat of the George P. Mitchell and H.A. Bornefeld Jr. Property Plat recorded September 9, 1992, in Plat Book 29 at Page 65, as Reception No. 348317, and the Lot 2, Moses Lot Split 2nd Amendment, City of Aspen,Pitkin County, Colorado Plat recorded July 14, 2005, in Plat Book 80 at Page 5, as Reception No. 526459. 21. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the Skier Access License Agreement dated May 31, 2005, and recorded June 20, 2005, as Reception No. 511438. 22. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under A Resolution of the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Approving an 8040 Greenline Review for a Single-Family Residence on Lot 2, Moses Lot Split, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado Resolution No. 017 -Series of 2006) dated May 16, 2006, and recorded June 16, 2006, as Reception No. 525351. 23. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the Easement Agreement dated August 6, 2007, and recorded August 7, 2007, as Reception No. 540749. P113 VII.a SCHEDULE C File#: PC11002837 Lot 2, as shown on the Replat of Moses Lot Split (A Lot Line Adjustment) and Final Subdivision of the George P. Mitchell and H.A. Bornefeld,Jr. Property according to the Plat thereof recorded September 3, 1992 in Plat Book 29 at Page 65 as Reception No. 348317 and the Lot 2, Moses Lot Split 2nd Amendment recorded July 14, 2006 in Plat Book 80 at Page 5 as Reception No. 526459. Excepting any portion thereof lying within Lot 1, Moses Lot Split as shown on the Plat recorded June 26, 1987 in Plat Book 19 at Page 83 as Reception No. 290474, Pitkin County, Colorado. P114 VII.a EXHIBIT#3 Ms. Jessica Garrow, Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION FOR LOT 1 AND LOT 2, MOSES LOT SPLIT Dear Amy and Sara, South Alps Road LLC is the owner of the Lot 1 of the Moses Lot Split, located at 605 South Alps Road. Icie Jackson LLC is the owner of the Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split, located at 675 South Alps Road. I am the authorized representative of both of these property owners. I hereby authorize Alan Richman Planning Services to submit an application for Subdivision/PUD amendment and 8040 Greenline Review for these properties. Mr. Richman is authorized to submit this application on our behalf and to represent us in meetings with staff and the applicable decision-making bodies. Should you have any need to contact us during the course of your review of this application please do so by calling Mr. Richman at the phone number he has provided in the land use application. Sincerely, Neil Karbank, Authorized Representative 604 West Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 920-2899 P115 VII.a EXHIBIT#4 CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Jennifer Phelan—970.429.2759 DATE: 1.17.12 PROJECT: 605/675 South Alps Road, Subdivision Amendment REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision, Other Amendment DESCRIPTION: The proposal is to amend the size of lots 1 and 2 of the Moses Lot Split by increasing the area of Lot 2 as well as the allowable floor area. Lot 2 would like to be permitted to increase its floor area to 6,000 square feet (where 5,000 square feet is permitted) and reduce the allowable floor area of Lot 1 to 2,800 square feet where 3,800 square feet is permitted). The Moses Lot Split (Bk.19, Pg. 83) was approved in 1987, allowing the development of two lots each with a maximum floor area allowance of 3,800 square feet for each lot (Bk. 540, Pg. 186). Subsequently in 1992, a Replat of Lot 2, Moses Lot Split (Bk. 29, Pg. 65) was approved. It increased the lot size of Lot 2 as well as the allowable floor area allowance for the lot to 5,000 square feet (Ordinance No 31, of 1992). The Applicant will be required to submit a slope reduction analysis to determine the allowable floor area associated with each lot, and determine whether a land trade with associated floor area is feasible between the lots. A second option is to amend the PUD if 1,000 square feet of floor area cannot feasibly be added to Lot 2 with the addition of land area from Lot 1. Additionally, staff believes that a portion of Lot 1 may not be located within the municipal boundaries and believes the entire subdivision should be located within the municipal boundaries. The Applicant will need to submit a Land Use Application requesting an Amendment to the Subdivision Development Order. This type of amendment, an Other amendment, is a two step review before the Planning and Zoning Commission and then City Council. The applicant may need to amend the PUD. 8040 Greenline Review is also required. Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience. Land Use Application Form: Land Use application Land Use Code: Land Use Code Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.480 Subdivision 26.480.080 Amendment to subdivision development order 26.310 Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map 26.435.030 8040 Greenline Review 26.445 Planned Unit Development—Other Amendment Review by: Planning Staff for compliance/completeness P&Z City Council Public Hearing: Required Planning Fees: 7,560.00 Deposit for 24 hours of staff time. Additional staff time required is billed at 315/hour Referral Fees: Parks Referral - $1,260.00 (flat fee) Engineering — $265.00 (per hour) with 1 hour deposit P116 VII.a Total Deposit: 9,085.00 Total Number of Application Copies: Twelve (12) for P&Z Ten (10) for Council To apply, submit the following information: 1. Total Deposit for review of application. 2. Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 3. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 4. Completed Land Use Application. 5. Signed fee agreement. 6. Pre-application Conference Summary. 7. An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. 8. Proof of ownership. 9. Proposed amended subdivision plat. 10.A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how a proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. P117 VII.a EXHIBIT#5 Recorded at M k pp6 No ' '' PQUl4 PAG O Reception SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY RECORDER STATEMENT OF EXCEPTION FROM THE FULL SUBDIVISION PROCESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBDIVIDING THE MOSES PROPERTY CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO WHEREAS , GAARD HOPKINS MOSES (hereinafter referred to as Moses" ) is the owner of a parcel of real property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, Moses has requested an exception from the full subdivision process for the purpose of subdividing the property described on Exhibit "A" ; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, at its regular meeting on March 23 , 1987 , determined that Moses ' request for such subdivision was appropriate and granted the same, subject however, to the conditions described hereinafter. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, does determine that the application for exception from the full subdivision process for the purpose of subdividing the property described on the attached Exhibit "A" is proper and hereby approves said subdivision, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the foregoing approval is expressly conditioned upon: 1 . Recording, by Moses, of a lot split plat designating the two lots formed prior to the issuance of any building permits . Said plat shall conform to Section 20-15 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado. 2 . Conversion of each of the existing duplex structures to single-family dwelling units by removing kitchens from each building within eighteen months of recording the Lot Split Plat or prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, whichever comes first. Removal of kitchens shall be verified by the City zoning officer. 3 . Removal of the existing shed on Lot 1 which encroaches over the building setback lines and verification thereof by the City zoning officer prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4 . Restriction of the floor area in each of the single-family residences to 3 , 800 square feet and to submit all plans for demolition and reconstruction, or additions to 8040 greenline review. Notification of the Aspen Alps of any 8040 greenline review date. P118 VII.a J8 i 5 . Implementation of the water connection plan shown on the final plat within eighteen months of its recording orpriortotheissuanceofaCertificateofOccupancyforthe remodeled or reconstructed single-family dwelling units , whichever comes first. DATED this day of April, 1987 . GAARD HOPKINS MOSES CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation B : a,J I L B GIDEON I . KAUFMAN, WILLIAM L. STIRLING as akttorney-in-fact Mayor I . KATHRYN S. KOCH, do hereby certify that the foregoing statement of Exception from the Full Subdivision Process for It A?3jrpose of Subdividing the Moses Property, Aspen, Co'I'Ora ;; was considered and approved by the Aspen City Council• aid that the Mayor, William L. Stirling, was ized'. to execute the same on behalf of the City of CQj DR KATHRYN S. KOCH, City Clerk / A D AS TO RM: PAUL J. TAD UNE, City Attorney STATE OF COLORADO Ss . COUNTY OF The forego ' in rumen1987s by IDEON edl . before this day of KAUFMAN as attorney-in-fac on behalf of GAARD HOPKINS MOSES . WITNESS my hand and official seal. 1ARY My commission expires : NY Commcss on xp res etiruary 19a :1989 art Y •'' ary u li ADDITIONAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT ON FOLLOWING PAGE) 2 - P119 VII.a BOOK 540 PAr;1188 STATE OF COLORADO ss . COUNTY OF PITKIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this J day of 1987 , by William L. Stirling, as Mayor, and Kath yn S . Koch as City Clerk of the CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal1 My commission expires: N j ary Publ c moses ex stmt/RLEST5 3 - P120 VII.a n k ` i s EXHIBIT#6 y 35+fi r T'-.,.. 332013 12/18/92 14:23 Rec $45.00 Bill 698 PG 14fiiSilviaDavis, Fitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 n€' ORDINANCE NO. 31 SERIES OF 1942) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING SUBDIVISIOU FOR a LOT 2 OF THE MOSES LOT SPLIT, A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BBT*EEN THEJZ:.. s;. MITCHELL PARCEL AND THE MITCHELL/BORN$FELD PARCEL, AND VESTEDxi5RIaLx`PS FOR 8040 (3R3SNLINE RBVIEw, SUBDIVISION, AND THE LOT LINEADJUSTMENTALLLOCATEDONASPENALPSSOUTHROAD, CITY AND TOWNSITEOFASPEN WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 24-7-503 and 24-7-1004 C of theMunicipalCodetheapplicant, Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc., theAspenAlpsCondominiumAssociationandGeorgeMitchellhavesubmittedanapplicationforsubdivisionofLot2oftheMosesLotatSplitandalotlineadjustmentfortheMitchellparcelandtheMitchell/Bornefeld parcel all located on the Aspen Alps South Road,y City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code, theEapplicanthasalsorequestedVestedRightsofthesubdivisionandlotlineadjustmentand8040Greenline; and7 WHERE", at a duly noticed g p ,Public hearing held April 7 1992 theS.`Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the 8040 Greenline andrSubdivisionproposal; and r WHEREAS, the Commission approved the 8040 Greenline review (seez incorporated herein) Commission Resolution 6 (1992), Exhibit A attached hereto andX' and WHEREAS, the Commission also recommends to the City CouncilsubdivisionapprovalforLot2MosesLotSplit; and a WHEREAS, the subdivision of Lot 2 eliminates the floor area cap of t 3,800 square feet that was originally imposed upon Lot 2 during the1987MosesLotSplit; and WHEREAS, the applicants have offered to voluntarily prohibit allzfuturedevelopmentonLots2Aand2Bofthenawsubdivisionascreatedherein, consisting of approximately three acres of valuableopenspaceandanexistingtenniscourtarea, in exchange for theh City granting permanent vesting for the development of a 5,000squarefoot (allowable floor area) residence upon Lot 2 within thesubdivision; and WHEREAS, the existing underlying Zoning for the subdivision allowsfortheconstructionofasinglefamilyresidenceof5,000 squarefeet (allowable floor area) on Lot 2; and a 1 WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the neighborhood andrcommunityatlargewillderiveasignificantbenefitfromthe d. is r,y ..4S i + _'4 1 r I§N P121 VII.a ia 2 i YS4C 1}_ t 1{e a ``Mx x'}1'l F`t"y(-J .' y,t n t]y TMv i ''¢' t a, ss, hs iry.s_ ` 3 s: - rF.d' tr,,;.,,. •, ^vi'• i_-;•.r v'^' 352013 12/18/92 14:23 Rec $45.00 BY, 69a pr, 142SilviaDavis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $•00 Permanent preservation of r g o and emainin space within w P en P n the Cit :SEAS, the City Council Y madevelopmentplansfor p grant vesting Of site specificwarrantedinlightofallrelevantcircumstancesesinaccordancewith FC.R.S. Section 24-68-104{2); and F`r fnWHEREAS, subdivision and lot line adjustment were reviewed by theCityCouncil. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 0RDAINED 8YiASPEN,COLORADO: THE CITY COUNCIL of THE CITY OF k 8®at{oa 1 J That it does hereby approve the MoserecommendedbytheAspenPla s Lot 2 Subdivision as s Lots 2, 2A Aspen Alps South Road,CCitpsand nTownsite1ofAspensubjecttotheollowingconditions: Simultaneous with theandBshallbeconveyedtorthe Aspen Alps CondaminiumlAssociation at, Lots 2A subject to deed restrictions in favor and for the bens€it of theCityofAspenpermanent)said lots. Further developme ti Shall future application orcreditingofthelotstowardadditionallotareaforfloorarea,bedrooms and density Purposes for all existing or future Aspen AlpsCondominiumAssociationbuildings. For Lots 2A and 2B,z development shall include additional furtherfloorarea,density or major new recreational facilities such as tennis courtsFrandswimmingedroomsand g Pools. The deed restrictions shall be reviewed andapprovedbytheCityAttorney, 2. r: t, 7= A final plat and18odaysoffinal subdivision agreement shall be filed within E 18 land use approvalrPitkinCountClerkandRecordsOffice, the City Council in the v reviewed and m The final plat shall beapprovedbytheThe and Planning Departments,3. The final plat shall depict the following: a. Lots z, 2A and 2B; r b. ithatLots2Aand2BarerestrictedagainstanyfurtherdevelopmentoradditionalItareaforfloorarea, bedroomsxanddensitypurposesforallexistingandfutureAspenAlpscondominiumAssociationbuildings. The documents restrictingLots2Aand2Bshallhp n number, referenced by the Book and Page t•:ziU C. the new access onto Lot 1 Moses Lot Split; d. graphic descri `ion ofP the zoning designations for Lot 2• tai r i t 1. P122 VII.a x TWit+` 1 l` 1-g Lis 7 p?'+ r'` may. i"3' e; jL• LT j) ufii..t .. s ss 352013 12/18/92 14:23 Rec $45.00 BK 698 PG 143 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 e. no parking allowed along the Aspen Alps South Road unless approved by the Fire Marshal;1 i f. an easement indicating Lot 2 access off of the Aspen Alps N South Road. x - g. all improvements on Lot 2 including the entire length of the actual access road and the revised access easement as including the roadway surface; c h. the contents of the final plat must meet Sections 24-7- 1004-D.1 and -D.2 of the Municipal Code. There must be a 4 statement by the surveyor, either in a riurveyor's certificate or in a general note, that all easements of record have been shown on the plat. The date must be within the past 12 months; ft 1. in the event. any of the applicants obtain title to the IUSFS Tract as depicted on the plat they shall deed restrict I said tract against all development. Said deed restriction i- st•.all be in favor and for the benefit cf the City of Aspen and shall be approved by the City Attorney. 4. The width of the access easement to Lot 1 Moses Lot Split across Lot 2 shall meet code requirements (201). r egjotian 2 a: That it does hereby approve the Lot Line Adjustment between the Mi.tchali parcel and the Mitchell/Bornefeld parcel (to be conveyed i to the Aspen Alps Condominium Association) on Aspen Alps South Road y, yt. with the following conditions: KS 2. 9'::e lot line adjustment between the Mitchell parcel and theR Mitchell/Bornefeld parcel (to be conveyed to the Aspen Alps 1 Condominium Association) shall be depicted on the final subdivision n= plat for Moses Lot 2. 2. The final plat shall contain a note stating that no additional i'floor area shall be granted due to the increase in lot size of the Mitchell parcel.k Section 31 That it does hereby grant Veste Rights in perpetuity for this Subdivision, Lot line Adjustment, and 8040 Greenline including aX 5,000 square foot single family residence (allowable floor area which includes exemptions allowed for in, Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code) as approved by the Commission on April 7, 1992, Kit 4. please see Resolution 6 (1992), Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein) with conditions as follows: r ` i 3 r R,F l P123 VII.a k {. r&fir"' r. Y r F.E l at '- cT `.fi f 'I a ia'i"°_'1°, •a 1?t r-t-1.;,.s:<tS Kyn'c'v ', t b x-,.s , .. yt Y,v ,.,,fi s, _"+ L r Y y:yi h a 7r w '•,. x s ate' .., .•'' tii•' rF i i a+ '' k 352013 12/18!42 14:23 Rea $45.00 8K 698 PG 144 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 r F i. Any failure to abide by the terms and conditions r,: attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said vested rights. Failure t.j timely and properlyNt' record all plats and agreements as specified herein and or in the Municipal Code shall also result in the t , A orfeiture of vested rights. z 2. The approvals as granted herein are subject to all rightsJ of referendum and judicial review. 1 3. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall a exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent yams reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or the general rules, regulations or ordinances of the City provided that such reviews or approvals are not a , inconsistent with the approvals granted and vested herein. 4. The establishment herein of the vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical ra codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site development approval, the developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom ;s granted in writing. F faction 4g 4 The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be publishes. in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspeu no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof. n Such notice shall be given in the following form: j 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 pursuant to Title 24, Article 68, t Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following-xr described property: The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said 4 notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval. s'Asa saction 5._ 3 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision and such F holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions a Y amt., 4 I: V 3 OHIO- i 1n '. P124 VII.a Kam M- 352013 12/18/92 14:23 Re, $45.00 BK6 o Silvia Davis, Pit PG I4S kin Cnty Clerk, L thereof. This ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abateaent of any action or proceeding now pending Are under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein w provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Q( A public hearing on the Ordinance shall it Chambe se Aspen City day of at 5:04 P.l4• in the City s prior to which hearing air Hall, A. Colorado, fifteen (15) daY p public notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of tapen. u provided by law, by 28iTRODIICSD,A O$D ALD PEfaLYS Sm as p day of th City Council of the City of Aspen on the2992. r dsf John Bennett, mayor tj city Clark 11=. boob V, y e ors 35, adopted, passed and approved this day of 1992. 3 John Bennett, mayor ooh, city Clerk s rah•A Aao k h ` v 52 ` 4 t`-00_i t i 1 ` "'1 I`j y-,„,.-f S. '.:.`+R`-• :of ry .,•f W I,w,'- ° F `-\i`nsr 2 A- *•.,..,"mss' , R`r, I v, a4 r'r i i . + P125 VII.a 1 3' s 1s', S 1 a`u tt l:-'-*' ry_f C ,a C• -Kf i " a }Y ::1 z x s+° i°`"`.: 35201 12/18/92 14;23 Rec $45.00 Bf' 69e PG 146 City Count 1 4xhibit Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 Approved (L By Ordinance 5 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION L' APPROVING 4040 GREENLINE AND RECOMMENDING TO THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR LOT 2 OF THE MOSES LOT SPLIT, ASPEN ALPS SOUTH ROAD, ASPEN COLORADO r `r Resolution No. 92 WHEREAS, a duly noticed Public Hearing was held by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission";. on April y applic ation 7, 1992 to consider the 8040 Greenline and Subdivision for Lot 2 of the Moses Lot split; and WHEREAS, the applicant proposed to demolish an existing home t on Lot 2 and redevelop a single family residence;and C - WHEREAS, a 1987 Lot split created.Moses Lots 1 & 2 with a condition upon the size of the home not to exceed 3,800 square feet f of allowable floor area; and WHEREAS, the appli:—r,c proposed to increase the size of Lot 2 to encompass the open land area between four of the Aspen Alpsibuildings, the Mitchell House and the Aspen Alps tennis courts; and WHEREAS, the applicant proposed to retain enough land area required for a 5,000 square foot home in the R-15 Zone District and conve the rest of the lard area (approximately 3 acres) to the AspenyAlps to be deeded against further development; and WHEREAS, in exchange for conveying the open space to the Aspen Alps and deeding it against further development, the applicant hasrequestedanincreaseinthelimitedfloorareaofLot2upto 5,000 square feet of allowable floor area; and WHEREAS, the reconfiguration of Lot 2 and the conveyance of the rest of the parcel to the Aspen Alps requires subdivision review; and WHEREAS, the development of the new home is above the 8040 elevation thus requiring 8040 Greenline review; and r WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed the 8040 Greenline for the new single family residence; and 7 a NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the Commission that it i does hereby approve the 8040 Greenline for a new single family residence with the following conditions;F f S I. The allowable floor area of the new single family home shall be no greater than 5,OOG sq. ft. The height shall be 25 feet. ft L 2. prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall p'ovide 1 a letter from a registered professional engineer that all u applicable geotechnical concerns of the Lampiris letter Submitted 1 1 a-. P126 VII.a f >35 x ._.. y "`t' S _ .o.`.,, .cif' r '' t. iY• s s t r z Jz.•. 1_Y.IC LA jg I'{'' r 1 ; k,,. •rl' i'' 4d 1,-3-:! 352013 12/16/92 14:23 Rec $45.00 BK pG 147SilviaDavis, Pitk:in Cnty Clerk, Doc x.00 with the application have been complied with during construction. h This letter shall be accepted by the City Engineer. 3. The development shall meet on-site drainage retention requirements of Section 24-7-1OO4.C.4.f. 4. The applicant shall comply with all applicable City regulations addressing wood burning devices in th- new residential unit. s 5. All requirements for the R-15 (PDD) zone district shall apply. 6. All the required parking shall be provided on-site. E` 7. The applicant shall provide a housing mitigation fee pursuant to Ordinance 1, Series of 1990, for the demolition and redevelopment of the single-family home.19 8. No 'further development shall. occur on Lot 2 Moses Lot Split outside of this approved building envelope. 9. No vegetation shall be removed from the slope except as required by conditions 13 and 14. 10. Tree removal permits shall be required for those trees over 6" in caliper that are removed. Pursuant to representations made by the applicant 16 trees shall be preserved which include all of the Spruce trees. The applicant shall replace the seven Aspen trees which must be removed. 11. Any construction activities contemplated within the drip line of any trees greater than 611 in diameter must be approved by the Parks Department. 5 12. Mr. Moses shall work with the Parks Department to ensure that the two large pine trees on either side of the new drive will not be endangered by the new drive.l' r 13. Brush shall be trimmed.within 30' of the structure. This does Y not apply to a single specimen of trees or ornamental shrubbery used as ground cover provided they do not form a means of rapidly a transmitting fire from the native growth to any structure. f 14. Any portion of any tree with 10' from the outlet of any chimney shall be removed and any tree that is adjacent zo or overh-inging the roof shall remain free of dead wood. The roof shall be free of leaves, needles or other dead vegetation. u 15. The applicant shall work with the public agencies to ensure r`- that proper utilities are supplied to the new home ' and a I proportionate share of the public improvements to serve the project tits will be borne by the applicant. s q I : 4 2 L III oil I MIN1,1111110 H lC R a b:` P127 VII.a e ws F)° 1FS'w ,L r l' . `,, u il F+3,- L - ' ' i°. s i,r,'=•! 'u k,:,, . ysF .E"v j N a _i, '_' 4 ry "' S^^?kF R. - o- & 1. .. l"Yt -u C:lYi3'd'yrl'y.' g3520I3 12/18/92 14:23 Rec ^45.00 BY 699 PG 148 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Cler4 , Doc 3•+)O 4 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Commission recommends to the City Council subdivision approval of Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split with the following conditions: 1. A final plat and subdivision agreement shall be filed within 180 days of final land use approval by the City Council. A final plat shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Planning Departments. r 2. The final plat shall depict the following: a. the tennis courts (Lot 2B) and land on Lot 2 Moses Lot split that is conveyed to the Aspen Alps Condominium Association (Lot 2A).T b. Notes shall refer to Deed Book Page 1' indicating the restrictions against any further development e on Lots 2A and 2B, or additional lot area for floor area, bedrooms and density purposes on existing Alps buildings for the tennis courts lot and land conveyed by the owner of Lot 2 Mosey Lot Split. c. The new access onto Lot 1 Moses Lot Split. d. Graphic description of the zoning designations of Lot 2 e Moses Lot Split. No parking along the road unless approved by the Fire Marshal. f. An easement indicating Lot.2 Moses Lot Split access off of the Aspen Alps South Road. g. All improvements on the site including tlae entire length of the actual. access road and the revised access easement including the roadway surface. h. Tha contents of the final plat must meet Sections 24-7- 1 ti: + 1004-D.1 and -D.2 of the municipal cede. There must be a YS statement by the surveyor, either in a surveyor's certificate y t or in a general note, that all easements of record as u indicated on Title Policy No. __, dated have r been shown on the plat. The date must be within the past 12 months. i. The USFS tract, if conveyed to Mitchell/Bornefeld, or heirs and assigns shall be deed restricted against further 1 6evelopment. The width of the access easement to Lot 1 across of 2 shall 4 code requirements ( 201) . bS 4 3 i .......... . 1 2 ate,,: P128 VII.a H,J' 4 'T'. y x a 1r#}+ N 44'P'rt't i+S. 4.w3sc..f §': y ke11 S S 1 "c'{'•f(t1' TiT` 7r7 5 \2{`'l.:.F'"x'AC :: i ti4, 352013 12/18/92 14:23 Rec 545.00 3F; 698 PG 149 h, Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 of•, APPROVED by the Commission at their reqular meeting on April 21,r 1992. ATTEST: ASPEN PLANNING AND t' ll' ZONING COMASISSION h...'t.i.c.0 Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk Jasmine Tygre, Chair erson Y. rT.' 4 r 5 E P J I 4 1 F- S f R 1 Of yyy 11 4 i s a 1 V. 7 u'v zw 1+Yf 4 r r 3 M n yR. P129 VII.a EXHIBIT#7 RESOLUTION NO. 017 SERIES OF 2006) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING AN WO GREENLINE RE-vUW FOR A SIN GLE- FAN11LY RESIDENCE ON LOT 2, MOSES LOT SPLIT,CITY OF ASPEN,PITKIN COUNTY,COLORADO. Parcel No.273718256001 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Little Nell House 2, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc._, requesting approval of an 8040 Greenline Review to construct a new single-family residence on Lot 2, Moses Lot Split, and, WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 1.02 acres and is located in the R-15 (PI D)Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the proposed development is located at an elevation of approximately 8,080 feet: above sea level and is subject to 8040 Greenline Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.020,EnvirownentallySensitive Areas; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve development at, or above, or within 150 feet below the 8040 Greenline in conformance with the re,6ew criteria established in Land Ljse Code Section 26.435.030(C),8040 Greenline Review; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has reviewed the proposal and recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve with conditions the 8040 Grectiline Review, and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 2,2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved with conditions, by a 5-0 vote, the Lot 2, Moses Lot Split 8040 Greenline Review; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development0 proposal meet-, or exceed-, all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and 'Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution1 furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health,safety,and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING CO.NINIISSION as follows: Section 1, Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in"Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code,the Lot 2, Mc)scsLot Split 8040 Greenline Review to construct a new single-family residence on Lot 2,Moses Lot Split,is hereby approved-Mth the following conditions; 111 1111111111111 II III II1I11I1I I 525351 1 06g/ 16/2006 02:Z JANICE K v05 CPAJOILL PITKIN COUNTY -_ R 31-00 D 0.00 P130 VII.a 1. A final plat shall be filed within 180 days of final land use approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. A final plat shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Community Development Departments, 2. The final plat shall depict the following: a) A reference to the Replat of Lot 2, Moses .Lot Split and Final Subdivision Plat of Mitchell-Bornefield Property, recorded on Book 29, Page 6_5 at the Pitkin County Clerk and.Recorder's Office, incorporating and carrying forward Dedications, including Section 1 (A-D) and Section 2 (A-D), b) The access onto Lot 1,Moses Lot Split. c) An easement indicating Lot 2 access off of Aspen Alps South Road, d) <A statement by the surveyor, either in a surveyor's certificate or in a general note,that all easements of record have been shown on the plat. 3. The allowable floor area of the new single family home shall be no greater than 5,000 square feet.The maximum height shall be 25 feet. 4. No further development shall occur on Lot 2, Moses Lot Split outside of the building envelope approved by Resolution No. 017, Series of 2006. 5. All the required parking shall be provided on-site. There shall be no parking on Aspen:Alps Road. 6. Prior to obtaining a building permit, the applicant shall provide a housing mitigation fee pursuant to Section 26.470.040 (B)1. 7. An approved tree permit from the Parks Department will be required before any demolition or significant property changes take place. The tree permit must be approved prior to submission of the building permit. Mitigation for removals will be paid cash in lieu or adjacent to the site. Any excavation under the drip line permit will need to be approved along with the tree permit_ 8. Prior to obtaining a building permit, the applicant shall submit an engineering assessment of S. Alps Road, specifically regarding the load-bearing capability of the road in relation to the use of heavy construction equipment and emergency response apparatus, to be reviewed and accepted by the City Engineer. 9. The building permit application shall include the following: a) A copy of the final P&Z Resolution. b) The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c) An Excavation Stabilization Plan that will show the extent of the excavation, the location of constriction fences around the excavation, erosion control measures, spot elevations at the top and bottom of cuts, and site-specific construction drawings of the the excavation and stabilization measures. The Excavation Stabilization Plan must be 525351 0 5/16 200fi 02:21 0.0011yyI I co 31.t COUNTY R 3PSdICE K V45 CAUDSLL PITKIN COU P131 VII.a stamped by a Colorado Professional Engineer. For all excavation, the Contractor must comply with neighbor notification requirements stated in Section 3307 of the 2003 International Building Code. d) A Site Grading Plan stamped by a Colorado Professional Engineer, to ensure that the grading plan agrees with the drainage plan. Plans must demonstrate positive drainage away from structures as required by the Building Code(IRC—R401.3 and IBC-- 180-53.4). e) A Drainage and Erosion Control Plan and Report stamped by a Colorado Professional Engineer. On-site drainage is to be designed in accordance with the City of Aspen Engineering Design and Construction Standards. IBC Section 3307.1 requires that provisions be made to control erosion. The City requires a plan that shows the location of erosion control measures, drainage patterns, and details or erosion control structures. The plan must include notes that describe how erosion control measures will be regularly maintained. The erosion control plan must show the location of mud racks, the location of water for washing tires and the retention of the wash water. f) A letter from a registered professional engineer addressing the applicable geotechnical concerns of the letter by consulting geologist Nicholas Lampiris submitted as Exhibit C, and referenced in Condition 2 of the Planning Zoning Commission Resolution No. 92-6. This letter shall be accepted by the City Engineer. g) The soils and foundation report submitted as part of the land use application, from CTLIThompson, shall be reviewed and accepted by the City Engineer. h) A detailed landscaping;plan for approval by the City of Aspen Parks Department, The landscaping plan shall include but not be limited to, the following: A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the building permit set. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed witnin the drip line of any tree remaining on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee before any construction activities are to commence.. Root trenching will be required around all trees with excavation next to and/or under the drip line. Specific excavation techniques will be required for the excavation along the back of the property. Vertical excavation will be required anti over digging is prohibited in this zone. This note must be represented on the building permit set. 52b 35I III I ICI Mi 06/15/2006 Z2.2:Itil II IIill 00v1.00 RNICE K `105 GP.UDILL GITKItd CUNT. CO R 3 P132 VII.a A vegetation fence shall be installed along the edge of disturbance on the hillside. This protection fence must be maintained at all times; storage of materials,project access, construction foot traffic is prohibited beyond this fence. Restoration of the area along the fence line will be of native duality and approved by the Parks Department. Supplemental planting in the native area is prohibited unless first approved. Utility connections shall be designed on the plan in a manner that does not encroach into the tree protection zones. The landscape plan shall include four(4)blue spruce at a height of approximately 20 feet, to be located on Aspen Alps property to the north of Lot 2; four to six(4-5)Engelmann spruce to be located to the north of the building envelope on Lot 2; and the preservation of aspen trees to the north of the building envelope to the greatest extent possible, as per the agreement between the applicant and Aspen Alps. i) The building plans shall demonstrate an adequate fire suppression system approved by the Aspen Fire Marshal will be installed. A fire alarm system meeting the requirements of the Fire Marshal may also need to be installed at the discretion of the Aspen Fire Marshal. j) A wildfire mitigation plan shall be submitted. This plan shall be accepted by the Fire Marshall. k) A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. 1) A construction management plan that details the proposed method and means by which the site will be accessed with excavation and grading equipment during construction. This plan shall also detail the proposed construction parking,which shall demonstrate that except for essential trade trucks, no other personal trucks are to be parked in the area around the site. m) A letter from the primary contractor to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. n) The Applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m, Monday through Saturday. 10. The applicant shall comply with all applicable city regulations addressing wood burning devices in the new residential unit. 525351 Iflllf 11II I I II II illl4 II {06/16/2006 02:2: JPNICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 31.00 D 0.00 P133 VII.a 1, All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbirg Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code as they pertain to utilities. 12, All exterior lighting shall meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code requirements set forth in Land Use Code Section 26,575.150, as may be amended from time to tirnc Section 2: 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 developirient order, No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this resolution, 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 forni: 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, 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: Lot 2, Moses Lot Split, by Resolution No. 017, Series of 2006, of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. Section 3• All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission,are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4• This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall ll 525351 Page: 5 Cr 6IlllllleG/15/2006 02--Z:ICJPNE K VOS CAUDILL PTTKIN COUNTY CO R 31.0@ D 0.00 P134 VII.a be deemed a separate,distinct and independent pro-vision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on the l6th day of May,2006. APPROVED AS TO FORM. : PLANNING AND ZONING CE. MJVHSSION: Ci;'Attorney C air ATTEST: c k i e I.othi• ,Deputy City Clerk 525351 02:2: JANICE K VCS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CC R 31.00 0 0.00 P135 VII.a EXHIBIT#8 AMENDED RESOLUTION N0. 19 SERIES OF 2008) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING AN 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR A SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE ON LOT 1,MOSES LOT SPLIT, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO,COMMONLY KNOWN AS 800 SOUTH ASPEN ALPS ROAD. Parcel No.2737-182-56-003 WHEREAS, this resolution amends the resolution fled at reception no, 550520 by setting forth the actual resolution number and correcting typographical errors within the original resolution, including the resolution no. cited in Section 2 and correcting the approval date of the resolution; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Gerald Grayson, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., requesting approval of an 8040 Greenline Review to construct a new single-family residence on Lot 1, Moses Lot Split; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 0.6 acre and is located in the R- 15 (PUD)Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the proposed development is located at an elevation of approximately 8,056 - 8,130 feet above sea level and is subject to 8040 Greenline Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.020, Environmentally Sensitive Areas; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve development at, or above, or within 150 feet below the 8040 Greenline in conformance with the review criteria established in Land Use Code Section 26.435.030(C), 8040 Greenline Review; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has reviewed the proposal and recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve with conditions the 8040 Greenline Review; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 3, 2008,the Planning and Zoning Commission approved with conditions, by a 3 - 2 vote, the Lot 1, Moses Lot Split 8040 Greenline Review; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan;and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health,safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows: RECEPTION#: 571868, 07/0812010 at 02:10:49 PM, 1 OF 6, R $38.00 Doc Code RESOLUTIONPage106of120JaniceK. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO P136 VII.a Section I Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Tide 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code,the Lot 1, Moses Lot Split 8040 Greenline Review to construct a new single-family residence on Lot 1,Moses Lot Split,is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. The allowable floor area of the new single family home shall be no greater than 3,800 square feet. The maximum height shall be 25 feet. 2. No further development shall occur on Lot 1, Moses Lot Split outside of the building envelope approved by Resolution No. 019, Series of 2008. 3. All the required parking shall be provided on-site. There shall be no parking on Aspen Alps Road. 4. An approved tree permit from the Parks Department will be required before any demolition or significant property changes take place. The tree permit must be approved prior to submission of the building permit. Mitigation for removals will be paid cash in lieu or adjacent to the site. Any excavation under the drip line permit will need to be approved along with the tree permit. 5. Prior to obtaining a building permit, the applicant shall submit an engineering assessment of S. Alps Road, specifically regarding the load-bearing capability of the road in relation to the use of heavy construction equipment and emergency response apparatus, to be reviewed and accepted by the City Engineer. 6. The building permit application shall include the following: a) A copy of the final Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution. b) The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c) An Excavation Stabilization Plan that will. show the extent of the excavation, the location of constriction fences around the excavation, erosion control measures, spot elevations at the top and bottom of cuts, and site-specific construction drawings of the excavation and stabilization measures. The Excavation Stabilization Plan must be stamped by a Colorado Professional Engineer. For all excavation, the Contractor must comply with neighbor notification requirements stated in Section 3307 of the 2003 International Building Code. d) A Site Grading Plan stamped by a Colorado Professional Engineer, to ensure that the grading plan agrees with the drainage plan. Plans must demonstrate positive drainage away from structures as required by the Building Code(IRC—R401.3 and IBC — 1805.3.4). e) A Drainage and Erosion Control Plan and Report stamped by a Colorado Professional Engineer. On-site drainage is to be designed in accordance with the City of Aspen Engineering Design and Construction Standards, IBC Section 3307.1 requires that provisions be made to control erosion. The City requires a plan that shows the Page 107 of 120 P137 VII.a location of erosion control measures, drainage patterns, and details of erosion control structures. The plan must include notes that describe how erosion control measures will be regularly maintained. The erosion control plan must show the location of mud racks, the location of water for washing tires and the retention of the wash water. f) A soils and foundation report, shall be reviewed and accepted by the City Engineer with the Building Permit. g) A detailed landscaping plan for approval by the City of Aspen Parks Department. The landscaping plan shall include but not be limited to,the following: A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the building permit set. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee before any construction activities are to commence. Root trenching will be required around all trees with excavation next to and/or under the drip line. Specific excavation techniques will be required for the excavation along the back of the property. Vertical excavation will be required and over digging is prohibited in this zone. This note must be represented on the building permit set. A vegetation fence shall be installed along the edge of disturbance on the hillside. This protection fence must be maintained at all times; storage of materials,project access, and construction foot traffic is prohibited beyond this fence. Restoration of the area along the fence line will be of native quality and approved by the Parks Department. Supplemental planting in the native area is prohibited unless first approved. Utility connections shall be designed on the plan in a manner that does not encroach into the tree protection zones. h) The building plans shall demonstrate an adequate fire suppression system approved by the Aspen Fire Marshal will be installed. A fire alarm system meeting the requirements of the Fire Marshal may also need to be installed at the discretion of the Aspen Fire Marshal. i) A wildfire mitigation plan shall be submitted. This plan shall be accepted by the Fire Marshall. Page 108 of 120 P138 VII.a j) A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. k) A construction management plan that details the proposed method and means by which the site will be accessed with excavation and grading equipment during construction. This plan shall also detail the proposed construction parking, which shall demonstrate that except for essential trade trucks,no other personal trucks are to be parked in the area around the site.' The management of the Aspen Alps Condominium Association shall be consulted in the preparation of the Construction Management Plan, 1) A letter from.the primary contractor to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. m) The Applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m, Monday through Saturday. 7. The applicant shall comply with all applicable city regulations addressing wood burning devices in the new residential unit. 8. All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code as they pertain to utilities. 9. All exterior lighting shall meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code requirements set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, as may be amended from time to time. Section 2• 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. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this resolution, 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, 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: Lot 1, Moses Lot Split, Page 109 of 120 P139 VII.a by Resolution No. 19, Series of 2008, of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission,are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein,unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on the 3rd day of June,2008. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Jim True,Assistan 4rian Spe A Chair ATTEST: J ekie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Page 110 of 120 P140 VII.a EXHIBIT#9 RESOLUTION NO.47 Series of 2011) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A REINSTATEMENT OF THE VESTED RIGHTS GRANTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 19,SERIES OF 2008 FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 1,MOSES LOT SPLIT,COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 605 S. ASPEN ALPS ROAD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS 800 S.ASPEN ALPS ROAD),CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 273718256003 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Alan Richman Planning Services representing South Alps Road, LLC, requesting approval of a reinstatement of the vested rights granted for the subject property pursuant to Resolution No. 19, Series of 2008; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission adopted Resolution No. 19 (Series of 2008),which approved an 8040 Greenline review to develop a single family residence; and WHEREAS,the applicant's vesting period expired on June 22,2011; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.308.010 Vested Property Rights of the Land Use Code, City Council may grant an extension or reinstatement of vested rights after a public hearing is held and a resolution is adopted; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the application and recommended approval of an reinstatement of vested rights for a period of approximately 3 years until June 22,2014; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the request under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director,and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing;and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the reinstatement of vested rights proposal for a period of two years meets or exceeds all applicable land use standards and that the approval of the extension of vested rights proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan;and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health,safety,and welfare. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Resolution No.47,Series of 2011 Page ] of 2 P141 VII.a Section 1: The Aspen City Council does hereby approve a reinstatement of vested rights as approved by Resolution No. 19, Series of 2008 for a two (2) year period through June 22, 2013, conditioned on the following: A. That the establishment herein of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical, and mechanical codes, and all adopted impact fees that are in effect at the time of building permit,unless an exemption is granted in writing. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the City Council,are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein,unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 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. Section 5: A duly noticed public hearing on this Resolution was held on the 11 th day of July,2011 at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers,Aspen City Hall,Aspen,Colorado. FINALLY,adopted, passed,and approved by a +Vf-gone t4-Ovote on this 11 th day of July,2011. Approved as to form:Approved as to content: John orcester,City Attorney Michael C.Ireland,May Attest: A&' V ) V*,,— Kathryn S. c ,City Clerk Resolution No.47,Series of 2011 Page 2 of 2 P142 VII.a EXHIBIT#10 PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY,OF ASPEN THE UNDERSIGNED (hereinafter referred to as the "Petitioners") hereby petitions the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado for the annexation of an area, to be referred to as the South Portion of Lot 1, Moses Lot Split Annexation, to the City of Aspen. Said area, consisting of approximately 9,254 sq. ft. (0.21 acres) of land is more particularly described on Attachment A, attached hereto. The Petitioners allege: 1. That it is desirable and necessary that such area be annexed to the City of Aspen. 2. That the requirements of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-108 Colorado Revised Statutes exist or have been met. 3. That not less than one-sixth (1/6) of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is contiguous with the boundaries of the City of Aspen. 4. That a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the City of Aspen. 5. That the area proposed to be annexed is urban or will be urbanized in the near future. 6. That the area proposed to be annexed is integrated with or capable of being integrated with the City of Aspen, Colorado. 7. That the Petitioners herein comprise more than fifty percent (50%) of the landowners in the area and own more than fifty percent (50%) of the area to be annexed, excluding public streets, alleys and lands owned by the City of Aspen. WHEREFORE, said Petitioners request that the City Council of the City of Aspen approve the annexation of the area described on Attachment A, legal description of the annexation area. The petitioners reserve the right to withdraw this petition and their signatures therefrom at any time prior to the commencement of the roll call of the City Council for the vote upon the second reading of the annexation ordinance. Individual Petitioners signing this Petition represent that they own the portion(s) of the area described on Attachment A. P143 VII.a Sr- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have executed this Petition for Annexation this7 day of 2012. Petitio er/Owner's Signature Petitioner/Owner's Printed Name d 4- A, Address City, State,Zip P144 VII.a EXHIBIT#11 Nicholas hampiris, PhD- CONSULTING GEOLOGIST 0185 INGERSOLL LANE z SILT,COLORADO 81652 303)963.3600(24 HOURS) January 20, 1992 Alan M. Richman. AI CFA u. Box 3613 Aspen CO. 81612 RE: Aspen Alps Lot Dear Mr. Richman: I have completed my geologic investigation of the proposed building site on the maps which accompany this report. The building .site lies -al-ong the east. slope of the -lobe containing the Little Nell Ski Run. This is in the southern part of the Town of Aspen, within the Aspen 7 1/2 minute quadrangle, Ritkin County, Colorado. gentle east slope near a small The building site lies on a g native grasses. debris fan surrounded by trees and covered by other Aspen 1ps It is between the home of Gaard Moses an with the building buildings. The lot is irregularly shaped envelope as shown. The geology of the site consists of clays, silts, sands, gravels and boulders of colluvial and some lmaterialstareal deposited perhaps hundreds of years ago.generally graded and sorted and are probably between 50 and 70 feet thick at this site. The underlying bedrock cannot be determined but is probably one of the Paleozoic carbonate orsandstoneunitsfracturedbyfaultingcommontothisarea.This faulting is mostly from 30 million years ago and" there is no evidence of recent activity. It is still prudent to design the home to conform to Seismic of the UniformZoneII Building Code. The fan which has been discussed is a geologic concern,resent problems to the but can be mitigated and should not p the home site becausofothe the f1ows- The building and sitehis away relative low energy but instability from the base of the steep slope to the re. west , in this steep slope is possible; therefore, the rear (west? wall of the home should be at least s f of e to abD pounds s per Grade and designed to accept forces o p Square foot. There should be no doors or. windows in this interval within the six foot level . If the steep slope in cut , he rear the toe of the slope. wall shoi:l d also act as a retas ning__wal l to e material of the site is suitable for the development of a 31 P145 VII.a single family home, but soils engineering studies should be performed at the site specific level to insure proper k foundation design, especially in view of the possibility of t hydrocompactive soils on the fan. Final landscapino should include positive drainage away from the home in all directions, particularly because flowltolreach possible near the sote. of the mud slurry from a debris Dater for domestic use and waste disposal will be through municipal sources. The access already exists to the site. This is generally a qood site from a geologic standpoint, but the previous recommendations should be followed. Additionally, the home should be designed. to preclude the accumulation of radon+ big gas as this is becoming standard practice in the State. If {here are further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Nicholas Lampiris Consulting Geologist t s 3 P146 VII.a A Ma j 12 11 O6: 56P PINNACLE DESIGN 970-704-0215 P. 1 EXHIBIT #12 May 13, 2011 PINNACLE DESIGN CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Ms. Trish Aragon 805 SUCK POINT ROAD City Engineer CARBONDALE, Co 81623 130 South Galena 970-963-2170 OFFICE#970-704.0215 FAX Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 675 South Alps Road, Aspen, Colorado Dear Ms. Aragon: This letter is written to satisfy your concern with regard to condition no. "f' of Resolution No. 17 of 2006, as it relates to the residence constructed at 675 South Alps Road under Building Permit No. 007212 W&ARBU. My opinions are in part based on my review of the following documents that were submitted as part of the Building Permit Application for 675 South Alps Road: Lot 2, -Alfoses Lot Split qradingIg Arainagre, arn&Erosion Cqnprol,,,Iitigarion Plan, .141,ip en, 'A;107 ack;, by Hans E. Brucker, PE, dated and revised as of April 4, 2007; the Soils and FoupVJation 1;7vesligation Single-1,'amily Residence, prepared by-. CTL Thompson Incorporated, dated September 8. 2005-1 and the Permanent Ground Nail Walls report by Yea and Associates, Inc., dated August 9, 2007 With regard to those items in Dr. Lampiris' letter dated January 20, 1992, 1 have the followingZD responses: 1. Debris Flow According to Dr. Lampiris, the subject building site"lies on a gentle east slope near a small debris fan", Dr. Lampiris, makes no mention that the building site is actually in the debris fan and therefore, any debris flows in his opinion, if experienced, will be the"low energy" variety. The closest portion of the building on Lot 2, is located more than 150 feet from the ce:nter of the debris flow known as Guard's Gulch" based on a recent ground survey. In addition, the structure is separated via another single- family dwelling, located on Lot 1. I have also reviewed the City of Aspen"Maximurn,Flow Depth, 100-Year Event, Mudflow through City" and based on this map, the nearest mudflow depth of 2 feet occurs near the bottom of Aspen Alps Road approximately 275 feet from the project From a practical standpoint,the approved grading and drainage plan was designed to provide positive drainage away from the residential structure, in accordance with standard design practices_ In addition, the back retaining wall was constructed in a curvilinear shape and is approximately twelve (12) inches above the natural grade with substantial separation from the main residential structwe. The design, therefore, will tend to divert mud and debris around the structure more so than a segmented, angular designed retaining wall. P147 VII.a Mai 12 11 06: 56P PINNACLE DESIGN 970-704-0215 p• 2 May 13, 2411 PINNACLE DESIGN Ms. Trish Aragon CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Page 2 of 3 Based on my experience with the design and construction techniques used on the site, the residence has been substantially mitigated against a low probability, low energy debris flow.tp It should be noted that a portion of the structure originally on the site was constructed in the 1880's and there is no evidence of any previous mudflow, or debris flow events. Furthermore, mature trees in the area that existed prior to construction, showed no sign being within a similar type event. The residence as constructed is more than sufficient to address known debris issues notwithstanding Dr. Lampris' letter from almost twenty years ago. 1 Seismic Concerns With regard to Dr. Lampiris' concerns for seismic activity, according to the State of Colorado "Seismic Hazard Map", the City of Aspen currently experiences low seismic a,,,-tivity. In fact, the Peak Acceleration (%g)with 2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 years is approximately 18. In most cases -elated to residential construction, this would not warrant special design attention. And in all cases, consideration for,the type of structure (residential or commercial), geometry including size, shape, and height would play a more critical role in ascertaining whether or not to employ seismic design techniques. Dr. Lampiris states in his letter that the"faulting is mostly from 30 million years ago, and there is no evidence of recent activity." Furthermore, the site-specific soils and foundation investigation prepared by CTL Thompson made no mention of the need to employ special considerations with regard to seismic activity, Therefore, in my professional opinion, Dr. Lampiris is being overly cautious with regard to suggesting that it would be "prudent to design the home to conform to Seismic Zone 11 of the Uniform Building Code (which no Icnper exists). This is especially true considering that Dr. Lampiris he had no idea on the final house design parameters. The City reviewed and approved a site specific—construction document specific structural plan that was stamped by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer who has, with his stamp, taken on the liability of the structure. Tae residence as constructed is more than sufficient to address known seismic concerns and issues notwithstanding Dr. Lampris' letter from almost twenty years ago. P148 VII.a May 12 11 06: 56P PINNACLE DESIGN 970-704-0215 p• 3 May 13, 2011 PINNACLE DESIGN Ms. Trish Aragon CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Page, 3 of Slope Instability The slope was soil nailed based on a design provided by Yea and Associates. Based on my review, their design took into consideration all of the site-specific soils and foundation investigation prepared by CJL Thompson. Yea and Associates, also based on my review, took into account issues with slope stability by the virtue of the fact that they employed a soil nail wall, which is contemporary and often a preferred alternative to the wall design offered up by Dr. Lampiris in 1992. Again, the City reviewed and approved a site specific--construction document specific stamped structural engineering plan for the walls, which should alleviate any concerns with regard to the retaining wall structural integrity and slope stability issues. The residence as constructed using the soil nail design provided by Yea and Associates sufficiently address known site specific soil conditions. 4. Hvdrocomvactive Soils A site specific soils investigation was conducted for the site by CTL Thompson Incorporated, arid based on their independent investigation, hydrocornpactive soils were not encountered in the localized area. The final foundation design, to the best of my knowledge, was based on the site-specific soils report as was suggested by Dr. Lampiris. The City reviewed and approved a site specific—construction document specific foundation based on the report from CTL Thompson Incorporated that confirmed that there were no issues as a,result of hydrocompactive soils, Sincerely, Pinnacle Design Consulting Group, Inc. By: 44IP7' I IVP Hans E. Brucker, P.E. P149 VII.a EXHIBIT#13 May 1 tl,2011 Icie Jackson, LLC Attn: Sant Carmody 390 Park Avenue New Fork, New York 10022 Job No. III 114A Subject: Geotechnical Site Evaluation, Residence on Lot 2,Moses Lot Split, 675 South Alps Road, Aspen; Colorado Dear ,\/1r. Carmody: As requested, the undersigned representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geoteclulical, Inc. met with Gary Krill and Scott Scherer of Schlumberger Construction at the subject site on May 12, 2011 to evaluate the potential geologic impacts to the residence on the lot. The findings of our evaluation are presented in this report. We were provided a subsoil study report conducted for design of foundations at the site by CTL/Thompson(2005) and a set of architectural drawings by Charles Cunniffe Architects dated between March 2006 and February 20011 that have been considered in our evaluation. The evaluation was conducted according to our agreement for professional services with Sang Carmody dated May 12, 2011. Background 'Information: The subject site was originally occupied by a single story log residence that had an address of 900 South Alps Road. The current residence on the same lot has the address of 675 South Alps Road_ In 1992, a geologic assessment was performed by Nicholas Larnpiris (1992) apparently for the subdivision of the property that became known as Tots 1 and 2, Moses Lot Split of which the original cabin residence was located on what became Lot 2. 'hhe proposers building area was described by Mr. Larnpiris as being surrounded by trees and covered by native grasses, indicating it was vacant. Subsequently, the cabin residence was razed as part of the development for the current residence on Lot 2. Mr. Larnpiris identified several geologic conditions that should be considered in the property(Lot 1) development, generally consisting of seismic risk, potential debris flow impacts, steep slope instability potential, and potential hydrocornpactive soils impacts to the nets building. An email fi-om Tricia r'uragon, PE of the City of Aspen, dated May 12, 2011, requested that the potential impacts identified by Mr. Lampiris be evaluated to show that they have been adequately addressed or mitigated by the current property=development. P150 VII.a Icie Jackson, LLC May 16, 2011 Page 2 Geotechnical Evaluation: My evaluation of the site has shown that the potential impacts to the property identified by Mr. Lampiris have been adequately mitigated by the current development. The following discussion is presented for each of the concern. SEISMIC RISK Mr. Lampiris stated that the home design should conform to Seismic Risk Zone II of the Uniform Building Code. The seismic risk at the property is the same as that for the Aspen area and consists of the 1997 Uniform Building Code, Seismic Risk Zone 1. Based on our understanding of the earthquake potential in this part of Colorado,we see no reason to increase this accepted seismic risk zone for the region. The structural engineer on the project could be contacted to verify that the structure foundation has been designed for this seismic risk level. DEBRIS FLOW POTENTIAL The potential for debris flow impact to the property identified by Mr. Lampiris is from the ephemeral drainage located south of Lot 2. The property described by Mr. Lampiris indicates the potential impact is mainly to Lot I located south of the original cabin residence on Lot 2. The discussion by Mr. Lampiris does not appear to include the original cabin residence site(Lot 2)that is now occupied by the new residence. Based on our review of the property, the new residence is located outside of the primary area of potential impact described by Mr. Lampiris and mitigation_requiring no window or door openings for the first 6 feet above ground level to protect the new residence from debris flow would not be needed. There appears to be a remote possibility that if debris flow was to impact the residence on Lot 1 there could be flow diverted north away from the natural drainage channel. The breakout flows could go around to the north side of the Lot 1 structure. The drainage swales between these two residences are graded to take the potential flow or site runoff to the east away from the buildings. If the flow potential to Lot 2 needs to be quantified, a flow model study could be performed. STEEP SLOPE INSTABILITY POTENTIAL The new residence on Lot 2 was developed by cutting into the steep slope in the west part of the lot and constructing a retaining wall separate from the residence. We understand that this wall was constructed using soil nails by Yenter Companies but we have not been provided their design drawings. The top of the retaining wall corresponds to the ground surface of the steep slope where a foot trail about 5 feet wide is located the entire wall length. Recommendations for retaining wall design were provided by CTL/Thompson 2005) for this wall condition. No indications of wall movement, such as wall rotation or ground cracks, were observed during our recent site visit. Based on our observations and the information provided, the retaining wall appears adequate to maintain the original Job No. 111 114A P151 VII.a lcie Jackson, LL.0 May 16, 2011 Page stability ofthe hillside and the cut for the wall should not adversely impact the residence. The structural engineer on the project for the wall could be contacted to verify that the retaining wall has been designed for the recommended.values. POTENTIAL 1-1YDRO0ONIPAC`I'IVE SOILS The alluvial fan deposit of the drainage located to the south of Lot 2 could tend to settle when wetted (hydrocompact) under load. The natural soils encountered on Lot 2 by CTLThompson (2005) were described as being relatively dense, gravel, cobbles and boulders and the risk of(slab) movement to be low. No settlement risk to foundations was discussed in the CTL/Thompson report. Lot 2 is located well to the north of the drainage and may be off of the alluvial fan soils described by Mr. Lampiris as being potentially hydrocompactivc. Based on our observations of the site, the information provided in the C'TL,'Thompson report and our experience in the area, the hydrocompactive soils, if present, should have been adequately mitigated by the foundation design of the new residence. The structural engineer for the residence could be contacted to verify that the foundation has been designed for the recommended values and conditions. The findings submitted in this report are based on our observation ofthe site, the information provided and our experience in the area. Our services did not include observation of the interior of the residence. Variations in the site, building conditions or subsurface conditions not identified by this review could change the findings contained in this report. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please call our office. Sincerely, HEPWORTH - 1'AWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 1, 1L5222StevenL. Pawlak, P.E' Rev. by: DEI-1T A Uil Y4 i fh©nnasoe4• t]P SLP;ks,,v OF COLS cc: ScIllumberger Construction -- Attn: Gary Krill Mason & Karbank - Attn: Neil Karbank ( ei,lk nihr ' ulc c5t,11e;t) Alan Richman i Job No. 111 114A GecPteclh P152 VII.a Icie Jackson, LLC May 16, 2011 Page 4 References: CTL/Thompson, 2005, Soils and Foundation Investigation, Single-Family Residence, 900 South Alps Road, Aspen, Colorado, prepared for John Olson Builder, dated September 8, 2005, Project No. GS04603-120(without map attachments). Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D., 1992,RE:Aspen Alps Lot, prepared for Alan M. Richman, AICP, dated January 20, 1992. Job No. 111 114A GegteCfh P153 VII.a EXHIBIT#14 May 23, 2012 Alan Richmond Ti i F,CITY OFAsPEN 675 South Alps Road Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 675 South Alps Road (AKA 900 South Alps Road) - Permit#0195.2006.ARBK After reviewing the building permit file on 675 Aspen Alps Road, the City has determined that the property has not satisfied condition No. 9 (f) of Resolution No. 17- 2006. (attached) As a result, the City will need a letter from a registered professional engineer, that addresses the applicable geotechnical concerns as listed in Dr. Nick Lampiris' letter dated January 20, 1992. attached) These concerns include mitigating the following: Debris Flow Seismic Concerns Slope Instability Hydrocompactive Soils If the concerns have not been mitigated, then the appropriate analysis must be completed, which complies with the City's Urban Runoff Management Plan requirements and applicable City Standards. If this analysis shows that mitigation of the concerns listed above is not necessary,the City will accept that analysis as satisfying condition No. 9 (f) of Resolution No. 17. Please note that it is the position of the City that neither letter previously provided to the City Engineer adequately addresses the concerns set forth above. We will need this information within 30 days of receipt of this letter. Sincerely, Trish Aragon, PE, City Engineer Attachments: Resolution No. 17—2006 Dr. Nick Lampiris' letter dated January 20, 1992 P154 VII.a EXHIBIT #15 AYeh and Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers&Scientists June 15, 2012 Project No. 212-100 Mr. Sam Carmody Icie Jackson LLC 390 Park Avenue, 18th Floor New York, New York 10022 Subject:Geotechnical Consultation 605 and 675 South Alps Road, Aspen, Colorado Lots 1 and 2, Moses Lot Split Dear Mr. Carmody: This report presents Yeh and Associates, Inc. (YA)geotechnical consultation to address condition No. 9.f of Resolution No. 17 - 2006 for the residence at 675 South Alps Road (fka 900 S. Alps Road) in Aspen, Colorado. At the request of the client, our investigation also included the adjacent lot at 605 South Alps Road. We were requested to visit the sites and conduct a debris flow hazard evaluation for both sites. We were also requested to provide our opinions related seismicity, slope stability and hydrocompactive soils in response to comments provided by the City Engineer in recent emails to the client. Our scope consisted of site reconnaissance and review of previous reports and the building plans for the residence. We were provided with the following documents: RE: Aspen Alps Lot" by Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D. Consulting Geologist, January 20, 1992. Soils and Foundation Investigation, Single-Family Residence, 900 South Alps Road, Aspen, Colorado" by CTL/Thompsons, Inc., Project No. GSO4603-120, September 8, 2005. Permit set of plans that included grading, architectural and structural drawings. Lot 2, Moses Lot Split, Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control, Mitigation Plan, Aspen, Colorado" by Pinnacle Design Consulting Group, Inc., April 4, 2007. Re: 675 South Alps Road, Aspen, Colorado" by Pinnacle Design Consulting Group, Inc., May 13, 2011. Geotechnical Site Evaluation, Residence on Lot 2, Moses Lot Split, 675 South Alps Road, Aspen, Colorado" by HP Geotech, Job No. 111 114A, May 16, 2011. Re: 675 South Alps Road (AKA 900 South Alps Road) — Permit#0195.2006.ARBK" by City of Aspen, May 23, 2012. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on our site observations and experience regarding geotechnical issues only and our review of previous reports and plans. Our findings, conclusions, and opinions should not be considered applicable if the site was altered after our site visit without Yeh and Associates' prior review to determine if these opinions remain valid. SITE CONDITIONS: YA personnel visited the sites on June 6, 2012. The sites are located near the upper end of South Alps Road. A residence is located at 675 South Alps Road (Lot 2). 1 700 Fast Evans Avenue, Denver. CO 80222. ( 303 ) 751 -9590. Fat (303) 781 -9583 1525 Blake Avenue. Glenwood Springs. CO 81601 . (970) 384- 150(1, Fax (970) 384- 1501 570 Turner Dri % e. Sure D. DnlanLO, Co 8 1303. (970) 382-9590. Fax (970) 382-9583 P155 VII.a Geotechnical Consultation Project No.212-100 605 and 675 South Alps Road 605 South Alps Road (Lot 1) is vacant and landscape operations were in progress to re- vegetate the area where the cabin was previously located (it was demolished in 2011). The lower portion of Lot 1 (south of the residence) consisted of relatively gentle slopes. The slopes above both lots are moderately to very steep with grades up to 1 H:1 V and steeper. The slopes are heavily vegetated. A trail is located about halfway up the slope and traverses behind both lots. A gondola line is located near the top of the slope. Photo 1 shows the current configuration of Lot 1 looking towards Lot 2. The topography presented in Figure 1 for Lot 1 does not appear to be consistent with site observations. The topography was likely altered during demolition of the cabin that was located on Lot 1. The surveyor informed us that the topography provided to us was not updated since before demolition of the cabin. Also, conversations with the surveyor indicated that the topography for the slopes above the lots was performed with aerial photography and that the heavy vegetation may account for inaccuracies. Figure 1 presents the location and facing direction for photos presented in the report. C: 1 Photo 1 —Lot 1 looking towards Lot 2. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our reconnaissance and review of previous reports and plans, we are providing our opinions and conclusions relating to debris flow hazards, seismicity, slope stability and hydrocompactive soils. Debris Flow Hazard Figure 1 presents our field mapping of the drainage channels in and above Lots 1 and 2. Our observations suggest that the topography presented in Figure 1 has inconsistencies as compared to what was observed in the field. As explained above, this is due to the fact that aerial photography rather than field surveying was used to determine topography in this area. The heavy vegetation likely made accurate surveying of the slopes difficult. The foot bridges and culverts presented on Figure 1 were located by YA personnel. The locations of these structures should be considered approximate. For Lot 2, the existing channels are insignificant and slopes above the residence are heavily vegetated. We observed a single channel capable of concentrating flow. This channel is located at the north end of the lot (Figure 1). Based on our observations, the channel does not have a defined source area to generate potential debris flows (see photo 2). The upper portion of the channel widens and terminates at the ski slope where the grades drain away from the subject site. Without a sufficient source area, we believe this drainage would not produce a debris flow event and would likely produce clear water flows. A storm water inlet is located below the drainage to accommodate these flows. In summary, we believe the debris flow hazard for Lot 2 is negligible and that mitigation is not required. Since there is a negligible 2 P156 VII.a Geotechnical Consultation Project No.212-100 605 and 675 South Alps Road debris flow hazard for Lot 2, a quantitative debris flow analysis is not necessary for this lot. Therefore, we conclude that the recommendation in the 1992 Lampiris letter requiring that there should be no doors or windows in the rear wall of the residence within the lower 6 feet of the structure does not apply to Lot 2. f L F s Photo 2—Area above Lot 2 channel For Lot 1, the existing channels are more defined and are capable of debris flow events. Several small ephemeral drainages were observed in the south and west portions of Lot 1. Our observations indicated that these drainages are located within a single large channel as shown on Figure 1. Photos 3 and 4 present typical ephemeral drainages above Lot 1. The source areas for these drainages appear to be located to the south and west of the subject site beyond the project limits. Observations suggest that the source areas and channel sizes are adequate to produce a debris flow event. As shown on Figure 1, two potential debris channels are presented. The primary channel would likely carry minor to large events. The secondary channel mapped would likely carry very large to extreme events. The secondary channel or area would carry flows from large events that exceed the capacity of the primary channel. Generally, the secondary channel is an "overflow" area in the case where a large to extreme event occurs and fills the primary channel or if the primary channel was to become blocked. Based on our observations and experience, we believe the risk that an event large enough to exceed the capacity of the primary channel is low. 7 . Photos 3 and 4- Ephemeral drainages in Lot 1 3 P157 VII.a Geotechnical Consultation Project No.212-100 605 and 675 South Alps Road Considering the well developed vegetation and previous channel scour observed, we estimate that typical debris flows would be minor to moderate events with flow depths of 3 feet or less. Flows of less than 3 feet would likely be confined to the primary channel, while flows greater than 3 feet could also spread to the secondary channel. In summary, our investigation indicated that a portion of Lot 1 is within a debris flow hazard area. Design requirements and/or debris flow mitigation would likely be necessary for structures planned on Lot 1. Specific recommendations would depend on type and location of proposed structures and would be based on a quantitative flow analysis that should be performed prior to the development of Lot 1. Seismicity In his 1992 letter, Dr. Lampiris recommended the residence be designed to conform to Seismic Zone II of the Uniform Building Code. At the time the structural design was completed in 2007, the governing design document would have been the 2003 International Building Code (IBC). The 2003 IBC does not contain seismic zones as did the UBC. Therefore, Dr. Lampiris' recommendation was not applicable at the time the design was performed. Our review of the structural plans prepared by Redwine Engineers indicated that the residence on Lot 2 was designed based on the 2003 IBC for Site Class C. The report by CTL/Thompson CTL) made no mention of site specific seismic design requirements. Based on review of the test pit logs by CTL, we believe Site Class C would be appropriate for design of the residence. We conclude that potential seismic concerns were properly accounted for in the design from a geotechnical standpoint. Slope Stability For Lot 2, YA prepared a permanent soil nail wall design for the residence at 675 South Alps Road (fka 900 South Alps Road) under Project No. 27-255, plans dated August 9, 2007. The soil nail wall was designed to provide a minimum global factor of safety of 1.5 for the excavation and wall at the back of the residence. Observations of the soil nail wall behind the residence suggest the system is performing well. We did not observe evidence of slope instability within the wall or on the slope above the wall. In summary, the soil nail wall was designed to provide appropriate global stability of the system and observations suggest the system is performing well. For Lot 1, if structures are planned near the base of the existing slope, we recommend a global stability analysis be performed. The site specific analysis would depend on type, location and depth of the proposed structure(s). Hydrocompactive Soils For Lot 2, the soils investigation prepared by CTL did not encounter hydrocompactive soils. The report indicated that dense gravels were encountered at depths of 7 feet or less. CTL recommended that foundations be placed on these gravels. Review of the plans, indicates that foundation levels were significantly greater than 7 feet below grade, suggesting that foundations were constructed on the gravels as recommended by CTL. In summary, the site specific investigation did not encounter hydrocompactive soils and therefore no specific design requirements for foundations placed on hydrocompactive soils are necessary. For Lot 1, a site specific geotechnical investigation should be performed prior to design of structures at this site. Hydrocompactive soils could be encountered within the buildable portions of Lot 1. Ground modification and/or deep foundations may be required to mitigate hydrocompactive soils if encountered on Lot 1. 4 P158 VII.a Geotechnical Consultation Project No 212-100 605 and 675 South Alps Road LIMITATIONS: The recommendations in this report are based on our field observations.. experience and review of the documents provided. Our opinions and conclusions related to debris flow events are based on anticipated natural processes such as precipitation events. Our recommendations do not account for manmade flows due to collection and/or diversion of surface or ground water If modification of the source areas or diversion of flows is performed. please notify YA immediately so that we can review our report in light of those conditions and provide supplemental recommendations as necessary Yeh and Associates has prepared this report for the exclusive use of Icie Jackson LLC for 605 and 675 South Alps Road. Aspen.. Colorado. This report was prepared in substantial accordance with the generally accepted standards of practice for geotechnical engineering as exist in the site area at the time of our investigation. No warranty is expressed or implied. Respectfully submitted YEH AND ASSOCIATES,4NC. Richard D. Johnson. P E. r Project Manager u P159 VII.a PAOto 3 JAL an o econ C anne Pboto trtl In--— or xi P' a ebri s n b. ob OBOE K 1-1C lPlv99oG) LOT 1 RomneMa or Woof Feet BAUye DRAVN BY, RDJ —^ AT 6/7/2012 PROJECT. NOTES'. CHECKED BY RDJ DATE 6/7/2012 605 and 675 South Alps Road I. STRUCTURE LOCATIONS WERE NOT SURVEYED AND DESIGNED FOR- IdI,J.k—LLC ARE APPROXIMATE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE INDICATES PHOTO LOCATION AND FIGURE CABIN AND STRUCTURES PRESENTED ON LOT 2. Photo 3 ARROW SHOWS DIRECTION FACING. PROJECT NUNBER, 212-,DD 2. TOPOGRAPHY AND SURVEYED STRUCTURES SCALE Approximate Extents of 1 PROVIDED BY PINNACLE DESIGN CONSULTING Yeh and Associates,Inc. HGRI2 1'=30' CONTOUR INTERVALS 2' GROUP, INC D IF De Debris Flow Channels Consulting Engineers&Scientists P1 6 0 VI I . a EXHIBIT #16 p m-m- fj F s-1 n'm2 970-963-2-Hrj . 970-704-62iii FAX LOT 2, MOSES LOT SPLIT GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL MITIGATION PLAN ASPEN,, COLORADO Prepared For: Gerald Grayson 800 Aspen Alps Road South Aspen, Colorado 81611 Prepared By: Hans E. Brucker, PE Pinnacle Design Consulting Group, Inc. 0805 Buck Point Road CarboTp i 71 -f-' W.4' do 81623 Revised April 4, 2007 EXHIBIT D 0 P161 VII.a f PINNACLE 0E-51CN- CONSULTING GROOPi INC. LOT 2,MOSES LOT SPLIT ASPEN, COLORADO GRADING, DRAINAGE,AND EROSION CONTROL MITIGATION PLAN INTRODUCTION This drainage evaluation is concerned with mitigating increased storm water impacts on surrounding drainage patterns,resulting-from construction of a new-residence located at 900 Aspen Alps Road South in Aspen, Colorado. A site visit was performed as part of this evaluation to verify, to the extent possible, the existing flow regimes and to provide the necessary input data required to model storm water runoff quantities. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The current residence is located on Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split in Aspen, Colorado and is bordered on the north and west by the Aspen Alps, on the east by the Aspen Chance Subdivision and on the south by Lot 1 of the Moses Lot Split. The current lot has a gross land area of one (1) acre and includes vegetation consisting of mostly native grasses, Aspen Trees, Serviceberry, and Spruce Trees. The lot is considered steep, with natural grades of around 42 percent sloping from southwest to northeast. There are no known major drainage basins directly on the property, however, a drainage known as Guard's Gulch is located approximately 130 feet to the east from the easterly edge of the building envelope. This particular drainage collects storm water and snowmelt from the easterly portion of Aspen Mountain and conveys it down to Ute Avenue. A soils report has been conducted on the site and indicates a fill of silty sand with gravel, cobbles and boulders overlying a layer of silty sandy topsoil. Approximately seven feet below the surface, the soil matrix is silty sandy gravel with cobbles and boulders. Ground water was not encountered during the soil exploration, however, during the spring months when snowmelt is at is peak a perched water table can exist in the area. Currently, no subsurface storm drainage or curb and gutter exists within the Aspen Alps South access road. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS AND DESIGN Per the City of Aspen Design and Construction Standards, latest addition, mitigation of the on-site storm water runoff should be based on a 2-year return period storm, in part because the developed portion of the parcel (approximately 8,791 square feet) is less than 33% of the total open space of 43,665 square feet on the lot. 2 P162 VII.a PINNACLE DESIGN CONSULTING GROUP, INC. The Rational Method has been recommended by the City of Aspen as the basis for determining the on-site storm water detention required in this particular case and can be formulated by the following equation: Q= CIA Where: Q=Peak Discharge, cfs for the return period C=Runoff Coefficient I =Rainfall Intensity, inches/hour A=Drainage Area, acres EXISTING CONDITIONS Runoff Coefficient, "C" The runoff coefficient is selected according to the drainage basin characteristics including the effects of infiltration, evaporation, retention, flow routing andinterception, which affect both the time distribution and peak runoff rate. Many references are available for selection of runoff coefficients. Calculating a composite coefficient produces more accurate results when applicable. For a 2- year storm, the historic, recommended runoff coefficient, from the City of Aspen Design and Construction Standards is 0.20 for sandy soils with grades in excess of 7% grade. Rainfall intensity, "I" The rainfall intensity is the average rainfall rate in inches per hour for the period of maximum rainfall of given frequency, and a duration equal to the time of concentration. Our experience with the conducting drainage evaluations in the Aspen area, has shown time of concentration values on smaller lots, to be less that 10-minutes. We will therefore use a minimum time of concentration value of 10-minutes for use in selecting both the historic and developed storm intensities. Based on the time-intensity frequency curve for the Aspen area, the intensity for a 10-minute time of concentration, is approximately 1.7 inches per hour for a 2-year return period storm. 3 P163 VII.a i PINNACLE DESIGN CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Drainage Area: The total drainage area of 23,743 square feet selected for the project includes only that portion of the lot above the eastern edge of the access drive to Lot 1 of the Moses Lot Split. The area includes 0.545 acres calculated as follows 23,743/43,560) and shown on the drainage mitigation plan. Calculations: Using the information developed previously,the peak historic runoff rate for the 2-year return frequency, is calculated as follows: Qh= CIA I = 1.7 in/hr. Or: Qh= (0.20)(1.7)(0.545) = 0.18 cfs DEVELOPED CONDITIONS For the fully developed conditions, the runoff coefficient "C" is modified to reflect the addition of impervious areas, landscaping, and other features resulting from new project improvements. The difference is excess runoff that must be stored on-site to minimise damage to down-gradient facilities. Due to the limited land area, we are proposing the use of drywells for storing storm water in this case. Based on the City of Aspen, Design and Construction Standards, a developed runoff coefficient for all hardened surfaces of 0.95 is recommended. The fully developed composite runoff coefficient for the residential addition can be calculated as follows: Given: Roofs, Driveway, Walks = 8,791 sf = 0.202 acres; C2= 0.95 Landscaping/Greenbelt = 14,952 sf = 0.343 acres, C2= 0.20 Total area= 23,743 sf = 0.545 acres; C2 = [0.95(8,791) + 0.20(14,952)]/(23,743) C2=0.48 (fully developed conditions for new construction only) 4 P164 VII.a 1-_ PINNACLE DESIGN CONSULTING GROUP, INC. i r Since the developed time of concentration will be shorter in duration than the i historic condition, use a minimum 10-minute time of concentration for the fully developed conditions. Based on the time-intensity-frequency-curve for the Aspen area, the intensity for a 10-minute time of concentration is 1.7 inches per hour for a 2-year storm frequency. Calculations: Using the information developed previously, the peak rate of runoff for the 2-year storm event, for the fully developed conditions is as follows: Qd=CIA Qd=(0.48)(1.7)(0.545) = 0.44 cfs The increase in peak runoff associated with the development is therefore: Qd—Qh= 0.44—0.18 =0.26 cfs The volume of excess runoff that requires mitigation can be estimated using the 60-minutes standard storm duration as required by the City of Aspen, Design and Construction Standards. VA,ge = [(60 min)(60 sec/min)x Qd—Qb] Vmge= [60(60)x 0.26] =936 fft3 Drywell infiltration per USDA, Soil Survey of Aspen-Gypsum Area, Colorado, Table 15 Soil # 107, Permeability= 6-20 in/hr. Use (6+20)/2 in/hr for study or 13 in/hr. Assume a 60-inch diameter drywell with bottom 4 feet having active percolation. A=7011+ (7r/4)D2 A=Drywell Area, sq ft H=Percolation Height, ft D =Diameter of Drywell, ft For each drywell(D = 5') the percolation area is as follows: A= (3.14)(5)(4) + (3.14/4)(52) 5 P165 VII.a i 4. PINNACLE DESIGN CONSULTING GROUP, INC. A= 82.4 ft' Therefore the Infiltration rate "I"per for a single drywell is as follows: f I= ((13 in/hr)/(12 in/ft))(82.4 ft2)/(60 min/hr) = 1.49 ft3/min/drywell 1 i Therefore: F Vdrywell Infiltration=I x 60 min =60(1.49)(1) = 89.4 ft3 F I 3 Check drywell volume, assuming usable storage height is 10.0 feet with a 60" diameter. Assume no percolation is included in final drywell volume calculations. F f s Vdrywell = (7c/4)D2H r Where: H=Total storage height, feet D= Diameter of drywell, feet Vdrywell= (3.14/4)(5)2(10.0) Vdrywell = 196.3 ft3 Assume a minimum of 24" of washed rock around the bottom 4 feet and under the base, the drywell storage volume will be increased accordingly and can be calculated as follows (assuming a 40% void ratio): 2Vscreenedrock = [(,n/4)DH (7r/4)Dd,,w'. 2 H] (0.4) Vscreened rock =[(3.14/4)(9)2(6)—(3.14/4)(52)(4)](0.4) Vscreened rock = 121.2 ft3 Therefore, the total storage volume for one drywell not including infiltration is as follows: Vdrywell total= 196.3 ft3 + 121.2 ft3 = 317.5 ft3 Calculate total number of drywells required: drywells=Vstorage/Vdrywen drywells= 936 ft3/317.5 ft3 per drywell 6 P166 VII.a PINNACLE DESIGN CONSULTING GROUP, INC. d,yH,ejj, =2.95 =3 drywells total Use three (3) drywells having a minimum storage height of 10 feet (12' overall), with 24" of 1-1/2" washed rock on the bottom and sides. (See Grading and Erosion Control Plan and Details). A separate drywell should be installed for perimeter drain as required by the City of Aspen. EROSION CONTROL Due to the disturbance proposed on the lot, special care should be taken to minimize the impact of storm water runoff on down-gradient receiving areas. Existing slopes should be retained to the extent possible with mechanical retaining walls if required, and should not be constructed steeper in gradient than a 1.5:1 horizontal to vertical unless retained. In addition, all excavations should be planned to minimize, to the extent possible, damage to surrounding vegetation. Slopes steeper than 2:1 horizontal to vertical should be revegetated with erosion control blankets as soon as possible after excavations have occurred. In addition, silt fence should be erected on the down-gradient side of all disturbed areas (See Grading and Erosion Control Plan and Details). MAINTENANCE Catch-basins should be checked for debris buildup on an annual basis. Any encountered debris should be removed as required to ensure that facilities are working properly. Drywells should be checked annually during construction and on an every other year basis after construction, to ensure that they are functioning as designed and to check for debris buildup. If debris and silt are encountered, they should be removed via pumping or other mechanical means. Temporary silt fence should remain in place until all areas on the lot are completely revegetated. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Positive drainage should be constructed away from the building foundation in accordance with the minimum requirements of the soils report. 2. Three (3) 60-inch diameter drywells should be installed as shown on the grading, drainage and erosion control plan(see Sheet C 1 of 3 for location). 7 P167 VII.a PINNACLE DESIGN CONSULTING GROUP, INC. 3. The foundation perimeter drains, based on City of Aspen requirements, cannot be routed to the same drywell as the surface drainage system and therefore an additional 60-inch diameter, 18 foot deep drywell should be installed. The drywell should be installed in accordance with the soils report dated September 8, 2005 or as specified on the plans prepared by Pinnacle Design Consulting Group, Inc. 4. An additional 60-inch diameter drywell should be installed to mitigate water from the under slab drain piping specified in the soils report. 5. New improvements shall maintain historic offsite flow patterns. 6. Erosion control measures recommended above should be strictly followed. 7. Seed mixtures and fertilizer shall be applied by spraying them on 3:1 or steeper gradient slopes in the form of an aqueous mixture. Seeding mixtures and application rates shall be in accordance with the final specifications on the landscape plan. 8. All seeded areas shall be mulched, as a separate process, with straw at a rate of 1.5 tons/acre. Straw will be applied in a uniform manner using standard straw blowing equipment. Areas not accessible will be mulched by hand. Mulched areas, not covered by an erosion control blanket, shall be secured by an approved tackifier. 9. Maintenance for drainage facilities should be in accordance with the aforementioned maintenance section. 10. A separate 12' x 50' vehicle tracking area should be constructed with 1-1/2" screened rock on the construction access area to prevent mud tracking on Aspen Alps Road South. 8 P168 VII.a EXHIBIT #17 675 South Alps Mud and Debris Flow Analysis rIwlrl') F Prepared for: Sam Carmody 390 Park Avenue, 18th Floor New York, NY 10022 Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc 130 Ski Hill Rd, Suite 130 p ';;>>, P.O. Box 1659 M'°` . Breckenridge, CO 80424 August 29, 2012 xt• °•° `' j'srr us t tniul'•'``• P169 VII.a 675 South Alps,Aspen Colorado Mud and Debris Flow Evaluation INTRODUCTION The owners of the residence located at 675 South Alps are currently requesting a permit for an addition to an existing home. As part of the review process,the City of Aspen has required the owner to address potential mud and debris flow. The purpose of this report is to evaluate the mud and debris flow at the residence and provide recommendations for mitigation, if necessary. 675 South Alps (project site) is located on Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split in Aspen Colorado, near the base of the Aspen Mountain (Figure 1). Ym try, i at 675 South Alps k` Figure 1.Vicinity Map. The property was previously occupied by several smaller cabins. In 1992 the property was subdivided into Lots 1 and 2. Approximately 5 years ago a new residence was constructed on Lot 2. In addition, structures on Lot 1 were removed and the area landscaped. Several previous analyses completed for this property and utilized in this mud and debris flow evaluation are summarized below: 1. Letter from Nicholas Lampiris Ph.D. Consulting Geologist to Alan Richman, AICP, January 20, 1992, RE Aspen Alps Lot. 2. Letter from HP Geotech to Icie Jackson, LLC, May 16, 2011, Subject: Geotechnical Site Evaluation, Residence on Lot 2, Moses Lot Split, 675 South Alps Road, Aspen, Colorado. 3. Letter from Yeh and Associates, Inc., June 15, 2012, Subject Geotechnical Consultation, 605 and 675 South Alps Road, Aspen Colorado, Lots 1 and 2 Moses Lot Split. 4. Report for Lot 2 Moses Lot Split, Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Mitigation Plan, Aspen, Colorado, prepared by Pinnacle Design Consulting Group, Inc. for Gerald Grayson. Tetra Tech Page 1 P170 VII.a 675 South Alps,Aspen Colorado Mud and Debris Flow Evaluation PROJECT DESCRIPTION The owners of Lot 2 are proposing three modifications to the existing structure: the addition of a front entry mud room, an enclosure above the deck for an office/yoga studio and enclosure at the rear for the outdoor cooking area. A copy of the 2007 architectural site plan is appended to this report as well as building elevations for the current(2012) proposed modifications. Previous reports indicate the project site consists of silty sand with gravel, cobbles and boulders. The slopes uphill of the residence are steep, sloping at approximately 40 to 50%. The area surrounding the home site is landscaped and slope gently from west to east. A drainage system has been designed and installed including roof drain drywells located in the front of the residence. A site visit was conducted on August 7, 2012 by Peggy Bailey and Alaina Smith of Tetra Tech to assess existing conditions at the residence as well as the uphill contributing watershed. The existing residence was constructed in 2007. The building foot print is somewhat irregular,generally spanning an area that is 85 feet from side to side and 50 feet front to back. The house is located with the front to back perpendicular to the slope of the lot,which generally runs uniformly toward the westerly(back side) of the house (Photo 1). i i Photo 1. 675 South Alps looking at east face of residence. A retaining wall of varying height separates the back side of the house from the hill with a porch approximately 10 feet in width. The tributary drainage area and land uphill from the wall is densely populated with a mix of shrubs and aspen trees with some intermixed conifer trees.The top of the wall is flush with the ground on the uphill side (Photos 2 and 3). Tetra Tech Page 2 P171 VII.a 675 South Alps,Aspen Colorado Mud and Debris Flow Evaluation 6 rte E ii Photo 2. Patio and retaining wall located at the rear of the residence. I Trr n Photo 3. Retaining wall at the rear of the house near the driveway. S Tetra Tech Page 3 P172 VII.a 675 South Alps,Aspen Colorado Mud and Debris Flow Evaluation STUDY APPROACH The City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan 2010 (URMP) sets the guidelines for mud and debris flow analyses within the city limits. From Section 7.1 Mudflow Analysis in Storm Drainage Master Plan (URMP), This chapter applies to all new development and redevelopment within the City of Aspen that lies in blue or yellow mudflow zones. The blue mudflow zone includes areas on or within 200 of a slope greater than 30% defined on the City of Aspen slope map(can be located in the City GIS or Engineering department. The shallow mudflow zone are those areas south of Durant that are located within the 2-ft mudflow depth on the 100-year mudplain map in the Master Plan as shown on Figure 2. Blue mudflow zones—For development projects that will modify existing grades or create additional obstructions buildings, roads, etc.)in blue mudflow zones, the applicant must perform an analysis of the 100-year mudflow event to demonstrate that the proposed development will manage mudflow impacts to his/her site and neighboring site to the maximum extent practicable,providing appropriate safety from mudflow impacts that are physically and economically feasible. From Section 7.4 Requirements for New Development and Redevelopment; Mudflow analysis for new development and redevelopment shall be conducted by a Professional Engineer with past experience with mudflow analysis, preferably with post experience using FLO-21). FLO-2D is the preferred method for mudflow analysis. However, the City is willing to accept other models or analyses that ore based on the following factors: Type and quality of soils Evidence of groundwater or surface water problems Depth and quality of any fill Slope of the site and adjacent sites Weight that proposed structure will impose on slopes For areas falling within the delineated mudflow plain, as established in the Surface Drainage Master Plan, where mudflow depths are greater than 2 foot, modeling analysis should follow the steps below. Mudflow analysis using modeling methods may also be required for other mudflow hazard areas not shown in the Master Plan at the discretion of the City Engineering Department. The property at 675 South Alps lies outside of both the blue and yellow zones, however,the property is within the tributary basin that could potentially generate mud flow, creating the mud depths depicted in the yellow and blue zones. Thus the City 'requested an analysis to demonstrate that the proposed development will manage mudflow impacts to his/her site and neighboring site to the maximum extent practicable, providing appropriate safety from mudflow impacts that are physically and economically feasible.' Tetra Tech Page 4 P173 VII.a fir. f '' , r, P174 VII.a 675 South Alps,Aspen Colorado Mud and Debris Flow Evaluation The residence of 675 South Alps is somewhat unique in that the original FLO-2D study did not extend far enough up the hillside to include the residences. Specifically this means that the property is located uphill from the inflow nodes used in the FLO-2D model (Figure 3). Approximate location of project site, uphill and outside of FLO-2D model limits r sus ' ,.`.' lt'7 j , S • j4 ` Y . . Filth. F' J1 3..Z•. Figure 3. Location of 675 South Alps residence relative to the FLO-21D model boundaries Prior to the URMP,the City of Aspen completed the Surface Drainage Master Plan (SDMP) for the City of Aspen in 2000. This plan delineates the subbasins which contribute flow to the town in the form of both clear water and mud and debris flows. Figure 4 notes the location of the residence within the basin boundaries.The estimated contributing watershed for the project site is approximately 0.5 acres, subdivided between subbasins 14 and 15 as identified in the SDMP. Tetra Tech Page 6 P175 VII.a 675 South Alps,Aspen Colorado Mud and Debris Flow Evaluation 1\: -__=-' iV l _ i t4-. It` . _ 1 1`'4/rf- i '7,1 1 o`_- _ 'i:i.:._ .O 1\?`l tb I,/ .-` max.\ S: - --. 1; z. .; 1• t ti.aY D6 675 South Alps an gt,4 • d contributing watershed I./ rte `.?ISt'•'--=` C;•\```:"` ':^ __ 1 •L/-.. '- k?- _ _`^•'^ .^:yam_.. 1•:`1':.1:-•J`-- •b`:'. L7a 1 ter_=-y SV_= _ -;11r='i a; .- •. ,\\.__.? \.`::. -._ . J.`1`\?•w'Y C/v J/':/'/=! / i ids •' ` i+\. '` )` t ,V ,_____ _` iJ 1,// a/'.\C Y y^`,\:" `'-•` l '• - _. .'h i ..• ate..-.`\ r.- -_Z. `;,t_`'_ / ,} Irs.vim (l,', J+ '-. ti•'.. Figure 4. Drainage basins per the SDMP. The goal of this analysis is to estimate the volume of mud that could be generated in the 0.5 acre watershed immediately above the residence. Given the relatively small basin area above the residence and the proximity of the residence above or outside of the FLO 2D study area,an approximate estimate of mud is developed for use in preparing mitigation recommendations. EVALUATION The SMDP indicates that for a 100-year rainfall the precipitation is 1.89 inches for a 2-hour storm. Spread out over the 0.5 acres, reduced for losses,and bulked for sediment, it is estimated that approximately 2,020 cubic feet of mud could be generated in a 100-year event. This estimate is based on the 2-hour storm distribution presented in the SDMP,and conservatively assumes a saturated condition such that there are no depression losses and initial infiltration losses are negligible. Infiltration and depression loss values are based on guidance from the Urban Drainage and Flood Control Drainage Criteria Manual, Volume 1,2007. The overall storm is then bulked to 20%average sediment concentration. Mud flow concentrations can vary depending on the amount and intensity of rainfall watershed conditions. Typically a lesser event,such as a 25-year rainfall,will produce higher concentrations of mud,say 30%, due to lower volumes of water as compared to the 100-year, but the overall volume of the 100-year rain and mud flow event will be greater than the 25-year rain and mud flow event. Thus the 100-year event is modeled with a 20%mud concentration. Table 1 presents a summary of the 100-year 2 hour storm as described and is based on values presented in Table 2 of the SDMP, including the rainfall distribution for a 2-hour storm and total precipitation values. Tetra Tech Page 7 P176 VII.a 675 South Alps,Aspen Colorado Mud and Debris Flow Evaluation Table 1.Storm distribution and mud flow estimate. Time Rainfall 100-yr, 2-hr Infiltration Rainfall less Distribution Rainfall Losses Infiltration min percent in/hr in/hr in/hr 5 2.0% 0.033 0.05 0.00 10 4.0% 0.065 0.05 0.02 15 8.4% 0.137 0.05 0.09 20 16.0% 0.261 0.05 0.21 25 25.0% 0.408 0.05 0.36 30 14.0% 0.228 0.05 0.18 35 6.3% 0.103 0.05 0.05 40 5.0% 0.082 0.05 0.03 45 3.0% 0.049 0.05 0.00 50 3.0% 0.049 0.05 0.00 55 3.0% 0.049 0.05 0.00 60 3.0% 0.049 0.05 0.00 65 3.0% 0.049 0.05 0.00 70 2.0% 0.033 0.05 0.00 75 2.0% 0.033 0.05 0.00 80 2.0% 0.033 0.05 0.00 85 2.0% 0.033 0.05 0.00 90 2.0% 0.033 0.05 0.00 95 2.0% 0.033 0.05 0.00 100 2.0% 0.033 0.05 0.00 105 2.0% 0.033 0.05 0.00 110 2.0% 0.033 0.05 0.00 115 1.0% 0.016 0.05 0.00 120 1.0% 0.016 0.05 0.00 Subtotal 1.89 1.2 0.93 Bulk 20%for mud, inches 1.11 Tributary area, ac 0.50 Total mud flow,ft3 2020 The uphill watershed generally slopes uniformly toward the residence and the rear retaining wall. Observations of the wall indicate that it is generally flush with the uphill ground and will therefore divert very little mud around the wall. Thus should a mud flow event occur,the mud will likely move over the top of wall and drop onto the patio and parking area immediately to the rear of the home. The wall spanning the home and driveway is approximately 140 feet long. Assuming a somewhat uniform interception along the length of the wall it is estimated that the mud volume will be 15 cubic feet per linear feet of wall, deposited over the 10 foot wide patio, with mud depths of 1.5 feet. This is an average. Mud depths will likely be deeper near the toe of the wall and shallower near the house. RECOMMENDATIONS AND MITIGATION A minimum of three feet of freeboard is recommended for all walls that will have direct impact forces from mudflow and debris. Freeboard is defined as additional height from the top of mud to account for additional protection in the event tree and rock debris is mobilized with the mud flow. Freeboard also provides protection for unpredictable and unforeseen mud flow movement and irregular deposition. Ideally a structure would be constructed with no breakable openings (windows or glass doors) below the Tetra Tech Page 8 P177 VII.a 675 South Alps,Aspen Colorado Mud and Debris Flow Evaluation recommended mud depth plus freeboard. Walls and solid doors would be designed to withstand the mud flow loading and an impact load from the debris. In the case of 675 South Alps,the flow depths along the rear of the residence are estimated to be 1.5 feet. With three feet of freeboard the windows would be placed at a minimum of 4.5 feet above the patio level. However,the existing structure, constructed in 2007,was built with windows and doors along the rear face, some of which extend below the 4.5 foot level (Photo 4). Photo 4. Windows and doors along the rear face of residence. S Several options are possible for providing mitigation for the residence. The first option would be to elevate the existing retaining wall, or construct a second wall up-hill of the first, approximately 4.5 feet above the uphill grade to capture and divert the mud and debris. The wall would be orientated so as to split the flows around the north and south ends of the wall and residence. A second option would be to reinforce the windows and doors along the rear face of the home (including the use of impact-resistant glass)to withstand mud and debris impact loads. Note that doors along the rear face will become obstructed and egress may not be possible if an event were to occur as evaluated herein. Mud and debris could also reach and impact the east and west sides of the home. However because most of the flow will likely be intercepted on the rear patio,the depth of mud will likely be minimal with minimal ability to transport debris. Therefore one-foot of freeboard should be sufficient on top of an estimated one foot of mud for a total of two (2)feet from the ground to the bottom of any window openings on the east and west sides of the home. Doors will likely be obstructed but not likely to have significant mud and debris loading. Tetra Tech Page 9 P178 VII.a 675 South Alps,Aspen Colorado Mud and Debris Flow Evaluation With either mitigation option,the mud volume is relatively minor and will likely be deposited within the boundaries of the property either on the patio or within the landscaped area surrounding the house. Thus it is unlikely the home site and mitigation will alter offsite mud flow depths and flow patterns. Note that this estimate is based on current watershed conditions. Should conditions change, particularly conditions that might change the conditions of the vegetation such as a fire, mud and debris flows may exceed those determined in this evaluation. In addition, it is possible that large rock and boulders could mobilize uphill of the project site without mud flow. LOADING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXTERIOR WALLS There are three types of loading conditions that should be considered relative to mud and debris flows: impact loading from debris (primarily rocks and trees) in the frontal wave of the mud, flow momentum loading and post flow loading. These loading conditions apply to the extension of the existing retaining wall or the addition of a second retaining wall. These loading conditions also apply to the rear of the existing residence (where it is important to verify that the existing walls are designed to handle these loads), use of impact resistant glass and design of the proposed outdoor cooking area. Tetra Tech recommends that a qualified structural engineer registered in the State of Colorado design these walls. Tetra Tech Page 10 P179 VII.a EXHIBIT #18 INDEMNIFICATION AND LAND USE PROCESS AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made as of December 5, 2012 (this "Agreement"), by and between ICIE JACKSON LLC, a Colorado limited liability company having an address c/o Manson Karbank Burke, 604 West Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 ("Owner"), and THE CITY OF ASPEN, a Colorado Home Rule Municipality, W-1-T-N-E-S-S-E-T-H: WHEREAS, Owner owns real property legally described as: Lot 2 as shown the Replat of Moses Lot Split(a lot line adjustment) and Final Subdivision of the George P. Mitchell and H.A. Bornefeld, Jr. Property according to the Plat thereof recorded in the Pitkin County, Colorado Clerk and recorder's office on September 3, 1992 in Plat book 29 at Page 65 as Reception No. 348317 and the Lot 2, Moses Lot Split 2"d Amendment recorded July 14, 2006 in Plat book 80 at Page 5 as reception No. 526459 (and excepting any portion thereof lying within Lot 1, Moses Lot Split, as shown the Plat recorded June 26, 1987 in Plat Book 19 at Page 83 as reception No. 290474)— also known as 675 South Alps Road (and formerly known as 900 South Alps Road), Aspen, Colorado (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, a home (the "Home") was constructed on and is located on the Property, and the City issued a Certificate of Occupancy for the Home on January 7, 2010; and WHEREAS, Owner wishes to submit, to the City, a land use application seeking the City's permission so that Owner may (among other things) modify the Home and adjust the lot line between the Property and adjacent lands owned by an affiliate of Owner(the "Land Use Application"); and WHEREAS, in the 1992 subdivision approval, a geologic assessment performed by Nicholas Lampiris identified several geologic conditions concerning mud and debris flow, down the lower slopes of Aspen Mountain, onto the Property that were to be mitigated by the property owner (the "Geotech Matter"); and 1/.19.12 mkb P180 VII.a WHEREAS, Owner engaged Tetra Tech, Inc., ("Tetra Tech") to investigate the Geotech Matter and its potential impact on the Home, and Tetra Tech performed that certain and issued a report titled "Mud and Debris Flow Analysis", dated August 29, 2012 (the "Tetra Tech Analysis"), attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Tetra Tech Analysis made recommendations for mitigating the Geotech Matter (collectively, the "Tetra Tech Recommendation") ; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to receive and review and process the Land Use Application provided that Owner agrees to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, Owner and the City hereby agree as follows: 1. Owner's Acknowledgment. Owner acknowledges that the City has raised the Geotech Matter and that Owner owns, uses and operates the Home and the Property subject to the Geotech Matter and to such consequences as may arise from the Geotech Matter, and that Owner, and not the City, is responsible for any such consequences. 2 Indemnity. Owner hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the City harmless from and against any and all liability, losses, damages, claims, demands and costs (including reasonable attorneys' fees) incurred by the City arising from damage to the Home or the Property or from injuries or deaths in the Home or otherwise on the Property, in each case, as a result of the failure to follow or the delay in following the Tetra Tech Recommendation. 3. Tetra Tech Recommendation. Owner agrees to follow through completion, at its expense and within one (1) year from the date of this Agreement, the Tetra Tech Recommendation. 4. Land Use Application. The City agrees to accept Owner's covenant to follow (through completion) the Tetra Tech Recommendation as satisfaction of the Geotech Matter, and the City agrees to process the Land Use Application according to its normal policies and practices but subject to and in accordance with this Agreement. Owner agrees that the Land Use Application shall contain Owner's covenant to follow, through completion, the Tetra Tech Recommendation as and in the time period provided herein. P181 VII.a 5. Term; Covenant Running With The Property; Successors and Assign . The indemnity contained herein shall be perpetual and such indemnity, together with the other terms and conditions of this Agreement, shall be deemed a covenant running with the Property and shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors and assigns, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above-written. ICIE JACKSON LLC By: Neil d. Karbank, an authorized agent Approved as to Form By: James R. True, City Attorney THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO By:__ Date: City Manager P182 VII.a STATE OF COLORADO ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN On this 5th day of December, 2012, before the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared NEIL D. KARBANK and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his-capacity as an authorized agent of icie Jackson LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, as the act and deed of such company. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal.ki day and year in Aesl ertificate first above written. v i Notary Public within and for said County and State My comm ss ton-etc pieis w..«...........W........ r st k sk*eri[Yryct*tixp[9c YC:kt 9rksk*fit*+t r P183 VII.a DRAWINGS P184 VII.a w it LIN awk awe SRI N BROW loot MOSES LOT SPLIT TICIAITTITIAP Feet of the features depicted and is not a legal representation. The accuracy may change depending on the enlargement or reduction. Copyright 2012 Aspen/Pitkin GIS TueApr 17,2012 C:%GISktempXApr112VAoSesLotSpIft P185 VII.a OF QWNERSHIP LOT 1CERTIFICATE KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that South Alps Road LLC, a Colorado LLC,being the sole owner of Lot 1,Moses Lot Split as shown on the Plat recorded June 26,1987 in Plat Book 19 at Page a3 as Reception No.290474,Firkin County,Colorado does hereby Plat sold real property under the ra and style of Moses Lot Spilt let Amendment being a r.Plot of a portion of the City of Aspen replotted In C- __ aee°rdan a with the Plat oe shown hereon. sRTFICATE OF OWNERSHIP LOT 2 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 61- N9hfh R` Or Amended Lot 1 Moses Lot Split 605 Aspen Alps South Road) d KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that Ibis Jackson LLC, K,^ ; ,co v-h ` ED pe 'P \'P Mt o a Colorado LLC,being the sale owner of Lot 2 The northerly portion of that certain real properly beling within the southerly 9 0 w lD a F 's°,Nil n Or oy\P iz Ral let of Lot 2 Moses Lot Split(A Lot Line Adjustment)and Final s Lot Split a aid Lot 1 s shown upon that certain and H.A. ornefdd Jr.Property Paton o/Lot 1 Maine s P orh slo„ Sf o;' 9 ito d± G'A\••Q:-_ 5ubdIA.on Plat of the Georg,P Mitchell y Plat entitled'Moses Lot Split"fled n the off..of the clerk and recorder 0. R R o f,y according to the plat Hereof recorded SeptemDV 3.1992 In yonofPitk'n Count Jun°26 1987'n Plat Book 19 al Page B3 aid real property Rd h 69 Hosea Lot 5 lit O/,S s Bunn PI _.. Mt^ Plat Book m of Page 65 are Receptor No. lot Bo and the Lot 2 p being more particularly described are follows Bunny n q R: 2nd Amendment a offs a July 14,2006 d Plot Book f at Page 5 are Reception 1 L1V No.526459 m the office of the Clerk and Recorder o1 Pitkn County,Colorado Comm en.In at a ant whence a BtN Brass Cap bang Corner No.1,Aspen Townsite 1r `Ce„ 1e TTIF CERTIFICATE LOT 1 Face to ton ther-f wthn Lot 1,Hosea Lot Split as shown on the boors South 85'24'12'East 92028 feet,thence South 43'14 52"West 2370 feet u G' P .any lure rn9oP\ , 3 A ^WJ 9h C - 4 Plat recorded June 26,1987 Plat Book 19 al Poge 83 as Reception No 290474, thence Sou lh 06'06'14'East 51.26(eet to the point of beginning Thence South T z o.. ¢ t t dl a ?FlLhle ssN Stewar[TUe of Aspen.Inc does hereby earl fy that f hoe m. ,a°0.o1!S d \.-Y".... ;a: examined the title to all lands shown upon the Lot Une Adjustment Pitkin County,Colorado doe.hereby Plot old real property under the name 70'6J 51'East 60.59 feet along the Westerly boundary Ina of sad Lot 1 thence r R''Plat and ih at South AI LLC,a Colorado LLC Is the o of and stye of Maass Lot Spit 1st Amendment being a replai of a Portion of South 1fi'21 25"Eoet 120.99 feel Th ence South 44'43'3]'Went along Easterlym f p,a a< ps saner the City of Aa r i ttad in accordance with the Plat as ahown here.,. v y o M p K S,yOw J° Lot 1 In fee male free and clear of all Ilan.and encumbrance. Y Pen eP o Sountlary Ibou of sold Lot 1 thence North OS' Point 27'West 20890 feet along the T.rt Gip p 5 1 oc D L • In Polley No n0I9301 b0018409]9 tlatetlaJunea6 20d' sdo.ed cc...m re or lless nd together with tLotth2 taining e03469able.lonng 02548 o oar a` Cf N PROPERTY OESCRIPTION acres more or an w can v^-sae Sm SI \ Vlne 5 Sp °p 5f Amended Lot 2,Moses Lot Split 675 Aspen Alp°South Road 9Ql F at Stewart Title of Aspen,Inc. County of Pitkn 9 a A Lot 2 as shown on the Replat of Lot 2.Moses Lot Split(A Lot Line State of Colorado Adjustment)and Final SubdiW,ion Plat of the Georgia P.Mitchell and C ek.Rd"a car)' JM I(c ` r7,P H.A.Bomefeld,Jr Property according to the Plat thereof recorded Mpr0 -_ 6 file RC S( •.asp u1 g k Title Examiner September 5 1992 In Plat Book 29 at Page 65 as Reception No.348317 4N'tlE@ 2 Rkeh l+I IJ Pk f r3f a k On 4 W nfepRO ongExcSing rd.d thereof within Lot 1 Moses Lot e 5 as shown South Alps Road LLC,o Colorado LLC c h; oYt+ v.State of Colorado on the Plat dad June 26 1987'n Flat Book 19 at Page B]o. H R° A E B1`s 4d\ ` Reception Na.zsoa7a e a i{^ y-FQi S County Of Pltkn ) o Ss : Iy R,tnl m 991 r Aj-^ 3 ee Together with the.outherly portion of Lot 2 Moses Lot Split being nn re particularly BY. BI IUb r1A ly. \ a Sf yc f Rd. This Title Certificate hereon was acknowledged before me de.cr bed as follow.. D o ttle:' 0¢q C I - 10 Rd this day of 2012, That certain real property bang wthn the sauthedy port an of Lot 1 Moses Lot AGKNGWLEOGMENT OF OWNERSHIP Larksou'JuonSpRRj Sf ^" A1. 9 an Split oe said Lot 1 la ahown upon that certain Plat entitled"Moses Lot Spl t" RR / k State of Colorado) sSt '-D to k S by author zed signatory, filed in the offce of the clerk and recorder of Pitk n County on June 26.1987 SCilotc' tor the purposes thereof)and Title Examiner for In Plat Book 19 at Page 83,sold real property bang more particularly d—HI s. mrAlt SL fora A Grove County of Pltkln p Stewart Title of Aspen,Inc. as follows 4s \U p11 y ^ 1 w MI^ o Commencing t a port hence a BLM Brae.Cap bong Corner No.1 Aspen Tow'ste The foregoing owners certlficata was acknowledgetl before me Alp Pl IN WITNESS WHEREOF, hereunto ofl'x my hand and offmvl aeol. boor.South B5'24'12 East 920.26 feet thence South 43'14 52'West 2J.70 feet this day of 2012 bys. osf xork then.°South 06'06 14 East 51.26 feet to the true Pont of Beginning; Thence South pCr" r" I_ My commission expire,: 70'43'51°East 60.59 leaf along the Westerly boundary Iine of saki Lot 1 thence as owner of Lot 1,Moss,Lot Split for the therein contalred. fe, Boggle t0k° South 76' in. 25"East 120.99 feet Thence South 44'43'37'Weat along Easterly oe p purposes qv'\ORk RIVER boundary line of.oil Lot 1 thence North 05'31'27'West 208.90 feet along the IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I hereunto affix my hand and offlclal seal. Z -o Southerly boundary line of veld Lot 1 to the Point of Beginning,containing 0.2548 Notary Publico more or les.and together with Lot 2,containing 1.257 acres more or leas. M Iaura. y<amm..la,exp ra.. oil ASPEN a County Pltkln, State £Colorado. That a Id real property 1°°object to plot dedication note,1 (A through D) Notary Public TI CERTIFICATEFFICATE IOT 2 nd 2(A through D)as ahown an the Rabat of Lot 2,Moaea Lot Split A Lot Line Adjlstm ant)and Final SubdiM.lon Plat of the George P.Mltchell Stewart This of Aspen.Inc.does hereby certify that It has nd H.A.Bornelaid,Jr.Property recorded September 3,1992 in red the title to.II land,shown upon this Lot Line Plot Book 29 at Page 65 0,Reception No.290474. Notes: Adjustment Plat and that Icie Jackson LLC, Callrado LLC VICINITY MAP o C owner of 2 11 tae,l.Plc free one dear Notice According to Calarado tae you must Te men'°any legalVP \O T of all liens and encumbrances a cept for any Il.ted bNaw, OWNER action based upm any defect In this a rosy within three years subject to all matters disclosed sin Policy No.OP201105004139 otter you n any defeatat such defeat, surn, Inn a ern moynone-L-PROJECT LOCATION dated May 11,2011 a Jockaon LLC,a Colorotla LLC booed pan y defect In Ihi. y be c aad than ten Stewart Title of Aspen,In. year.from the data of the cetifieation.how,hereon. o 2. Posted addrea...: Lot 1:605 South Aspen Alps Road BY: Lot 2: 675 South A.p,n Alp.Road Title Examiner 3. BASIS OF BEARINGS: The southeasterly,line of Lot 1,Moses"I SpIIt CKNDWLEOGMENT OF OWNERSHIP anted a!each antl In the field shown hereon Is a mad Slate of Calarado ) ss State of Colorado) s to have a aring of t 44"43'37'W with all other bearings shown Y y hereon being relative thereto. County of Pltkln County of Pitkln a 4. Property description and r...inch far easement,of record for the property Thi.Title Certificate hereon so.acknowledged before me The foregoing owner,certificate was acknowledged before me located at 605 South Alp,Road were provided by Stewart Title Policy No 0-9301-001840979 doted June 6,2011, Property description and r...drph far this do f 2012,by ante of record for the property located at 675 South Alps Road w e this day of 2012,y o of the Idle Jackson LLC provided by Stewart Title Policy Na.OP201105004319 dated May 18,2011. ar b an outhorizad signatory as owner of Lot 2,Replot of Lot 2,Mo.'.Lot Split for the purposes thereof)and lifts Examiner for A Lot Line Adjl tmart)and Final SubdM,l.r Plat of the George P,Mitchell Staworl Title of Aspen,Inc. and H.A.BornefeldI Jr.Property for the purpo.e.th...In contained. IN WITNESS WHEREOF.I hereunto affix my hand and official seal. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I hereunto affix my hand and ofnclal seal. My commieelon expire.: My commission expires:CEPTANCE FOR RECORDING This Plat as shown hereon was accepted for filing In the office of Notary Public Notary Public the Clark and Recorder of Pitkin County,Colorado on the_day CITY N IN R'c APPRpVAI: of A.D.2012 and was duly filed In Plat Book of THIS LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING Page_under Recaptlon Number THIS DAY OF 20 TRICIA ARAGON,CITY ENGINEER Clark and Recorder SURVEYOR'S RnFI AT Robert C.Hutton,being a duly registered and licensed COMMUNITYCITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'e APPROVAL- Prof...land Land Surveyor in the State of Colorado,do hereby certify to South Alps Road LLC a THIS LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Slantant Jackson LLC,a and Stewart Title that the Lot Line Adjustment Plat ahown hereon ores prepared THIS DAY OF 20. under my direct responsibility,supervi.ion and checking and is true antl correct to the beat of my knowledge and belief. This Plot campus.with applicable saction.of C.R.S.38-51-101,at eaq. CHRIS BENOON,CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I hereunto amx my hand and Official seal this_day of_A.D.2012. Robert C.Hutton,PLS Riglstratlon No.24312 P1 8 6 VI I . a MOSES LOT SPLIT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT 1ST AMENDMENT CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO THE PURPOSE OF THIS PLAT IS TO ADJUST THE LOT LINES BETWEEN LOT 1 AND LOT 2, MOSES LOT SPLIT FOUND PIN AND CAP PLS 16129 l I fOUµ NAO g 5 µ SY 5066 exdl C2 0 9111?IS 01 5 9`l%:h I oStj. pµ0 OpP Fes$0 e4 FP`S . e / n 4 al oA a a J aiy oIP 6 LINE 4-5 M.S.3881 AM T _ -N UO yi. PPC,y'' D p I PGC yro9 QP° 920 d ry p43 Jg.?i y y / 2 p QWgo//TO R.L.M.BRASS / m4J= L Q FOUND PIN PAND CAP V VG'// ASPEN OWNSITE FOUND MONUMENT AS DESCRIBED HEREON O SET 5/8"REBAR W PLASTIC CAP PLS 24312 0 SET 5/B"OIA.REBAR W1TH ALUMINUM CAP P N$/ LOT 2 ILP.L.S.25954 o` ' ``cyd, h o1•/ MOSES LOT SPLIT j I 1 o zo• SET P.N.NAIL AND WASHER STAMPED O,yJ¢P O S O, o .c . !' : 'c;y/ 54,761.69 sq. ft. / I .tenP.L.S.25954 ryry' 4 J y. C) m r v 2¢ Y 1.257 acres± FEET 20 0 20 FEET N.T.S. NOT TO SCALE P 4 e/ J 1t I I I Sim 675 S. ALPS ROAD / T GRAPHIC SCALE x LAMP POST 04QJ' y 0, / P.O.L. Polar ON LINE 00 SCALE: 1 INCH =20 FEET JP tl, V0. I O, ly // U 4 .' qQ AC1H FOUND PIN AND CAP N 49'44'55"E(R) <I '>N- IIr// D 0' PLS,is,9 N 49'20'30'E(M) L - a` -/ / III N N v Ln h 54.87'(R) S°Z 54.87 I SPRING AND HOLDING 4 o 7 7 o NTANKEASEMENT1 l]/ PLAT BOOK 19,PAGE 8324 I N O r I 4 y / / LPT 2A mm m C REPIAT OF LOT 2 MOSES L T SPLIT(A LOT LINE AOJUSMENYI AND PORTION OF LOT 1 .k, FINAL 9UBOINSDN PLAT OF THE GEORGE P.MITCHELL AND U6 ADDED TO L01',2 ,2 iC. J ` o (I BoFIYEFFID.JR PRGPERTY y D m w I AOk.( Ce 0 A. 0 s \ h P y ry" LOT 1 i y 6 I2gib¢ 117 Wiz,,, w o ro MOSES LOT SPLIT 15,071.73 sq. ft. 0.346 acres± I 25. CS YEAR RWNO.PEO(:SIRIAN,BICYCLE AND 605 S. ALPS ROAD I NORDIC SKI TRAIL ON OCFTIOMNASTHEEP€ARCS NO NOE SAME' TRAIL. y t ALL MOTOR VEHICLE'S WITH THE EXCEPTION PF THE NORDIC COUNCIL'S GROOMING BUILDING SETBACK(TTI - -- - - - . I FOUND P.O.L. 6. k, EOUIPMENT SHALL BE PRECLUDED. L PIN AND CAP 9 g WLAT BOOK 19,PACE,83 o PLS 593! SEE DETAIL-D FOUND PIN AND CAP a 5 80'11'S3 1101.12' (M) 195.89'(M) N N 44'46• 36" E(M) 69.87 (M) SHEET 3 OF 3 L H.C.E.PLS 19598 S 44'43'3T W(M) 287.01'(R-M)UNE 4=1 Ms-1830 30.05' 11x.93' N 44 42'S4'E(M) 150.01' M) 7 N aa•43'2T E E S 45'00' 00' W(R) BASIS OF BEARINGS) so.25' 17.82 LINE 2-3 M.S.JB81 AM S 44'15'32"E N 44'43'27"E 158.73' SEE DETAIL-C 4.84' SHEET 3 OF 3 MOSES LOT SPLIT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 1ST AMENDMENT- CURVE TABLE PORTIONS of LOT 2,REPLAT OF LOT 2 MOSES LOT SPLIT EXTENDING INTO LOT 7,ASPEN CHANCE SUBDIVISION CURVE N0. CENTRAL ANGLE RADIUS ARC LENGTH CHORD BEARING CHORD DIRT 21.20'DO'(R) 250.64'(R) 93.32'(R) N 15.10'00"E(R) 92.78'(R) Cl 1'17'24" M 249.60' M 92.75' M N 14' 5'14'E M 92.21' M N J7'00'00'E(R) C2 85'00' " R-M 30. R-M 34.0.3' R-M N 38'48 J" M 32.4'(R-Ml S 65'30'00"E(R) C3 90'00'00'(R-M) 58.00'(R-M) 91.11'(R-M) S 65'43 28 E M .02' R-M NOTE FOR ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ACROSS LOT 1 AND LOT 2 S 36'52'30°E(R) LINE TABLE SEE SHEET 3 OF 3, C4 32.44'59° R-M 36.37' R-M 20.79' R- 37'D5' M 20.51' R-M N 66.21'01"E(R) LINE BEARING DISTANCE C5 120.46'01'(R-M) 40.00' R-M 84.33' R-M N 6'07'32'E M 69.56'(R-M)51 S 43'29'DO"W(R)S 43.14'52"W(M) 24.00'(R) 23.70'(M) N 07'44'00'W(R) L2 S 20.30'00'E(R)S 20'43'28'E(M) 31.21 (R) 31.21'(M) C6 15' 2'00'(R-M) 76.00'(R-M) 1 20.36' R-M N 01'57'28'W 20.32'[R-M) N O5'57'00"E(R)N 05'43'32"E(M) 39.80'(R) 39.80 (M) N 2T 46'00°W(R) L4 LJ N 38'07'00'W(R N 38'20'28"W(M) 26.70' R) 26.70'(M) uQ C7 4 - 1 .00 - .1 -M N 26'18'30'W(R) R L5 N 14'30'00"W(R)N 14'43'28"W(M) 20.18'(R) 20.18'(M) C) SET 5/8"REBAR W/PLASTIC CAP PLS 024312 N.T.S. NOT TO SCALE C8 23'57'GO" R-M 70.00 R-M 12.54'(R-M) N 6'21'50'W M 12.45'(R-M)L6 N 84'13'00"E R)N 93'59'32"E(M) 8.54'(R) 8.54'(M) El FOUND MONUMENT AS DESCRIBED HEREON P.O.L. POINT ON UNE S 14'44'27'E(R) L] 545'00'00"W(R)S 44.46'32'W(M) 17.14'(R) 17.14'(M) C9 16' 4' R- 1 - 5 -M 4' 7' "13' - FND 5/5"DIA REBAR WITH ALUMINUM CAP LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT OF S 21'S9'00"E(R) LB S 43.46'00"E(R)N 40.38'10'W(M) 5.00'(R) 4.46'(M) P.L.S.25954 CIO 50'34'00" R-M 71.36' R-M 62.98' R-M 5 22'12'28' M 80.95' R-M L9 S 43'28'44"E(R)N 43'42'32"W(M) 60.00'(RJ 59.94'(M) FIND P.K.NAIL AND WASHER STAMPED MOSES LOT SPLIT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT S 71'31 30'E(R)S 43'4fi'00'E(R) 64.29'(R) P.L.S.25954 C11 ' 1' - 45,11' -M 36. -M 71' 37.T 5='d L10 N 61'15'00"E(R)IS 61'01'20"W(M) 56.06'(R) 56.06'(M) 1ST AMENDMENT N fiT 46'S8'E(R) L7/ N 85'15'00"E(R)N 84'SB'37°E(M) 40.00'(RJ 40.00'(M) CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADOC12118,60* N S 7 CITY OF ASPEN COLORADO N.T.S.DATE: SEPTEMBER, 2012 PINNACLE DESIGN CONSULTING GROUP, INC. 805 BUCK POINT ROAD CARBONDALE,COLORADO 81623 970)963-2170 SHEET 2 OF 3 P1 8 7 VI I . a MOSES LOT SPLIT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT 1ST AMENDMENT CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO FOUND PIN AND FOUND PIN AND CAP THE PURPOSE OF THIS PLAT IS TO ADJUST THE LOT LINES 9e AS CAP PLS 9175 PLS 25954 Asp BETWEEN LOT 1 AND LOT 2, MOSES LOT SPLITENA[p 4 ya 3 FOUND PIN ANO FOUND PIN A CAP 20'µ70E A' S ,SQV TH MSS 1 °/ CAP PLS 9184 4R-219.00' PLS29030 SURVEYS Sy PLAT BOOkCE EA ROAD y0 L=15,66' k 8'7 29 BSNi 1- 1 t !, Z\ x$7pN OF N1Ti, E CB=S 14' CD=45.85' 1' 5DEEETAILF O 0 a FOUND PIN AND CAP II U v5_,P,t y, Pp K` P PpGESgy FOUND PIN AND CAP S pM KKBNA PLS 19598 WI \ NAIL t yJR'P 0.0Pe ocl 2}S p RIVER Cltt SURVEYS y t 0 MP. O°'" PLS 29030 t Or DETAIL -D C13 P Z( O N.T.S. 25'36'03.. 21.09'21A9' I M C8_IN 58'24'27'E NO^ Di20.92' moo`( n S. LI2 N 44'46'32"E 17.14' s (<, SET PK NAIL AND Cq N rj FOUND PIN AND WASHER PLS 25954 CAP PLS 2376 W // I 12' J9• DETAIL-F Q xNlBiT9j0 EgSF. 4 OS/ E N.T.S. OpPgGpfNr 40 W 5s ACF>>BO JS. Tf SS \04 9 O p'7 90 BO BOOk SELF l UTILITY EASEMENT FOR L9 4 R= 01'47' o pM e8 03 Eq 0l ACCESS EASEMENT AND 45 4? 01'4]' LOT 1,MOSES LOT SPLIT M 2B ST FOUND PIN ANO CAP CB=S OB29' NT/ PLS 2594] C°29.55' MO ` PM Byp 0S COPJt44, 58e PM( e' BPEG4P` yee FP MS' o. 0 EPSME9p8 eh Ary s` s NcP.9' BOULDER WALL ACCESS EASEMENT FOR LOT 2 89S 6 1 3 0 S q PLAT BOOK 29,PAGE 65 APPROXIMATE SKIER f.'CP-'0 NIPB MhEP P 11 i ' 99'41• / 00 9iJ1 O2yq,f' ROUTE SKI RS AC CE LICENSE / 503 c pEpSF.eOpp'/• ye ' •gym.+\ 4Z CT pgCf6T AGREEMENT RECORDED JUNE 20, AS RECEPTION2# 511438) 5B g E O Z / q5/ 0 L2 FEET 10 0 10 FEET I EASEMENT O mrP ip Sc GRAPHIC SCALE 65 UNDERGROPLpTU800K 29 PAGE 65 ISy GRAVEL DRIVE e/FOR LOT 1BOOK PAGE 915 4 687, Z OtC 88 AND 95 2Z Ep5 92'00 101 I55 U PCCEg00V' y 4/ 03.0C3p52°'43'2- - - - - - - 0 — - - I LOT 1 605 S. ALPS ROAD S se•13•E y u..]070 FOUND PIN AND CAP PLS 9175 s LOT 2 Ie 675 S. ALPS ROAD sEF DETAIL-B BUILDING ENVELOPE I 5619 SO. FT. 3I C2 N2P43'@6..W o L - - 43-2-5 - 44 a N 20' "W 42.34 FOUND PIN AND CAP PLS 33645 SEE DETAIL-A SET PIN AND Z CAP PLS 25954 N 35'15'02'E 0.80' s\ DETAIL ST B FOUND 3/4"DIA.BRA55 TAG N 26'45'56"E 3W PLS 33645 AFFlXED TO 3LllUn(! 0.75' offW B B0 2Y fq\ 3'DIA.ROCK ZS>2,gMENT SET PIN AND timPALFAJ>6s \ OAP PLS 25954 3> LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT OF MOSES LOT SPLIT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT\ NTS 1ST AMENDMENT CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO CITY OF ASPEN COLORADO N.T.S.DATE: SEPTEMBER, 2012 PINNACLE DESIGN CONSULTING GROUP, INC. 805 BUCK POINT ROAD CARBONDALE.COLORADO 81623 970)963-2170 SHEET 3 OF 3 P1 8 8 VI I . a W I L L I A M T. 0EOROIS A R C H I T E C T C TERING KITCHEN AUDIT ON 1 15 SOFT. m I TPIS... _ IO -oO i a I EI 1.61 I I 7 a OFFICE/YOGA STUDIO ADDITION OVER e e EXISTING TERRACE 295 SO FL 1 i TOTAL ADDFO SO FT - 630.00 O CMUDROOM ADDITION 1 SC SOFT. lI I I N I L LITTLE NELL RESIDENCE UPPER LEVEL PLAN—PROPOSED ADDITIONAL SQ.FT. 675 SOUTH ALPS ROAD ASPEN,COLORADO 7 NOVEMBER 2011 SCALE.1/8 P1 8 9 VI I . a n __-..- II'- __ $ o U ---s E " f ;C] Ll C L] C_i Cl _ -__ _--_ I I 1 I 1t) O > .ivy Iq a c i UII ry ji-- ll-•Ty, lia s- s-'T"`. Ljj i, 1 a.'W('E.E7 i¢i.CE.I I I7 IT I s . J I C 0 '0 O EAST ELEVATION (ERQNT)U W a 4 E 100'-0' 8074b7 I I r T z z ono UJ o S PT. ,F:N6 EI Pour s w Jw a S W Q o Ik- I I J J II i'v _;•r FU`AJE; Jih.5 oJ«i k=r"M>_F I.I . _ r cev ws 4 e WPf M - YlP TOI...YFIFEIiEO PAT J 6 DFY VE R sra+ARrM J z,(,w'n'=S Q i:_AJV Tiry?Fn i N Az,v- ArHAw2+tiPU—cam W FE 9k'JAIi'PL Nd I: , i lA rare_ 1" . mcY n.`=+io.rc rASr v s[ ou LTEh k o,1. m I i L • ., -__ se.f A:"'E'+...1 x:il ie AAP-_.__.__ -43 GLFAe J.F w3Fa HEAh Q r._. VY TfFYSLE NEAV GAT6 W/Pli-PATiIi I r i i 4arJPY Pl 11 Ell U 2 uErJ„ Er LAJ6A E -A O IRS P4, I J!z-S ACK 5TOW— 1 I—El urr 2 50UT{f ELEVATION P nS E vim.s ns5 Q' 80-146? V4'.I'-0' q SrchE iwRCS rvn L rse..AI.xAP 43.1 0 J EXISTING ELEVATIONS P1 9 0 VI I . a SNOIIVA313ONIISIX3 OZr•eYasvll'IcC(JOUni4di.vYH 1 :- NOLLVD1.2H-LaION! vr Qram«F, PI Cdad, tla cx_ . ddlM NO a d I nauNlmvxn diI - - I _ S I In axaaNxa:MS.Nod Iyr-t..- 1I117u cf-- r zo vua3vndd mTaamo:ao'm.sa.woI - ` y F II ' JwTtGbuNAl'rTa B,d""=- ao- ! 4`7,,'`T' I .. ..(T Ike_. I- i 1 - _-._._ _ _ _.__.._.___ _..__._ 7-.- - - N:D -M1.L1.Wd'S`tl ] 03nx'aaNi,,.]c • ,Sinod913 ' E. / fiL!m9fqh.LN953tl1J. n3W- 3,9JVi.1a DR11V •3ntiNlivd4lrva]aV'19/@rv•G-vl9/13Y6 I _. IT ..._ 4 ' lam o n•=+.Ntlrr>,aasax>dxdar; Ir _. — -- _- r, IIK-i f n mr. L dd aze PnNI, Y NY°= Gu O I- I- I 11 Ed s 01=all X21d21) NOUVAD131SJM zWar arn s V~jw.lonsaYeyvit FI I 14 LL ItI 9 I iyl. 0 P1 9 1 VI I . a G E 0 P G IS a 4 I i OFFICEitq I 11 a_ . .. PROPOSED MUD ROOM ADDTION i 1 ., C a ow _E c U (Do O O _O O EAST ELEVATION (FRONT)C I PROPOSED MUD ROOM ADDITION I Z i I I SOUTH ELEVATION Eli 100'-0's gpTi bT I/4 . -O" I 1 LITTLE NELL RESIDENCE 675 SOUTH ALPS POAD ASPEN,COLORADO 27APPIL 2011 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS P1 9 2 VI I . a G E 0 P G I S Y M II i a F M PROPOSED KITCHEN ENCLOSURE j n I t i PROPOSED YOGA STUDIO/OF FICE II I I I fy q NORTH --ELEVATION LITTLE NELL RESIDENCE 675 SOUTH ALPS ROAD ASPEN,COLORADO 27APPIL 2011 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS P1 9 3 VI I . a Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney THRU: Click here to enter text. DATE OF MEMO: 2/26/2013 MEETING DATE: 3/18/2013 RE: Ordinance #8, 2013 - Approving Annexation of South Portion of Lot 1, Moses Lot Split REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Adopt Ordinance #8, Series of 2013 on first reading and second public hearing for April 22nd 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. P195 VII.b Page 2 of 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: ALTERNATIVES: PROPOSED MOTION: CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: . P196 VII.b ORDINANCE NO. 8 (Series of 2013) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE SOUTH PORTION OF LOT 1, MOSES LOT SPLIT TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO Parcel ID #273718256003 WHEREAS, on December 6, 2012, Neil D. Karbank on behalf of South Alps Road, LLC, the owner of the property proposed to be annexed, did file with the City Clerk of the City of Aspen a Petition for Annexation of territory to the City of Aspen; 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 contain the information prescribed and set forth in §31-12-107, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, the owners of one hundred percent (100%) of the area proposed to be annexed, exclusive of streets and alleys, have consented in writing to the annexation; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by resolution (Number 7, Series of 2013) at its regular meeting on January 14, 2013, did find and determine said Petition for Annexation to be in substantial compliance with the provisions of §31-12-107, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by resolution (Number 19, Series of 2013) at its regular meeting on February 25, 2013, did find and determine, following a public hearing, said Petition for Annexation to be in substantial compliance with §§ 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby find and determine that approval of the annexation of said territory to be in the City's best interest; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1. That the tract of land described in the Petition for Annexation, commonly referred to as the “South portion of Lot 1, Moses Lot Split”, and as shown on the annexation map, is hereby annexed to the City of Aspen, Colorado. P197 VII.b 2 Section 2. The City Clerk of the City of Aspen is hereby directed as follows: (a) To file one copy of the annexation map with the original of this annexation ordinance in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Aspen. (b) To certify and file two copies of this annexation ordinance and of the annexation map with the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. (c) To request the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County to file one certified copy of this annexation ordinance and of the annexation map with the Division of Local Government of the Department of Local Affairs, State of Colorado. Section 3. The City Engineer of the City of Aspen is hereby directed to amend the Official Map of the City of Aspen to reflect the boundary changes adopted pursuant to this annexation ordinance. Section 4. That 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 5. That this ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 22 day of April, 2013, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. P198 VII.b 3 INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 2013. _______________________ Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this _______ day of _______________________________, 2013. _______________________ Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk P199 VII.b Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner THRU: Click here to enter text. DATE OF MEMO: 3/8/2013 MEETING DATE: 3/18/2013 RE: Policy Resolution - Trash, Utility, Recycle Area Code Amendment 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: P201 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 P202 VIII.a 3.18.2013 – Trash, Utility, Recycling Area Policy Direction Page 1 of 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner Ashley Perl, Senior Environmental Health Specialist THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director RE: Policy Resolution: Trash, Utility, Recycle Areas Resolution ___, Series of 2013 MEETING DATE: March 18, 2013 SUMMARY: The attached Resolution outlines Council policy direction for code amendments related to the trash, utility, and recycle area provisions in the Land Use Code. The objective of the proposed code amendment is to better coordinate the trash and recycling requirements in the Land Use Code (Title 26 of the Municipal Code) with known best practices and requirements in the Solid Waste Code (Title 12 of the Municipal Code). Once the Policy Resolution is approved, Environmental Health and Community Development staff will bring an Ordinance to City Council that updates the utility requirements in the Land Use Code, moves the trash and recycle requirements in the Land Use Code to the Solid Waste Code, and updates other portions of the Solid Waste Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Resolution. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: This meeting is to review potential changes to the trash, utility, and recycling area provisions of the Land Use Code. 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 second 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. BACKGROUND & OVERVIEW: The Land Use Code includes requirements related to trash, utility, and recycling areas for all commercial and lodging development. The code currently requires “A minimum of twenty (20) linear feet of the utility/trash/recycle service area shall be reserved for box storage, utility transformers or equipment, building access and trash and recycling facilities. … The required area shall have a minimum vertical clearance of ten (10) feet and a minimum depth of ten (10) P203 VIII.a 3.18.2013 – Trash, Utility, Recycling Area Policy Direction Page 2 of 3 feet at ground level. The required area shall not be used for required parking or as vehicular access to a parking area.” Properties without an alley are currently not required to provide an area for trash and recycling. The Environmental Health Department reviews all land use applications for compliance with the trash and recycling standards outlined in the Land Use Code. Staff believes moving these requirements into the Solid Waste Code will enable a more efficient review of applications, and will ensure that the requirements are up to date with the latest best practices. Community Development staff are not the experts in this area, and staff believes the requirements are better placed with the Environmental Health Department’s code. At this time, no change in the size requirement is proposed for commercial properties – the requirement would simply be moved from the Land Use Code to the Solid Waste Code. Staff is exploring changes to the lodge requirements that would require more space if the lodge has a retail food service license. Staff is proposing that all commercial and lodging properties, even if they do not have alley access, provide an area on the site or in the building for trash and recycling storage. Aside from those changes, the requirements for commercial and lodging properties will be similar to those that currently exist. In addition, staff proposes adding space requirements for multi-family housing complexes to allow for adequate trash and recycling storage. This requirement does not currently exist in the Land Use Code. Storage space at single family homes and duplexes is not currently addressed in the code and staff is not proposing adding any requirements for that particular sector of buildings. Currently most redevelopment applications use the size requirements in the Land Use Code to meet the trash and recycling needs of the building and accommodate the utility box needs in a different area. Staff proposes updating the utility standards to recognize the current practice by adding a requirement for utility areas. This amendment is coming forward at this time to coordinate with the Recycle Ordinance reauthorization. That Ordinance sunsets in July, and must be readopted by City Council if it is to remain in effect. Community Development staff conducted some outreach with private planners and architects to get their feedback on moving the trash and recycling requirements into the Solid Waste Code. The group felt that was a positive change. Staff will continue to work with stakeholders between now and first and second readings to supplement the public outreach on this code amendment. Staff has streamlined the Ordinance review as much as possible, with First Reading Scheduled for April 8th and Second Reading scheduled for April 22nd. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the attached Policy Resolution. P204 VIII.a 3.18.2013 – Trash, Utility, Recycling Area Policy Direction Page 3 of 3 RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): “I move to approve Resolution No. ___, Series of 2013, approving a Policy Resolution outlining direction for code amendments related to the trash, utility, and recycling provisions in the Land Use Code.” CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Staff Findings P205 VIII.a Resolution No __, Series 2013 – Trash/Utility/Recycle Area Code Amendment Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION N0. __, (SERIES OF 2013) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING CODE AMENDMENTS TO THE TRASH, UTILITY, AND RECYCLE AREA SECTIONS OF THE LAND USE CODE. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), the Community Development Department received direction from City Council to explore code amendments related to the Master Plan process; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development Department conducted Public Outreach with City Council regarding the code amendment; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended changes to the trash, utility, and recycle area sections of the land use code; and, WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendment policy direction, and finds it meets the criteria outlined in Section 26.310.040; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing on March 18, 2013, the City Council approved Resolution No. __, Series of 2013, by a ____ to ____ (__ – __) vote, requesting code amendments to the trash, utility, and recycle requirements in the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, this Resolution does not amend the Land Use Code, but provides direction to staff for amending the Land Use Code; 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 THE CITY OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Code Amendment Objective The objective of the proposed code amendments is to update the trash, utility, and recycle provisions in the Land Use Code. Section 2: 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 resolutions or ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior resolutions or ordinances. P207 VIII.a Resolution No __, Series 2013 – Trash/Utility/Recycle Area Code Amendment Page 2 of 2 Section 3: 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 this __th day of ____ 2013. _______________________________ Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________ ______________________________ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk James R True, City Attorney P208 VIII.a 1.28.2013 – Employee Generation Policy Direction; Exhibit A Page 1 of 1 Exhibit A: Staff Findings 26.310.040. Amendments to the Land Use Code standards of review – Initiation In reviewing a request to pursue an amendment to the text of this Title, per Section 26.310.020(B)(2), Step Two – Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall consider: A. Whether there exists a community interest to pursue the amendment. Staff Findings: Staff believes there is a community interest in updating the code to reflect today’s best practices related to trash, utility, and recycling space requirements. Environmental Health reviews all new applications to ensure adequate space is included for trash and recycling areas. Staff believes moving those requirements into the Solid Waste Code, which is administered by the Environmental Health Department, is more appropriate given current practices and to ensure requirements are up to date in terms of best practices. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment furthers an adopted policy, community goal, or objective of the City including, but not limited to, those stated in the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Findings: Earlier this year, City Council identified a number of goals, including one related to implementing programs that support a sustainable Aspen. This code amendment will ensure that all commercial, lodging, and multi-family buildings have adequate trash and recycling spaces, which will make it easier for tenants to recycle. This will also support the AACP goal of extending the life of the landfill by making recycling easier, thus diverting those items from the landfill. Finally, this code amendment supports the AACP’s Environmental Stewardship Policy IV.1, which states, “Maximize recycling, implement waste reduction and environmentally responsible purchasing programs, and encourage behavior that moves the Aspen Area toward being a zero waste community and extends the life of the landfill.” 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 amendment is to ensure a predictable and fair review of land use applications. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P209 VIII.a Second Reading of Ordinance #10, Series of 2013 602 E. Hyman Page 1 of 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Second Reading of Ordinance #10, Series of 2013, AspenModern negotiation for historic designation of 602 E. Hyman Avenue DATE: March 18, 2013 SUMMARY: 602 E. Hyman Avenue, at the corner of Hyman and Hunter Streets, was constructed in at least four phases, starting in 1960. The initial development was a one story, concrete block commercial/retail space. Additions/alterations occurred in 1964, 1966 and 1968. A substantial portion of the existing structure was designed and/or remodeled by Ellie Brickham during the 1966 modifications. Ellie Brickham is Aspen’s first known female architect, arriving in town in 1951. Ms. Brickham was a close family friend to the owners of 602 E. Hyman in the 1960s, and also designed their family home on McSkimming Road. Ms. Brickham designed the recently landmarked building immediately to the east, the offices of Charles Cunniffe Architects. The subject property was in the same ownership for approximately 50 years, until 2012, when it was sold. The purchaser pursued and received P&Z approval for a remodel and third floor addition. After further study of the feasibility of the project, it was decided to revise the approach, landmark designating through the AspenModern program. The applicant proposes an interior remodel, an addition at the rear of the building for a garage, staircase and elevator, and minor alterations to other facades and the roof of the building. HPC has granted Conceptual design approval, including a parking waiver and reduction of the on-site utility/trash/recycle area. Council has the opportunity to Call-up HPC’s decision at this meeting. P211 VIII.b Second Reading of Ordinance #10, Series of 2013 602 E. Hyman Page 2 of 6 HISTORIC DESIGNATION While AspenModern permits negotiation of special preservation incentives, in this case nothing other than standard landmark benefits are requested by the applicant. HPC recommends Council support designation. APPLICANT: EB Building Aspen, LLC, represented by Vann Associates and Zone 4 Architects. PARCEL ID: 2737-182-12-003. ADDRESS: 602 E Hyman Avenue, Lot K&L, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO. ZONING: C-1, Commercial. AspenModern Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures as an example of AspenModern, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The quality of significance of properties shall be evaluated according to criteria described below. When designating a historic district, the majority of the contributing resources in the district must meet at least two of the criteria a-d, and criterion e described below: a. The property is related to an event, pattern, or trend that has made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific event, pattern or trend is identified and documented in an adopted context paper; b. The property is related to people who have made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific people are identified and documented in an adopted context paper; c. The property represents a physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman, or design philosophy that is deemed important and the specific physical design, designer, or philosophy is documented in an adopted context paper; d. The property possesses such singular significance to the City, as documented by the opinions of persons educated or experienced in the fields of history, architecture, landscape architecture, archaeology or a related field, that the property’s potential demolition or major alteration would substantially diminish the character and sense of place in the city as perceived by members of the community, and P212 VIII.b Second Reading of Ordinance #10, Series of 2013 602 E. Hyman Page 3 of 6 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: This is one of the few Ellie Brickham designed buildings that remains in Aspen. The building is part of a set of 1960s/1970s era landmarks that have been designated in the 500s to 700s blocks of East Hyman Avenue, including two buildings designed by Tom Benton, two designed by Robin Molny, and the 610 E. Hyman building by Ellie Brickham. These structures were built during the period that the Aspen Post Office existed at Hyman and Spring Streets, a circumstance that may have contributed to a construction boom in the area. Pictures at right show the building in the late 60s and mid 70s. Some features of the building that have been changed, for instance the historic black and white color scheme, are expected to be restored by the applicant. There is relatively little documentation of the subject building. Ellie Brickham’s drawings have not been preserved. The best information that has been located are building permits and photos from the Assessor’s archives. P213 VIII.b Second Reading of Ordinance #10, Series of 2013 602 E. Hyman Page 4 of 6 Brickham, reviewing plans with clients, 1973. 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.” HPC presented an Honor Award to Ellie Brickham in 2001, in recognition of her influence on the built environment in Aspen. P214 VIII.b Second Reading of Ordinance #10, Series of 2013 602 E. Hyman Page 5 of 6 Staff finds that historic designation criteria a and c are met. Relatively few of the noted postwar properties are commercial structures. It is important to carefully consider preservation opportunities for this small collection of highly visible downtown structures. The second component of designation is scoring the physical integrity of the building. Staff’s score sheet is attached as Exhibit A. Staff scored the building as a “Best” example of AspenModern, with 17 out of 20 points. Staff finds that designation criterion e is met. HISTORIC PRESERVATION BENEFITS The Community Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation Commission, at a public meeting, regarding the proposed land use application or building permit and the nature of the property. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting. The Historic Preservation Commission, using context papers and integrity scoring sheets for the property under consideration, shall provide Council with an assessment of the property’s conformance with the designation criteria of Section 26.415.030.C.1. When any benefits that are not included in Section 26.415.110 are requested by the property owner, HPC shall also evaluate how the designation, and any development that is concurrently proposed, meets the policy objectives for the historic preservation program, as stated at Section 26.415.010, Purpose and Intent. As an additional measure of the appropriateness of designation and benefits, HPC shall determine whether the subject property is a “good, better, or best” example of Aspen’s 20th century historic resources, referencing the scoring sheets and matrix adopted by City Council. Staff Response: The existing building contains office space in the basement and main floor, and two residential units on the upper floor, one of which is a “bandit unit” that was former commercial space to which a kitchen and bathroom were added in the past without proper approvals. As part of this project, the “bandit unit” will be absorbed into the larger existing unit, eliminating the zoning violation. The applicant plans an interior remodel, an addition at the rear of the building for a garage, staircase and elevator, and alterations to other facades and the roof of the building. Overall, the project complies with all the dimensional requirements that were in place for the zone district at the time of application. (After the application was filed, code amendments adopted by Council went into effect, limiting height to 28’ and prohibiting all residential development in this zone district.) The net livable area of the second floor residential unit is larger than allowed by zoning, unless the owner purchases and lands a TDR on the site, which is their intention. As a proposed landmark, HPC has purview over design review for the property. P215 VIII.b Second Reading of Ordinance #10, Series of 2013 602 E. Hyman Page 6 of 6 The applicant requests no special incentives through AspenModern, beyond those available to all landmarks in Section 26.415.110 of the Municipal Code. The only benefit requested of HPC was a parking waiver/parking fee waiver. The proposed project does not trigger additional parking requirements, however the rear addition, which encloses one parking space and creates appropriate circulation/existing and accessibility for this mixed use building displaces 3 existing parking spots. The options for creating additional parking along the alley are greatly restricted by two large trees at the rear of the site. To grant variances, HPC must find that the review standards of Section 26.415.110.C of the Municipal Code are met. They require that: 1. The parking reduction and waiver of payment-in-lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district. HPC found it appropriate to waive the 3 displaced parking spaces, thereby eliminating the need to pay a $90,000 cash-in-lieu fee. This was considered a reasonable preservation incentive, consistent with approvals that have been granted to other landmarked properties. As part of their review process, HPC also accepted an alternative design for the required on-site utility/trash/recycling area. HPC accepted a plan endorsed by the Environmental Health Department. The reduction is available for all properties and was not granted as a preservation incentive. ________________________________________________________________________ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff and HPC recommend Council support the proposed AspenModern landmark designation of 602 E. Hyman Avenue, finding that the designation review criteria are met. RECOMMENDED MOTION: “I move to adopt Ordinance #10, Series of 2013.” CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:__________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ EXHIBITS: Ordinance #10, Series of 2013 Exhibit A: Integrity Score Sheet Exhibit B: Draft HPC Resolution #5, Series of 2013 Exhibit C: Application Exhibit D: Existing conditions Exhibit E: Proposed remodel P216 VIII.b Ordinance #10, Series of 2013 602 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 1 of 4 ORDINANCE #10 (Series of 2013) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO APPROVING ASPENMODERN HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 602 E. HYMAN AVENUE, LOTS K AND L, BLOCK 99, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2737-182-12-003 WHEREAS, the applicant, EB Building Aspen, LLC, represented by Vann Associates and Zone 4 Architects, submitted an application on January 11, 2013, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.025(C), AspenModern Properties, to voluntarily participate in a ninety-day landmark designation negotiation for the property located 602 E Hyman Avenue, Lot K&L, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; 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 owner and representative met with the Historic Preservation Commission on February 27, 2013; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on February 27, 2013, the HPC considered the designation and proposed development, and found that 602 E. Hyman Avenue is a “Best” example of the Modern style in Aspen. HPC recommended City Council approval of Historic Landmark Designation; 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 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department performed an analysis of the application for Landmark Designation and found that the review standards are met; 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, P217 VIII.b Ordinance #10, Series of 2013 602 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 2 of 4 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 602 E Hyman Avenue, Lot K&L, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, 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 accepts the following incentive, granted by HPC. 1. Waiver of the three parking spaces and the cash-in-lieu payment generated by the proposed remodel; and 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 three (3) years which shall not begin to run until the date of the publications required to be made as set forth below. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of § 26.104.050, Void Permits. Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval 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: P218 VIII.b Ordinance #10, Series of 2013 602 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 3 of 4 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: 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. 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 18th day of March, 2013 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. P219 VIII.b Ordinance #10, Series of 2013 602 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation Page 4 of 4 INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 11th day of March, 2013. _______________________ Michael C. Ireland, Mayor 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 P220 VIII.b P221 VIII.b P222 VIII.b P223 VIII.b P224 VIII.b P225 VIII.b P227 VIII.b P228 VIII.b P229 VIII.b P230 VIII.b P231 VIII.b P232 VIII.b P233 VIII.b P234 VIII.b P235 VIII.b P236 VIII.b P237 VIII.b P238 VIII.b P239 VIII.b P240 VIII.b P241 VIII.b P242 VIII.b P243 VIII.b P244 VIII.b P245 VIII.b P2 4 7 VI I I . b P2 4 8 VI I I . b P2 4 9 VI I I . b P2 5 0 VI I I . b P2 5 1 VI I I . b P2 5 2 VI I I . b P2 5 3 VI I I . b P2 5 5 VI I I . b P2 5 6 VI I I . b P2 5 7 VI I I . b P2 5 8 VI I I . b P2 5 9 VI I I . b P2 6 0 VI I I . b P2 6 1 VI I I . b P2 6 2 VI I I . b Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director THRU: Click here to enter text. DATE OF MEMO: 2/25/2013 MEETING DATE: 3/18/2013 RE: 401 Castle Creek Rd., Aspen Valley Hospital, Final PUD - Phases III & IV 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: P263 VIII.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 P264 VIII.c Page 1 of 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: Aspen Valley Hospital – Master Facilities Plan (401 Castle Creek Road) –Final Planned Unit Development, Phases III & IV – Ordinance No. 6, Series 2013 – 2nd Reading, Public Hearing MEETING DATE: March 18, 2013 APPLICANT /OWNER: Aspen Valley Hospital, David Ressler, CEO REPRESENTATIVE: Leslie Lamont, Lamont Planning Services LOCATION: Parcel C, Aspen Valley Hospital District Subdivision, commonly known as 401 Castle Creek Road CURRENT ZONING & USE Located in the Public (PUB) zone district with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay. PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant is requesting Final PUD approval and associated land use approvals for Phases III and IV of the master facilities plan for redevelopment and expansion of the hospital campus. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council review the application, ask questions at the hearing and continue the public hearing date to April 8th. SUMMARY: The Applicant requests of the City Council approval of a Growth Management review, Final PUD, and Vested Rights. Photo of the hospital’s current entry. STAFF NOTE: The review of the application is being divided into a number of meetings and topics. At the hearing on March 18th, staff will provide an overview of the review process for the audience and discuss the proposed dimensions of the hospital for Phases II and IV. The applicant will present with regard noise analysis undertaken and landscaping. The following memo P265 VIII.c Page 2 of 6 contains some general information from past memos for reference and discusses the proposed dimensions of the project in greater detail. HEARING SCHEDULE: The Applicant is currently requesting final approval for Phases III and IV and due to the scale of the hospital expansion, the review for Phases III and IV has been scheduled over a number of meetings. At each hearing certain aspects of the project will be reviewed so that the City Council may comprehensively evaluate the project. The following schedule and topics are proposed: March 11, 2013: Project Overview: Recap of operational needs, program, phasing of master facilities plan; Phase III and IV overview, site lighting Phase II and proposed lighting Phase III and IV; Questions of Applicant and staff March 18, 2013: Responses to issues raised by the Council, detail on dimensions of the project; detail on mechanical equipment and noise study April 8, 2013: Review Criteria analysis; conditions of ordinance, vote April 22, 2013: Additional meeting if necessary PROJECT SUMMARY : The Applicant, Aspen Valley Hospital District, LLC has requested Final PUD approval for Phases III and IV of the Aspen Valley Hospital Master Facilities Plan to redevelop and expand the existing hospital campus. The focus of the proposal is on Parcel C of the campus, where the hospital, senior center/assisted living (Whitcomb Terrace), ambulance barn, heli-pad and the hospital CEO’s residence is located. Parcel C contains approximately 18.5 acres or 805,860 square feet. Parcel A of the campus includes the Schultz building, Mountain Oaks employee housing, and RFTA bus stop. Conceptual PUD approval The hospital received Conceptual PUD approval of the Master Facilities Plan via Resolution No. 3 (Series of 2009) for the property in May of 2009 taking into account a twenty year program life cycle. The project is divided into four phases, so that hospital operations can continue throughout construction. Each phase of development allows the hospital to continue day to day operations. Phase I was completed with the expansion and remodel of the obstetrics ward. Phase II The Applicant received approval for Phase II of the Master Facilities Plan in July of 2010 and it is currently under construction. Phase II includes a two story addition to the existing hospital, development of the 18 on-site affordable housing units, a three level parking garage, partial construction of the loop service road as well as access improvements to the site, drainage and utility improvements, trail realignment, and RFTA bus stop improvements. As mentioned, the hospital project has been developed in phases in order to accommodate the ongoing operation of the hospital during this redevelopment. P266 VIII.c Page 3 of 6 Phases III AND IV: Phase III includes a two story addition and a basement, with the greatest amount of expansion (approximately 33,000 sq. ft.) on the ground floor, abutting the west side of the existing building. The upper story addition includes medical office space and circulation (approximately 18,000 sq. ft.), a basement of about 19,000 sq. ft., completion of the loop service road, 3 bay ambulance garage, new entry and parking. Interior remodeling of the existing building also occurs. Basement programming – mechanical, laundry services, information systems, morgue, and unfinished shell space. First floor programming – loading dock, operating suite, endocrinology suite, staff and physician support space, imaging suite, breast center, emergency department, lobby and main entry. Second floor programming – medical offices. Phase IV proposes an addition to the ground floor (approximately 6,500 sq. ft.) and basement (approximately 1,800 sq. ft.), as well as a renovation of the existing building. Basement programming – meeting room, auditorium and public toilets. First floor programming – extension of main lobby, four bay registration, cardiology suite, outpatient services, oncology suite, chapel, expanded cafeteria seating. As previously mentioned, the hospital project has been developed in phases in order to accommodate the ongoing operation of the hospital during this redevelopment. Figure 1, below, shows the extent of the different phases of development. DIMENSIONS: A PUD is a site specific development plan and the dimensions of the project are memorialized through the land use review and approval process. The conceptual approval granted in 2009 approved a multi-level hospital, including the parking garage that was 290,095 gross square feet. As the project has progressed from its conceptual approval to design detail, some aspects of the phases have changed or are proposed to be different. For example, during the Phase II application the applicant requested a greater amount of medical office space that anticipated during conceptual review and the design of the on-site affordable housing was approved. Changes to the project, under the current application, include: • Relocation of the helipad, from the top of the second floor medical office space to the top of the first floor roof of the emergency room. • Development of an ambulance garage versus the carport that was originally proposed. • A reduction in second story medical office space. • An increase in square footage with regard to basements. • An increase in square footage at grade. These changes will need to be memorialized in the PUD approvals for Phases III and IV. Overall, the total gross square footage proposed for the hospital: 303,852 sq. ft. is within five percent of the conceptual approval. P267 VIII.c Page 4 of 6 Building Size Table 1 summarizes the proposed gross square footages of all phases of development and compares them to the conceptual numbers provided in 2009. Table 1: Proposed Gross Square Footage of Phases III and IV Conceptual Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phases Total Difference Sub-basement 0 0 1,489 0 0 1,489 1,489 Basement 24,558 0 10,094 19,385 1,854 31,333 6,775 Level One 63,194 5,721 18,856 33,280 6,721 64,578 1,384 Level Two 23,643 0 20,977 8,152 0 29,129 5,486 Medical Office Space* 27,000 0 12,000 10,187 0 22,187 -4,813 Ambulance Garage** 0 0 0 3,436 0 3,436 3,436 Subtotal 138,395 5,721 63,416 74,440 8,575 152,152 13,757 Existing Hospital 75,700 75,700 0 0 0 151,400 0 Parking Garage 76,000 0 76,000 0 0 152,000 0 Total 290,095 81,421 139,416 74,440 8,575 303,400 Notes: * During review of Phase II, the hospital received a medical Office space allocation of 27,000 sq. ft. for Phases II and III. The hospital represented the reallocation was within the approved shell by reducing the hospital function and increase the medical office function. ** The ambulance garage was shown as a porte cochere during previous reviews but was not calculated as part of the gross square footage. The difference in size can be mostly attributed to an increase in below grade space as well as the inclusion of the ambulance garage as part of this application. Table 2 summarizes the above grade and below grade changes to the project. Table 2: Above and Below Grade Comparison Level Conceptual Proposed Build-out Difference Below Grade Sub- basement 0 1,489 8,264 Basement 24,558 31,333 Above Grade Level One 63,194 64,578 5,493 Level Two 23,643 29,129 MOS 27,000 22,187 Ambulance Garage 0 3,436 Totals 138,395 152,152 13,757 P268 VIII.c Page 5 of 6 Height Phases III and IV include the development of one and two story elements. Heights range from 5 feet above finished grade (porte cochere for the ambulances) to 32 feet above finished grade as noted in the spot elevations in Exhibit H. During Phase III additional medical office space is proposed as a second story addition. At its highest point it will be 32 feet. With the extension of main lobby in Phase IV the highest point will be 24 feet. Additional mechanical is proposed for Phases III and IV and range in dimension and height. Exhibit I1 shows the location of the mechanical in relation to the roofscape while Exhibit I2 details the location and dimension of the proposed mechanical. Parking The Conceptual review proposed having 339 parking spaces for the hospital and medical office space in the form of surface parking and the parking garage. What was not included conceptually was parking for Whitcomb Terrace or the affordable housing. Final approval for Phase II further discussed parking as the affordable housing units were developed. Further refinement of the numbers is outlined in Table 3. Table 3: Overall Parking Allocation Parking Structure 219* Phase II New Surface Parking 77 New West Side Employee Parking 5 New main entry Parking 16 Surface at Whitcomb 31 Surface for Affordable housing 2 Tuck under for affordable housing 6 356 Notes: * 10 parking spaces in the parking garage are reserved for the affordable housing units Pedestrian Circulation During review by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Applicant proposed a change for pedestrian circulation from the bus stop area to the hospital due to comments from the Commission that there was no direct walkway from the bus stop to the hospital’s entry. A solution was proposed and approved by the Commission (Exhibit J). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: During the meeting, staff recommends the Council focus on questions it may have on the additional phases or any clarifications or details members would like to have at the scheduled hearings. Staff recommends the public hearing, after discussion, be continued to April 8, 2013. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): “I move to continue the hearing on Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2013, to April 8, 2013.” CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ P269 VIII.c Page 6 of 6 ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A – Planning and Zoning Commission, Resolution No. 2 (Series of 2013) (provided 2/25/13) EXHIBIT B – Planning and Zoning Commission, minutes dates 10/30/12 (provided 2/25/13) EXHIBIT C – Planning and Zoning Commission, minutes dates 11/20/12 (provided 2/25/13) EXHIBIT D – Planning and Zoning Commission, minutes dates 12/4/12 (provided 2/25/13) EXHIBIT E – Planning and Zoning Commission, minutes dates 1/08/13 (provided 2/25/13) EXHIBIT F – Application (provided 2/25/13) EXHIBIT G - Proposal for outdoor lighting, Clanton & Associates (provided 3/11/18) EXHIBIT H – Roof heights, site plan EXHIBIT I – Mechanical heights, site plan EXHIBIT J – Proposed changes in pedestrian connectivity P270 VIII.c P271 VIII.c P2 7 3 VI I I . c P2 7 4 VI I I . c P2 7 5 VI I I . c P2 7 6 VI I I . c 3.18.13– Second Reading Business Friendly Code Amendments Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jim Pomeroy, Code Enforcement Officer THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Business Friendly Code Amendments Ordinance No. 7 (Series of 2013), Second Reading – Public Hearing MEETING DATE: March 18, 2013 SUMMARY: The attached ordinance includes proposed code amendments to various sections of the Land Use Code pertaining to businesses. The objective of the proposed code amendments is to ensure that the language in the City’s Land Use Code does not hinder the smooth operation of businesses within the City. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: This is the 2nd reading of proposed code amendments to update the Land Use Code (LUC) in order to make the Code more business friendly. 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. BACKGROUND & OVERVIEW: As part of the 2012 City Council retreat, Council members identified their top ten goals for the upcoming year. One of these goals was to make the City more business friendly. As part of this goal, the Community Development Department examined the LUC to determine if there were any changes that could be made to erase hindrances to businesses within the code language. Staff identified some obvious changes that could be made, and the attached ordinance and exhibits show those changes. • 26.104.100 - Definitions: Brewery or Distillery. Added Distillery, rewrote language to reconcile local and state liquor laws, and added language on tasting room. Coffee Roasting Facility. Added language for tasting of coffee on-site. P277 VIII.d 3.18.13– Second Reading Business Friendly Code Amendments Page 2 of 2 Restaurant. Added clarification language on grocery stores that was located in section 26.575.180 that is being deleted. • 26.575.070 – Use Square Footage Limitations Deleted obsolete and difficult to enforce language • 26.575.090 - Home Occupations Clarified language Deleted obsolete language • 26.575.060 – Utility/Trash/Recycle Service Areas Deleted and added language to ensure that new buildings must provide their tenants with proper trash and utility areas that are accessible and compliant with the building code. • 26.575.180 Required Delivery Area and Vestibules for Commercial Buildings Deleted obsolete language, and added new language that requires new buildings to provide their tenants with proper accessible delivery access. Added language to make new spaces require airlocks that are compliant with the current building codes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the attached Ordinance. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): “I move to approve Ordinance No. 7 (Series of 2013).” CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Staff Findings Exhibit B – Proposed Business Friendly Code Amendment Language Exhibit C – Approved Resolution 17, Series 2013 P278 VIII.d City Council Ordinance No. 7 (Series of 2013) Business Friendly Code Amendments Page 1 of 5 ORDINANCE No. 7 (Series of 2013) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 26.104.100 - DEFINITIONS, 26.575.070 – USE SQUARE FOOTAGE LIMITATIONS, 26.575.090 – HOME OCCUPATIONS, 26.575.060.A – UTILITY/TRASH/RECYCLE SERVICE AREAS , AND 26.575.180 - RESTAURANT. 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 making the Land Use Code more business friendly; 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(A)(4), the Community Development Director initiated various business friendly amendments to sections of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development Department conducted Public Outreach with Community businesses regarding the code amendment; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing on February 11, 2013, the City Council approved Resolution No., Series of 2013, by a five to zero (5 – 0) vote, requesting code amendments to the employee generation figures in the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Sections Section 26.104.100 - Definitions, 26.575.070 – Use Square Footage Limitations, 26.575.090 – Home Occupations, 26.575.060.A – Utility/Trash/Recycle Service Areas, and 26.575.180 - Restaurant; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendments and 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 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: P279 VIII.d City Council Ordinance No. 7 (Series of 2013) Business Friendly Code Amendments Page 2 of 5 Section 1: Sec. 26.104.100 Definitions, shall be amended as follows: Brewery or Distillery. A facility, licensed by the State of Colorado and which is subject to all applicable state and local liquor laws, for the production and packaging of alcoholic beverages for distribution, and secondarily receiving the public and engaging in retail sales on a limited basis, which shall not prohibit on-site beverage consumption. Coffee Roasting Facility. A facility for the processing and packaging of coffee beans for distribution and secondarily receiving the public and engaging in retail sales on a limited basis, which shall not prohibit onsite beverage consumption. Restaurant. A commercial eating and drinking establishment where food is prepared and served for consumption on or off premises, not subject to size or seating capacity limitation and which may provide music or other performances and entertainment incidental to the primary use. A grocery store or similar establishment which prepares and serves food but which principally sells packaged or nonperishable food and drink shall not be considered a restaurant. Section 2: Sec 26.575.070 Use Square Footage Limitations This section to be deleted in its entirety, and labeled as Reserved Section 3: 26.575.090 Home Occupations This section to be deleted in its entirety, and replaced with the following: 26.575.090 Home occupations Home occupations are permitted in all residential dwellings in the City. To ensure home occupations are clearly incidental and secondary to the residential character of the home, a home occupation must comply with each of the following: A. Employees. Employs no more than one (1) person who is a nonresident of the dwelling; and B. Business License. Operates pursuant to a valid Business License for the use held by the resident of the dwelling unit; and C. Signage. Any signs must comply with Chapter 26.510 SIGNS; and D. Outdoor Storage. Any outside storage shall be screened or enclosed; and E. Nuisance. Does not utilize mechanical, electrical or other equipment or items which produce noise, electrical or magnetic interference, vibration, heat, glare, smoke, dust, odor or other nuisance outside the residential building or accessory structure; and F. Prohibitions. Does not include any of the following uses as a home occupation: Retail and Restaurant uses, health or medical clinic, mortuary, nursing home, veterinarian's clinic, pharmacy, marijuana dispensary, child care center for 6 or more children (see Section P280 VIII.d City Council Ordinance No. 7 (Series of 2013) Business Friendly Code Amendments Page 3 of 5 26.575.080), warehousing, brewery, distillery, coffee roasting facility, liquor store, group home, dancing studio, or for the storage, sale, production, processing of flammable or volatile materials. A home occupation license may be revoked if the use creates a substantial nuisance or hazard to neighboring residents. Section 4: Sec. 26.575.060.A Utility/Trash/Recycle Service Areas shall be amended as follows: 26.575.060 Utility/Trash/Recycle Service Areas A. General. The following provisions shall apply to all utility/trash/recycle service areas: 1. If the property adjoins an alleyway, the utility/trash/recycle service area shall be along and accessed from the alleyway. Unless entirely located on an alleyway, all utility/trash/recycle service areas shall be fenced so as not to be visible from the street, and such fences shall be six (6) feet high from grade. All fences shall be of sound construction and shall be no less than ninety percent (90%) opaque. 2. Whenever this Title shall require that a utility/trash/recycle service area be provided abutting an alley, buildings may extend to the rear property line if otherwise allowed by this Title, provided that an open area is provided which shall be accessible to the alley and which meets the dimensional requirements of this Section. 3. A minimum of twenty (20) linear feet of the utility/trash/recycle service area shall be reserved for box storage, utility transformers or equipment, building access and trash and recycling facilities. For properties with thirty (30) feet or less of alley frontage, this requirement shall be fifteen (15) linear feet. The required area shall have a minimum vertical clearance of ten (10) feet and a minimum depth of ten (10) feet at ground level. The required area shall not be used for required parking or as vehicular access to a parking area. For properties with no alley access, a utility/trash/recycle service area shall be accommodated on the site or in the building meeting the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11, and Title 12 of the Municipal Code, as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. 4. The Planning and Zoning Commission may reduce the required dimensions of this area by special review (see Chapter 26.430) and in accordance with the standards set forth below at Subsection 26.575.060.B. 5. Trash and recycling areas shall be accessible to all tenants within the building in a manner that meets the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be utilized as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International Building Code. Section 5: Sec. 26.575.180 Restaurant This section to be deleted in its entirety, and replaced with the following: 26.575.180 Required Delivery Area and Vestibules for Commercial Buildings All commercial buildings shall provide a delivery area. The delivery area shall be located along the alley if an alley adjoins the property. The delivery area shall be accessible to all tenant P281 VIII.d City Council Ordinance No. 7 (Series of 2013) Business Friendly Code Amendments Page 4 of 5 spaces of the building in a manner that meets the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. All non-ground floor commercial spaces shall have access to an elevator or dumbwaiter for delivery access. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be utilized as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International Building Code. All commercial buildings shall provide a Utility/Trash/Recycle area meeting the requirements of Section 26.575.060. The Planning and Zoning Commission may reduce the required dimensions of this area by special review (see Chapter 26.430) and in accordance with the standards set forth in Subsection 26.575.060.B. All commercial tenant spaces located on the ground floor in excess of 1,500 square feet shall contain a vestibule (double set of doors) developed internal to the structure to meet the requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen, or an air curtain. Section 6: 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 7: 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 8: 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. Section 9: A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 18th day of March, 2013, 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 ____ day of ____________, 2013. Attest: __________________________ ____________________________ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor P282 VIII.d City Council Ordinance No. 7 (Series of 2013) Business Friendly Code Amendments Page 5 of 5 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 P283 VIII.d 3.18.13 Business Friendly Code Amendments 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 updates code sections that are already in place. 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: In the fall of 2012, City Council identified several goals for the upcoming year. One of those goals was to make the city more business friendly. The changes in this amendment are in line with these goals, and therefore 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 amendment is to ensure that parts of the Land Use Code do not hinder the operation of a business in the City. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P285 VIII.d City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 100, General Provisions Page 1 Exhibit B Chapter 26.104 GENERAL PROVISIONS 26.104.100. Definitions. As used in this Code, unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms shall be defined as follows: Brewery or Distillery. A facility, licensed by the State of Colorado and which is subject to all applicable state and local liquor lawsthe City of Aspen Liquor License authority and jurisdiction, for the production and packaging of alcoholic malt beverages for distribution, and secondarily receiving the public and engaging in retail sales on a limited basis, which shall not prohibit on-site beverage consumption. (Ord. No. 4-2008, § 2) Coffee Roasting Facility. A facility for the processing and packaging of coffee beans for distribution and secondarily receiving the public and engaging in retail sales on a limited basis, which shall not prohibit onsite beverage consumption.. No beverage consumption is allowed on site. (Ord. No. 4- 2008, § 2) Restaurant. A commercial eating and drinking establishment where food is prepared and served for consumption on or off premises, not subject to size or seating capacity limitation and which may provide music or other performances and entertainment incidental to the primary use. A grocery store or similar establishment which prepares and serves food but which principally sells packaged or nonperishable food and drink shall not be considered a restaurant. P287 VIII.d Chapter 26.575 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS 26.575.070 Reserved 26.575.070 Use square footage limitations Within the Commercial Core (CC), Commercial (C-1) and Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I) Zone Districts, all permitted and conditional commercial businesses shall be restricted to the following maximum net leasable commercial and office space: a. 3,000 square feet. The following and similar uses shall be limited to three thousand (3,000) square feet in net leasable commercial and office space: Antique shop; art supply; bakery; bookstore; camera shop; candy, tobacco or cigarette shop; catalogue store; drug store; florist shop; gift shop; hobby shop; jewelry shop; key shop; liquor store; pet shop; photography shop; stationery store; dry cleaning; pickup station; barber and beauty shop; small appliance store; art gallery; decorator shop; seamstress; Laundromat; tailor; shoe repair shop; radio and TV broadcasting stations; rental, repair and wholesaling, provided they are accessory uses; electrical and plumbing service shops; automobile washing facility; pharmacies; art studio; and catering service. b. 6,000 square feet. The following and similar uses shall be limited to six thousand (6,000) square feet in net leasable commercial and office space: Drugstore (including pharmacy); equipment rental, storage and repair; shop craft industry; fabrication and repair and building materials; sporting goods store; variety shop; professional offices; and major appliance stores. c. 9,000 square feet. The following and similar uses shall be limited to nine thousand (9,000) square feet in net leasable commercial and office space: Service station and restaurant. d. 12,000 square feet. The following and similar uses shall be limited to twelve thousand (12,000) square feet in net leasable commercial and office space: Vehicle sales; builder supply yard; lumber yard; dry cleaning plant and laundry; manufacture and repair of sporting goods; printing and publishing plant; furniture store; carpet and floor covering store; financial institution; and food market. e. 20,000 square feet. The following and similar uses shall be limited to twenty thousand (20,000) square feet in net leasable commercial and office space: Warehousing and storage. f. Retail sales areas. All of the square footage limitations on use shall not restrict the square footage of the total retail sales areas in these zone districts or any buildings occupied by any combination of more than one of the above uses; provided, however, that any business enumerated above, of the same type which occur individually or jointly in a single structure or combination of structures situated upon a single tract of land under the same ownership, shall be considered one business and together restricted to the maximum net leasable commercial and office space provided in this Section. P288 VIII.d City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 100, General Provisions Page 3 26.575.090 Home occupations Home occupations are permitted in all residential dwellings in the City. To ensure meet the definition of a home occupation, a home occupations aremust clearly incidental and secondary to the residential character of the home, a home occupation must comply with each of the following: A. Is clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the building; B. Does not change the essential residential character of the use; C.A. Employees. Employs no more than one (1) person who is a nonresident of the dwellingbuilding; and D.B. Business License. Operates pursuant to a valid Businessoccupational Llicense for the use held by the resident of the dwelling unit; and E. Signage. Is confined to no more than fifty percent (50%) of the total floor area of the main level floor of the dwelling; F. Any signs must comply with Chapter 26.510 SIGNSDoes not advertise, display or otherwise indicate the presence of the home occupation on the premises other than as provided in Chapter 26.510, Community Development Department; and C. G. Outdoor Storage. Does not sell any stock in trade, supplies or products on the premises; D. Any outside storage shall be screened or enclosed; and H. Nuisance. Does not store outside of the dwelling any equipment or materials used in the home occupation; I.E. Does not utilize mechanical, electrical or other equipment or items which produce noise, electrical or magnetic interference, vibration, heat, glare, smoke, dust, odor or other nuisance outside the residential building or accessory structure; and J. Prohibitions. Provides off-street parking to accommodate the needs of the home occupation; and F. Does not include any of the following uses as a home occupation: Retail and Restaurant uses, antique shop, barber shop, beauty parlor, health or medical clinic, mortuary, nursing home, restaurant, veterinarian's clinic, pharmacy, marijuana dispensary, child care center for 6 or more children (see Section 26.575.080), warehousing, brewery, distillery, coffee roasting facility, liquor store, group home, or dancing studio, or for the storage, sale, production, processing of flammable or volatile materials. A home occupation license may be revoked if the use creates a substantial nuisance or hazard to neighboring residents. P289 VIII.d 26.575.060 Utility/trash/recycle service areas A. General. The following provisions shall apply to all utility/trash/recycle service areas: 1. If the property adjoins an alleyway, the utility/trash/recycle service area shall be along and accessed from the alleyway. Unless entirely located on an alleyway, all utility/trash/recycle service areas shall be fenced so as not to be visible from the street, and such fences shall be six (6) feet high from grade. All fences shall be of sound construction and shall be no less than ninety percent (90%) opaque. 2. Whenever this Title shall require that a utility/trash/recycle service area be provided abutting an alley, buildings may extend to the rear property line if otherwise allowed by this Title, provided that an open area is provided which shall be accessible to the alley and which meets the dimensional requirements of this Section. 3. A minimum of twenty (20) linear feet of the utility/trash/recycle service area shall be reserved for box storage, utility transformers or equipment, building access and trash and recycling facilities. For properties with thirty (30) feet or less of alley frontage, this requirement shall be fifteen (15) linear feet. For properties with no alley access, no requirement shall apply. The required area shall have a minimum vertical clearance of ten (10) feet and a minimum depth of ten (10) feet at ground level. The required area shall not be used for required parking or as vehicular access to a parking area. For properties with no alley access, a utility/trash/recycle service area shall be accommodated on the site or in the building meeting the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11, and Title 12 of the Municipal Code, as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. 4. The Planning and Zoning Commission may reduce the required dimensions of this area by special review (see Chapter 26.430) and in accordance with the standards set forth below at Subsection 26.575.060.B. 4.5.Trash and recycling areas shall be accessible to all tenants within the building in a manner that meets the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be utilized as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International Building Code. P290 VIII.d City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 100, General Provisions Page 5 26.575.180 RestaurantRequired Delivery Area and Vestibules for Commercial Buildings Restaurants shall only be permitted to prepare or serve food outdoors, in required open space, when approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Resident multi- family replacement program. A restaurant shall be required to have service delivery access from an alley or other off-street service delivery area. If the restaurant is located off ground level, it shall have use of an elevator or dumbwaiter for service access. A grocery store or similar establishment which prepares and serves food but which principally sells packaged or nonperishable food and drink shall not be considered a restaurant. All commercial buildings shall provide a delivery area. The delivery area shall be located along the alley if an alley adjoins the property. The delivery area shall be accessible to all tenant spaces of the building in a manner that meets the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. All non-ground floor commercial spaces shall have access to an elevator or dumbwaiter for delivery access. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be utilized as pathways (pedestrian rights-of- way) to meet the requirements of the International Building Code. All commercial buildings shall provide a Utility/Trash/Recycle area meeting the requirements of Section 26.575.060. The Planning and Zoning Commission may reduce the required dimensions of this area by special review (see Chapter 26.430) and in accordance with the standards set forth in Subsection 26.575.060.B. All commercial tenant spaces located on the ground floor in excess of 1,500 square feet shall contain a vestibule (double set of doors) developed internal to the structure to meet the requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen, or an air curtain. P291 VIII.d EXECUTIVE SESSION Date March 18, 2013 Call to order at: m. I. Councilmembers present: Councilmembers not present: Mick Ireland Mick Ireland Steve Skadron Steve Skadron Adam Frisch ❑ Adam Frisch Torre ❑ Torre Derek Johnson ❑ Derek Johnson f IL Motion to go into executive session by ; seconded by r� re_y�e Other persons present: AGAINST: R. ❑ C �- Mick Ireland ❑ Mick Ireland Steve Skadron ❑ Steve Skadron Adam Frisch ❑ Adam Frisch Torre ❑ Torre Derek Johnson ❑ Derek Johnson III. MOTION TO CONVENE EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION OF: C.R.s. 24-6-402(4) (a)The purchase, acquisition, lease,transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest Conferences with an attorney for the local public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific Ie al \ questions. 4 <,. �►S ���.wy�`� ��.e� >:�tis o - rv4�,►r�. J no�� �.3_ i�escM.vt�-9rs�SCa�!� (c)Matters required to be kept confidential by federal or state law or rules and regulations. (d) Specialized details of security arrangements or investigations, including defenses against terrorism, both domestic and foreign, and including where disclosure of the matters discussed might reveal information that could be used for the purpose of committing, or avoiding prosecution for, a violation of the law; e) Determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations; and instructing negotiators; (f) (I) Personnel matters except if the employee who is the subject of the session has requested an open meeting, or if the personnel matter involves more than one employee, all of the employees have requested an open meeting. IV. ATTESTATION: The undersigned attorney, representing the Council and being present at the executive session, attests that the subject of the unrecorded portions of the session constituted confidential attorney-client._cQmmunication: The undersigned chair of the executive session attests that the discussions in this executive session were limited to the topic(s)described in Section I1I, above. Adjourned at: