HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20020812 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
August 12, 2002
5:00 P.M,
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Scheduled Public APpearances
a) Board Commendations - Edward Sweeney - Wheeler Board of Directors &
Gilbert Sanchez - HPC
b) Outstanding Employee Bonus Awards
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) Mayor's and Councilmembers' Comments
b) City Manager's Comments
c) Board Reports
VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion) ~_.
a) Resolution #68, 2002 - Calling Special Election
b) Election Equipment Purchase
- c) Resolution #74, 2002 - Contract with DHM Civic Center Master Plan
d) Request for Funds - HPC Guidelines
e) Truscott Eunding
f) Resolution #69, 2002 - Contract with CDOT Asphalt Repair
g) Resolution #70, 2002 - Maroon Creek Road - Right-of-Way annexation
h) Resolution #75.2002 - Contract to Buy Real Estate - Zupancis
i) Board Appointments
j) Minutes - July 22, 2002
VII. First Reading of Ordinances (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion~
a) Ordinance #30, 2002 - Marqusee Rezoning P.H. 9/9
b) Ordinance #32, 2002 - Charter Amendment P,H. 8~26
c) Ordinance #33, 2002 - Code Amendment - Prohibiting Horse Drawn Carriages on Sidewalks
P.H. 8/26
~ Public Hearings
O~:f.~ja) Ordinance #24.2002 - Innsbruck LP PUD//'~_
I (3rdinance #28. 2002- Rezoning 311 S. First Continue to 8~26
c Ordinance #29, 2002 - Code Amendment - Housing Payment in Lieu Continue to 8~26
(~..5od Appeal HPC Decision - 629 West Smuggler
~ Action Items
a) Resolution #76, 2002 - Mandatory Adoption of Local Government Master Plan
Resolution #71 2002 - Election Question - Charter Amendment ~
Resolution #72, 2002 - Election Question - Sale of City Property to Facilitate Obermeyer
Project
d) Resolution #73, 2002 - Election Question - Trolley
:~' Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting Auqust 26, 2002
COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M.
Richard W. Volk
730 Bay Street
P.O. Box 4136
Aspen, Colorado
To the following:
Helen Klanderus, Mayor -~
All city council members
rears, Aspen has made a grea~ effort to follow these fundamental premises:
Protect the safety of citizens, especially children
Protect the views, particularly those of public areas (adhere to zoning heights.)
a. Core city 40 ft., SCI (Surface/Commercial/Industrial) 35 ft., lodge, tourist-
residential, 28 ft., residential and multi-family, 25 ft. Note: height is above grade,
so if site slopes downward, height drops accordingly.
Roaring Fork River and its environment (adhere to stream margin reviews.)
Protect and enhance tax base: (both Property and Sales.)
Quoting from the Obermeyer Place Project Goals: "The project should be to enhance core Aspen
qualities: Pedestrian experience, coanection to natural amenities, and the project shall show
respect for its natural surroundings (and variety of uses)."
For fifty plus years, Aspen has made a great effort to follow the above fundamental premises.
Most people come to Aspen for the beauty, and many return because of the mountains, river, and
general environment. The city has shown great foresight in creating parks and open space, and
preserving the views. Public parking has been developed essentially underground. Hallam Lake
and its surrounds, some seventeen acres, have been preserved. The Rio Grande Trail has been
created, and the zoning taws have been rigidly adhered to in the past.
The public and residential areas north of the Obermeyer project, including Red and Smuggler
mountains and Oklahoma Flats, will be greatly affected by height and mass of the structures.
Obviously, the farther north the structures are placed, the greater the impact will be. The specific
public areas are: The Rio Grande Trail and Park, lohn Denver Sanctuary, the Theatre in the
Park, the Aspen Art Museum, the Skateboard Park and the Aspen Art Park.
As a long time Aspen property owner and part time resident, I am concerned that the donation of
city property to the COWOP is an excuse to violate zomng and stream margin reviews, which
are required of private projects for the protection of the above fundamental premises.
Since the city owns land on the north, east, and west sides of the Obermeyer project, as well as a
right of way through the central part, why doesn't the city consider trading out land on a square
foot by square foot basis to create a buffer area for the park and the river? The Roaring Fork
River is less than one hundred feet from the northeast section of the proposed project.
It would seem that the sponsors of this project could take a lesson from the building that houses
Paradise Bakery. Through numerous negotiations with the city, approximately 25 % of the Iand
that could have been developed was dedicated to open space for the benefit of all. The upper
floors were set back to enhance the feeling of openness. Required employee housing and other
demands were also met. It is also interesting to note that, after fifteen years, three of the four of
the original tenants, all locals, still remain.
The consequences of the public vote must be explicitly explained to the citizens in order that
they understand the scope of the Obermeyer project as it is presently proposed. The public must
be able to envision the impact of a 51 ft. structure (Four stories is not explicit enough) placed at
the edge of the park and what the structures will look like from the Rio Grande Trail, Rio Grande
Park, Theatre in the Park, Art Museum, and John Denver Sanctuary. At this time, the citizens of
Aspen need photographs of the heights, not artist renditions that can be distorted.
Also, north-south cross-sections should be drawn through the east, middle, and west end of the
project. These should include the proposed buildings of the Obermeyer project, critical city
buildings, the Rio Grand Trail, the river, and the skateboard park. Because of safety, these should
also include the shadows produced by the height and proximity of the project at critical pathways
during various times of the year.
Our family has been property owners in Aspen since 1945, and has seen many changes. I believe
it is critical, before the public votes, that it clearly understands the ramifications of the proposed
heights and proximity to the public areas and its impact on the total environment north of the
proposed Obermeyer project.
Possibly the best solution to the problem would be to create a buffer zone south of the Rio
Grande Park where Rio Grande Place exists now and terrace down from the height of the
Concept 600 Building on Main Street to the existing zoning height Of 35 feet, to the present
location of the current buildings.
Very truly yours,
Richard W. Volk
cc: Klaus Obermeyer
Letters to the Editors, Aspen Times and Aspen Daily News
Memorandum
To: Mayor & City Council
CC: File
From: Rebecca Doane. Human Resources
Date: August 7, 2002
Re: Outstanding Employee Bonus Awards - 1s; & 2ns Quarter, 2002
Outstanding Employee Bonus Award for the 1s~ quarter, 2002 was approved for the
following:
John Rushing - Police Department
Outstanding Employee Bonus Awards for the 2nd quarter. 2002 were approved for the
following:
Jim Considine - Information Systems Department
Cindy Christensen - Housing Department
P3
To: Officer John Rushing
From: Sgt. Leon R. Murray TsE CITY OF ASPEN
Sgt. Gary Kalkman Ast, urq POLICE DEPARTMENT
Date: August 7. 2002
Re', 1~ Quarter Outstanding Employee Bonus Award
John. Gary and I would like to invite you to Aspen City Council Chambers on August 12.
2002 at 5:00 PM to receive a well-deserved recognition for your life sawng efforts of
February 12.2002.
AS YOU RECALL. A YOUNG MAN FROM NEW ZEALAND HAD
FALLEN OFF THE MAROON CREEK BRIDGE. THERE WAS
INITIAL CONFUSION AS TO HIS EXACT LOCATION, BUT YOU
WERE THE FIRST TO LOCATE THE VICTIM.
IT WAS SNOWING THAT NIGHT, AND THE TEMPERATURE
WAS ABOUT -15 DEGREES. EVEN THOUGH THERE WERE
MANY OFFICERS AT THE SCENE, YOU IMMEDIATELY
VOLUNTEERED TO TRY TO FIND A WAY TO THE VICTIM.
AFTER ABOUT 30 MINUTES OF BREAKING TRAIL THRU KNEE
DEEP SNOW ON A ROCK AND ICE COVERED RIVER AREA YOU
WERE ABLE TO REACH'THE VICTIM. HE WAS BARELY ALIVE.
YOUR CARE AT THE SCENE AND THROUGHOUT THE
DANGEROUS EXTRICATION TOOK WELL OVER AN HOUR.
WE TRULY BELIEVE THAT THE EXPERT CARE YOU
PROVIDED ON THE RIVERS EDGE HELPED PROLONG THE
VICTIM'S LIFE THE SEVERAL ADDITIONAL DAYS HE LIVED
BEFORE HE EXPIRED. AS YOU KNOW, SEVERAL FAMILY
MEMBERS AND FRIENDS TRAVELED FROM NEW ZEALAND
AND VISITED THE VICTIM IN GRAND JUNCTION BEFORE HE
EXPIRED ABOUT FIVE DAYS LATER. THE FAMILY THANKED
THE OFFICERS IN GENERAL, BUT SINGLED YOU OUT FOR
SPECIAL PRAISE.
506 EAST MAIN, S~tTE 102 · ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ' EMERGENCY 911 ' ADMI~I$?RAT/ON 970920.5400 · F^X 970.920,5409
THE MEDICAL EXPERTISE YOU BROUGHT TO THAT FROZEN
RIVER BED FROM YOUR PRIOR CAREER IN NURSING WE
BELIEVE IS' WHAT HELPED THE FAMILY HAVE THE EXTRA
TIME NEEDED TO TRAVEL TO ASPEN AND SAY GOODBYE TO
A LOVED ONE. YOUR DEDICATION TO DUTY WENT WELL
ABOVE AND BEYONE WHAT WAS EXPECTED FROM A PEACE
OFFICER THAT NIGHT.
You will be awarded a check and framed certificate from the citizens of Aspen for your
gallant achievement that cold morning in February.
Thank you very much John. ~r is a pleasure to have you as a member of the City of Aspen
Team.
August 2, 2002
Re: Outstanding Employee Bonus Award -- The Fiber Optic Project
Awarded to: Jim Considine
Con~atula~ions on winning the 2002 - 2nd Quarter Outstanding Employee Bonus!
Your bonus will be awarded at the Aug~st 12, 2002 City Co~meil Meeting, which begins
at 5:00 p.m.
Below are portions of the original nomination letter:
We would like to present to Jim Considine, the Outstanding Employee Bonus
Award for his outstanding work on the Metropolitan Area Network Fiber Optic
Project.
The Fiber Optic Project consists of placing fiber optic cable in a ring around Aspen
replacing the older and slower phone line technology while enhancing our network
reliability and cutting recurring costs with Qwest.
Jim started work on this project 2 F~ years ago when Aspen's cable provider,
AT&T, indicated they were going to embark on a massive trenching project in order
to replace their current cable infrastructure and deliver broadband services. Jim
saw this as an opportunity to co-locate the new fiber optic eabling with AT&T at an
ineremental cost.
Jim also met with other government entities, citizens and other organizations
throughout the valley both giving and receiving pertinent information as to how
Aspen's fiber project might beneficially impact others in the valley.
During the course of the Fiber Optic Project Jim modeled a high standard
professionalism while maintaining his normal duties. Jim also put in the odd hours
that this project and the various meetings demanded.
Jim's efforts have produced a City asset that was bought for 25 cents on the dollar
and is valued at approximately 2 million dollars.
Congratulations Jim!
Cindy Christensen
AsperfPitkin County Housing Authority
Plaza 1
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Cindy,
It is a great pleas~u:e to inform you that you have been nominated for and have received
aa outstanding Employee Bonus Award. Please be in attendance at the City Council
meeting at 5:00 PM on August 12, to receive your award.
Just to let you know, yon actually had two axvard nominations from two groups, so it is
obvious that your work was truly appreciated. The summary of the basis for your award
was as stated below:
"Cindy is an extremely committed ~mployee, She rose to the occasion of
filling the Interim Executive director position with enthusiasm, grace
and responsibility. As Interim Executive Director, she committed to the
needs of the office, the public and other City departments withont
falling behind at her daily duties as Operations Manager, despite the
long hours that that required.
Similarly, as Interim Executive Director, Cindy's leadership skills
proved brilliant. She was able to maintain staff moral during a
transitional time and provide a sense of humor to a somewhat tense
work environment. Her commitment to the Housing program has been
motivational to the staff."
For ali of this we thard< you.
Ed Sadter,
Assistant City Manager
C: Housing Office staff
RESOLUTION NO. (~ ~
(Series of 2002j
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN. COLORADO.
CALLING FOR AND ESTABLISHING A DATE FOR A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
TO BE CONDUCTED ON NOVEMBER 5. 200Z
WHEREAS. Section 2.2 of the Home Rule Charter of the City of Aspen provides that
any special mumc~pal election may be called by resolution or ordinance of the City Council at
least sLxty (60) days in advance of such election: and
WHEREAS. the Cky Council desires to place before the Aspen electorate certain ballot
questions: and
WHEREAS the City CounciI may add such additional questions to the ballot as ir may
hereafter deem appropriate.
NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN. COLORADO. THAT:
Section 1.
A special municipal election shall be and is hereby called and established for Tuesday,
November 5, 2002, for the purpose of submitting to the electorate certain baIlot questions to be
determined by the City Council at a future date.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on
the day of ,2002.
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is
a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen.
Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated.
Kathryn S. Koch. City Clerk
JPW-OS/OS/2OO2-G:\johnkword\resoskelect-spec-li-O2.doc
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
DATE: August 7, 2002
RE: Election Equipment Pm:chase
SUMMARY: I am requesting authorization to spend $60,450 on new
election eqmpment. This money is in the 2002 AMP.
BACKGROUND: An election task force was formed in April 2001 to
consider new election equipment The task force consisted of the Pitkin
County Clerk, Aspen City Clerk, Snowmass City Clerk. County
Commissioner Mick Ireland, City Councilor Tony Hershey, IS
representative Ruth Kinney, previous election workers, members of Pitkin
County election commission, and representatives of the Republican and
Democratic parties.
Aspen and Pitkin County have used punch card ~Iection eqmpment since
1975. Very little money has been spent in the past 25 years. Even before
the November election and the bad press, the limiting s~ze of the punch card
ballot was a concern. Another issue with our current election system is that
parrs will not be available.
The task force had demonstrations and interviews at about 3 hours each with
4 election eqmpment vendors; Sequoia, Global Election Systems, ES&S and
Hart Intercivic. The two technologies looked at were optical scan and
electric touch screen ta.k.a. DRE direct record election).
The recommendation of the task force was to demo the optical scan ballot in
the November 2001 election. This was well received and the connt of
optical scan ballots in the one precinct was speedy and completed with no
problems.
Pll
DISCUSSION: Aspen, Pitldn County and Snowmass have always had
shared election equipment. The election officials and task force agree this is
the most efficient, best for voters. Pitkin County Clerk Silvia Davis is
ordering AccuVote optical scan precinct ballot tabulators and the software.
Snowmass and Aspen are ordering their own hardware and paying a portion
of the software, training and installation costs. Each town gets its own
machines in case we were to have an election at the same time (i.e. August
1999) or if the county machines were unavailable because cfa vote
challenge. Also, if we were to use Pitkin County's machines, they would
charge us which would be an on going expense and probably cost more than
owning the machines over time.
One issue brought up by Council is secrecy of the ballot. You will see a cost
for secrecy sleeves below. These were available in the November 2001
election and voters may not have been aware they could use them.' I will
develop signs for city polling places stating secrecy sleeves are available.
The other technology, touch screens, was looked at. These are adaptable for
sight impaired and other disabilities. There will probably be federal
legislation mandating handicap accessibility of voting machines but not until
2005 or 2006. Ms. Davis and I decided not to buy any touch screen
machines at this time. Staffand Council can look at this when and if it
becomes federal legislation.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The initial costs are:
6 AccuVote Optical Scan Tabulators ~ $6,500 = $39,000
Memory cards, secrecy sleeves, transfer bags = 1,200
GEMS Software ~ $35,000 (45% Aspen share) = 15,750
Training, Installation ~ $i0,000.(45% Aspen)= 4,500
TOTAL $60,450
There is $165,000 in the AMP for purchase of voting equipment. Unnsed
dollars will be returned to the AMP. Money for the touch screens will not
be held over for 3 years so staff and Council will address that when it is
appropriate:
The annual costs will not increase. In fact, the maintenance agreement will
be the same or a little less. There may be some cost savings in using the
GEMS software to setup the ballot rather than having a printer do it.
2
P12
RECOMMENDATION: I recommend Council authorize expenditure of
$60,450 for new election equipment out of the AMP, returning the balance
of $100,000 to the AMP.
ALTERNATIVES: Council could opt tO stay with punch card ballot
system. If the computer or ballot counter were to fail, I don't know if we
could get them fixed as no company is manufacturing or maintaining this
equipment.
MOTION: By adopting the consent calendar, Council is authorizing the
expenditure of $60,450 for election equipment for the City of Aspen.
3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council
THRU: John Worcester, City Attorney t~--,
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Directolt>z'q---~
FROM: Chris Bendon, Long-Range Planner OJ~
RE: Civic Master Plan Phase Three Contract for Professional Services
DATE: August 12, 2002
SUMMARY:
The purpose of this long-range project is to unite all of the various plans for public, quasi-
public, and private facility upgrades in the Civic area that have been discussed
individually. The City initiated this planning effort roughly two years ago with detailed
analysis and identi~lcafiun of opportunities. This "fit-it-all-together" phase will finalize
the plan. This project was included in the recently approved 2002 budget for $100,000.
Staff used a competitive bidding and interview process to select a consultant, as outlined
in the City procurement code. A request for qualification was advertised in the "City
News" section of the Aspen Times as well as with separate box advertisements.
Proposers were asked to assemble a team of professionals with site planning, landscape
archite6mre, architecture, structural and civil engineering, transportation, and
development feasibility expertise. The City received four submissions. A selection
committee, consisting of various city and county personnel knowledgeable of the Civic
Master Plan and planning and development issues and a member of the civic advisory
group, reviewed the proposals, selected two teams for interview, conducted the
interviews, and made the selection.
DHM Design Corporation in partnership with Studio B Architects was selected by the
committee. Staff is pleased with the selection and is confident in the capabilities of the
consultant team. DHM developed a scope of services within the budget. Staff has
allocated $90,000 of the $100,000 project budget for this contract. Other professional
services and miscellaneous items, such as materials, meeting food, and printing, are
expected to be covered by the remaining $10,000. DHM has reviewed and approved the
proposed contract.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed contract for professional services with
DIIM Design Corporation for the Civic Master Plan.
P15
OVERVIEW OF CIVIC ~VlASTER PLAN:
The Civic Master Plan is a long-range planning project determining the future of the
"Civic Center" - that area of Aspen between the City Halt block of downtown and the
Aspen Art Museum. (There are also some isolated facilities located out of this general
area.) This area is the primary location for goverrnnent services, cultural institutions, and
is a very visible area of town. There are many needs that the institutions in this area must
address over the next £ew decades and significant public benefit in a coordinated planning
effort. There is also opportunity for tr~ly wonderful public spaces in areas that today lack
pedestrian interest. Opportunities exist for improved visitor service, provision of
life/safety facilities, combined facilities for cultural institutions, public/private
redevelopment partnerships, affordable housing, and remote parking for infill housing
projects.
Phases One and Two of the master planning have been accomplished. This work has
resulted in identification of future opportunities for government, quasi-governnaent,
private non-profit, and private redevelopment in the master plarming area.
~> Phase One - Analysis & possible directions. Completed and documented through
Phase One Report. (1 lx17 report)
<> Phase T~vo - Refine reasonable options to pursue with City Council and BOCC.
Eliminate options that have no purpose in the plan, no political interest, or are
otherwise unsound alternatives. This phase focused the plarming effort and
eliminated inappropriate options. Completed.
") Phase Three - '~Fit it all together." Design expertise will aid staff and the Civic
advisory group in recommending a physical master plan. Further analysis
necessary includes detailed facility needs, financial feasibility, architectural and
structural studies, and ascertaining funding and phasing options. City Council has
ftmded this third and final phase of the Civic Master Plan.
The ongoing Obermeyer COWOP project is an %£~:shoot" of this planning effort and
adopted plans wiII be factored into the overall civic plan. The Parks Department witl be
initiating a master plan for Rio Grande Park seeking professional engineering expertise to
examine drainage requirements and recontouring of Rio Grande Park. The programming
(determining uses) of the park will be handled by the Park Department.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Proposed Contract with DHM
RESOLUTION NO.
CSEP-Z S 2002>
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVKN'G A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGKEEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN ANT) DHxM
DESIGN CORPORATION, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN.
WHEREAS. there has been submitted to the City Council a Professional Service
A~eement between the City of Aspen, Colorado and DHM Design Corporation. a copy of wkich
is annexed hereto and parr thereof.
NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
Section One
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that a Professional Service
Agreement between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and DHM Desig-n Corporation, regarding the
Civic Master Plan, Phase III, a copy o£which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein_ and
does hereby anthor/ze the City Manager ro execute said Agreement on behalf of the City of
Aspen.
Dated: _, 2002.
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
I, Kathryn Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a rnle and
accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen. Colorado. at a
meeting held ,2002.
Kathryn S. Koch_ City Clerk
P17
CIVIC MASTER PLAN PHASE THREE SITE PLANNING
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement made and entered on the date hereinafter stated, between the CITY OF ASPEN,
Colorado, ("City") and DHM Design Corporation ("DHM").
For and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. Scope of Work. DHM shall perform in a competent and professional manner the Scope
of Work as set forth at Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated
herein.
Completion. DHI~ shall commence work immediately upon receipt of a written Notice to
Proceed from the City and complete all phases of the Scope of Work as expeditiously as
is consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the Work in a
timely manner. The parties anticipate that all work pursuant to this agreement shall be
completed no later than December 2002. Upon request of the City, DHM shall submit,
for the City's approval, a schedule for the performance of DHM's services which shall be
adjusted as required as the project proceeds, and which shall include allowances for
periods of time required by the City's Contract Administrator for review and approval of
submissions and for approvals of authorities having jurisdiction over the project. This
schedule, when approved by the City, shall not, except for reasonable cause, be exceeded
by DHM.
3. Payment. In consideration of the work performed, City shall pay DHM on a basis for all
work performed. The scope of work, rates, and products to be supplied are described in
attachment "A," appended hereto.' Additional services that are not identified herein shall
be performed on a time a materials basis only if agreed upon by both parties. The rates
for work performed by DHM shall not exceed those hourly rates set forth at Exhibit "A"
appended hereto. Except as otherwise mutually agreed to by the parties, the total
payments made to DHM shall not initially exceed $90,000. DHM shall submit, in timely
fashion, invoices for work performed. The City shall review such invoices and, if they
are considered incorrect or untimely, the City shall review the matter with DHM within
ten days from receipt of DHM's bill.
4. Non-Assignability. Both parties recognize that this contract is one for personal services
and cannot be transferred, assigned, or sublet by either party without prior written
consent of the other. Authorized sub-contracting shall not relieve DHM of any of the
responsibilities or obligations under this agreement. DHM shall be and remain solely
responsible to the City for the acts, errors, omissions or neglect of any subcontractors
Contract for Services: Civic Master Plan Phase Three Site Plarming Page
D:\CivicPhasetll\Contracts\DHM_contract. doc
P18
officers, agents and employees, each of whom shaII, for this purpose be deemed to be an
agent or employee of DHM to the extent of the subcontract. The City shall not be
obligated to pay or be liable for payment of any sums due which may be due to any sub-
contractor. It is understood DHM may subcontract professional services with Studio B
Architects, Sopris Engineering, Loris StmcturaI Engineering, Charlier Associates, Shaw
Construction, RRC Associates, Quinby Clune, and others as warranted. Additional
subcontracting may be authorized by the City's Contract Administrator.
5. Termination. DHM or the City may terminate this Agreement, without specifying the
reason therefore, by giving notice, in writing, addressed to the other party, specifying the
effective date of the termination. No fees shall be earned after the effective date of the
termination. Upon any termination, aH £mished or unfinished documents, data, studies,
surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, reports or other material prepared by
DHM pursuant to this Agreement shall become the property of the City. Notwithstanding
the above, DHM shall not be relieved of any liability to the City for damages sustained by
the City by virtue of any breach of this Agreement by DHM, and the City may withhold
any payments to DHM for the purposes of set-off until such time as the exact amount of
damages due the City from DHM may be determined.
6. Covenant A~ainst Contingent Fees. DHM warrants that s/he has not employed or retained
any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working for DHM, to solicit or
secure this contract, that s/he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other
than a bona fide employee, any fee, corm:aission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts or any
other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this
contract.
7. Independent Contractor Status. It is expressly acknowledged and understood by the
parties that no~g contained in this agreement shall result in, or be construed as
establishing an employment relationship. DHM shall be, and shall perform as, an
independent Contractor who agrees to use his or her best efforts to provide the said
services on behalf of the City: No agent, employee, or servant of DHM shall be, or shall
be deemed to be, the employee, agent or servant of the City, City is interested only in the
results obtained under this contract. The manner and means of Conducting the work are
under the sole control of DHM. None of the benefits provided by City to its employees
including, but not limited to, workers' compensation insurance and unemployment
insurance, are available from City to the employees, agents or servants of DHM. DHM
shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of DHM's agents,
employees, servants and subcontractors during the performance of this dontract. DHM
shall indemnify City against ail liability and loss in connection with, and shall assume full
responsibility for payment of all federal, state and local taxes or contributions imposed or
required under unemployment insurance, social security' and income tax law, with respect
to DFIM and/or DHM's employees engaged in the performance of the services agreed to
herein.
Contract for Services: Civic Master Plan Phase Three Site Planning Page 2
D:\CivicPhaselll\Contracts\DHM_contract,doc
P19
8. Indemnification. DiZ[M agrees to indemrdfy and hold harmless the City, its officers,
employees, insurers, and self-insurance pool, from and against all liability, claims, and
demands, on account of injury, loss, or damage, including without limitation claims
arising from bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or
damage, or any other loss of any kind whatsoever, which arise out of or are in any
manner connected with this contract, if such injury, loss, or damage is caused in whole or
in part by, or is claimed to be caused in whole or in part by, the act, omission, error,
professional error, mistake, negligence, or other fault of DHM, any subcontractor of
DHM, or any officer, employee, representative, or agent of DHM or of any subcontrac-
tor of DHM, or which arises out of any workmen's compensation claim of any employee
of DHM or of any employee of any subcontractor of DHM. DHM agrees to investigate,
handle, respond to, and to provide defense for and defend against, any such liability,
claims or demands at the sole expense of DHM, or at the option of the City, agrees to pay
the City or reimburse the City for the defense costs incurred by the City in connection
with, any such liability, claims, or demands. If it is determined by the fmaI judgment of a
court of competent jurisdiction that such injury, loss, or damage was caused in whole or
in part by the act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or its employees, the
City shall reimburse DHM for the portion of the judgment attributable to such act,
omission, or other fauit of the City, its officers, or employees.
9. DHM's Insurance. (a) DHM agrees to procure and maintain, at its own expense, a
policy or policies of insurance sufficient to insure against ali liability, claims, demands,
and other obligations assumed by DHM pursuant to Section 8 above. Such insurance shall
be in addition to any other insurance requirements imposed by this contract or by law.
DFiM shall not be relieved of any liability, claims, demands, or other obligations assumed
pursuant to Section 8 above by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance, or
by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance in sufficient amounts, duration,
or types.
(b) DHM shall procure and maintain, and shall cause any subcontractor of DHM to
procure and maintain, the minimum insurance coverages listed below. Such coverages
shall be procured and maintained with forms and insurance acceptable to the City. Ail
coverages shall be continuously maintained to cover all liability, claims, demands, and
other obligations assumed by DHM pursuant to Section 8 above. In the case of any
claims-made policy, the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting periods shall
be procured to maintain such continuous coverage.
(i) Workmen's Coml~ensarior~ insurance to cover obligations imposed by applicable
laws for any employee engaged in the performance of work under this contract,
and Emplsyers' Liability insurance with minimum limits of ONE HUNDRED
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100,000.00) for each accident, ONE HUNDRED
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100,000.00) disease - policy limit, and ONE
Contract for Services: Civic Master Plan Phase Three Site Planrfing Page 3
O:\CivicPhaselll\Contracts\D H M_contract.doc
P20
HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100,000.00)disease - each employee.
Evidence of qualified self-insured status may be substituted for the Workmen's
Compensation requirements of this paragraph,
(ii) Commercial General Liability insurance with minimum combined single limits of
ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($I,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE
MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) aggregate: The policy shall be applicable
to all premises and operations. The policy shall include coverage for bodily
injury, broad form property damage (including completed operations), personal
injury (including coverage for contractual and employee acts), blanket contractual,
independent contractors, products, and completed operations. The policy shall
contain a severability of interests provision.
(iii)Comprehensive Automobile Liability insurance with mi~2rnum combined single
limits for bodily injury and property damage of not less than ONE MILLION
DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS
($1,000,000.00) aggregate with respect to each DHM's owned, hired and non-
owned vehicles assigned to or used in performance of the Scope of Work. The
policy shall contain a severability of interests provision.
(iv)Professional Liability insurance with the minimum limits of ONE MILLION
DOLLARS ($1,000,000) each claim and ONE MILLION DOLLARS
($1,000,000) aggregate.
(c) The policy or policies required above shall be endorsed to include the City and the
City's officers and employees as additional insureds. Every policy required above shall be
primary insurance, and any insurance carried by the City, its officers or employees, or
carried by or provided through any insurance pool of the City, shall be excess and not
contributory insurance to that provided by DHM. No additional insured endorsement to
the policy required above shall contain any exclusion for bodily injury or properly
damage arising from completed operations. DHM shall be solely responsible for any
deductible losses under any policy required above.
(d) The certificate of insurance provided by the City shall be completed by DFiM's
insurance agent as evidence that policies providing the required coverages, conditions,
and minimum limits are in full force and effect, and shall be reviewed and approved by
the City prior to commencement of the contract. No other form of certificate shall be
used. The certificate shall identify this contract and shall provide that the coverages
afforded under the policies shall not be canceled, terminated or materially changed until at
least thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to the City.
(e) Failure on the part of DHM to procure or maintain policies providing the required
coverages, conditions, and rain/mum limits shall constitute a material breach of contract
Contract for Services: Civic Master Plan Phase Three Site Plarming Page 4
D:/CivicPhaselil\Contracts/PH M_contract,doc
P21
upon which City may immediately termfin~ate this contract, or at its discretion City may
procure or renew any such policy or any extended reporting period thereto and may pay
any and ali premiums in connection therewith, and all monies so paid by City shall be
repaid by DHM to City upon demand, or Cky may offset the cost of the premiums
against monies due to DHM from City.
(f) City reserves the right to request and receive a certified copy of any policy and any
endorsement thereto.
(g) The parties hereto understand and agree that City is relying on, and does not waive or
intend to waive by any provision of this contract, the monetary limkations (presently
$150,000.00 per person and $600,000 per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities,
and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-1_0-
101 er seq., C.R.S., as from time to time amended, or otherwise available to City, its
officers, or its employees.
10. City's Insurance. The parties hereto understand that the City is a member of the
Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA) and as such participates in the
CIRSA Property/Casualty Pool. Copies of the CIRSA policies and manual are kept ar the
City of Aspen Finance Department and are available to DHM for inspection during
normal business hours. City makes no representations whatsoever with respect ro specific
coverages offered by CIRSA. City shall provide DHM reasonable nonce of any changes
in its membership or participation in CIRSA.
11. Completeness of A~reement. It is expressly agreed that this agreement contains the entire
undertaking of the parties relevant to the subject matter thereof and there are no verbal or
written representations, agreements, warranties or promises perrairfing ro the project
matter thereof not expressly incorporated in this writing.
12. Notice. Any written notices as called for herein may be hand delivered ro the respective
Contract Administrator listed below or mailed by certified mail return receipt requested.
to:
City: Dtt21/I Design Corporation:
RE: Civic Master Plan Laura Kirk
Chris Bendon, Long Range Planner Vice President
City of Aspen DHM Design Corporation
130 South Galena Street 580 Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611 Carbondale, CO 81623
13. Non-Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex. marital stares.
affectionat or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry,
Contract for Services: Civic Master Plan Phase Three Site P[am~ing Page 5
O:\CivicPh aselll\Oontracts\DHM_contract.doc
P22
handicap, or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform services
under this contract. DHM agTees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal
code, Section 13-98, pertaining to non,discrimination in employment.
14. Waiver. The waiver by the City of any term, covenant, or condition hereof shaI1 not
operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the .same or any other term. No term,
covenant, or condition of this Agreement can be waived except by the written consent of
the City, and forbearance or indulgence by the City in any regard whatsoever shall not
constitute a waiver of any term, covenant, or condition to be performed by DHM to
which the same may apply and, until complete performance by DHM of said term,
covenant or condition, the City shall be entitled to invoke any remedy available to it
under this Agreement or by law despite any such forbearance or indulgence.
15. Execution of Agreement by City. This agreement shall be binding upon all parties hereto
and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, Successors, and assigns.
16. General Terms.
(a) It is agreed that neither this agreement nor any of its terms, provisions,
conditions, representations or covenants can be modified, changed, terminated or
amended, waived, superseded or extended except by appropriate written
instrument fully executed by the parties.
(b) If any of the provisions of this agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or
unenforceabIe it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or erzfomeability of
any other provision.
(c) The parties acknowledge and understand that there are no conditions or limitations
to this understanding escept those as contained herein at the time of the execution
hereof and that after execution no alteration, change or modification shall be made
except upon a writing Signed by the parties.
(d) This agreement shalI be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado as from
tkne to time in effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed, or caused to be executed by their
duly authorized officials, this Agreement in three copies each of wnich shall be deemed an
original on the date hereinafter written.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
Contract for Services: Civic Master Plan Phase Three Site Plarming Page 6
D:\CivicPhaselll\Contracts/D H M_contract,doc
P23
ATTESTED BY: CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Mayor Helen K. Klandemd
Date:
WITNESSED BY: DHM Design Corporation:
By:
T kle:
Date:
Contract for Services: Civic Master Plan Phase Three Site Planning Page 7
D:\CivicPhaselll\Contracts\DHM_contract.doc
Aspen Civic Center Master Plan Phase III ,lYlctt$~-~ 431~'~o-~ ~
Client: City of Aspen Date: 7/15/02
Firm: DHM Design Corporation Revised:
Itemized Summary Title Rate Hours Total
DHM Design Work Scope
Meetings Project Mgr./Principal $ii0 i25 $13,750
7 COWOP Meetings Staff La $60 $0
HPC - By others Task Sub-Total $13,750
2 Council Sessions
P&Z Combined w/Council
7 Team Work Sessions
7 Additional Meetings
Coordination Project Mgr./Principal $1 I0 80 $8,800
StaffLa $60 $0
Task Sub-Total $8,800
Products
Conceptual Alternatives P~oject Mgr./Principal $110 40 $4,400
StaffLa $60 64 $3,840
Task Sub-TotaI $8,240
Scenario Design Project Mgr./Principal $ 110 40 $4,400
Staff La $60 80 $4,800
Task Sub-Total $9,200
Solutions~Implementation Project Mgr./Principal $110 40 $4,400
StaffLa $60 80 $4,800
Task Sub-Total $9,200
DHM Labor Total $49,190
Studio B Work Scope
Meetings Proj eot Mgr./Principal $ 100 77 $7,700
7 COWOP Meetings
1 HPC
2 Council Sessions
P&Z Combined w/Council
7 Team Work Sessions
Coordination Proj eot Mgr./Principal $100 29 $2,900
Products
Conceptual Alternatives Project Mgr./Principal $100 72 $7,200
Scenario Design Project Mgr./Principal $100 84 $8,400
Solutions/Implementation Project Mgr./Principal $100 64 $6,400
Studio B Labor Total $32,600
[~25 TECHNICAL CONSULTANT TEAM SCOPE
Needs Assessment Work Scope
Municipal Needs Assessment Review Task Sub-Total $2.500
Not to Exceed
Financial Analysis Work Scope
Cost Review of Alternative Scenarios Task Sub-Total $3
Not to Exceed
Technical Consultant Labor Total $6.
Sub-Consultant Mark-up of 4% for coordination/billing/etc. $1,544
LABOR TOTAL $89,334
OTHER TECHNICAL CONSULTANTS (under separate contract)
Structural Work Scope
Traffic Consulting Work Scope
Wayfinding Work Scope
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Klandemd and City Council
THRU: 3'0yce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director
CC: Finance Department
FROM: Amy Gut~zrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines"- Supplemental
Budget Request and Authorization for Expenditure of Grant Money
DATE: August 12, 2002
Summary': The Community Development Department requests Council approval of a
$2,446' supplemental budget request, which will serve as matching ftmds to a $6,000
grant that has been received from the State Historical Fund to update our historic
preservation design guidelines. Council is also asked to authorize the expenditure of the
grant.
Background and Discussion: The "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines" were adopted in April 2000. Since then there has been very clear
improvement in the quality of proposals brought forward and approved by the Aspen
Historic Preservation Commission. A recent feature article in The Aspen Times noted the
large number of exemplary projects currently under construction and included interviews
with architects who view the design review process as easier to understand and more of a
"team effort." Applying the guidelines over the last two years has however revealed
areas where policies need refinement. In addition, as we plan for the protection of our
post-war architectural heritage, we feel that there is not enough information in place to
address the philosophical issues that will in some Ways be different than those posed by
19th century buildings. Aspen is ahead of other municipalities in the state in regard to
these kind of efforts and the Colorado Historical Society has advised us to be pro-active
and plan for the challenges that will be raised in reviews rather than be overcome by
conflicts.
The public will benefit from amendments to the design guidelines in several ways. The
City is being responsive to applicants' needs by fixing problems that have been
identified, and again reducing confusion over the review criteria. This will increase
confidence in the Historic Preservation Commission's decisions. The whole community
is benefiting from the results of the very high standards set by the design guidelines.
P27
Work on the update of the guidelines is expected to begin right away and be completed
around the start of the new year. Nord Winter, of Winter and Company in Boulder, who
wrote the original guidelines, will assist the Commission in the update. The project will
include workshops that are open to the public.
Alternatives: We are committed to the project and under contract with the State
Historical Fund for its completion. If Council is not in favor of a $2,446 allocation from
the General Fund, the Community Development Department will have to re-assign funds
from our departmental budget, which may affect other projects that are planned.
Attachment:
A. Budget
P28
PROJECT BUDGET
TASK Grant Cash Total
Match
PROFESSIONAL FEES:
Minor changes related to clarification of $1,230 $1,230
policies where wording of design guidelines
may need to be strengthened
· Consultant to execute redlined changes
provided by City
· Consultant and City to review changes
(Hours billed to City: 18)
Development of new design guidelines $6,000 $410 $6,410
for more recent architecture (2 iterations)
· Consultant to prepare for two public workshops
- Initial meeting to establish basic policies
for design guidelines
- 2nd workshop to present draf;
· Consultant travel and meeting time
· Consultant to generate new text
· Consultant to complete document layout
· Consultant to generate new sketches
· Consultant and City to proofread/review
(Ho;u:s billed to City: 66)
REIMBURSABLES
· Consultant expenses (mileage, hotel, per diem for 2 trips
from Boulder) $626 $626
SUPPLIES
· Copies, etc.' from consultant $180 $180
TOTALS
$6,000 $2,446 $8,446
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Ed Sadler, Assistant City Manager
Subject: Truscott Funding
Date: July 22, 2002
About 2 years ago, when the Truscott project was being finalized~ Council was
trying to put the funding package together to fund the project in light of depleted
Housing reserves due to the RETT lawsuit. With money set aside in case the City
lost the lawsuit, Housing funds for the project were tight at best and Council funded
the project by a variety of sources. One of the sources was to use $225,000 from the
"excess" Marolt reserves. Upon further investigation and consulting with Steve
Jeffers (one of the City's bond consultants), it has been determ!ned that these funds
are not "excess" and can not be used to fund Truscott. In light of this determination
and with the RETT lawsuit behind us, I am asking City Council to repeal the
appropriation from Marolt and to replace the funds for the project with Housing
Funds in the amount of $225,000. With Housing Funds at a level of over
$13,000,000, Housing should still have adequate funds to continue with any further
projects that Council would pursue.
CC: Maureen Dobson
Finance Office
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
Thru: Steve Barwick
From: Jerry L Nye
Date: July 30, 2002, 2002
Subject: Contract approval, CDOT
SUMMARY:
Staff recommends approval of the contract to partner with CDOT to overlay sections of
Highway 82 in Aspen from Monarch Street through East End of town to city limit sign.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
Council approved a similar contract in May of 1997 and 2000 for themicro-surfacing and
overlays of 82 in Town.
CURRENT ISSUES:
CDOT wishes to overlay portion of Highway 82 in Aspen. Since the City of Asaen has. ~
this current year. bid and approved a contract for its own streets To be sealed. CDOT
wishes to add their work on 82 to our contract. This contract with CDOT is our guarantee
to be reimbursed for the cost of the work on Highway 82
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The contract amount is $100,000.00
PROPOSED MOTION:
move To approve Resolution #(o"~ of 2002. on ~ne Consent Calendar of Monday, August
12, 2002
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
P33
RESOLUTION NO. ~o~'
Series of 2002
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND The Colorado Department Of
Transportation, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID
DOCUMENT(S) ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a CONTRACT
between the City of Aspen, Colorado and. The Colorado of Transportation,a copy of which
contract is annexed hereto and made a part thereof.
NOW, WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section One
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that CONTRACT between
the City of Aspen, Colorado, and The Colorado of Transportation. a copy of which is annexed
hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen
to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Aspen.
Dated: ., 2002.
Helen Klandemd. Mayor
P34
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is
a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the C~ty Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado. ar a meeting held .2002.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
P35
(ST$/LAWRK) Rev. 2/00
03 J:tA3 00005
CITY of ASPEN/R-3 (MAA)
CONTRACT
THIS CONT1KACT, made this day of ,20 , by and between the State
of Colorado for the use and benefit of THE COLOIK,~DO DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, hereinafter referred to as the State or CDOT, and the CITY of ASPEN,
STATE of COLORADO, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, FEI2q: 846000563,
.hereinafter referred to as the Local Agency, or the contractor.
FACTUAL RECITALS.
1. Authority exists in the law' and funds have been budgeted, appropriated and other~vise made
available and a sufficient unencumbered balance thereof remains available for payment of project
and Local Agency costs in Fund Number 400, Appropriation Code 010, Organization Number 3200,
Program 3000, Function 2040, Object 1920 1N, Reporting Category 3200, (Contract Encumbrance
Amount: $100,000.00).
2. Required approval, clearance and coordination have been accomplished from and with
appropriate agencies.
3. Pursuant to 43-2-104.5 C.R.S. as amended, the State may contract with Local Agencies to provide
maintenance and construction of highways that are part of the state (or local agency) highway
system.
· 4. The Local Agency (the State) anticipates a project for paving a portion of SH 82 within the city
limits of Aspen, and by the date of execution o£this contract the Local Agency (and/or the State) has
completed and submitted a preliminary version of CDOT form #463 describing the general nature of
that proj eot work. The Local Agency nnderstands that, before the project work is actually started, the
description of the project work in that CDOT form #463 will likely be revised as a result of desig~
changes made by CDOT, in conjunction and coordination with the Local Agency, in its internal
P36
review process. The Local Agency desires to agree to perform the project work as described in the
Form #463, as it may be revised in that Process.
5. The Local Agency has requested that State funds be made available for paving a portion of SH 82
within tlhe city limits of Aspen, Colorado, as more specifically described in Exhibit A, attached
hereto and made a part hereof (The Form #463 and/or a "Scope c f Work"), attached hereto and
hereinafter referred to as "the project" or "the work".
6. The State has funds available and desires to provide 100% of'the funding for the work.
7. The Local Agency desires to comply with ali state and other applicable requirements, including
the State's general administration of the project through this contract~ in order to obtain state funds
for the projecL
8. The Local Agency has estimated the total cost of the work and is prepared to accept the state
funding for the work, as evidenced by an appropriate ordinance or resolution duly passed and
adopted by the attthorized representatives of the Local Agency, which expressIy authorizes the Local
Agency to enter into this contract and to complete the work under the project. A copy of this
ordinance or resolution is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B.
9. This contract is executed under the authority of Sections 29-1-203. 43-1-110, 43-1-116,
43-2-101(4)(c), 43-2-t02 through 104, 43-2-144 C.R.S., as amended, as applicable, and the Local
Agency ordinance/resohition.
10. The parties hereto desire to a~ee upon the division of responsibilities with regard to the project,
12. The Local Agency is adequately s!affed and suitably equipped to undertake and satisfactorily
complete some or all of the work.
13. The State certifies that such work can be more advantageously performed by the Local Agency.
NOW, THEP,~EFORE, it is hereby agreed that:
I. PROJECT DESCREPTION
"The project" or "the work" under this contrac~ shall consist 0fpaving on SH 82 for the State of
Colorado, Region 3 Highway Maintenance Section 2 in the city of ~spen, Colorad01 between
milepost 39 and mileposi 42, as more specifically described in the Exhibit A (the Form #463 and/or a
-2-
P37
"Scope of Work") as it may be revised by the parties in the design review process before the proj oct
work is actually started.
II. INCORPORATION BY REFEKENCE
All applicable state statutes, regulations, specifications, administration checklists, directives,
procedures, documents, and publications that are specifically identified and/or referenced in this
contract, together with all exhibits and attachments and addenda to this contract, are incorporated
herein by this reference as terms and conditions of this contract as though fully set forth.
Ill. WORK RESPONSIBILITY
The Local Agency shall be responsible to perform (all design and/or fight of way and/or utility and/or
constrttction and/or construction administration tasks needed to complete) the work, and the Local
Agency shall comply with ali applicable terms and conditions of this contract in performing the
work, including those process and task requirements addressed in the .Pre-Construction and
Construction Administration Checklists attached hereto and made a part hereof. The responsible
party shall perform all such tasks in accordance with applicable requirements and standards,
inclttding those in this contract and in applicable law.
IV. PROJECT FUNDING PROVISIONS
A. The Local Agency has estimated the total cost the work to be $100,000.00 which is to be
funded as follows:
a. State funds: $100,000.00
Total Funds: $100,000.00
B. The maximum amount payable to the Local Agency under this contract shall be
$100,000.00, unless such amount is increased by an appropriate written modification to this contract
executed before any increased cost is incurred. It is understood and agreed by the parties hereto that
the total cost of the work stated hereinbefore is the best estimate available, based on the design` data
P38
as approved at the time of execution of this contract, and that such cost is subject to revisions (in
accord with the procedure in the previous sentence) agreeable to the parties prior to bid and award.
C. The parties hereto agree that th/s contract is contingent upon ali funds designated for the
project herein being made available from state sources, as applicable. Should these sources fail to
provide necessary funds as agreed upon herein, the comract may be terminated by either parry,
provided that any party terminating/ts interest and obligations herein shall not be relieved of any
obligations which existed pr/or to the effective date of such term/nation or which may occur as a
result of such tenninanon.
V. PROJECT PAYMENT PROVISIONS
A. The S tam will reimburse the Local Agency for incun'ed costs relative to the project
following the State's review and approval of such charges, subject to the terms and conditions of this
contract. Provided, however, that charges incurred by the Local Agency pr/or to the date this
contract is executed by the State Controller will not be charged by the Local Agency to the project.
and will not be reimbursed by the State.
B. The Local Agency will prepare and submit to the State monthly charges for costs incurred
relative to the project. The Local Agency will prepare project charges in accordance with the State's
standard policies, procedures, and standardized billing format attached hereto and made a part hereof
as Exhibit D. Charges incurred by the Local Agency prior to the date of this agreement will not be
charged to the project.
VI. STATE COMMITMENTS
A. The State will provide liaison with the Local Agency through the State's Reg/on Director,
Region 3, 222 S. Sixth Street, Grand Junction_ Colorado 81501, 970~ 248-7225. Said Region
Director will also be responsible for coordinating the State's activities under this contract. Said
Region Director will also issue a "Notice to Proceed" to the Local Agency for commencement of the
Work. All communications relating to the day-to-day activities for the work shall be exchanged
between representanves of the State's Transportation Regi >n 3 and the Local Agency. Until changed
by notice in writing, ali such notices and commnnications shall be addressed as follows:
P39
If to the State: If to the Local Agency:
Weldon Allen Jerry Nye
CDOT Region 3 City of Aspen
606 South 9th Street 130 South Galena Street
Grand Junction, CO 8050t Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 248-7363 (970) 920-5133
B. The State will reimburse the Local Agency for the incurred costs relative tc the work, as
provided in Section V(A).
C. If the work includes construction, the State will review construction plans, special
provisions and estimates and will cause the Local Agency to make those changes therein that the
State determines are necessary to assure compliance with State requirements.
D. The State will perform a final project inspection prior to project acceptance as a Quality
Control/Assurance activity. When all project work has been satisfactorily completed, the State will
sign a final acceptance form.
Vih. LOCAL AGENCY COMMITMENTS
A. DESIGN.
If "the Work" includes preliminary design, or final design (a.k.a. "construction plans"), or design
work sheets, or special provisions and estimates (collectively referred to as "the Plans' ), the parry
that is responsible under Section ITl (either the Local Agency or the State) for the Plans\design shall
comply with the £oliowing requirements, as applicable:
l. perform or provide the Plans, to the extent required by the nature of the Work.
2. prepare final design ("construction plans") in accord with the requirements of the latest
edition of the Amer/can Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
manual.
3. prepare special provisions and estimates in accord with the State's Roadxvay and Bridge
Design Mannals and Standard Specifications for Road and Br/dge Construction.
P40
4. include deta/ls of any required detours in the Plans, in order to prevem any interference of
the construction work and to protect the traveling public.
5. stamp the Plans produced by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer
6. if the Local Agency is the responsible parry, ~r shall afford the State ample opportunity to
review the Plans and make any changes in the Plans as directed by the State to comply with
FHWA requirements.
7. provide final assembly of the Plans and contract documents.
8. be responsible for the Plans being accurate and complete.
9. if the Local Agency is the responsible party, it may enter intc a contract with a consultant
to do ail or any portion of the Plans and/or of construction administration. Provided.
however, that if federal-aid funds are to participate in the cost of such work to be done by a
consultant, the Local Agency shall ensure that its procuremem of that consultant contract
(and the performance/provision of the Plans under that contract) complies with all applicable
requirements of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 172, tconcerning the
Administration of En~neering and Design Related Service Contracts), and with any
procedures implementing those reqmrements as provided by the State. including those m
attachment #1. Those requirements and procedures include, without limitation:
a) the Local Agency/Contractor shall submit any design consultant subcontract to CDOT
for approval prior to its execution by the Local Agency/Contractor, as required by section
172.5 (d);
b) al/changes in the contract shall be by written supplemental a~eement and must have
prior approval of the State and FHWA. As soon as the contract with the consultant has been
awarded by the Local Agency, one copy of the executed contract shall be submitted to the
State. Any amendments to such contract shall be similarly submitted;
c) all consultant billings under that contract shall comply with the State's standardized
consultant billing format. Examples of the billing formats for the various methods of
contract payment are attached hereto and made a part hereof;
P41
d) the Local Agency/Contractor shall also use the CDOT procedures as described in
Attachment #1 to administer that design consultant subcontract, to comply with sections
172.5(b) and (d);
e) to expedite any CDOT approval, the Local Agency/Contractor's attorney, or other
authorized representative, may also submit a letter to CDOT certifying Local
Agency/Contractor compliance with those CDOT Attachment #1 procedures and with the
requirements of sections 172.5 (b) and (d).
f) the Local Agency shall ensure that its consultant contract contains the following
language verbatim:
1) "The design work under this contract shall b e compatible xvith the requirements of'
a separate contract between the Local Agency and the State (which is incorporated
herein by this reference) for the design/construction of the project. The State is an
intended third party beneficiary of this contract for that purpose."
2) "Upon advertisement of the project work for construction, the consultant shall
make available services as requested by the State to assist the State in the evaluation
of construction and the resolution o f construction problems that may arise during the
constrt~Ction of the project."
3) "The consultant shall review the construcfion contractor's shop drawings for
conformance with the contract documents and compliance with the provisions of the
State's publication, "Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction", in
connection with this Work."
10. Following award of the construction contract(s) for the project, no further changes shall
be made in the Plans except by ageement in writing between the parties. The Plans shall be
considered final when approved and accepted by the parties hereto, and when final they shall
be deemed incorporated herein.
B. CONSTRUCTION.
If"the Work" includes con.struction, the party that is responsible under Section Ill (either the Local
Agency or the State) for the construction/construction administration shall comply with the following
rec~uirements, as applicable:
P42
I. administer the construction in accord with the project's Pre-consmmtion and Contract
Administration CheckIists. Such administration shall include project inspection and
testing; approving sources of materials; performing required plant and shop inspections;
documentation of contract payments, testing, and inspection activities; preparing and
approving pay estimates; preparing, approving, and securing the funding for contract
modification orders (CMOs) and minor contract revisions (MCRs); processing contractor
claims; construction supervision; and, meeting the Quality Control (QC) requirements of the
FHWA/State stewardship progam, all as more fully described in the project's Pre-
construction and Contract Administration Checklists.
2. if the Local Agency is the responsible party, it shall appoint a qualified professional
engineer, licensed in the State of Colorado, as the Local Agency Project Engineer (LAPE), to
perform that administration. The LAPE shall administer the project in accordance with this
ageement, the requirements of the construction contract, and applicable State procedures.
The LAZE may be an employee of the Local Agency or may be a consultant. If the LAPE is
an employee of the Local Agency, the LAPE shall be in ~:esponsible charge of the
construction of the project (as provided in Section 12-25-102 C.R.S. as amended),
notwithstanding any exception described in Section 12-25-103, C.R.S., as amended.
3. if the Local Agency is the responsible party, and if bids are to be let for the construction of
the project, the Local Agency shall (in conjunction with the State) advertise the call for bids
and (upon concurrence by the Slate) award the construction contract(s) to the low responsive,
responsible bidder(s).
a) In advertising and awarding the bid for the construction ora federal-aid project, the
Local Agency shall comply with applicable requirements of 23 U.S.C. § 1 t2 and 23 C.F.R.
§ § 633 and 635. Those requirements include, without limitation, that the Local
Agency/Contractor shall physically incorporate the entire "Form 1273" (which, if relevant to
this contract, is attached) verbatim into any subcontract(s) for those services as terms and
conditions thereof, as required by 23 CFR 633.102 (e).
b) The Local Agency has the option to accept or reject the proposal of the Iow bidder for
work on which competitive bids have been received. The Local Agency must declare the
-8-
P43
acceptance or rejection at the award conference or within 3 working days a~er said bids are
publicly opened, whichever occurs later.)
c) By indicating its concurrence in such award at the award conference, the Local Agency
acting by or through its duly authorized representatives, agrees to provide additional funds,
subject to their availability and appropriation for that purpose, if required to complete the
Work under this project if no additional federal-aid funds will be made available for the
project.)
4. tn the event that all or part of the construction work is to be accomplished by Local
Agency personnel (i.e., by "force acconnt"), rather than by a contractor pursuant to a contract
with the Local Agency, the Local Agency will insure that all such force account work is
accomplished in accordance with the pertinent State specifications and requirements and with
23 C.F.R. Part 635, Subpart B, "Force Account Construction".
a) Such work will normally be based upon estimated quantities and firm un/t prices
agreed to between the Local Agency, the State and the FHWA in advance of the Work, as
provided for in Section 635.204(c). Such agreed unit prices shall constitute a commitment
as to the value of the Work to be performed.
b) An alternative to (a) is that the Local Agency may agree to participate in the Work
based on actual costs of labor, equipment rental, materials supplies and supervision necessary
to complete the Work. Where actual costs are used, eligibility of cost items shall be
evaluated for compliance with Federal Acquisitinn Regrdations (FAR), 48 C.F.R. Part 31.
c) Rental rates for publicly owned equipment will be determined in accordance with
Section 109.04 of the State's "Standard Specifications for Road and Br/dge Construction".
d) All force account work shall have prior approval of the State and/or FHWA and shall not
be initiated nntiI the State has issued a written notice to proceed.
C. ROW ACOUISITION/RELOCATION.
If acquisition and relocation assistance is required for the project, the Local Agency will be
responsible to perform the acquisition and relocation assistance, as requ:ired by Sections 24-56-101,
et seq., C.R.S. Prior to this project being advertised for bids, the Local Agency will certify in
P44
writing to the State that all fight of way has been acquired in accordance with the applicable State
and federal regulations, or that no additional right of way is required.
D. UTILITIES.
The Local Agency will be respons(ble for obtaining the proper clearance or approval from any utility
company which may become involved in this project, by separate agreement between the Local
Agency and the utility, if necessary. Prior to this project being advertised for bids, the Local Agency
will certify in writing to the State that all such clearances have been obtained.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL.
The Local Agency shall perform all work in accord with the requirements of current federal and state
environmental regulation, including the National Enviro~mentaI Policy Act of 1969 (ix/EPA) as
applicable.
F. IKECORDKEEPING.
The Local Agency shall maintain all books, documents, papers, accounting records and other
evidence pertaining to costs incurred and to make such materials available for inspection at all
reasonable times during the contract period and for 3 years from the date of:final payment to the
Local Agency. Copies of such records shall be furnished by the Local Agencyifrequested.
The Local Agency shall, during all phases of the work, permit duly authorized agents and employees
of the State to inspect the project and to inspect, review and audit the project records.
G. MAINTENANCE.
(Note: if maintenance is to be the ~esponsibility of the state, move this provision to State
Commitments and revise accordingly).
The Local Agency will maintain and operate the in~provements constructed under this contract, at its
own cost and expense during their useful life, in a mariner satisfactory to the State and will make
ample provision for such maintenanc~ each year. Such maintenance and operations shall be in
accordance with all applicable statutes and ordinances, and regulations promulgated thereunder,
which define the Local Agency's obligation to maintain such improvements. The State will make
periodic inspections of the project to verify that such improvements are being adequately maintained.
VI~[. GENERAL PROVISIONS
-10-
P45
A. Notwithstanding any consents or approvals given by the State for the Plans, the State ~vill
not be liable or responsible in any manner for the structural desig-n, details or construction of any
major structures that are designed within the Work of this contract.
B. If the work involves construction, the State shall have the authority to suspend the work,
wholly or in part, by giving written notice thereof to the Local Agency, due to the failure of the Local
Agency or its construction contractor to correct project conditions which are unsafe for the Workmen
or for such periods as the State may deem necessary due to unsuitable weather, or for conditions
considered unsuitable for the prosecution of the work, or for any other condition or reason deemed
by the State to be in the public interest.
C. This contract may be terminated as follows:
(a) Termination for Cause. If, throu~h any cause, the Local Agency shall fail to fulfill, in a
timely and proper manner, its obligations under this contract, or if the Local Agency shall violate any
of the covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this contract, the State shall thereupon have the right
to terminate this contract for cause by giving written notice to the Local Agency of its intent to
terminate and at least ten (10) days opportunity to cure the default or show cause why termination is
otherwise not appropriate. In the event of termination, all finished or unfinished documents, data,
studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, and reports or other material prepared by the
Local Agency under this contract shall, at the option of the State, become its propertyj and the Local
Agency shall be entitled to received just and equitable compensation for any services and supplies
delivered and accepted. The Local Agency shall be obligated to ret~.trn any payment advanced under
the provisions of this contract.
Notwithstanding above, the Local Agency shall not be relieved of liability to the State for any
damages sustained by the State by virtue of any breach of the contract by the Local Agency.
If after such termination it is determined, for any reason, that the Local Agency was not in default, or
that the Local Agency's action/inaction was excusable, such termination shall be treated as a
termination for convenience, and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be the same as if thc
contract had been terminated for convenience, as described herein.
(b) Termination for Convenience. The State may terminate this contract at any time the State
determines that the purposes of the distribution of f~-~nds under the contract would no longer be
P46
served by completion of the project. The State shall effect such termination by giving ~vritten notice
of termination to the Local Agency and specifying the effective date thereof, at least twenty (20) days
before the effective date of such term/nation.
(c) Termination Due to Loss of Funding. The parties hereto expressly recognize that the
Local Agency is to be paid, reimbursed, or otherwise compensated with federal and/or State funds
which are available to the State for the purposes of contracting for the project provided for herein,
and therefore, the Local Agency expressly understands and agrees that all its rights, demands and
claims to compensation ar/sing under this contract are contingent upon availability of such funds to
the State. In the event that such funds or anypart thereof are not available to the State, the State may
immediately terminate or amend this contract.
D. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the parties understand and agree that al/
terms and conditions of this contract and arracmments hereto which may require continued
performance or compliance beyond the termination date of the contract shall survive such
termination date and shall be enforceable by the State as provided herein in the event of such failure
to perform or comply by the Local Agency.
E. This contract is subject to such modifications as may be required by changes in federal or
State law, or their implementing regulations. Any such required modification shall automatically be
incorporated into and be part of this contract on the effective date of such change as if fully set forth
herein. Except as specifically provided otherwise herein, no modi~cation of this contract shall be
effective unless agreed to in xvidting by both parties in an amendment to this contract that is properly
executed and approved in accordance with applicable law
F. To the extent that this contract maybe executed and performance of the obligations of the
parties may be accomplished within the intent of the contract, the terms of this contract are severable,
and should any term or provision hereof be declared invalid or become inoperative for any reason,
such invalidity or failure shall not affect the validity of any other term or provision hereo£ The
waiver of any breach of ~ term hereof shall not be construed as a waiver of any other term, or the
same term upon subsequent breach
G. This contract is intended as the complete inte~ation of all understandings between the
parties. No prior or contemporaneous addition, deletion, or other amendment hereto shall have any
-2.2-
P47 ~
force or effect whatsoever, unless embodied herein by writing. No subsequent novation, renewal,
addition, deletion, or other amendment hereto shall have any force or effect unless embodied in a
written contract executed and approved pursuant to the State Fiscal Rules.
H. Except as herein otherwise provided, this contract shall inure to the benefit of and be
binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns.
I. The Local Agency represents and warrants that it currently has no interest, and shall not
acquire any interest, direct or indirect, that would conflict in any manner or degree with the
performance of the Local Agency's obligations under this contract. The Local Agency's £urther
covenants that, in the performance of this contract, it will not employ any person or 5tm having any
such known interests.
J. This contract shalt become "effective" only upon the date it is executed by the State
Controller, or designee. The term of this contract shall begin on the date first whtten above and shall
continue through the completion arid ~nal acceptance of this project by the State and Local Agency.
K. The Special Provisions attached hereto are hereby made a part of this contract. The Local
Agency shall comply w/th all applicable terms and conditions of such attachments.
L. If a conflict occurs between the provisions o£this contract proper and the attachments
hereto, the priority to be used to resolve such a conflict shall be as follows:
1. The Special Provisions referenced in Section VB2, paragraph K, above; and
2. This contract proper;
3. Other contract attachments and exhibits, in their respective order.
M. Itis expressly understood ~nd a~eed that the enforcement of the terms and conditions of
this contract, and all rights of action relating to such enforcement, shall be strictly reserved to the
parties hereto, and nothing contained in this contract shall give or allow any such claim or right of
action by'any other or third person on such contract. It is the express intention of the parties that any
person or entity other than the pmties receiving services or benehts under this contract be deemed to
be an incidental beneficiary only.
N. The Local Agency assures and guarantees that it possesses the legal authority to enter into
this contract. The Local Agency warrants that it has taken all actions required by its procedures, by-
laws, and/or applicable law to exercise that authority~, and to lawfully authorize its undersigned
P48
signatory to execute this contract and to bind ~e Local Agency to its terms. The person(s) executing
this contract on behaI:['of tl~e Local Agency warrants that they have full author/zation to execute tl'fis
contract.
O. The Local Agency and the State may use one or all of the Contract Modi~cation Tools
contained in ADDENDUM A, in order to more expeditiously change and amend the terms of this
contract, if such use is warranted by the circumstances as described and author/zed tl~ere~n.
P49
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this contract the day and
year first above written.
STATE OF COLORADO
ATTEST: BILL OWENS, GOVEPuNOR
By By_
Chief Clerk Executive Director
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
APPROVED:
ARTHUR L. BARNHART KEN SALAZAR
State Controller Attorney General
By By
Assistant Attorney General I
Civil Litigation Section
ATTEST: (SEAL) CITY of ASPEN, COLORADO
Federal Employer Identification
N~[mber: 84~50000563
P50
MEMORANDUM
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
606 South 9th
Grand Junction~ Colorado 81501
(970) 2A8-7364 Fax (970) 241-3539
III
DATE:July 19, 2002
TO:Dave Miller/Mike Adams
FROM:Del French
SUBJECT: Scope of work for City of Aspen IGA
We are requesting to enter into an agreement with the City of Aspen to perform paving operations on
state highway 82 inside of the city limits of Aspen. We are requesting the city of Aspen manage the
project with a contractor to pave various locations form milepost 39 to milepost 42. This project is not to
exceed the amount of $100,000 and the city will invoice CDOT for the cost of the/n-place paving
performed on the state highway. Following are 4 locations that are in need of repair for both vehicle and
bicycle safety:
1. Monarch Street to Neale Street = Rottomill and pave 60 feet wide by 1660 feet long
2. Cooper Street to Cleveland = Rottomili and pave 60 feet wide by 800 feet long
3. Riverside to Midland = Pave for vehicle and bicycle safety
4. Crystal Lake Road to East end of City LJraJts approximately 2000 feet in length.
EXHIBIT A
P51
A~ACHMENT #1
THE LOCAL AGENCY SHALL USE THESE PROCEDURES TO ZMPLEMENT FEDERAL-AZD PRO]ECl
AGREEMENTS WITH PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANT SERVICES
Title 23 code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 172 applies to a federally funded
local agency project agreement administered by CDOT that involves professional
consultant services. 23 CFR 172 and 23 CFR t72(d) state that, when federal-
aid highway funds participate in the contract a local shall use the same
procedures as used by the State to administer contracts ...". Therefore,
local agencies must comply with this CFR requirement and the following state
procedures when obtaining professional consultant services under a federally
funded consultant contract administered by CDOT.
CDOT has formulated its procedures in procedural Directive (P.D.)400.1 and
the related operations guidebook titled "Obtaining Professional Consultant
Services". This directive and guidebook incorporate requirements from both
Federal and State regulations, i.e., 23 CFR 172 and colorado Revised Statute
(C,R.S.) 24-30-1401 et seq. copies of the directive and the guidebook may be
obtained upon request from CDOT'S Agreements and ConsultantManagement Unit.
[Local agencies should have their own written procedures on file for each
me%hod of procurement that addresses the items in 23 CFR
Because the procedures and laws described in the Procedural Directive and the
guidebook are quite lengthy, the subsequent steps serve as a short-hand guide
to CDOT procedures that a local agency must follow in obtaining professional
consultant services. This guidance follows the format of 23 CFR 172. The
steps are:
1. The contracting local agency shall document the need for obtaining
professional services.
2. prior to solicitation for consultant services, the contracting local
agency shall develop a detailed scope of work and a list of evaluation'
factors and their relative importance. The evaluation factors are those
identified in C.R.S. 24-30-1403. Also, a detailed cost estimate should
be prepared for use during negotiations.
3. The contracting agency must advertise for contracts in conformity with
the requ!rements of C.R.S. 24-30-140S, The public notice period, when
such notice is required, is a minimum of 1S days prior to the selection
of the three most qualified firms and the advertising should be done in
one or more daily newspapers of general circulation.
4. The request for consultant services should include the scope of work, the
evaluation factors and their relative importance, the method of payment,
and the goal of ten percent (10%) Disadvantaged Business Enterprise {DBE)
participation as a minimum for the project.
S. The analysis and selection of the consultants should be done in
accordance with C.R.S, 24-30-1403. This section of the regulation
identifies the criteria to be used in the evaluation of CDOT pre-
qualified prime consultants and their team. Et also shows which criteria
are used to short-list and to make a final selection.
The short-list is based on the following evaluation factors:
a. Qualifications,
b. Approach to the project,
c. Ability to furnish professional services.
d. Anticipated design concepts, and
e. Alternative methods of approach for furnishing the professional
services.
P52
Evaluation factors for final selection are the consultant's:
a. Abilities of their personnel,
b. Past performance,
c. Willingness to meet the time and budget requirement,
d. Location,
e. Current and projected work load,
f. volume of previously.awarded contracts, and
g. Involvement of minority consultants.
under 24-30-1401, cost shall not be considered as a factor in the
evaluation of professional consultant services,
6. Once a consultant is selected, the'local agency enters into negotiations
with the consultant to obtain a fair and reasonable price for the
anticipated work. Pre-negotiation audits are prepared for contracts
expected to be greater than $50,000, Federal reimbursement for costs are
limited to those costs allowable under the cost principles of 48 CFR 31.
Fixed fees (profit) are determined with consideration given to size,
complexity, duration, and degree of risk involved in the work. Profit is
in the range of six (6) to f~fteen (ZS) percent of the total direct and
indirect costs.
7. A qualified local agency employee shall be responsible and in charge of
the project to ensure that the work being pursued is complete, accurate,
and consistent with the terms, conditions, and specifications of the
contract, At the end of project, the local agency prepares a performance
evaluation (a CDOT form is available) on the consultant.
8. Each of the steps listed aoove is to be documented in accordance with the
provisions of 49 CFR Z8,42, which provide For records to oe kept at least
three (3) years from the date that the local agency submits its final
expenditure report. Records of projects under litigation shall be keot
at least three (3) years after the case has been settled.
The C.R.S. 24-30-1401 through 24-30-1408. 23 CFR Part 172, and P.D. 400,Z,
provide additional details for complying Nith the eight (8) steos just
discussed.
P53
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
CONTROLLER'S APPROVAL
1 This co~tract shall not be deemed valid until i~ shall have been approved by the Controller el the State o[ Colorado or such assistant as he may
designate. This grovisio~ is applicable to any contract involving the payment of money by the State
FUND AVAILABILITY
2. Financial obligations of the State of Colorado payable aher the current fscal year are contingent upon funds for fha( purpose being appropriated,
budgeted, and o~herwise made available
BOND REQUIREMENT
3. if ~his contract involves the payment of more than fifty thousand dears for the cons[rucfon, erection, repair, maintenance, or improvement of any
building, road, bridge, viaduct, tunnel, excavation or other public work for this State, the Contractor shall, before entering upon [he performance of any such
work included in this contract, duly execute and deliver to the State o~ficiaL ~ho will sign the contract, a good and su~dent be~d or e~her acceptable surety to
be approved by said o [ficJal in a penal sum not less than one-half of the total amount payable by the terms of this contract. Such bond shall be duly executed
by a qualified corporate surety conditioned upon the faithtul performance of the contract and in addifon, shall provide that if the Contractor or his
subcontractors fail to duly pay far any labor, mate rials, tea m hire, sustenance, provtsions, provender er other supplies used or consumed by such Contractor or
his subcontractor in performance of the work contracted ~o be done or Jails to pay any per~on who supplies rental machinery; too[s, or equipment in the
prosecution of the work the surety wii~ pay the same in an amount not exceeding the sum specified in the bond, together with interest at the rate of eight per
cent per annum, Un[ess such bored is executed, delivered and ~led, no claim in favor of the Contractor adsing under such contract shall be audited, allowed or
paid. A certified or cashier's check or a ban k money order payable to the Treasurer of the State of Colorade may be accepted in lieu of a bond. This provision
is in compliance with CRS 38-26-196.
INDEMNIFICATION
4 To the extent authorized by [aw, the contractor shall i~demnifiy, save, and hold harmless the State, its employees and agents, against any arid all claims,
Damages, liabitlt~ and court awa rd s including costs, expo nses, and a~torney f~es incurred as a result of any act or omission by the contractor, or its employees,
Agents, subcontractors, or assignees pursuant to the terms of this contract.
DISCRIMINATION AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
5 The Contractor agrees to comply with the loiter and spirit of the Colorado Anfdiscdminafon Act of ~957, as amended, and other applicable law
respecting discrimination and unfair employment practices (CRS 2¢-34-402), and as required by Sxecutlve Order, Squal Opportunity and Aftirma live Act[on,
P54
become s involved in, or is threatened wlth, Ift~getion, with the subcontracter or vendor a s a result of such direction by the contracting agency, the Contractor
may request the State of Colorado to enter into such Jlt[ga[ion to protec~ ~he [nterest of the State of Colorado
COLORADO LABOR PREFERENCE
a. Provisions of CRS 8-17-10~ & 102 for preference of Colorado labor are appHcaffie to this contract if public works within the State are undertaken
hereunder end are financed in whole or in part by Stale funds.
b. When a construction contract for a public project is t~ b~ awarded [oa bidder, a resident bidder shall be arlowed a preference against a non-resident
bidder from a Sta~e or foreign country equal to the preference given or required by the State or foreign country in which the non-resident bidder iS a resident, if
it is de,ermined by the officer responsible for awarding the bid that compliance with this subsection .06 may cause denial of eederal funds which would
otherwise be available or would otherwfse be inconsistent with requirements of Federal law, this subsection shall be suspended, but only to the extent
necessary to prevent dot, iai of the moneys Or to eliminate the thconsistency wflh Federal requirements (CF~S 8-19-101 and 102).
GENERAL
7, The laws of the State of Colorado and rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto shall be applfed in the inlerpretation, execu8ot~, and enforcement of
this contract. Any provision of this contract whether or not incorporated herein by reference which provides for arbitration by any extra-judicial body or ~erson
or which is otherwise ~n conflict wkh said laws, rules, and regulations shall be considered null a nd void. Nothing ¢antained in any ptovfsion incorporated herei~
by reference which purports to negate this or any ether special provision in whole or in part shall be valid or enforceable or av¢ilable in any action at law
whether by way of complaint, defense, or otherwise, Any provision rende red null and void by the ope ration of thls provfslon will not invalidate the remainder of
[his con(tact to the exten~ that the contract is capable ol execution.
8. At all times during the performance of this contract, the Contractor shall stedtly adhere to ail applicable federal and Sta~e laws, rules, and regulations that
have been or may hereafter be established.
9 Pursuant to C RS 24-30-202.4 (as amended), the state controller may withhold debts owed to state agencies under ~he vendor offset intercept system for: (a)
unpaid child support debt or chlid support arrearages; (b) unpaid balance of tax, accrued interest, or other charges specified in Article 21, Title 39, CRS; (c) unpaid
lear~s due to the student loan division of the department of higher education; (d) owed amounts required to be paid to the unemployment compensation f~nd; and (e)
other unpaid debts owing to the state or any agency thereof, the amount of whlch is found to be owing as a result of final agency determination or reduced to
judgment as certified by the controller
10. The signatories aver that they are familiar with CRS 18-8301, et seq., (Bribery and Corrupt influences) and CRS 18-8~.01, et. seq., (Abuse of Public
Office), and that no violation of such provisions fs present,
11. The signatories aver that to their knowledge, no State employee has any personal or beneficial interest whatsoever in the service or property descflbed
herein.
-19-
P55
ADDENDUM A: CONTRACT MODIFICATION TOOLS
The Local Agency and the State may use a Funding Letter in order to more expeditiously change
and amend the terms of this contract, if such use is warranted by the circumstances as described
and authorized therein.
FU2qDING LETTER.
Under this Contract, the Local Agency has a~eed to provide funding based on the terms as
described herein as needed to satisfactorily perform and complete the work, subject to the
availability of funding.
Funds are currently available and encumbered for the work in the amount specified above.
However, the total cost to complete the work, and the resulting total funding ammmt(s) to be
provided by the State and Lodal Agency in exchange therefor, as described in this Contract or
otherwise made known to the Local Agency, are only estimated.
If the parties detem~ine that they have underestimated/overestimated the total cost of the work,
they have the right to take the following action:
A. to increase/decrease the amount of available funds under this Contract.
In the event of this action, the State will notify the Local Agency thereof by Funding Letter. The
Funding Letter will be in a form substantially equivalent to the form attached hereto, and it 5hail
not be deemed valid tmtil it shall have been signed by the Local Agency and approved by the
State Controller or such assistant as he may designate.
-20-
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY:
CONTRACT FUNDING INCREASE/DECREASE AND APPROVAL LETTER State Controller Policy letter on jude ] 2, 1996
Region: Complete section ] and submit to COOT Controller's office. COOT Controller letter on May 23, 1996
(])This form to be used for the following contracts/situations only (check the appropriate situation):
__indefinite quantity, order more/add more __utility/railroad, underestimated total cost
__CDOT construction, sum of CMO's __LA construction, underestimated cost
_~CDOT construction, underestimated total cost ~CDOT consultant, underestimated cost
SECTION 1 (Region use)
Date: (2) Project code (3)
To: COOT Controller (FAX #(303) 757-9573 or e-mail CONTROLLER) Project # (4)
From: Office: (5) Phone # (5) FAX# (5)
Region # (S)
CDOT has executed a contract with: (6)
Address: (6)
FEIN # (6) Contract routing # (7) COEds encumbrance # (i~dlcate PO, SC or PG #) (8)
Func. GBL
Fund Orgn, Appro. Prgrm. Object/Sub-obi N/P Reporting Catg. Proj/Sub/Phase
(9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9)
Original contract amount Has a Budget Request been processed to cover the contract amount increase?
$ (lO) _~yes~no (14)
Previous Funding Letter(s) to[al Preparer's name (1S)
.% (ll)
(Funding letter#l Ihru ~ PHONE NO:
This Funding Letter total Contract Administrator's/Business Manager's Approval
$ (]2) 06)
(~) PHONE NO:
Adjusted contract amount CDOT Designee Approval
$ (] 3) (17)
Local Agency appr0vai
(18)
SECTION 2 (Controller's Office use) (19)
Total allotment amount Commission budget
$ (1 9) $ (1 g)
If construction: CE charges Indirect chgs Adjusted contract amount plus total CE & indirect
__CE pool elig. (1 9) $ (1 9) $ (1 9) charges calculation $ (l 9)
have reviewed the financial status of the project, organization, grant and have determinec~ that sufficient funds are available
to cover this increase, effective as df~ = (t9)
State Controller or Deiegee Date
(20) (20)
EX.A~PLE A (Lump Sum Contracts) Exhibit D, Page 1 of 5
Company Name: Project No.
Address: Project Location
Employer (FEIN) ID Number: Subaccount No.
Invoice Number and Date:
Progress Report Dated:
% Completed: (1)
Current Billing Period: From: To:
BASIC AND / OR SUPPLEMENTAL CONTRACT TOTAL: (2) $
Total Billed to Date: $
Less: Retainage (10% ofbilting not to exceed 5% of contract) $ [
Less: Prior Payments: $
Prior Billing: $ Less Retainage: $ $
TOTAL CUTLKENT PAYMENT REQUEST: * $
% To date of DBE work:
certify that the billed amounts are m agreement with the contract terms:
e, ignnmre Title
Completed x Contract Total = Total Cun-ent Payment Request (t) x (2) = (*)
-22-
EXAMPLE B (Cost Plus Fixed Fee Contracts) Exhibit D, Page 2 of 5 P58
Company Name: Project No.
Address:
Employer (FERN) ID Number: Project Location
Invoice Number and Date:
Progress Repor~ Dated: Subaccount No.
% Completed:
BASIC AND / OR SUPPLEMENTAL CONTKACT TOTAL $
Prior period Billing Amount: $
Current Billin$ Period: From: To:
DIRECT LABOR: ist Individually)
Regular Direct Hourly Rate Overtime Cost
Employee Name Classification Hot,rs $ Hours *
Current This Period Total Amount to
Date (Optional)
Subtotal - Direct Labor $ $
Ind/rect (%) (as specified in contract) $
OTHER DIRECT COSTS (Tn-House)
List individually - at actual cost as in final cost pr6posal; mileage (miles X $)~ $ $
CAZ)D (hrs. x $), equip, rental (Hrs. x $), etc.
SUBTOTAL (DIRECT LABOR, INDIRECT & OTHER DIRECT COSTS) $ $
FEE (%) (As specified in the contract) $ $
OUTSIDE SERVICES (Subconsultants & Vendors) (List individually) $ $
To be in the same format - at~ach copies)
% To Date on DBE Work $ $
Outside Services Management Expense (when applicable) $ $
TOTAL C~NT PERIOD: $ $
TOTAL TO DATE: $
LESS: Retainage (10% of billing not to exceed 5% of contract
LESS: Prior Payments $ $
Prior Billing $ Less Retainage $ $ $
TOTAL CURRENT PAYMENT REQUEST $ ! $
I cerdfy that the billed amounts are actual and in agreement with the contract terms:
3lgnature 1 ~tle Date
*Eligible classifications only: in accordance with contract
EXAMPLE C (Specific Rates of Pay Contracts) Exhibit D, Page 3 of 5
-22 -
!do~n'~pany Name: Project No,
Address:
Employer (FEIN) ID Number: Project Location
Invoice Number and Date:
Progress Report Dated: Subaccount No.
% Completed:
BASIC AND / OR SUPPLEMENTAL CONTRACT TOTAL $
Prior Period Billing Amount: $
Current Billing Period: From: To:
PAY RATES: (List Individually)
Regular Overtime Rates of Pay Cost
Employee Name Classification Hours Hours* S/l-[ours** $
SUBTOTAL-PAY th&TES: $
OTHER DIRECT COSTS (In-House)
List individually - at acmaI rates as in final cost proposal; mileage (miles X $),
CADD (hrs. x $), equip, rental (hrs. x $), etc. $
SUBTOTAL (Pay Rates and Other Direct Rates)
OUTSfDE SERVICES (Subconsnltants & Vendors) (List individually) $
(To be in the same format - attach copies)
% To Date on DBE Work $
Outside Services Management Expense (when applicable) $
TOTAL CURRENT PERIOD: $
TOTAL TO DATE: $
LESS: Retainage (I 0% of billing not to exceed 5% of contract) $
LESS: Prior Payments $
Prior Billing $ Less Retainage $
TOTAL CUq~d~NT PAYMENT tLEQUEST
I ce~°.ify that the billed amounts are actual and in agreement with the contract terms:
Signature Title Date
*Eligible classifications only: in accordance with contract
** In accordance with contract
EXAMPLE D (Local Agenc7 Billing) Date Exhibit D, Page 4 of
SECTION h CONTRACT DATA
Local Agency:_ Project No.
Address:
Employer (FEIN) ID Number: Project Location
Invoice Number and Date:
% Completed: Subaccount No.
BASIC AND/OR SUPPLEMENTAL CONTRACT TOTAL: $
Federal Share $
Local Agency Share $
State Shares
Prior Period Billing Amount: $
Cun~ent Billing Period: From: To:
SECTION II. INCURRED COSTS
DIRECT LABOR: (List individually)
Employee Classification Regui~.r Direct Hourly Overtime Cost
Name Hours Rate $ Ho~trs* $
Current Total to
SUBTOTAL - DIRECT LABOR Tkis Period Date
BENEFITS °/o OF DIRECT LABOR $ $
OTHER DIKECT COSTS (In-House) $ ~ $
List individually-at actual cost;
Mileage (m/les x $), CADD (hrs. x $), $ $
Equip rental (hrs. x $), etc.
OUTSIDE SERVICES (Consultants & Vendors)
(List/.ndividually) (To be/it this same format- $ $
attach copies of invoices)
TOTAL COSTS CUP, RENT PERIOD: $
TOTAL COSTS TO DATE: $
SECTION III. BILLING
TOTAL BILLING CUP_RENT PBI~OD
% OF TOTAL COSTS): $
Prior Billing:
I certify that the billed amounts are actual and in agreement with the contract terms.
Signature Title Date
*Eligible classifications only
-25-
BB~A~v~PLE E (Fixed Multiplier Contracts) Exhibit D, Page $ of 5
Company Name: Project No.
Addrecs:
Empj_oyer (FEIN) ID Number: Project Location
Invoice Number and Date:
Progress Report Dated: Subaccount No.
% Completed:
BASIC AND / OR SUPPLEMENTAL CONTRACT TOTAL $
Prior Period Billing Amount: $
.. Current Billing Period: From: To:
PAY RATES: (List Individually)
Regular Certified Fixed Coct
Employee Name Classification Hours Hourly Rates Multiplier
SUBTOTAL-PAY RATES:
OTHER DIKECT COSTS (In-House)
List individually - at actual rates as in final cost proposal; rmleage (miles X $),
CADD (hrs. x $), equip, rental (hrs. x $), etc.
SUBTOTAL (Pay Rates and Other Direct Rates)
OUTSIDE SERVICES (Subconsultants & Vendors) (List individually)
iTo be in the same fbrmat - attach copies)
% To Date on DBE Work
Outside Services Management Expense (when applicable)
TOTAL CUBbq_ENT PERIOD:
TOTAL TO DATE:
LESS: Retainage (10% of billing not to exceed 5% of contract)
LESS: Prior Payments
Prior Billing $ Less Retainage $
TOTAL CURIZLENT PAYMENT KEQUEST
I certify that the billed amounts are actual and in agreement with the contract terms:
Signature Title Date
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and Members of Council
FROM: John P. Worcester
DATE: August 12, 2002
RE: Resolution to Initiate Annexation Proceedings for Maroon Creek Road
Attached for your consideration is a resolution that. if adopted would initiate annexation
proceedings for the Maroon Creek Road. The Board of County Comm/ssinner of Pitkin County,
the owners of the property filed an annexation petition with the City Clerk on July 9. 2002.
Tiffs office and the Engineering Department have determined that the petition complies with the
technical requirements for a petition pursuant m state annexation laws. According to state law.
the next step in the annexation process is for Council to set a date for a hearing, no less than 30
days nor more than 60 days after the effective date of the attached resolution setting the date for
the public hearing, to determine if the annexation complies with Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-
105, C.R.S.
Section 31-12-104 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires:
(a) That not less than one-sixth of the perimeter of the area to be annexed is
contiguous with the annexing municipality ....
and
(b) That a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and
the annexing municipality; that said area is urban or wilI be urbanized in the near
future; and that said area is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with
the annexing municipality ....
Section 31-12-105, C.R.S. sets forth certain limitations upon annexations. None of the
1/mitations in the statute appear to prevent tiffs annexation (limitations on dividing land held in
identical ownership, commencement of annexation proceedings for annexation to other
P63 municipalities, detachment of area from a school district, prohibition against extending city limits
beyond three miles in a single year, adoption of a plan for the area to be annexed, and
requirement that entire widths of streets be made a part of the annexed area). Nevertheless, a
hearing must be held so Council can make those specific findings.
Before these parcels can be annexed into the City the following steps must take place:
(a) A hearing before Council to determine compliance with Sections 31-i2-104 and
31-12-105, C.R.S. as described above.
(b) Land Use approvals needed to authorize an AH project, including rezoning needs
to be established through P&Z which will then make a recommendation to
Council. (The Ordinance establishing the zoning can be acted on at the same time
the annexation ordinance is adopted.)
Adoption of the attached resolutions will cause staff to continue working on the above described
steps. Once the steps are completed,' two ordinances will be presented to Council to formally
annex the area into the City.
ACTION: A motion to adopt Resolution No.'5~ , Series of 2002.
REQUESTED
JPW-O8/02/2002-6: kj ohn\word\memos \maroon-creek-rd-annl. doc
P64
RESOLUTION NO. ~
(Series of 2002',
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN. COLORADO. RELATIVE TO THE
PETITION FOR ANNIEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN. COMMONLY
IcdNOWN AS THE 'MAROON CREEK ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ANNEXATION": FIN'DING
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 31-12-107(1), C.R.S.; ESTABLISHING A
DATE. TIME~ AND PLACE FOR A PUiBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINIE COMPLIANCiE
WITH SECTIONS 31-12-104 AND 31-12-105, C.R.S.: AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF
NOTICE OiF SAID HEAR1NG; AND AUTHORIZING THE INSTITUTION OF ZONING
PROCEDURES FOR LAND IN THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED.
WHEREAS_ on July 9, 2002. Patti Clapper, Chairperson of Board of County
Commissioners of Pitldn County, on behalf of the Board of County Comrrfissioners of Pittdn
Connry, the owner of the property proposed to be annexed_ did ~Ie with the City Clerk of the City
of Aspen a Petition for Annexation of temtory ro the City of Aspen, whereby real property
described in Exhibit "A" appended to the Petition for Annexation, is being petitioned for annex-
ation to the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk of the City of Aspen has referred the aforesaid petition as a
communication ro the City Conncil for appropriate action [o determine if the petition is
substantially ~n compliance with S ection 31 - 12-107. C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS. the petition, including accompanying copies of an annexation map, has been
reviewed by the City Attorney's Office and the City Engineer and lo,md by them to contain the
information prescribed mad set forth in paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (1) of Section 31-I2-
107, C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, one htmdred percent (100%) of the owners of the affected property have
consented to annexation of their property to the City of Aspen; and
P65
WHEREAS, Section 31-12-107(1)(g), C.R.S., mandates that the City )f Aspen initiate
annexation proceed, ings in accordance ~vith Sections 31-12-108 to 21-12-110. C.R.S.. whenever a
petition is filed pursuant to subsection (1) of Section 31-12-107. C.R.S.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That the Petition for Annexation of territory ro the City of Aspen is hereby fo~md and'
deten'nined ~o be .in substantial compliance with the provisions of snbsection .1) of Section 31-12-
107, C.R.S.
Section 2
That the City Cmmcil hereby determines that it shall hold a public heating ro determine if
the proposed annexation complies with Sections 31-12-104 and 31~12-105, C.R.S., and to establish
whether or not said area is eli~bIe for annexation pursuant to the Municipal Annexation Act of
1965, as amended; said hearing to be held at a regular meeting of the City Cmmcil of the City of
Aspen at 5:00 o'clock p.m. on the 23rd day of September, 2002, in Council Chambers at City Hall,
130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado 8161'1. (A date which is not less than thirty days nor more than
sixty days after the effective date of this resolution).
Section 3
That the City Clerk shall gve pnblic notice as follows: A copy of this resolution shall
constitute notice that, on the given date and at the given time and place set by the City Council, the
City Council shall hold a hearing upon said resolution of the City of Aspen for the purpose of
determining and finding xvhether the area proposed to be armexed meets the applicable
req~tirements of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., and is considered eligible for
P66
annexation. Said notice shall be published once a week for fottr consecutive weeks in a newspaper
of general circulation in the area proposed to be annexed. The fzrst publication of such notice shall
be at least thirty days pnor to the date of the hearing. The proof ofpublication c fthe resolution shall
be rettmhed when the publication is completed, and the certificate of the owner, editor, or manager
of the newspaper in wkich said notice is published shall be proof thereof. A copy of the resolution
and petition as filed, shall also be sent by registered mail by the clerk to the Pitkin County Board of
County Commhissioners and to the County Attorney of Pitldn Cotmty and to the Aspen School
District at least't~venty days prior to the date fixed for such hearing.
Section 4
That pursuant to Section 31-12-115, C.R.S., the City Manager is hereby directed to initiate
appropriate zoning procedures with regard to the territory proposed to be annexed.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Conncil of the City of Aspen on the
day of ,2002.
Helen Kalin Klanderud, 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, ar a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
3
P67
- P~TITION 70R .~%iNEF~TION ON TERRITORY
TO THE CITY OP ASPEN. COLOmbO
The undersized Petitioner, being the land o%vner within the exterior boundary of
the territory herinafter described, respectfully request the City Council of the City of
Aspen to approve the annexation of ~he proposed area ~o be a~exed in accordance wi~
the p~ovisions of C.R.S. 197~ 3N8-101, et. Se~., as may have been amended, and in
support ~hereof allege as follows:
1. It is necessa~ and desirable that the territo;y desc~bed in the Iand
desc~pfion below be annexed to the City of Aspen.
2. The r~quiremen~s of C>R>S> 1973 31-104 and 31-8-105 e~st or have
be~n met.
3. The Petitioner is ~e o~vner of t~e territory sought to be annexed and
therefore is the o~ner of more than S0~ of the t6~tory sought to be ~exed.
LAi,,!O DESCRIPTION:
The legal description of the land owner by P¢_titioner for which armexation is
songj-zt is as follows: ,~
SEE ATTACHME~
A~ACHME~S:
Accompany~g this Petitior. are the following:
Circulator's a~idavit
(b) Proof of Ownership (copy of Title Co~itmant from Stng~ Wi[lc)
(c) Four <~) p~nta of an annexation map containing ~e i~o~ation required
by C.R.S. 1973 31-8-107
NAiViE MAILING A3DDRESS DATE SIG~yATURE /
/
P68
AFFIDAVIT OF CIRCULATOR
STATE OF COLORADO
County of Pitkin
The undersigned, being duly s'~vom, deposes and states as follows:
1. I am over the age of 21 years
2. f am the ~lator f th~ forsgo~g Petition; and,
3. Each si~ature thereon is the signature of the person
pu~or~s :o
s~b~C~p~.~ =d swo= ~ob~fore me on th~s ,;~ day of ~ ' '
I I
P69
ANNEXATION PARCEL DESCRIPTIONS:
PARCELS OF LAND SITUATED IN A PORTION OF SECTIONS 11 ANrD I2, TOIYNSHIP I0 SOUTH,
I~_NGE 85 ~ST OF T~ 6th P.M. SAID PARCELS BEING MO~ PARTICULA~Y DESC~ED
AS FOLLOWS:
A~EXATION ~ARCEL A PROPERTY DESCMPTION
Co--eating at the S i/4 CO~%~R SECTION l I T 10 S, R 85 W OF 6~h P.M., A FO~D ~BAR
CAP, ILLEG~LE (LS 9018 ~CO~); thence N.88°S6'32"W., a distance of 1 i2.89 fe~t to a po~t
easterly bounda~ of Iselin Park P.U.D. O,e true pont of beginning; thence N.gS°57'3 I"W., along said
boundary line a distance of 16.95 feet; thence contNuing along said bound~ !~e N.l?03'19"E., a
dis~ance of I91.00 feet; thence cont~uing &long said bounda~ line N.02°I329"E., a distance of 41.23 feet;
~henc~ leav~g said boundaW line N.I0%0'16"E., a distanc~ of39g.85 fe~t ~o a pont on the w~sterly
boundaw of the Aspen School Dis=icl prope~; ~hence S.0P5 I'57"W., along said boundaw lNea distance
of 283.96 feet to the No~hwest comer of Open Spec: Area 2 of ~he Moore Family P.U.D.: thence
S.0I°5 !'57"W., along the westerly bouada~ of said Open Space Men 2 a distance of 227.87 t~et: thenc~
continuing along said boundaw a distance off 113,35 feet along the arc ora non-tangent cu~e to the rign~
having a radi~ of 3 I2.29 feet and a cen=aI angle of 20%?'47" (chord bears S.1715'39"W. 1 i2.73 feet/:
thence leavNg said boundaw N.88°32'I6"W., a diet,ce of 57.82 feet; to the PO~T OF
ContaNing 28,475 aquae feet or 0.654 acres, more or less.
A~TION PARCEL B PROPERTY DESC~PTION
Co~encNg a~ the S i/4 CO~%R SECTION I 1 T 10 S, R 8~ W OF 6th P.M. FOU~ ~BAR & CAR
~LEG[BLE (LS 9018 ~CO~); ~ence N.21°01'20"W., a distance of246.5" feet to the Southeast comer
of that prope~ described N ~C ~388528 of the Pkkin CounV recor~ the =ne >o~t of beginning; thence
N.0P57'23"E., along the boundaW of said prope~ a distance of 739.66 feet; thenc= condnui=g along said
boundaw of said prope~ N.0P52'4?"E., a distance of 326.i0 feel; thence leaving the bounder) of said
prope~ 8.03° 13'23"E., a distance of 674.27 feet to a point on ~e westerly boundaw I~e of the Aspen
School Die,icl p~ope~; thence IeavNg said botmdaw S. i0%0'16"W., a distance of 398.85 feet to
PO~T OF BEG~G.
Co~tainMg 32,128 square fe~t or 0.?38 acres, more or less.
A~EXATION PAKCEE C PROPERTY DESC~PTION
Co~encNg at the S I/4 CO~NE~ SECTION 11 T I0 S, R 85 W OF 6th P.M. FO~D ~BAR & C~
ILLEGIBLE (iS 9018 ~CO~); thenc: N.02° 1853"W. a distance of 1296.59' fe~t to a poNl on the
boundaw of that prope~ described in ~C ~388528 of the Pitkin Counw records the true point of
begging; thence along s~id bound~ line a dish,ce of 316.43 feet along.the arc of a non-~angent cu~e
the right having a radius of 205.42 fee~ ~d a c~n=at angle of 88°15'31" (chord bears N.46000'3 I"E. 286.06
feet); thence leavNg said boundaw line S.86°30'03"E., a distance of 841.81 feet to a pont on the bounds/
of ~he Aspen School Die,icl prope~; ~eace ~h= following four (4) courses
1. S.88°51'57"W., a distance of 291.77 feet
2. S.89%0'57"W., a distance of 550.04
3. a distance of 222.88 fe~ along ~he arc ora non-tang=ut curve to the le~ havMg a radius of 145.42 feet
~d a c:n=ai angle of 87%9'00" (chord bears S.45%6'27"W. 20 i 20 feet)
4. S.01°51'5?"W.~ a distance of 671.36 feet;
thence N.03° lT23"W., a distance of 674.27 feet to the PO~T OF BEGgiNG.ContesSa 62,730 square
feet or 1.440 &cre$, more or less.
A~EXATION PARCEL D PROPERTY DESC~WTION
PTO
Commencing at the S I/4 COI:LNER SECTION 11 T 10 S, R 85 V,/OF 6r.h P.M. FOUND iTEBAR ,.% CAP,
ILLEGIBLE (LS 90I 8 RECORD); thence N.05°5 I'47"E., a distance of 1502.07 feet to a point on the
boundary of that property described in REC #388528 of the Pitkin County records the true point of
beginning; thence the following four (4) courses
i..~ N.89°4I'47"E., a distance of 547.59 feet
2. N.gS°52'47"E., a distance of 745.86 feet
8. a distance of 320.74 l'eet along the arc of curve to the left havLng a radius of 1,447..35 feet and a central
angle of 12°4 I'49" (chord bears N.82°3 i'52"E. 320.08 feet)
4. N.76°10'58"E., a distance of 870.00 feet;
thence S.75°06'11 "W., a distance of 798.24 feet to the Southwest corner of Maroon Creek Road fight-of-
way as dedicated on the plat of Meadowood Subdivision Filing Two; thence N.00°40'i 9"E., along the
westerly boundary, of said rig. hr-of-way and fi~t-oDway extended 18.54 feet; eence leaving said fight-oD
way an~ fight-of-way extended S.88°48'3 i"W., along the northerly boundary, of the Moore Family P.Lr.D:
and the northerly boundary extended 58.4.3 feet; thence cuntinu/ng along said northerly boundary
S.88°52'08'W., a distance of 300.00 feet; thence leaving said northerly boundary N.g6°80'08"W-., ~.
distance of 841.81 feet to the POFNT OF BEGFN-N1-NG.
Containing 59;884 square feet or 1.375 acres, more or iess.
ANNEXATION PARCEL E PROPERTY DESCPdPTION
Commencing at the S I/4 CORNER SECTION 11 T 10 S, R 85 W OF 6th P.M. FOUND REBAR & CA/P,
ILLEGIBLE (LS 9018 RECORD); thence N.52° 17'28"E., a distance of 2S84.00 feet to a point on the
boundary line of that prope,Wy descfibed in REC #388528 of the Pitld~ County records the true point of
beginning; thence the following three (3) courses
1. a distance of 338.28 feet along the arc 6~'a non-tangent curve:to the left having a radius of 440.00 feet
and a cena-aI angle of 44°03'00'' (chord bears N.54°09'28"E. 330.01 feet)
2. N.32°0T58"E., a distance of 492. I0 feet
8. N.00°25'13"W., a distance of 92.66 feet to a point on the southerly rift-of-way of State Highway No.
82;
thence b. long said southerly fight-of-way a distance of 139.44 feet along the arc of a non-tangent curve to
the left having a radius of 1196.00 feet and a centraI angle of 06°40'49' (chord bears S.58°09'27'E. 139.36
feet); thence lea¥ing said right-of-way S.2~°44'38"W, a distance of 114.70 feet; thence S.42°43'08"W., a
distance of 189.74 feet to a point on the sgutherly right-of-way boundary of Maroun Creek road as
dedicated on the Meadowood Filing Two Plat; thence the following four (4) course:
I. S.32°07'19'W., adistance of 270.21 feet
2. a distance of 392.10 feet along the arc of curve to the fig.hr having a radius of 510.00 feet and a cen,'ral
angle of 44°08'00'' (chord bears S.54°08'49"vg. 382.51 feet)
3. S.76°10'I9"W., a distance of 270.00 feet
4. a distance of 432.75 feet aloag the arc of curve to the fight having a radius of 1,7I 0.00 feet and a central
angle of I4°30'00'' (chord bears S.83°25'19"W. 431.60 feet);
thence N.75°06'J. I"E. 798.34 feet to the POINT OF BEGFNNFNG.
Containing 114,761 square feet or 2.6.35 acres, more or less.
RESOLUTION NO. q 5
(SERmS Or 2002)
A P,~SOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING A CERTAIN CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL 1KEAL ESTATE BETV, KEEN
TIlE CITY OF ASPEN AND LOUIS J. ZUPANCIS AND ROBERT L. ZUPANCIS AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SA2v~E ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN.
YMHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a Contract to Buy and Sell real
Estate between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Louis J. Zupancis and Robert L. Zupancis, a
copy of which contract is annexed hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof.
NOW, THEiKEFO1KE, BE IT P,~SOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
Section One
That the City Conncil of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract to Buy and Sell
Real Estate between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Louis ~. Zupancis and Robert L. Zupancis,
and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execnte said contract on behalf of the City of
Aspen.
Section Two
The property that is the subject of said contract shall not be placed into pnblic use until
such time as the City Council decides the best use of said property, including, but not limited to,
redevelopment as affordable housing, park and recreational use, governmental offices, or
combination thereof; or, for re-sale to a¢other governmental entity, not-for-profit organization; or
to the private sector, as the City Council shall deem in the best interests of the City.
Dated: ., 2002.
Helen Kalin Klandemd, Mayor
P73
I, Kathz3m Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a tree and
accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a
meeting held ., 2002.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
JP W-08/07/2002 -G:\john\wordh-esoskzupan¢is.doc
P74
CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE
T~IS CONTRACT, made and entered on this ,2002 by and
between the City of As?eh, a Colorado l~ome r~le municipaI corporation ("B~yer"), and Louis J.
Zupancis and Robert L. Zupancis (collectively "Seller").
WITNESSETH, that the Seller wishes to sell certain real property commonly referenced as
the Zupancis residence; and
WHEREAS, the Buyer desires to purchase the Property from Seller; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the part/es hereto, for the consideration hereinafter set forth, agree as
follows:
1. PART/ES AND PROPERTY. The City of Aspen agrees to buy'and the Seller agrees
to sell, on the terms and conditions set forth below, the roi]owing described real estate property
situated in tt~e County of Pitkin, State of Colorado (the "Property"), to wit:
Description attached as Exhibit "A".
The address oftlne Property is 540 E. Main St., Aspen, Colorado, 81611
I/ne Property shall include the following items:
(a) Fixtures; Personal Property. If attached to the Property on the date >fthis Contract
lighting, heating ,pl~,~mbing, ventilation, and air conditi >ning fixtures, inside telephone wiring and
connecting blocks/jacks, plants, mien'ors, floor coverings, c~rtain rods. drapery rods, s~orage sheds,
srn >ke/5re detectors, security s5 s~ems, and all keys. Ail fixtures shall be conveyed at Closing free
and clear c fall taxes, liens and encumbrances, by bill ofsale or other applicable legal instrument.
Ali persona/property left on the property ar the Closing, or later than the pessession date as to the
habitable residence and two modern garages, shall become the Buyer's property un/ess alternate
arrangernerirs are hereafter made between the part/es.
(b) Water Rights. As part of this Contract, Buyer shalI convey ali water and water rights,
whether tributary, non-tributary, whether adjudicated or unadjudicated, and ali ditches and ditch
rights, water wells and well r/ghts, State Engineer ~lings, well registration statements and well
penn/rs, water raps. reservoirs and reservoir rights, which are, or have been or may be used on or in
cennecrion with. or are appurrenam to, or located on or underlying, or m any way associated with
the property. Seller shall deliver all decrees, penn,rs, agreernems and ~ther documents relating to
the foregoing water rights, ro B~5 er on or before the Off-record Matters Deadline (§3G). All water
rights sl~all be conveyed by quit claim deed or other applicable legal instrument.
2. PURCHASE PR/CE AND TERMS. The total purchase price for the Property shall
be THREE MILLION DOLLARS ($3,000,000.00). The purc~ase pr/ce for the Property shall be
payable in U.S. dollars in cash or certihed funds as follows:
a. Earnest Money
1
P75
$50,000.00 in the form ora check, as earnest money deposit and part payment
of the purchase price, payable to S oiler. In the event the purchase transaction contemplated hereunder
shall not close, except in tine case ora default on the Bnyer, the earnest money shall be returned to
the Buyer.
b. Cash at Closing.
$2,950,000.00, plus closing costs, to be paid by Buyer at closing in funds that
comply with all applicable Colorado laws, which include cash, electronic transfer funds, certihed
check, and cashier's check (Good Funds).
3. DATES AND DEADLINES.
ltem No. : Reference Event Date/Deadline
A 4a Appraisal Deadline N/A
B 6 Title Deadline *
C 0 Survey Deadline *
D 6 Survey Acceptance Deadline **
E 0 Document Request Deadline *
F 7a Title Objection Deadline **
G lb, 7b Off-Record Matters Deadline *
H 7b, 7c Off-record Matters Objection Deadline **
I I0 Seller's Property Disclosure Deadline ***
J l 0a Inspection Objection Deadline
K 1 Ob Resolution Deadline
L 4b City Council Approving Resolution Deadline *
M II Closing Date I 60 days from full
execution hereof
(see exception in
Paragraph 15)
N 15 Possession Deadline Date 60 days from full
, execution hereof
(see exception in
Paragraph 15)
IO 15 I Possession Deadline Time I 5:00 p.m.
2
P76
r I
P 32 Acceptance Deadline Date _, 2002
Q 31 Acceptance Deadline Time 5:00 p.m.
* -15 days from ~l] execution hereof. ** -30 days from fu]] execution. *** -45 days from
execution thereof.
4. CONTINGENCIES. The transactions contenlplated herdn are specifically contingent
upon the roi]owing:
a. Buyer is a Home Rule Municipality governed by a City Council. The City Council
shah approve this Contract as a condition to the closing of this Contract evidenced by a duly
approved resoIution of the City Council. The resolution approving this Contract shalI be completed
on or before the City Council Approving Resolution Deadline (§3L). The City Council, in its sole
and comp]ere discretion, may approye or deny approva] of this Contract for any reason, or no reason
at ail.
5. EVIDENCE OF TITLE. On or before Tire Deadline (§3B) Seller shall furnish to
Buyer, at Sel]er's sole cost and expense~ a current ALTA commitment for owner's title insurance
on the Property in an amount equal to the Purchase Price, from a title company acceptab]e to Buyer.
The title commitn~ent sba]] commit to de]ere or insure over the standard exceptions which relate to:
(1) parties in possession;
(2) unrecorded easements;
(3) survey matters;
(4) any unrecorded mechanics 1lens;
(5) gap period (effeqtiye date of commitment to date deed Js recorded), and
(6) unpaid taxes, assessments and unredeemed tax sales prior to year of
Closing.
Any additiona] premim'n expense to obtain this additional coverage sha]] be paid by Seller. Seller
shall cause the title insurance policy to be deliYered to Buyer as soon as practicable at or after
Closing, but no later than 90 days following Closing~
On or before Title Deadline (§3B), Scl'let, at Seller's expense, shah furnish to Buyer at or before
Document Request Deadline (§3E), (1) a copy of any p] ars, declarations, covenants, conditions and
restrictions burdening the property, and (2) copies of any other documents listed in the schedule of
exceptions (Exceptions.) This requirement shall pertain only to documents as shown of record in the
Of 15 ce of the Clerk and Recorder. The title insurance cornmitment, together with any copibs of such
documents furnished pursuant to this Section shall constitute the title docm'nents (Title Documents.)
6. SURVEY. Seller, at SeI]er's expense, Shall provide Buyer with three (3) copies of
a bonndary survey and improvements survey of the property prepared from an on-the-ground
inspection by a surveyor registered in the State of Colorado, which surveyor shall appropriately
3
P77
locate all boundary coiners of the Proper~y not previously located. Such survey shall be dated as of
a date no earlier than three rnonths prior to the date of this Contract and shall contain:
(I) The correct legal description of the Property by platted lot description if the
Property is platted, otherwise by metes and bounds description;
(2) All property dimensions of the Property and the location of all bounda~
co?nets of the Property.
(3) The number of square feet contained within the Property (to at least the
nearest square foot).
(4) The location of any and all easements, water courses, and rights-of-way which
are revealed by a physical inspection of the Property or the commitment and showing the
recording information for any easement or right-of-way created by a recorded document;
(5) The location of any and all improvements located on, under, or encroaching
onto the Propel-Ir including but not lira!ted to any and all buildings, sidewalks, paved parking
areas, roads: poles, overhead power lines, and fences.
(6) A certificate to Buyer and the title company engaged to provide a title
commitrnent.
It shall be considered a defect in title hereunder if any improvement located on the Property
encroaches upon adjacent lands or if any improvements on adjacent lands encroach upon the
Property.
Such survey shall be delivered to buyer no later than the Survey Deadline (§3C). In the event that
Buyer, in its so]e discretion is not satisfied with any of the matters reflected by the survey, Buyer
shall have the option to terminate this Contract by giving written notice to Seller, which notice must
be given no later than 5:00 P.M.M.D;T, of the Survey Acceptance Deadline (§3D). Upon
termination, the earnest money deposited hereunder shall be returned to Buyer and both parties shall
be released from any furL]her Obligations hereunder. If Buyer fails to tern~inate the Contract as set
forth above, the survey review shall be deemed to have been satisfied.
?. TITLE.
a. Title Review. Buyer sl)fil] have the right to inspect the Titte Documents. Written
notice by Buyer ofunmerchantability of title or of any other unsatisfactory title condition shown by
the title documents shall be signed by or on behalfofthe Buyer and given to Seller on or before Title
Objection Deadline (§3F), or within five (5) calendar days after receipt by Buyer of any Title
Documents or endorsement adding new Exceptions to the title commitment together with a copy of
the Title Document adding new Exceptions to title. If Seller does not receive Buyer's notice by the
date(s) specified above, Buyer accepts the condition o~-'the title as disclosed by the Title Documents
as satisfactory.
b. Matters Not Shown by the PubIJc Records. Seller shall deIiver to Buyer, on or before
Off-Record Matters Deadline (§3 G), true copies of all leases(s) and survey(s) in Setler's possession
pertaining to the Property and shall disclose to Buyer ali easements; liens and other title matters not
shown by the public records of which Seller has actual knowledge. Buyer shall have the right to
inspect the Property to deten'nine if any third party has any right in the Property not shown by the
public records (such as unrecorded easements, unrecorded lease, or boundary line discrepancy).
Written notice of any unsatist:actory condition(s) disclosed by Scl]er or revealed by such inspection
4
P78
shall be signed by or on behalf of Buyer and given to Seller on or before Off-Record .Matters
Objection Deadline (§3H). lfSeller does not receive Buyer's not ce by sa d date, Buyer accepts title
subject to such rights, if any, of th/rd parties of which Buyer has actual knowledge.
c. Spec/a] Toxin,o Districts. SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICTS MAY BE SUBJECT TO
GENERAL OBL/GATION INDEBTEDNESS THAT IS PAID BY REVENUES PR ODUCED FROM ANNUAL
TAX LEVIES ON THE TAXABLE pROPERTY WITHIN Si)CH DigTRliSTS. PROpERTy OWNERS IN
SUC]~ DISTRICTS MAY BE PLACED A'J' R~SK F0R iNCREaSED ~]i~ LEViES AND EXCESSIVE TAX
BURDENS TO SUPPORT TI-IE SERVICING OF SUCH DEgT WHERE cIRCUMSTANCES ARISE
RESULTING IN THE INABILITY OF gUCi] A DisTRIcT TO DISCHARGE SUCH INDEBTEDNESS
W]YTH,JOUT SUCH AN INCREASE IN NIILL LEVIES. BUYER sHOULD INVESTIGATE THE DEBT
FINANCING REQUIREMENTS OF T]a~E AUTF/R ORIZED GENERAL OBL] GATI ON INDEBTEDNESS OF
SUCH DISTRICTS, EXIST1NG MILL LEVIES OF sUCH DISTRICTS SERVICING SUCH
INDEBTEDNESS, AND THE POTENTIAL FOR INCREASE IN suclzl MILL LEVIEs. '
In the event the Proper~y iS/ocated within a spec/al taxing d/strict and Buyer desires to terminate this
contract as a result, if written notice is g~ven to Seller on or before Off-R ecord Matters Objection
Deadline (§3H), 1his contract shall then temainate. If Seller does not receive Buyer's notice by the
date specified above, Buyer accepts the affect of the Property's inclusion in such taxing d/strict(s)
and waives the right to so ter~ninate.
d) Right to Cure. If Seller receives notice of unmerclnantability of tide or any other
unsatisfactory title condition(s) as provided in subsection (a) or (b) above, Seller shall use reasonable
effort to correct the unsatisfactory title condition(s) prior to Closing Date. If Seller fails to correct
said unsatisfactory title condition(s) on or before Closing Date, this Contract shall then terminate.
provided, however, Buyer may, by written notice received by Seller, on or before closing, waive
objection to said unsatisfactory title condition(s).
8. LEAD-BASED PAINT. Unless exempt, if the improvements on the Proper~y include
one or more resident/a] dwelling(s) for which a building permit was issued pr/or to January l, 1978,
this contract s¢aI] be void unless a completed Lead-BaSed Paint Disclosure (Sales) form is signed
by Seller, which must occur pr/or to the parties signing this Contract.
9. COVENANTS, REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF SELLER. Seller
hereby covenants, represents and warrants to the Buyer the following, all of which shall be true,
accurate and complete as of the date hereof and slnall survive the closing:
a. Status and Authority. Seller has the right, ]egaI capacity and authority to enter
into and perform its obligations under this Contract, and the docun~ents to be executed and delivered
pursuant thereto.
b. NoLiabilities. Priortooratthetimeo£Closing, Se]Iershallpay, orotherwise
secure the release oh every debt, account payable, liability or obligations or any nature whatsoever,
contingent or otherwise, that is, or could become, a lien or other encumbrance against the Property,
and Seller shalI not engage in any action with respect to the Property between the date of execution
of this Contract and the closing date that could give rise to a lien or claim against the Property.
c. L ti.~ation. No action, suit or proceeding is pending or, to the best of SelIer's
5
P79
knowledae, threatened against the Property or Seller or affecting Seller's interest in, management
of. or other activities with respect to. the Property. Seller is not in default of any order of any court,
arbitrator or haovernmental body respecting the subject Proper~y.
d. Environmental Matters. To the best of the SeEer's knowledge, there are no hazardous
materials on the Property and the Property has never been used to generate, manufacture, refine,
transport, treat, store, handle, dispose, transfer, produce, process, or in any manner deal with
hazardous materials. For purposes of this Contract, the tenon "hazardous materials" shall mean any
gasoline, petroleum products, explosives, radioactive materials, hazardous materials, hazardous
wastes, hazardous or toxic substances, polychlorinated biphenyl or related or similar matehais,
asbestos or any material containing asbestos, or any other substance or material as may be defined
as hazardous or toxic substance by any environmental law, ordinance, rule or regulation of any
~ovemmentaI authority, including without limitation, the Comprehensive Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (42 USC Sections 9601, e~' seq.), the Hazardous Material
transportation Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. Sections 1807, et seq.), the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. Sections 6901, ez seq.), and the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. Sections 1251, ez seq., and the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sections '7401 et
~eg.).
e. No 'Notice of Violation. Seller has no knowled~.e of and has received no
notice of any pollution, health, safety, or environmental violation with respect to the Property or any
portion thereof which has not been cured.
f. No Conflict. The execution and delivery of this Contract and the documents
required hereunder, and the consummation of the transactions contemplated herein, will not: (t)
conflict with or be in contravention of any provision of any Iaw, order, rule or regulation applicable
to Se]let or the Property; (2) result in the breach of any of the ten'ns or provisions of, or constitute
a del~auit under, any agreement or other instrument to which Seller is a party, or by which it or any
portion of the Property may be bound or affected; (3) pen~ait any party to ten*ninate any such
agreement or instrument or to accelerate the maurity of any indebtedness or other obligation of the
Seller; or (4) result in any lien, charge or encumbrance of any nature on the Property other than as
perrnitted by this Contract.
g. True and Co~Tect Infon-nation. To the best of Seller's knowledge, no
document, certificate or written statement famished to the Buyer and its attorney by Seller in
connection with this transaction contains or will contain any untrue statement of a material fact or
omits or will omit to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements contained
therein not misleading. Additionally, Seller has disclosed all encumbrances and/or defects in title
not shown by the public records and all title docm`nents of which Seller has actual knowledge.
h. Use of Property Pendin;~ Closing. Between the date of this Contract and the
closing date, Seller:
(i) Shall maintain the Property in its cun'ent condition, non. al wear and tear excepted;
(ii) Shall not pen2~it the Proper~y to be used or operated in any manner that would be in
violation of any local, state or federal law or regulation.
PSO
i. No Other Contract. There are no other contracts or agreements, ora] or
written, which affect the Property, which will survive the dosing, except as disclosed in the title
insurance policy as provided the Buyer.
10. PROPERTY DJSCLOSURE AND INSPECTIONi On or before Seller's Propert3,
Disclosure Deadline (§3I), Sd]er agrees to provide buyer with a written disclosure of adverse
matters regarding the Property completed by Seller to the best of Seller's cun'ent actual knowledge.
a. l_nsl>~ction Objection Deadline. Buyer shall have the right to have inspection(s) of
the physical condition of the Property, at Buyer's expense. If the physical condition o£the Property
Js unsatisfactory in Buyer's subjective discretion, Buyer shall, on or before Inspection Objection
Deadline (§3J):
(1) notify Seller in writing that this Contract is terminated, or
(2) provide Sd]er with a written description of any unsatisfactory physical condition of
the Propertp which Buyer requ)res Seller to con'ect (Notice to Correct).
tf written Notice to Con'ect is not received by Seller on or before Inspection Objection Deadline
(~3J), the physical condition of the Property shall be deenled to be satisfactory to Buyer.
b. Resolution Deadline. Ifa Notice to Con-ect is received by Seller and if Buyer and
Seller have agreed in writing to a settlement thereof on or before Resolution Deadline (~3K), this
Contract shall terminate one calendar clay following R esolution Deadlin e i~3K), un/ess before such
tennaination Seller receives Buyer's written withdrawal of the Notice to Correct.
1 ]. CLOSING. The part/es hereto a~ee that closing shall be scheduled no later than
Closing Date (§3M), provided, however, that prior to the Closing Date the part/es may mutually
agree to an earlier date. The hour and location of Closing shall be mutually agreed to by the parties.
] 2. DELIVERY OF TITLE AND EA S EMENT. Subject to tender or payment on Closing
as required herein and compliance with the other te~xns and provisions hereof, Seller shaI1 execute
and deliver a good and sufficient general warranty deed at Closing conveying fee simple title to
the Property t0 the Buyer and conveying the Property free and clear of ali taxes except for pro-rata
share of taxes for the year of closing; and free and clear of all liens for special improvements
installed as of the date of closing, whether assessed or not; and free and clear of ali liens and
encumbrances except those disclosed by the title comrnitment which do not, in the Buyer's
reasonable discretion, render title unmerchantable. Within a reasonable period o~'t/me not to exceed
ninety (90) days, Seller agrees to pay full costs and premiums for, and deliver to the Buyer, fully
executed title insurance policies consister~t with the title insurance commitment referenced above.
13. PRORATION. Real e~tate taxes and assessments of the year of closing shall be
prorated as of the date of dosing, based upon the current year's levy and assessment, and if not
available, based upon the previous year's le~y and assessment. Rents, if any, shall be prorated based
on rents actually received as of the date of closing. Security deposits, if any, shall be credited to
Buyer. SelIer shall assign ail leases to Buyer and Buyer shall assume such leases. Water, sewer
charges, and other utility charges shall be prorated as of the date of closing. Al/proration made
pursuant to the provisions of this section shall be Ihnal.
14. CLOSING COSTS, DOCUMENTS AND SERVICES.
7
PS1
a. The pmtJes hereto shall pay their respective dosing costs at closing, except
as otherwise provided herein.
b. The pm-des hereto shall sign and complete all customary or required
documents at or before dosing.
c. Fees for rea] estate closing and settlement services shall not exceed $500.00
and sha]l be shared equally at closing by the pm-des hereto.
d. Seller, at its sole expense: shall deliver to the Buyer a current certificate of
taxes due covering the Property and a statement of persona] property taxes due, both prepared by the
PitkJn County Treasurer.
15. POSSESSION. Possession of the Property sha]l be delivered to the Buyer one year
fi-om ful] execution of the Contract as to the habitable residence on the property and the two (2)
modern garages on the Property and the parking between the said residence and garages. Seller shall
be responsibIe for fire and casualty insurance on those structures until possession is given the Buyer.
Buyer shalI have possession of the remainder oftheproperty on closing. Possession Deadline Date
(§3N), and Possession Deadline Time (§30). If Seller, after closing, falls to deliver possession on
the date herein specified, Seller shah be subject to eviction and shal] be additionally liable for
payment of $500.00 per day as liquidated damages from the date of agreed possession until
possession Js delivered.
16. NOT ASSIGNABLE. This Contract shall not be assignable by Buyer without
Seller's prior written consent.
l 7. CONDITION OF AND DAMAGE TO PROPERTY. Except as otherwise provided
in this Contract, the Property shall be delivered in the condition as of the date of this Contract,
ordinary wear and tear excepted.
a. Casualty: Insurance. In the event the Property shall be damaged by fire or other
casualty pr/or to C1osing, in an amount more than ten percent (10%) of the total Purchase price,
Seller shall be obligated to repair the same before the Closing Date. In the event such damage is not
repaired within said time or if the damage exceed such sum, this Contract may be ten~inated at the
option of the Buyer by delivering to Se!l'er. written notice often~nination. Should Buyer elect to carry
out this Contract despite such damage, Buyer shaI] be entit]ed to a credit, at Closing, for ali the
insurance proceeds resulting fi'om such damage to the property payable to Seller but not the owners'
association, if any, plus the amount of any deductible provided for in such insurance policy, such
credit not to exceed the total Purchase price.
b. Damage. fixtures, services. Should any fixtures or services (including systems and
components of the Property, e.g. heating, plumbing, etc.) fail or be damaged between the date of this
Contract and Closing or possession, whichever shall be earl/er, then Sd]er shall be liable for the
repair or replacement of such fixtures or services with a unit of similar size, age and quality, or an
equivalent credit, but only to the extent that the maintenance or replacement of such fixture or
services is not the responsibiIity of the ownerk' association, if any, less any insurance proceeds
received by Buyer covering such repair or replacement. The risk of loss to growing crops, by fire or
other casualty, shaIl be borne by the party entitled to the growing crops, if any, and such party shall
be entitled to such insurance proceeds or benefits for the growing crops, if any.
P82
c. Walk through: Ve~(ficat/on of Conditions. Buyer, upon reasonable notice to Se]let.
slnall have the right to walk through the Property prior to Closing to verify that the physical condition
of the Property complies with this Contract.
18. TIME OF ESSENCE/DEFAULT/REMEDIES. Tirneis oftheessencehereof. If any
note or check received or any of the payments due hereunder is not paid, honored or tendered when
due, or if any other obligation hereunder is not perfonmed within the tinne frames specified herein,
there shall be the following remedies:
a. 1F TH E BUYER ] S IN DEFAULT, then Se]ler may e]ect to treat this Contract
as canceled in which case all pal merits and things ofvah.~e paid here~mder shall be forfeited and
retained on behalf of Seller. and Seller may recover such damages as may be proper, or Seller may
elect t ~ treat this Contract as being in full force and effect, whereupon Seller shall have the righ~ re
an action for specific performance or damages, or both.
b. IF SELLER IS ~[N DEFAULT. the Buyer may elect to treat this Contract as
terminated, in which case all money payments and things of value paid hereunder shall be returned
forthwith to the Bus er and the Buyer may recover such damages as may be proper, ormay elect tc
rreaz this Contract as being in full force and effect, whereupon the Buyer shall have the right ro an
action for specific peri< rmance or damages.
c. Anything to the contrary herein notwithstandir g. in the event of any litigation
arising.out of this Contract. the court may award to the prevailin~ party 1ts reasonable costs and
expenses, including auorneys and expert witness fees.
19. SURVT[VAL OF COVENANTS. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES. The
covenants, represemanons, warranties and indemnities made by the parties to this Contract. and the
obliganons and agreements to be performed ~r complied with by the respective parties hereunder
on or before the closing date. shall survive the closing, but shall rernninate and be of no further force
and effect on the third anniversary of the date of closing.
20. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Contract constitutes the entire a~eement between the
parties hereto, and supersedes ali prior and contemporaneous agreements, representations and
understandings of the parties regarding the subjec~ matter of this Comract. No supplement,
modification or amendment of the Contract shall be binding unless executed in writing by the parties
hereto.
21. COUNTERPARTS. This Contract may be executed in one or more counterparts,
each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shah constitute one and the
same insrrumem.
22. B~[NDING EFFECT. This Contract shall be binding upon and shall inure to the
benefit of the parties heretc and their respective heirs, successor and assigns.
23 RECOMMENDATION OF LEGAL COUNSEL. By signing this document, the
parties hereto acknowledge the advisability >f obtaining the advice of independent legal regarding
exam/nation of title documents and the terms of this Contract.
9
P83
24. GOVERNING LAW. This Contract shall be governed by and be construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and the pa-~ies hereto hereby consent to the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Colorado state courts in the event of any controversy or suit arising
hereunder.
25. SEVERABILJTY. If any provision of this Contract is held by a court of competent
urisdJction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions of this Contract
shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impah-ed or invalidated.
25. TERMZINAT]ON. In the event this Contract is terna/nated for any reason, pursuant
to the terms hereof, ail money payments, with any accrued interest, and things of value paid
hereunder shall be returned forthwith to the Buyer.
27. NOTICES. Ali notices and other communications tendered in connection with this
Contract shall be in writing, and shall be deemed to have been duly given when delivered in person
or by te]efax, or on the fourth day after mailing, if mailed registered or certified mail, postage
prepaid and properly addressed as follows:
To Buyer: Off~ce of the City Manager
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81
With a copy to the City Attorney at the same address.
To Seller: c/o Leonard M. Oates
Oates, Knezevich & Gardenswartz, P.C.
533 E. Hopkins Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
28. EARNEST MONEY DISPUTE. Notwithstanding any termination of this
contract, Buyer and Seller agree that i:~ the event of any controversy regarding the earnest money
and things of value held by broker or closing agent, unless mutual closing instructions are received
by the holder of the earnest money and things of value, broker or closing agent shall not be required
to take any action but may await any proceeding, or at broker's or closing agent's option and sole
discretion, may interplead ail part/es and deposit any money or things of value into a court of
competent jur/sdict/on and shall recover court costs and reasonable attorney fees.
29. FACSIMILE TRANSMISSIONS. It is nqutually agreed upon by all the parties to
this Contract that, if necessary, facsimile communication shall be an acceptable and binding form
of communication. An original shall be provided to the other party(ies) at closing with original
signatures.
30. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS.
a) Buyer and Seller agree and acknowledge that Colorado Revised Statute Section 39-
22-604.5 provides that in the case of any conveyance of a Colorado real property interest, the person
10
P84
or party providing dosing and settlement services shall be required to withhold an amount equal to
2% of the sales price or the net proceeds resuhing from such conveyance: whichever Js ]ess, when
the trans£eror is a non-resident of the State of Colorado. Seller shall be obIigated to either comply
with the withholding requireme~ts of CRS 39-22-604.5 or provide an affidavit in fon-n and content
satisfactory to the person or party dosing and settIement services certifies that Seller is not subject
to the withholding requirements.
b) Sd]er hereby warrants that it is not subject to withhoIding as defined under IntemaI
Revenue Code Section 897 'Fore~gn Person Transferor', and will execme an affidavit to that effect
prior to closing.
Bargain Sale. Both parties acknowlecl~e that the transaction conternp]ated herein is
intended to be a bargain] donative sale i.e., par~ donati }n and pan sale). In connection with the
purchase of the Proper~, the City of Aspen caused ~o be prepared that certain Appraisal Report of
the Property hereinafter rez'erred to as the "Appraisal") dated . 2002 with an
applicable date of appraisal being 2002L which Appraisal was prepared by David
Ritter. the Appraisal Ofhce - Aspen. Ltd.. The Appraisal concluded that the fair market value of the
Prope~y was Three Million Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($3,875,00¢). Both parties agree that
the transact/on comemp]ated hereunder is comprised of two separate transactions:
a. The Seller's char/table contribution ro the City of Aspen of the sum of Eight
Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($875.0001 Ii.e, the difference
between the fair markel value of the Property ~ $3,875,00(' and the purchase
p~hce hereunder ($3,000,00()], and
b. The sale of the Property to the Bu) er for the sum of Tl~-ee Million Dollars
($3,000.000t.
c. Broker's Disclosure. Seller. Rober~ L. Zupanc~s ~s a licensed Colorado real
estate broker. Buyer acknowledges that he has made no representation to the
Buyer in that capacity.
d. Neither parry has engaged a real estate sales broker in connection w/th the
purchase and sale contracted hereby, and each reprsenrs ro the other that there
are no real estate sales commissions due on such purchase and sale by their
respective acts.
Both parries agree ro report the transactions hereunder for tax and all other financial reporting
purposes m accordance with the foregoing vaIuations and characterizations.
31. T:[ME/,IM/T FOR ACCEPTANCE. Buyer's offer as set forth in this
instrument is nme Iirnited as set forth below. If this proposal ~s accepted by Seller in writing and
Buyer receives notice of such acceptance on or before Acceptance Deadline Date (~ 3P). and
Acceptance Deadline Time (§3Q),, this instrument shall become a comract between Seller and
Buyer, s~_~bject only to the tenxqs and conditions set forth herein (including the contingencies listed
above, if any), and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors and assigns of such parties.
P85
BUYER: I
CITY OF ASPEN:
By:
City Manager Date
(This section to be completed by Seller)
Seller accepts the above proposal this day of ,2002
SELLER:
__.,2002
Louis J. Zupancis Date
.,2002
Robe~ L. Zupancis Date
12
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
DATE: August 5, 2002
RE: Board Appointments
By adopting the consent calendar, Council is making the following
appointments to Boards and Commissions:
Board of Adjustment - Howard DeLuca - regular
Greg Hughes - alternate
P&Z Jack Johnson - regular
Dylan Johns - alternate
LLA Gary Esary, Bill:Murphy, Peter Helburn
Wheeler Jon Busch
Brian O'Neil
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community DeveloPment Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Directom,,J~
FROM: James Lindt, Planner ~.~
RE: Rezoning of Outlot B, Aspen Meadows Subdivision/SPA- Public 1st Reading of
Ordinance No.%.~O, Series of 2002
DATE: August 12, 2002
SUMMARY:
APPLICANT/OWNER: Charles Marqusee The Applicant is requesting to rezone
][~EPRESENTATIVE: Joseph Wells, Joseph Wells Outlot B (see attachment "B' for
Land Planning location), of the Aspen Meadows
Subdivision from the Academic Zone
LOCATION: Outlot B, Aspen Meadows District with an SPA Overlay to the
Subdivision/SPA R-15 (Moderate-Density Residential)
Zone District. Outlot B was
PARCEL ID NUMBER: 2735-I21-13-008 conveyed to the Applicant in
consideration for land that he gave for
CURRENT ZONING: Academic/SPA the construction of the New Meadows
Road.
PROPOSED ZONING: R- 15 (Moderate-Density
Residential) The ApPlicant is requesting rezoning
SUMMARY: The Applicant requests to rezone Outlot approval in addition to allowing for
B of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision/SPA from the the merger of Outlot B with the two
Academic Zone District with an SPA Overlay to the properties located directly to the
R-15 (Moderate- Density Residential) Zone District. south. The merger would
Outlot B was conveyed to the Applicant as subsequently occur through the
consideration for his giving of [and for the administration ofalotlineadjustment
construction of the New Meadows Road in by the Community Development
conjunction with the Aspen Meadows SPA. DireCtor. Furthermore, an
insubstantial SPA amendment to be
APPROVED AND CURRENT LAND USE: Outlot B is
administered by the Community
currently vacant and is intended to be incorporated
into the residential lots directly to the south through a Development Director is required and
lot line adjusnnent that may be approved has been requested to remove Outlot
administratively. B from the Meadows SPA.
LAND USE REQUESTS
The Applicant is requesting approval of the following land use requests:
t) Rezoning Outlot B from Academic w/th an SPA Overlay to R-15 (Moderate-Density
Residential) Zone DistriCt; and,
2) Insubstantial SPA Amendment to remove Outlot B from the Meadows SPA (to be
reviewed by the Community Development Director if rezoning aPplication is
approved); and,
P89
3) Lot Line Adjustment to merge Outlot B with the two lots located directly south of
Outtot B (to be reviewed by the Community Development Director pursuant tO Land
Use Code Section 26.480.040(A), Lot Line Adjustment). (Please see draft plat
attached as Exhibit "B").
REVIEW PROCEI~ImE
Rezon&g (Two Step Review). City Council may approve or deny an application £or
rezoning, after considering a recommendation from the Plarming and Zoning Commission, a
recommendation from the Community D.evelopment Director, and after considering public
comment.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Rezoning:
Staff believes that the proposal to rezone Outlot B from the Academic Zone District with an
SPA Overlay to R-15, and to merge it with the residential parcels to' the south will benefit
the City by cleaning up the zoning in this area. The proposed rezoning, lot line
adjustment, and SPA amendment would rezone the narrow strip of land south of Meadows
Road (Outlot B) to match the zoning of the other parcels on the south side of the road. The
current zoning (Academic Zone District with an SPA Overlay) of Outlot B is no longer
logical because the land is no longer under the ownership of the Aspen Institute which
would utilize it for educational and cultural purposes as the Academic Zone District
intends. Outlot B was given to the Applicant to provide a land buffer as consideration for
providing land for the construction of the new Meadows Road.
The proposed rezoning application will not provide additional development rights on Outlot
B. Through the lot 1/ne adjustment application, the Applicant plans to merge Outlot B with
the two residential parcels located directly to the south. The above mentioned lot line
adjustment application associated with the rezoning will not allow for additional
development rights to be gained by any of the parcels involved pursuant to Land Use Code
Section 26.480.030(A)(1)(d), Lot Line 'AdjustmentS. Therefore, no additional FAR or
development rights would be provided to Outlot B or the two parcels to the south by
granting the proposed rezoning and lot line adjustment.
In addition, the single-family residence located on the parcel to the southeast of Outlot B is
currently non-conforming in regards to it's north setback. Rezoning and merging a port/on
of Outlot B with the aforementioned parcel will lessen the setback non-conformity by
extending the parcel's lot line to the north. Therefore, the proposed rezoning will also
allow for the residential parcel to the south to brought more into conformance with it's
current zoning by allowing for the lot line adjustment to be completed.
Addkionally, as previously mentioned, Staff believes that the proposed insubstantial SPA
amendment to remove Outlot B from the Meadows Specially Planned Area cleans up the
erratic zoning boundaries that were left behind as a result of the construction of New
Meadows Road. The proposed SPA amendment would allow for a sliver of land (Ouflot B)
that is zoned Academic to be converted to the R-15 (Moderate-Density Residential) Zone
District to match the zoning of the surrounding parcels of land. The Applicant has also
Pgo
received a letter of consent from Aspen Institute to allow the Applicant to apply for the
SPA amendment.
As mentioned earlier in the memo, Outlot B is no longer under the ownership of the non-
profit entities that would utilize the parcel in a manner that is consistent with the uses in the
Meadows SPA and the underlying Academic Zone District. The Applicant has expressed
no intention at this time of selling Outlot B back to the Aspen Institute that would utilize it
for academic or cultural purposes. Staff believes that the proposed insubstantial SPA
amendment meets the applicable review criteria for approval by the Community
Development Director pursuant to land use code section 26.440.090, amendment to SPA
development order.
STAFF ANALYSIS SUMMARY:
Staff finds that the .proposed rezoning application meets or exceeds the requirements set
forth in Land Use Code Section 26.310.040, to approve an amendment to the official zone
district map. Staff recommends that City Council rezone Outlot B to the R-15 (Moderate-
Density Residential~ Zone District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that City Council approve the proposed rezoning application finding that
the applicable review standards have been met.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that City Council approve the
proposed rezoning application.
RECOMMENDED MO~T.I_Q,N (AL_L MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
"I move to approve~,~[~No. ~., Series of 2002, recommending that City Council
approve the proposed rezoning application to allow Outlot B, of the Aspen Meadows
Subdivision to be rezoned to the R-15 ~'Moderate-Density ResidentiaD Zone District."
Attachments:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B -- Application
Exhibit C -- Aspen Institute Insubstantial SPA Amendment Application Letter of Consent
Exhibit D -- Plarming and Zoning Commission Resolution
P91
ORDINANCE NO. ~
(SERIES OF 2002)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, REZONING OUTLOT B, OF THE ASPEN MEADOWS
SUBDIVISION TO TI-IE R-15 (MODERATE -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE
DISTRICT, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel No. 2735-121-I3-008
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from H & C Marqusee Inc., represented by Joseph Wells, requesting approval to rezone
Outlot B, of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision/SPA from Academic with an SPA Overlay to
the R-15 (Moderate -Density Residential) Zone District; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable code standards, and
the Community Development Department recor2mended approval for the proposed
rezoning application; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Land Use Code, City Council
may approve an amendment to the official zone district map during a duly noticed public
hearing after consider4ng a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission
made at a duly noticed public hearing, comments from the general public, a
recommendation from the Community Development Director, and recommendations
from relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on August 6, 2002, the
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended, by a four to two (4-2) vote, approval of
an amendment to the official zone district map to rezone Outlot B of the Meadows
Subdivision/SPA to R-15 (Moderate Density Residential); and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the rezoning
application and recommended approval; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the rezordng
application under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has
reviewed and considered the recorrnnendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the
Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and
considered public comment at a public heating; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the rezoning application meets or exceeds
all applicable development standards and that the approval of the rezoning, is consistent
with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
P92
Section 1
An amendment to the official zone district map to rezone Outlot B 'of the Aspen
Meadows Subdivision/SPA to the R-iS (Moderate-Density Residential) Zone District, is
hereby approved.
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 Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied
with as if f~lly set forth herein, urJess amended by an authorized entity.
Section 3:
This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section_ subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of comperem 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 Ordinance was held on the 12th day of August, 2002
at 5:00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED. READ AND ORDERED PUBLISH]ED as provided by law,
by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the I2th day of Augusz, 2002.
Helen Kalin Klanderud. Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch. City Clerk
P93
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 9th day of September, 2002.
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
John P. Worcester,
City Attorney
EXHIBIT A
REVIEW CRiTERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
REZONING FROM ACADEMIC WITH AN SPA OVERLAY TO THE R-15 (MODERATE-DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL) ZONE DISTRICT
REVIEW CRiTERiA & STAFF FINDINGS
In revie~ving an amendment to the official zone district map, City Council and the Planning
and Zoning Commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable
portions of this title.
Staff Finding
Staff does not feel that the proposed rezoning application is in conflict with any portion of
the Land Use Code. 'The proposed amendment to the official zone district map to change the
subject property's zoning designatior~ from Academic ;vith an SPA Overlay to R-15 is not in
confiict with any portion of the Land Use Code. Actually, the proposed rezoning in
conjunction with the proposed insubstantial SPA amendment will allow for portions of
Ouylot B, of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision to be merged with the two residential parcels to
the south through a Lot Line Adjustment to be reviewed by the Community Development
Director. By allowing for the Lot Line Adjustment to occur, the convergence of the narrow
OutIot B and the residential parcel to the southeast will correct an existing setback non-
conformity in relation to the existing single-family residence located on the residential
parcel. Stafffinds this criterion to be met.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan,
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed rez6ning application is consistent with the Aspen Area
Commnnity Plan. The 2000 Aspen Area Commnnity Plan's future land use composite map
earmarks Outlot B, of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision for residential use. The proposed
rezoning to R-I5 (Moderate-Density Residential) is in keeping with this vision set forth in
the AACP. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics.
Staff Finding .
Staff believes that the proposed rezoning is compatlble with the surrounding zone disfricts
and land uses. Both of the parcels directly south of Outlot B are zoned R-15 and contain
single-family residences. Additionally, the parcels located directly across the street are also
zoned R-15 with an SPA Overlay. The proposed rezoning will not increase the development
rights on Outlot B. Stafffinds this criterion to be met.
4
P95
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road
safety,.
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning wilI have an effect on traffic generation nor
road safety. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result
in demands on public facilities, and whether the extent to which the
proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities,
including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities,
water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Finding
The proposed rezoning application will not increase the allowable development rights of
Ontlot B. Therefore, Staff does not feel that there will be an increase in the demand for
pubtic facilities. Stafffinds this criterion to be met.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result
in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning application would result in adverse ~mpacrs
onthe enviromment. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application will not affect the Community
Character within the City of Aspen. Stafffinds this criterion to be met.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel
or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed
amendment.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the construction of the New Meadows Road changed the conditions
affecting the subject parcel which support the proposed rezoning application. The Applicant
was given OutIot B as consideration for giving land for the construction of the New
Meadows Road. Staffbelieves that the Academic zoning which is currently applied to Outlet
B is no longer appropriate for the parcel in that it is no longer owned by the Aspen Institute
and incorporated into the long range development plan of the Meadows SPA. The
surrounding lots are all zoned R-t5 or R-15 with a~ SPA Overlay for the mostpart, and Staff
believes that the proposed rezoning application is appropriate to clew up the zoning on
Outlet B. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
5
P96
Staff Findin~
Staff believes that the proposed rezonmg application would not be in conflict with the
purpose and intent of the land use code or the public interest. The proposed rezoning
application would make the zoning of Outlot B consistent with the surrounding parcels. Staff
f~nds this criterion to be reel
6
.inly I6, 2002 ·
City of Aspen
~spen. CO ~idI1
D¢~Ms Woods:
[ ~m wn:~ng :o you on behaif of The Asses D. stt~e,
of Lot ] and Lot IA, Aspen Meadows S~dally
[e~er is co coaf~ ~b, at the ~st~m~e consents ~o ~e request fried by
parcels o~ed by thes~ p~es P~ease contac~
qaestions or need addhional infonet!on
Sinc~r~I),
RESOLUTION NO. 24
(SERIES OF 2002
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMIMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL REZONE OUTLOT B, OF THE ASPEN
MEADOWS SUBDIVISION TO THE R-15 [MODERATE -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
ZONE DISTRICT. CITY OF ASPEN. PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
£arcel ID: 2 735-121-13-008
WHEREAS. the Community Development Department received an application from H
& C Marqusee Inc., represented by Joseph Wells, requesting approval to rezone Outlot B, of the
Aspen Meadows Subdivision/SPA from Academic with an SPA Overlay to the R-15 (Moderate -
Density Residential) Zone District; and,
WHEREAS. upon review of the application and the applicable code standards_ the
Community Developmenr Department recommended approval for the proposed rezoning
application: and.
WHEREAS, the Aspen Plarming and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the
rezoning under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and.
WHEREAS, the Plarming and Zoning Commission finds that rezon/ng meets or exceeds ali
applicable rezomng standards and that the approval of the rezoning application is consistent with the
goals and elements o£the Aspen Area Commurfity Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Plarming and Zoning Commissio~x finds that this resolution furthers and is
necessarv for the promotion ofpublic health, safety, and welfare.
NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26.310 of the City of Aspen Land Use
Code, the Plauning and Zoning Commission recommends that City Council approve the
application to rezone Outlot B, Aspen Meadows Subdivision from the Academic Zone District with
an SPA Overlay to the R-15 Moderate-Density Residential) Zone District.
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 Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, tm/ess
amended by an authorized entity.
P99
Section 3:
This resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending trader or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and ¢oncluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen by a four to two (4-2)
vote on this 6th day of August, 2002.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
DATE: May 30, 2002
RE: Proposed Charter Amendment Changing Publication
Requirements
The attached ordinance suggests an amendment to Section 4.10(d) of
the Home Rule Charter to require if an ordinance is approved on first
reading, it shall be published by reference or by title unless otherwise
directed by Council. The ordinance would also be published by title after
final passage. Such Charter Amendment will have to be voted on and
approved.
Currently, the Charter requires ordinances be published in fUll if
adopted on first reading and by title after final passage.
Staff feels publication of the entire ordinance on first reading is not
the best use of resources. It costs $250 up (Ordinance #1 the historic
preservation amendments cost $2275) to.publish an entire ordinance. A title
publication averages $12. Entire ordinances are made available at the
Council meeting when they are being considered, both 1 st and 2nd readings.
The city clerk's office makes copies available to anyone who asks by FAX,
in person, e-mail and US mail. The Municipal Code is available on-line.
The city publishes the entire Council agenda in Monday's daily paper and
when citizens are interested, they call the city clerk's office or pertinent
department for copies.
Over the years, I can cite you two, maybe three, instances of people telling
me they read something in a legal notice, the most rece~nt being Patti Clapper
who read an entire land use ordinance.
The costs for0rdinance publication have been:
2000 $12,805
2001 $14,151
2002 (to date) $ 6,513
There will still be publication costs, perhaps $50 per ordinance rather than
$262 per ordinance. I would rather see this money go to more technological
ways of disseminating ordinance information, like having the ordinances
available on the website.
C.R.S. 31-16-105 Record and publication of ordinances states, "Any
municipality may detennine at a regular or special election to meet the
requirements of this section and Section 31-16-106 by publishing ordinances
by titles only rather than by publishing the ordinance in full. No
municipality shall call a special election for the sole purpose of determining
the issue of whether the municipality should publish new ordinances in full
or by title only".
Attachment/proposed ordinance
P102
ORDINANCE NO. ~_~
(Series of 2002)
AN OR.DINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
AMENDING SECTIONS 4.10(d) AND 4.10(F) OF THE CITY OF ASPEN EIOME RULE
CHARTER TO CHANGE THE PUBLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ADOPTION
OF ORDINANCES BY THE CITY 'COUN~ILi
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Home Rule Charter requirement
that ordinances be published in full has proven to be a great expense to the City of Aspen without
appreciably providing a good method for informing the public of proposed legislation before the
City Council; and
YVI-IEREAS; Section 13.I0 of the Home Rule Charter authorizes the City Council to
propose amendments to the City Charter in accordance with the State Constitution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the Home Rule Charter as set forth
herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1.
That Section 4.10(d) of the Aspen Home Rule Charter shall be and hereby is amended to read as
follows:
(d) If the ordinance is approved on first reading, it shall be published by reference or
title unless otherwise directed by the council. The council shall set a day, hour, and place
at which council shall hold a public hearing on the ordinance and notice of said day, hour
and place shall be included in the first publication.
Section 2.
That Section 4.10(0 of the Aspen Home Rule Charter shall be and hereby is amended to read as
follows:
P103
(f) Except as otherwise provided herein, an ordinance, if amended, shall be published
by reference or title unless otherwise directed by Council.
Section 3.
This ordinance shall become effective on January 1, 2003, provided that the electors of the City
approve the same at the special municipal election on November 5, 2002.
Section 4.
That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstirutionai 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 shali be held on the. day of ,2002,
in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the --__ day of ., 2002.
Helen Kalin KIanderud, Mayor
2
P104
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch. City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of
,2002.
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch. City Clerk
JFW-05 '01/20O2-G:\john word\ords\charter-amd-2002,doc
P106
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
THRU: STEVE BARWICK. CITY MANAGER
THRU: JOHN WORCESTER. CITY ATTOPuNEY
THRU: JEFF WOODS, PARKS DIRECTOR
THRU: TOM RUBEL, PARKS SUPERINTENDENT
FROM: DAVID HOEFER. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY ~
DATE: JUNE 6, 2002
RE: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE City OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL
CODE BY ADDING A SUBSECTION. PROHIBITING THE USE
OF HORSES AND HORSE DRAWN CARRIAGES ON THE
SIDEWALKS AND MALLS IN THE CC ZONING DISTRICT,
TO SECTION 15.04.230 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE,
ENTITLED "CERTAIN VEHICLES PROHIBITED ON
SIDEWALKS. MALLS. AND STREETS."
SUMMARY: The proposed ordinance would prohibit the riding or operation of horses
and horse drawn carriages on the sidewalks and mails located in the CC zoning district.
The language includes an exception permitting horses and carriages to toad and nnload
passengers on the mall at the corner of Galena and Cooper Streets.
DISCUSSION: Last winter staff had concerns for the safety ofindividuals walking on
the downtown malls when horse drawn carriages were crossing os the narrow mails. The
operators of these carriages cooperated with the police and parks department in not using
those routes with one notable exception. He consistently violated the directives of staff
not to use those routes. The ordinance will not in any way preclude horse drawn
carriages and horses in the CC zone district, but it will keep them on the streets and will
provide a safer environment for Aspen's citizens mad guests.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the proposed ordinance be adopted.
PROPOSED MOTION: Staff recommends the following motion:
P107
"I move to approve Ordinance ~ , Series of 2002, which prohibits the use of horses
and horse dra~vn carriages on the sidewalks and malls of the CC zoning district, with
the exception of the loading and unloading of passengers at Galena and Cooper."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
P108
ORDINANCE NO.~'~, SERIES OF 2002
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO. AMENDING THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE BY
ADDING A SUBSECTION, PROHIBITING THE USE OF HORSES AND HORSE
DRAWN CARRIAGES ON THE SIDEWALKS AND MALLS IN THE CC
ZONING DISTRICT, TO SECTION 15.04.230 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL
CODE, ENTITLED "CERTAIN VEHICLES PROHIBITED ON SIDEWALKS,
MALLS, AND STREETS."
WHEREAS, Section 15.04.230 of the Aspen Municipal Code prohibits the operation of
certain vehicles on sidewalks, mails, and streets in the C-1 and CC zordng district, and
WHEREAS, city staff has concerns for the safety of pedestrians on the mails in the CC
zone disthct when horses and horse drawn carriages are operated on the mall, and
WHEREAS, the horses and horse drawn carriages also may cause damage to the bricks
and other improvements in the malls, and
WHEREAS, ar;erupts by city staff to obtain vohmtary compliance with at least one
operator of horse drawn carriages has met with resistance, and
xXrHEREAS, an exempnon to the general rule is prudent to allow for the loading and
unloading of passengers at the comer of Galena and Cooper Streets, and
WHEREAS, the proposed subsection amendment is in the best interests of the general
health, safety, and welfare of Aspen residents and guests.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1
That the Municipal Code of the City of'Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended by the
addition of subsection "(d)" to Section 15.04.230 of the Aspen Municipal Code, which
subsection prohibits the r/ding or operation of horses and horse drawn carriages on the
sidewalks or malls of the CC zone district, with the exception that carriages may load
and unload passengers at the comer of Galena and Cooper Streets. The addition shall
P109
read as follows:
(b) Jt shall be tmlawfal for any person to ride or o£erate horses or horse drawn
carriages *tjvon the sidewalks or malls of the CC zoning district, excef)t that horses and
carriages may load and zmload £assengers on the mall at the corner of Galena and
Cooper Streets.
Section 2
If a~y subsection, sentence, clause, pl~:ase, or portion of this ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jur/sdiction, such
provision and such holding shall not affect the validitg of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 3
The ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an
abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by vimxe of any other
ordinance, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such other ordinance.
Section 4
A public hearir~g on the ordinance shall be held on the day' of ., 2002,
at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hail, I30 South Galena, Aspen,
Colorado.
INTRODUCED AND READ as provided by law by the City Cmmcil of the City of
Aspen on the __ day of ,2002.
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
Pll0
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of 2002.
Helen Kalin Klanderud. Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch. City Clerk
TO: Mayor and City Council
Directol~0
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development
FROM: James Lindt, Planner
RE: Innsbruek Inn Lodge Expansion - Growth Management Quota
System Exemption for Affordable Housing, and Minor Planned Unit
Development-2na Reading of Ordinance No. 2~, Series of 2002
DATE: August 12, 2002
REQUEST: The Applicant is requesting appropriate land use approvals to .
redevelop the Innsbruck Inn which includes 1) an addition of four
lodging units, and 2) the addition of one employee dwelling unit of
approximately 530 net livable square feet.
ZONING: Office Zone District with Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay & Main
Street Historic Overlay'
PROCESS: GMQS Exemptions for Lodge Preservation & Affordable
Housing, Minor Planned Unit Development
STAFF Approval with Conditions
RECOMMENDATION:
Pl13
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The Applicant, Irmsbruck Holdings, LLC, represented by Haas Land Planning, LLC., is
requesting the appropriate land use approvals to redevelop the Innsbruck Inn.
Specifically, the Applicant is requesting the ability to construct four new lodge units and
one new employee dwelling unit.
BACKGROUND:
The site is located at 233 West Main Street and is in the Office Zone District with a Main
Street Historic Overlay and a Lodge Preservation Overlay. The site is comprised of Lots
A-E, Block 52, and contains 15,000 square feet. The site currently contains the Irmsbruck
Inn, which is a 33 room lodge with a Main Street frontage. Additionally, the site contains
18 parking spaces (12 are partially on public right-of-way), a swimming pool, and a
considerable amount of mature trees and landscaping.
The property is required to be reviewed by the HPC because the site is located in the
Main Street Historic Overlay District. The Applicant has received Final HPC Review
Approval.
REVIEW PROCESS:
The Applicant is requesting approval of the following land use actions: 1) Minor Plarmed Unit Development; and,
2) Growth Management Qflota System (GMQS) exemptions for four Lodge
Preservation Allotments; and,
3) A Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) exemption for the addition Of
an employee housing unit.
The Planming and Zoning Commission has already granted the proposed GMQS
Exemption for four Lodge Preservation Allotments. The Minor PUD and GMQS
exemption for development of affordable housing require City Council's approval after
considering a recommendation from the Commnnity Development Department, the
Housing Authority, the Planning.and Zoning Commission, and after considering public
comments.
STAFF COMMENTS:
As mentioned above, the Applicant propo&es to construct an addition of four lodge rooms
and one employee housing unit on the western portion of the property. Currently the
Irmsbruck contains 33 lodging rooms. The proposed redevelopment would result in a 37
room lodge with a sub-grade employee dwelling unit. The net increase in floor area
would be approximately 1,500 square feet and result in a total FAR of .9:t. The
Applicant intends for the Deed Restricted Employee Housing Unit to be a rental unit that
is condominiumized from the lodge. The Applicant is proposing to give the Housing
Authority an option to purchase an undivided .0I% interest in the unit to insure pricing is
in maintained in accordance with the Housing Guidelines.
Pl14
iViINOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT:
The Minor Lodge Preservation PUD provides a mechanism to adjust the underlying
zoning's dimensional requirements for particular de~(elopments that contain a Lodge
Preservation Overlay Zoning and which are consistent with the purpose of the Lodge
Preservation Overlay Zone District, such as the Innsbruck's proposal. In general, the
Applicant is proposing to only vary a few dimensional requirements of the underlying
Office Zone District in order to achieve the proposed design. Otherwise, the Applicant
will continue to meet or exceed the minimums of the underlying zone district.
Specifically, the PUD would establish the following dimensional requirements:
Maximum Height 25 Feet 21 Feet
Allowable Floor Area 0,75: I 0.9: I/.95: I including basement
(FAR) addition
Minimum Front Yard
I0 Feet 5 Feet (0 Feet for the fence)
Setback
Minimum Side Yard 5 Feet 4.5 Feet for Building (0 Feet
Setback the fence
Minimum Rear Yard
15 Feet I3 Feet
Setback
Minimum Off Street 0.7 Spaces per
Parking bedroom or via PUD 0.31 spaces per bedrobm
Staff believes that the proposed dimensional requirements and architecture are extremely
compatible with the surrounding structures and land uses. The lack of off-street parking
is addressed later in the memo. Additionally, the Historic Preservation Commission has
approved the Final Design of the proposal. Staff believes the proposal meets all of the
Lodge Preservation PUD review standards. The Plam~ing and Zoning Cormuission also
recommends that City Council approve the proposed Minor PUD (please see Exhibit "D"
for Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution).
EMPLOYEE GENERATION MITIGATION:
As a result of this proposed redevelopmem, the number of lodge units would be increased
fi'om 33 to 37. The Applicant is proposing ro create a sub-grade, one-bedroom employee
dwelling unit to mitigate for the addition of the four lodge rooms. The proposed one-
bedroom employee housing unit would provide housing credit for an additional 1.75
employees pursuant To the Housing Guidelines, The Housing Authority uses an
employee generation factor of .245 employees per lodge room. Therefore, according
the Housing Authority's employee generation analysis, the addition of the four lodging
rooms is expected to generate .98 employees Because the Applicant is only required ro
mitigate for 60% of the employees generated, on-site employee housing is required for
.59 new employees. Therefore. the Applicant is proposing sufficient employee housing
on-sire for the proposed addition of four lodge rooms.
Pl15
The Applicant proposed this mitigation arrangement to the Housing Authority and
received a recommendation of approval. The Housing Guidelines require that the
proposed employee unit be deed restricted to Category 2, The Applicant believes this
requirement is too confining for rental of the unit to employees of the lodge. Instead, the
category designation of this unit will need to accommodate the salary levels of the
Irmsbmck Irm employees who are to be housed in the unit. In light of this, the Applicant
requested that they have the ability to adjust the income and asset categories from time to
time as necessary to accommodate the income levels of the employees to be housed.
Additionally, the Applicant requested a waiver from the minimum six month lease
requirements to accommodate the housing of seasonal employees in the unit. The
Housing Authority granted both waiver requests. Regardless of the time-to-time
category designations, rental of the units will comply with the APCHA minimmn lease
requirements and will be overseen by the Housing Office. The proposal is consistent
with the deed restriction variations granted to the Mountain Chalet.
The Housing Office Staff agreed that the deed restricted unit will provide housing for a
total of 1.75 employees which more than mitigates for the .59 employees that are
expected to be generated by this project. And therefore, the Planning Staff and the
Housing Authority Staff believe that there is sufficient employee housing proposed to
mitigate for the addition of four lodge rooms. Additionally, the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends that City Council approve the proposed GMQS Exemption for
Affordable Housing.
I~ARKING REQUIREMENTS:
The lack of off-street parking has been identified by Staff as the major issue in
constructing an addition to the Innsbmck Inn. The Applicant is proposing [o maintain the
existing nnmber and configuration of parking spaces. Along the alley frontage, there are
twelve existing parking spaces, txvo of which are parallel to the alley and ten of which are
angled, "head-in" spaces. Staff is not allowing the Applicant to count all of the parking
spaces on the alley towards their existing on-site parking because they are nor entirely
located within the property's boundaries. This is consistent with the interpretation that
Staff made in this regard during the review of the Christiania Lodge redevelopmem.
Staff is proposing to allow the Applicant to maintain usage of the twelve spaces on the
alley as they currently exist (as angled, "head in" parking); however, Staff feels that the
parking requirements to be established through the PUD review should represent the
number of parking spaces that the Applicant can effectively fit completely within the
property boundaries. The Applicant could only fit approximately six parking spaces
entirely within their property boundaries, to the rear of the structure, if they were
converted from angled, '~head in" spaces to "parallel" spaces that respected the property
boundaries. Therefore, Staff feels that there are only twelve countable parking spaces on-
site, rather than the eighteen that are identified in the application. The aforementioned
twelve parking spaces include the six spaces that exist to the front of the lodge that are
accessed off of Main Street.
The nnderlying Office Zone District has no requirement regarding off-street parking for
lodge uses. However, the Innsbruck Inn must adhere to the Lodge Preservation Overlay
Pl16
requirement of 0.7 spaces per bedroom or establish off-street parking requiremenJs
through the PUD process. In total, with respect to the above discussion, I2 parking
spaces (completely within the property boundaries) serve the existing Innsbruck Inn,
providing a ratio of approximately 0.36 spaces per bedroom. As per the Land Use Code,
the current bedroom count of 33 requires 23.1 spaces, and the proposal to expand to 38
total bedrooms (which includes the employee unit) would require 26.6 spaces where they
only have 12 spaces that are completely on-site.
The proposal does not include increasing the off-street parking, and thus provides a ratio
of 0.31 spaces per bedroom (incl.uding both lodging and residential units). According to
Section 26.470.070(M)(4) of the Land Use Code, the OMQS Exemption standard
indicates that, "An existing deficit of required parking may be maintained through
redevelopment." The Applicant's proposal increases the existing on-site deficit slightly.
Therefore, the Applicant requests that the parking requirements for this site be
established through the PUD process as mentioned above.
Given this discussion, City Council should be aware that Staff is proposing to allow the
Applicant to continue to utilize all twelve of the spaces on the alley as they currently exist
by obtaining a revocable encroachment license. Therefore, the Applicant would have the
ability to utilize eighteen parking spaces as they have for the last four decades. The Fire
Marshal has reviewed the proposal and feels that access to the alley is not required for the
Fire Department to effectively protect the structure and the neighboring structures. The
Fire Marshal has requested a condition of approval that requires the westernmost alley
parking space be posted for compact cars only. Additionally, the Streets Department has
reviewed the proposal and does not feel that the use of the existing parking spaces would
impede plowing of the alley. The Streets Department does recommend that the Applicant
pave the alley. Therefore, Staff has proposed a condition of approval that requires that
the Applicant join any future improvement districts that may be formed to complete City
approved improvements to the adjoining/surrounding right-of-ways. Thus, Staff believes
that it is not necessary' to make the Applicants change their current parking configuration.
Staff finds that the reques~ to deveIop this site ~vith no additional on-site parking
essentially pushes the parking impacts generated by the additional development into the
immediate neighborhood. However, the Applicant has taken a number of measures zo
reduce the parking needs of the project. These include providing a bicycle fleet that is
free to guests and employees, as well as, providing free bus passes to employees.
Additionally, the Applicant is proposmg to market the bicycle fleet and the availability of
transit at the time of booking a room at the In_nsbruck. The proximity to free, frequent
mass transit, and to the commercial core_ music tent, and W. Hopkins
pedestrian/bikeway, will also encourage altematives to driving.
Staff believes that the existing off-street parking is sufficient when supplemented xvith
residential parking permits that the Irmsbruck may purchase from the City for it's guests
to park on the street. The Plarming Staff feels that there is sufficient on-stree~ parking m
the surrounding neighborhoods to accommodate the increase of four lodging units and
one employee housing unit. In addition, Staff has proposed a condition of approval that
Pl17
requires the Applicant to give priority for use of one of the parking spaces to the north of
the building to the occupant(s) of the employee housing unit.
OTHER I~gFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS:
The Environmental Health Department used the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip
Generation Rates to determine the traffic impacts of the proposed development,
compared to existing conditions. The proximity to free, frequent mass transit, and to the
commercial core., music tent, and W. Hopkins pedestrian/bikeway, will also encourage
altematives to driving. The proposal is expected to cause a slight increase in PM-10 and
traffic. The Environmental HeaIth Department is requiring that the Applicant mitigate for
36 additional vehicle, trips per day by utilizing a combination of methods that include (but
are not limited to) providing free bus passes to employees, providing a vanpool,
maintaining a free bicycle fleet, or providing a dial-a-ride service. Condition No. 13
requires the Applicant to submit a PM-i0 Mitigation Plan for approval by the
Environmental Health Department prior to the issuance of building permit.
STAFF ]~.ECOiVIMENDATION:
Staff recommends that City Council approve, with conditionsj the proposed Minor
Plarmed Unit Development, and a GMQS Exemption for the development of an
Employee Housing Unit for the Innsbruck Inn Property located at 233 West Main Street,
Lots A-E, Block 52, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
]PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that City CounciI approve, with
conditions, the proposed Innsbruck Inn Minor Planned Unit Development, and a GMQS
Exemption for the development of an Employee Housing Unit :for the Innsbrack Inn
Property located at 233 West Main Street, Lots A-E, Block 52, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Ordinance NO. 2~Jr, Series of 2002, approving, with conditions, the
Irmsbruck Inn Minor Planned Unit Development, and a GMQS Exemption for the
development of an Employee Housing Unit for the Innsbruck Irm Property located at 233
West Main Street, Lots A-E, Block 52, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
Pl18
ATTACHMENTS
EXHIBIT A - REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS
EXHIBIT B - REFERRAL COMMENTS
EXHIBIT ,C 2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N01 20, sERIEs OF
2002
EXHIBIT D - HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 25~ SERIES OF
2002
Pl19
ORDINANCE NO. 2~
(SERIES OF 2002)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE
INNSBRUCK INN MINOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPM]ENT, AND GMQS
EXEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 233 W. MAIN STREET, LOTS A-E, BLOCK 52, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF
ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel No. 2735-124-54-001
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Innsbruck Holdings LLC, owner, represented by Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning
LLC, for a Minor Planned Unit Development (PUD), and a GMQS Exemption for
affordable housing to expand the Innsbruck Irm by an additiohal four lodge units and one
employee housing unit on the property Iocated at 233 W. Main Street, Lots A-E, Block
52, City and Townsite of Aspen; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 15,000 square feet, and is
located in the Office Zone District with a Lodge Preservation Overlay; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445, the City Council may approve a Minor
Planned Unit Development, during a duly noticed public hearing after taking and
considering comments from the general public, and recommendations from the Planning
and Zoning Commission, Community Development Director, and relevant referral
agencies; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470, the City Council may approve a GMQS
Exemption for the development of Affordable Housing, during a duly noticed public
hearing after taking and considering comments from the general public, and
recommendations from the AspenfPitkin County Housing Authority, Community
Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended approval of
the Minor PUD~ finding that the applicable review standards have been met; and,
WHEREAS, the AsperfPitkin County Housing Authority and the Cormnunity
Development Director recommended approval of the GMQS Exemption for Affordable
Housing, finding that the applicable review standards have been met; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 18, 2002, the Planning
and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 20, Series of 2002, by a six to zero (6-
0) vote, approving a GMQS Exemption for Lodge Preservation, and recommending that
City Council approve the Innsbruck Inn Minor PUD and GMQS Exemption for At'fordable
Housing; and,
P120
WHEREAS. during a duly noticed public hearing on June 26, 2002, the Historic
Preservation Commission approved Resolution No. 25, Series o1'2002, by a seven to zero
(7-0) vote, approving Final HPC Significant Review of the Irmsbmck Expansion; and,
WI-IEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the devel opmem
proposal under the applicable prowsions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has
reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. the
Community Development Director, the AsperdPitldn County Housing Authority, the
applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public
l~ear/ng; and,
VCHEREAS, the City Council finds that the developmem proposal meets or exceeds
all applicable development standards and that the approval of' the development proposal,
with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community
Plan: and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW. THEREFORE- BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL Oi~' THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1
Pursuant ro the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 o£the Aspen Municipal Code,
the Irmsbmck Inn M/nor PUD, to allow for the expansion of the lnnsbmck Inn by four lodge
tm, its and one employee dwell/rig unit is approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. A PUD Agreement shall be recorded within 180 days of the final
approval by City Council and shall include the following:
a.The information required to be included in a PUD Agreement.
pursuant To Section 26.445.070(C).
2. A Final PUD Plan shall be recorded within 180 days of the final
approval granted by City Council and shall include:
a. A final plat meeting the requirements of the City Engineer and
showing easements, encroachment agreements and licenses
with reception numbers for physical improvements, and
location of utility pedestals.
b. An illustrative site plan o£the project showing the proposed
zmprovements, landscaping, parMng, and the dimensional
requirements as approved.
c. A drawing representing the project's architectural character.
P121
3. Prior to applying for a building permit, the applicant shall record a
PUD Agreement and the Final PUD Plans, as specified above, with the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
4. The following dimensional requirements of the PUD are approved and
shall be printed on the Final Illustrative Plan:
6,000 Square Feet
No requirement
One lodge or residential bedroom per 390
square feet of lot area.
60 feet
pool fence
pool fence
t3.5 feet for building/0 feet for railroad tit
retaining wall
No Requirement
25 feet
10 feet
No Requirement
Per Final PUD Plans
.9:1 without basement/.95:1 including basement
addition
Per Final PUD Plans
0.31 spaces per bedroom (12 spaces and 38
bedrooms, including the one employee hous{ng
bedroom).
5. The building permit application shall include:
a. A copy 0fthe final Ordinance and recorded P&Z Resolution.
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 tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department
and any approval from the Parks Department Director for off-
site replacement or mitigation of any removed trees.
e. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by
a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer which rna'retains sediment
and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground
recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be
P122
required to correctly size the facility. A 2-year storm frequency
should be used in designing any drainage improvemems.
6. The Applicant shall install an adequate fire alarm system throughout
the structure and a fire sprinkler system that meets the req¢iremeuts of
the Fire Marshal.
7. Prior to ~ssuance of a building permiT:
a. The pr~thary contractor shall submit a letter to the Comm~mity
Development Director statin~o that the conditions of approval have
been read and understood.
t~. Ali tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid.
If an alternative agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap
and/or Parks Impact fee is Finalized, those fees shall be payable
according to the agreement.
8. The Applicant shall convey an undivided fractional interest tone tenth
of 0.1%) in the ownership of the deed restricted employee housing to
the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority for the purposes of
complying with the recent Colorado Supreme Court Decision regarding
rent control legislation. To satisfy the rent control issue, the Applicant
may submit an alternative option acceptable to the City Attorney.
9. The Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority and City of Aspen from any claims,
liability, fees or similar charges related to ownership in the deed
restricted employee housing unit.
10. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall record a deed
restriction for the employee housing unit. and grant the undivided
fractional interest in the ownershig of the affordable housing units to
the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority.
11. The Applicant shall adequately mitigate for employee generation by
providing deed restricted employee housing for at least .59 FTEs as
per the recommendation from the Aspen / Pitkin County Housing
Authority.
12. The employee housing unit shall be deed restricted at the Category 2
rental rate. but since the unit is for the use of the lodge, income and
asset restrictions shall be waived. Further, the Applicant shall meet
with the Housing Office Staff prior to the completion of the addition to
establish mutually acceptable lease terms for employees whose units
are attached to the business.
P123
13. The Applicant shall submit a PM-10 mitigation plan to the
Envirommental Health Department for approval prior to issuance of a
building permit. The mitigation plan shall include sufficient measures
to mitigate for 36 additional vehicular trips per day.
14. The Applicant shall complete (prior to any of the remodel work,
including removal of drywall, carpet, tile, etc:,) the Building
Depamment's asbestos checklist, and if necessary, a person licensed by
the State to do asbestos inspections must conduct an inspection. The
Building Department cannot sign any building permits until they get
this report. If there is no asbestos~ the demolition can proceed. If
asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must
remove it.
15. The Applicant shall pay the City of Aspen' $8,200 in park development
impact fees. These fees shall be due and payable at the time of
issuance of a building permit for the development.
16. The Applicant shall provide priority to the occupant(s) of the
employee housing unit, for the use of one of the off-street parking
spaces to the north of the buiIding. In the event that the occupant(s) of
the employee housing unit does not own a car~ the parking space shall
remain available for the general use of the Irmsbruck Inn lodge guests.
17. The Applicant shall obtain a revocable encroac13rnent license to
continne to allow the lodge to utilize the parking spaces on the alley as
angled "head in" parking as they currently exist.
i8. That the Applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction
agreement and pay the applicable recording fees prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy.
19. That the Applicant shall pay the appropriate Street Impact Fees to the
City of Aspen for excessive wear t,o the streets caused by construction
traffic as determined by the Engineering Department.
20. That the Applicant shall be required to show plans for ail
Improvements; snow storage areas, utility pedestals, districts, curb and
gutter, and sidewalk improvements prior to building permit issuance.
2t. The Applicant shall submit to the Environmental Health Department a
fugitive dust control plan which includes, but is not limited to fencing,
watering of disturl~ed areas, continual cleaning of adjacent paved roads
to remove mud that has been carried out, or other measures necessary
to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a
P124
nuisance. This shall be required prior to the submittal for building
permits.
22. That the Applicant shall install tree saving construction fences around
the drip line of any trees to be saved.
a. The City Forester or his&er designee must inspect this
fence before any construction activities commence.
b. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction
equipment, construction backfill, foot or vehicular traffic
shall be allowed within the drip line.
23. That the Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System
'Standards, with Title 25, and with 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.
24. The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Sanitation District's rotes
and regulations. If new sewer lines are required, then the existing
service must be excavated in the alley and disconnected at the main
sewer line. No clear water connections froof, foundation_ perimeter
drains) shall be allowed. Ail improvements below grade shall require
the use of a pumping station.
25. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction
activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m on Monday
thru Saturday.
26. The Applicant shall agree that there will be no construction material or
dumpsters stored on the public rights-of-way unless a temporary
encroachment license is granted by the City Engineer. In addition, the
Applicant shall submit a full set of construction management plans as
parr of the building permit application, and the management plan shall
include a noise, dust control, and construction traffic management plan
which addresses, at a minimum: the follo~ving issues.
a. Defining the construction debris hauling routes and impact
on local streets; and
b. The city encourages thai site workers be shuttled in from
the airport parking area.
27. A bear-proof dumpster shall be ~ocated on-site meeting the standards
of the City of Aspen Wildlife Ordinance.
P125
28. One ground floor lodge room shall meet handicap accessibility
requirements.
29. The Applicant shall submit a food service plan for review by the
Environmental Health Department and obtain a food service license if
required, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the added
lodge rooms. If determined to be necessary, the Applicant shall install
an oil and grease interceptor in the breakfast room/kitchen.
30. The Applicant shall post a sign indicating that the westernmost parking
space on the alley is for compact cars only.
31. The Applicant shall join any future improvement districts that are
formed to complete future City approved improvements to the
adjoining/ surrounding right-of-ways.
Section 2:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
the GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing, to allow for the expansion of the Innsbruck
Irm by one employee dwelling unit is approved.
Section 3:
This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by vMue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 4:
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 gad independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 5:
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 12th day of August, 2002, in the City
Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law,
by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 8th day of July, 2002.
Helen Kalin Klandernd, Mayor
P126
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 12th day of Augusx, 2002.
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
John P. Worcester, City Attorney
P127
EXHIBIT A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
Review Criteria & Staff Findings
In accordance with Section 26.445.030(B)(3) of the Land Use Code, due to the limited
extent of the issues involved, a development application requesting approval as a Planned
Unit Development on a parcel of land located in the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay
Zone District shall be processed pursuant to the terms and procedures of Minor Planned
Unit Development review (Minor PUD). This two-step process does not require approval
of a conceptual development plan, but only review and approval of a final development
plan by the Plarming and Zoning Commission and the City Cmmcil, with public hearings
occurring at both.
Section 26.445.050, Review Standards: Minor PUD
Section 26.445.050 of the Regulations provides that development applications for Minor
PUD must comply with the fbllowing standards and requirements.
A. General Requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
Staff Finding
Staff feels that the proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan and the intent of the Lodge Preservation Program. The AACP encourages
maintaining the corrmaunity's lodging base, locating development within the Aspen
Community Growth Boundary and close to transit. Additionally, the AACP encourages
the development of Affordable Housing by private developers. 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
Staff believes that the proposed addition is compatible with the surrounding land uses and
structures. The western portion of Main Street contains a variety of lodges and structures
with a variety of architectural styles. Staff feels that the architecture of the proposed
addition is almost identical to the existing structure and thus is compatible with the
existing lodge and surrounding structures. Staff finds th/s criterion to be met.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development
of the surrounding area.
P128
Staff Finding
The proposed developmem will not adversely affect the future development of the
surrounding area in any way. The neighboring properties are essentially built out. If
anything, positive affects on the potential for future re/development of the surrounding
area might occur since any necessary utility upgrades that would be completed by the
applicant would serve to aid in and better facilitate the re/development of the surrounding
neighborhood. 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 developmenl plan review.
Staff Finding
The proposed development has been granted a GMQS exemption for 4 LP Allotments by
the Plarming and Zoning Commission for the development of the additional fottr lodge
rooms. Additionally, the proposed development requires a GMQS exemption for the
development of an employee housing unit. The Applicant has requested approval for a
GMQS exemption for Affordable Housing. Staff has reviewed both GMQS exemption
requests and believes that the Applicant has met all of the respective criteria (please see
staff findings for responses to specific GMQS review criteria).
B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements:
The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for
all properties within the PUD ... The dimensional requirements of the underlying
zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for
the ]PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility
with surrounding land uses and existing development parterns shall be emphasized.
Staff Finding
The Minor PUD provides a mechan/sm To adjust the underlying zoning's dimensional
requirements for particular lodge developmems located within the Lodge Preservation
Overlay Zone District. In general, the Applicant is proposing ro only vary a few
dimensional reqmremenrs Of the underlying Office Zone D/strict in order to achieve the
proposed design. Otherwise. the Applicant will continue to meet or exceed the minimums
of the underlying zone district. Specifically, the requested variances to the underlying
zone district include:
P129
Allowable Floor Area (FAR) 0.75:1 0.9: t not including the basement
Minimum Front Yard Setback 10 feet 5 feet ~br building/0 feet for pool
fence
4.5 feet for building/0 feet for
Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 Feet
pool fence
Minimum Rear Yard Setback 15 feet 13.5 feet for building
0.31 spaces per bedroom (w/the
Minimum Off Street Parking 0.7 Spaces per ability to still utilize the parking
bedroom or via PUD on the alley in it's current
capacity)
Staff feels that the proposed dimensional requirements are compatible with the
surrounding development patterns in the area. The proposed PUD will legalize the
existing setback non-conformities in respect to the existing building. Additionally, Staff
believes that the Applicant has proposed sufficient mitigation for the additional parking
deficit that will be created by the proposed addition of lodge rooms. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
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 and man-made hazards.
c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area
stroh as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and
land forms.
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
Staff believes that the proposal to add fottr lodge rooms and an employee housing unit is
a very modest addition to the site. The architecture that is proposed for the addition is
almost identical to that of the existing lodge and will allow the additional floor area to
blend in well with the existing lodge building. The site is already developed and is
completely surrounded by urbanized properties. There are no known natural or man-
mad~ hazards affecting the project site or the surrounding area. There are no steep
slopes, landforms, or waterways affecting the project site or surrounding area.
Additionally, the Applicant is proposing to mitigate as directed by the City Forester for
the one spruce tree that is to be removed.
The Applicant has proposed several methods of mitigating for not proposing to meet the
parking requirements of the Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone District. The Applicant
has proposed to provide free bus passes to their employees and market Aspen's public
P130
bus services at the time of room bookings. Additionally, the Applicant has proposed to
provide and maintain a bicycle fleet for use by guests and employees. Furthermore, Staff'
is proposing to allow the Applicant to continue to use the alley parking that encroaches
into the fight-of-way in it's current configuration (angled, "head in" parking). Therefore,
for all practical purposes, the lodge will have access to eighteen parking spaces, rather
than the twelve spaces that Staff is allowing the Applicant to claim as private parking on
the site. Additionally, the Applicant has proposed to set the off-street parking
requirements through the PUD process and thus, does not have to meet the parking
requirements set out in the Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone District. Staff feels that the
proposal sufficiently provides for parking generated by the development: Staff believes
that the proposed dimensional requirements are entirely appropriate for the property.
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
Staff believes the massing and scale of the proposed addition are appropriate. The
Applicant is not proposing to change the roofline of the structure, which is currently
under the height limit of the underlying Office zone district. Additionally, the underlying
Office Zone District allows for a property to expand to an FAR of 1:1 pursuant to a
Special Review approval. The Applicant is only proposing an FAR of .9:1. Furthermore,
the underlying Office Zone District does nor have open space or sire coverage
requirement. Staff believes that the proposed dimensional are in character with the
surrounding structures. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. The appropriate number of of JZstreet parking spaces shall be established
based on the following considerations:
a) Theprobable number of cars used by those using the.proposed
development inchtding any non-residential land uses.
b) The varying timeperiods of use, whenever joint use of common parking
is proposed
c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities,
including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize
automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and
general activity centers in the city.
Staff Finding
As stated in Staff's response ro PUD review standard No. 1, the Applicant has proposed
several methods of mitigating for not proposing to meet the parking requirements of the
Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone District. The Applicant has proposed ro provide free
bus passes to their employees and market Aspen's public bus services at the time of room
bookings. Public transportation to virtually any location in the valley is readily available
P131
on Main Street with a bus stop located in the immediate vicinity. Additionally, the
Applicant has proposed to provide and maintain a bicycle fleet for use by guests and
employees. In addition, the commercial core (six blocks) and the music tent (seven
blocks) are both within easy walking distance. Also, West Hopkins Avenue serves as a
designated bicycle corridor providing connections to downtown and the Marolt Open
Space.
Furthermore, Staff is proposing to allow the Applicant to continne to use the alley
parking that encroaches into the right-of-way in it's current configuration (angled "head
in" parking). Therefore, for ali practical purposes, the lodge will have access to eighteen
parking spaces, rather than the twelve spaces that Staff is allowing the Applicant to claim
as private parking on the site. Staff feels that the proposal sufficiently provides for
parking generated by the development.
4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there
exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum
density of a PUD may be reduced if:
a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other
utilities to service the proposed development.
b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal,
and road maintenance to the proposed development.
Staff Finding
The project site benefits from sufficient infrastructure capabilities to serve the proposed
development and, therefore, no density reductions are necessary. As mentioned earlier,
all utilities exist on-site and the capacities are adequate to accommodate the proposed
density. Main Street, 2nd Street, and the alley along the rear of the property are all City
of Aspen public rights-of-way and, as such, are already plowed and maintained by the
City of Aspen. Staff is proposing that the Applicant be required to obtain a revocable
encroachment license from the City Engineering Department for the parking that
encroaches into the alley. This .aforementioned parking has existed for nearly four
decades and has been allowed to remain in it's current configuration by the Fire Marshal
and the Streets Department. Staff has proposed a condition of approval that requires that
the Applicant post signage that indicated that the westermnost parking space in the alley
is for the compact cars only. Additionally, the project site is only six blocks from the
Aspen Fire District station and Staff has proposed a condition of approval that requires
the Applicant to install a sprinkler and fire alarm system to the proposed addition. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
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 o fa 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.
P132
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 nataral features of the site.
Staff Finding
The project site ~s suitable for the proposed development. The site is already developed
and is completely surrounded by urbanized properties. There are no natural or man-made
hazards affecting the prqiect site or the surrounding area. There are no steep slopes,
Iandforms, or waterways affecting tl~e project site or surrounding area. The site is
basically flat, and all of its area is within the slope classification category of 0-20%
The developmem will encourage the use of alternative means of transportation such as
public transportation, bicycling and walking. This will help ro limit the amount of PM 10
generation attributable rc the development. Regardless. the applicant will be required ro
comply with ali requirements of the Environmental Health Deparrmem in connection
with the ~ssuance of building perm~m, and this w/Ii ensure that affects on air quality are
addressed. Staff finds this criterion to be meT.
6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there
exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase
and the development pattern is compatible with its sarrounding
developmem 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 goals of the community as
expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AA CP) or a specific area
plan to which the property is subject.
b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and
there .exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified
in subparagraphs 4, and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those
characteristics mitigated.
c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern
compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and
expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics.
Staff Finding
The maximum allowable density in the underlying Office Zone District is regulated by
minimum lot area per dwelling unit; otherwise, density is not specifically regulated at ail
for allowed uses such as "lodge units". The proposed dimensional requirements, by
contrast, will allow one lodge or residential bedroom per 390 square feet of lot area.
Since these address density through differing means of measurement, they cannot be truly
compared. For this reason, it is not clear that the proposal represents an increase in
allowable density.
The project will serve to advance many goals of the community. Specifically, the
proposal serves the community goals of preserving small lodges, mainta/ning the lodge
P133
bed base, and providing for the developmem of affordable housing to mitigate for the
additional employees generated by the lodge room additions. Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
B. 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 unitlue,
provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to
the identity of the town are preserved or enhance~ in an appropriate
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed addition is in keeping with the existing natural and man-
made features on the site. The Applicant is only proposing to remove one spruce tree
along Second Street and will mitigate appropriately as directed by the City Forester.
Additionally, the architecture of the proposed addition is identical to that of the existing
structure. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open
spaces and vistas.
Staff Finding
There is only one structure on the site. The proposed addition does not encroach above
the height limit of the existing structure and the lodge is not located in any of the
historically designated view planes. Therefore, no significant vistas will be encroached
upon or blocked. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. Structures are appropriately oriented to Public streets, contribute to the
urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and
engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement.
Staff Finding
The existing structure is appropriately oriented towards Main Street. 0nly one tree is to
be ~emoved as part of the proposed addition and the Applicant proposes to mitigate
appropriately for the removal of the tree. Therefore, the site's visual interest to
pedestrian and vehicle movement will not be significantly altered. Additionally, the
proposed architecture of the addition is identical that of the existing building and will
have very little impact on the visual nature of the site. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency
and service vehicle access.
P134
Staff Finding
Emergency vehicles can access the site from Main Street, 2nd St[eet, and/or the alley.
The parking that encroaches into the alley has been review by both the Fire Marshal and
the Streets Department. Neither of the aforementioned entities had an issue with the
parking remaining in it's current configuration (angled, "head in" parking that encroaches
into the alley). As noted in Staff's response to PUD Criteria No. 4, Staff has proposed a
condition of approval that requires the Applicant to post signage that limits the parking in
the westermmost alley parking space to compact cars only. Additionally, the Streets
Department has recommended that the alley be paved. Therefore, Staff has proposed a
condition of approval that requires the Applicant to join any future improvement districts
that are formed in regards to City approved improvements on ~djoining/surrounding
right-of-ways. A trash enclosure will be located along the alley, as shown on the site
plan. Staff finds this Criterion to be m~t.
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
Staff Findin.~
The Applicant shall meet the Uniform Building Code requirements for accessibility.
Staff has proposed a condition of approval that require~ that there be one ground level
unit that meets handicap accessibility requirements. Additionally, Staff believes that
there is adequate pedestrian access throughout the site. A five-foot wide sidewalk runs
the length of the property on both Main and Second Streets. The aforementioned
sidewalk is connected to the lodge entrances by paved sidewalks. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical
and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding
properties.
Staff Finding
Staff has proposed a condition of approval that requires the Applicant to submit a
drainage plan for review by the Community Development Engineer as part of the
building permit submittal. Therefore, the aforementioned condition will insure that the
increased site drainage generated by the addition will be sufficiently mitigated for. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
Z For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately
de-signed to accommodate any programmatic function{ associated with the
Staff Finding
There is only one structure proposed for the site. Staff does not feel that this criterion is
applicable to the proposal.
P135
C. 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:
L The landscape plan exhibits a well designed treatment of exterior spaces,
preserving existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample qttantity
and variety of ornamental plant SPecies suitable for the Aspen area climate.
Staff Finding
The Applicant is proposing to remove one spruce tree on the Second Street side of the
property. The Applicant proposed to mitigate as directed by the Cky Forester.
Furthermore, the Applicant does propose to alter the remaining landscaping on the site.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide
uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an
appropriate manner.
Please see the relevant responses provided for the previous PUD standards.
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape
features is appropriate.
Staff Finding
The Applicant only proposes to remove the one spruce tree located on the Second Street
side of the property to accommodate the addition. The removal of the spruce tree will
require a tree removal permit. Staff has proposed a condition of approval that requires
the Applicant to erect fencing around the drip lines of ail trees to be saved during the
construction process. Staff feels that the proposed conditions of approval will insure
appropriate protection o£ the existing vegetation. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
D. Architectural Character:
It is the purpose of this Standard to encourage architectural interest, variety,
character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City
while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based
upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's
use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public
spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may
significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall
be approved as part of the final development plan and architectural character
plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The
proposed architecture of the development shall:
J. 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.
P136
Staff Finding
The HPC has reviewed and approved the conceptual review of the proposed design. Staff
feels that the proposed architecture of the addition is compatible and identical to the
existing lodge. The window forms and balcony detailing are identical to that of the
existing structure. Additionally, the roof form is consistent with the existing structure.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking
advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and bj, use
of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems.
Staff Finding
Mechanical plans have not yet been prepared for the proposed redevelopment. The
applicant witI make an effort to incorporate natural heating and cooling systems when the
preparation of such plans is undertaken. The site plan does not preclude the ability to
incorporate natural heating and cooling systems, but some types of mechanisms, such as
roof-top solar collectors, may be precluded by the required historic overla) reviews.
3. Accommodate the storage and shielding of snow, ice, and water in a saJk an
appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance.
Staff Finding
The Applicant proposes to store the snow removed from the sidewalks and halcon/es in
the open spaces located on the southeast and southwest comers of the property.
Additionally, the roof overhangs provide shielding of snow from the various entrances to
the lodge. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
E. Lighting:
The purpose of this standard is 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:
J. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous
interference of any king to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site
features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner.
Staff Finding
The development will comply with Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting, of the Land
Use Code, and specifically with Section 26.575.150(E), Non-ResidetttiaI Lighting
Standards. Compliance with said section will ensure consistency with this PUD review
standard. No lighting of site features or structures is proposed, and no lighting wili cause
direct glare on or hazardous interference of adjoining streets or lands. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
2. All exterior lighting shall be 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
P137
lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for
residential development.
Please see the response provided in the previous standard.
F. 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:
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.
Staff Finding
While open areas and a swimming pool area will be provided as shown on the site plan,
no designated parks, open spaces, or recreation areas are proposed as part of the PUD,
arguably rendering this standard inapplicable. The swimming pool facilities will be
available for use by all occupants of the lodge. Staff finds this standard is not applicable
to the proposed development.
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.
Staff Finding
No common park or recreation areas are proposed. Staff finds this standard is not
· applicable to the proposed development.
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through 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
Maintenance provisions will be addressed as part of the Final PUD Agreement. Because
no open spaces, recreation areas, or shared facilities are proposed, the requirement of a
"deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development" is not
applicable.
G. Utilities and Public Facilities:
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose any
undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does'
not incur an unjustified financial burden, The proposed utilities and public
facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following:
P138
I. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the
development.
Staff Finding
Ail major utilities, including water, sewer, electric, natural gas, telephone, and cable
television are currently in place and serve the existing structures on the project site.
Those lines that can continue to be utilized will be: otherwise, the service lines currently
serving the site will be abandoned at the mains and reestablished as necessary. The cost
of all necessary utility upgrades and extensions will be borne by the applicant. Historic
drainage rates w/il be maintained.
There are several nearby parks in the neighborhood such as Little Cloud to the south.
Koch Park just a few blocks to the southeast, and Paepke Park is just a few blocks to the
east These parks all maintain more than enough capacity to adequately serve the
proposed lodge development and development of one employee housing umr. The roads
serving the project site are already plowed and maintained by the City of Aspen. The
City of Aspen Streets Department has recommended thal the Applicant pave the alley.
Therefore, Staff has proposed a condition of approval that requires the Applicant to join
any future improvement districts that are formed for City approved ~mprovements on the
adjoining streets. Additionally, the site is located on public streets, making it easily
accessible for emergency medical services and fire protection. The proposed
redevelopment will not result in demands exceeding the capacity of any public facilities
or serwces. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Z Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be
mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
Staff Finding
While no adverse zmpacts on public infrastructure are anticipated, the applicants will bear
the costs of any necessary connections, upgrades; and line extensions. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided
appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the
additional improvement.
Staff Finding
]It is not believed that any over-sizing of utilities will be necessary, but if such should be
required, the applicant will be glad to be reimbursed. If the proposed redevelopment ~s
subject to the terms of another developer's reimbursement agreement, the Applicant witl
pay the fees required. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
I-I. _4ccess and Circulation (Only standards I & 2 apply to Minor PUD
applications j:
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
P139
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 and approved private road, a
pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use.
Staff Finding
The Irmsbruck Irm is and will continue to be accessed directly from Main Street, Second
Street and the alley along the rear of the property. Each unit of the proposed PUD xvill
have direct access to the adjacent alley and streets via concrete waIkways and/or public
sidewalks. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking
arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the
proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be
improved to accommodate the development.
Staff Finding
Discussions relative to vehicular access, parking, and traffic have been provided
througEout tee memorandum. The existing parking spaces and vehicular access points on
the site have existed for approximately four decades. The parking spaces that exist in the
alley could potentially cause traffic congestion, howe~er, to Staff's knowledge there has
really never been a significant issue in the past in regards to the access to the site: The
Fire Marshal and the Streets Department have indicated teat they will still be able to
adequately access and service the site if the existing parking remains in it's current
configuration. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
I. Phasing of Development Plan.
The purpose of these 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 shaH comply with the following:
L All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a
complete development and shah 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-indieu,
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.
P140
Staff Finding
The proposal only includes one development phase. Staff finds this criterion nor to be
applicable to the proposal.
P141
GMQS EXEMPTIONS
Review Criteria & Staff Findings
Section 26.470.070(J), Affordable Housing GMQS Exemption
Section 26.470.070(J) of the Regulations provides that, "All affordable housing deed
restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines of the City Council and its housing
designee shall be exempt [from the GMQS scoring and competition procedures]."
Review is by City Council. Tlxe section goes on to state that,
The review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this Section shall
include a determination of the City's need for such housing, considering the proposed
development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number of dwelling
units proposed and their location, the type of dwelling units proposed, specifically
regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit, the size of the dwelling unit, the
rental/sale mix of the proposed development, and the proposed price categories to
which the dwelling units are to be deed restricted.
Staff Finding.
The Applicant is proposing a nne-bedroom nnit of about 530 net livable square feet. The
unit proposed as a Category 2 rental unit and the Housing Guidelines identify Category 2
rental units as one of the foremost types of units the Housing Board desires based on
current needs. The Applicant is requesting that the income and asset restrictions be
waived when the unit is being rented to an employee of the Innsbruck Inn as is consistent
with approvals for the employee housing units in the Mountain Chalet. Additionally, the
Applicant requests flexibility on the minimum length of lease requirements to
accommodate the housing of seasonal employees in the unit.
The Housing Authority has found that the proposed development complies with the
Asper~Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines~ Staff finds this criterion to be met.
M-EMO UM
TO: James lindt; City l~Immer, Comrmmity Development D~;
DATE: ~e 3, 2002
~; T~sbr~k Tnn Lodge Exp~,~mn
ISSU~:
Th~ applicant ia proposing a single-phase expansion to the west side o~the c-,doting st~uctur~ f~r
a net gain of fo~.~r todg~ tmi;s ~ one employee dwelling unit.
BACKGROU ,1YD.:
The Innnbruck Inn is located a~ 233 West Main Street and consists of Lots A through E, Block
52, City and Townaitc of Aspen. Th= ~it: is zoned Office w{th Lodge Preservation and Historic
District Overlays (O/LP/I-t), The lodge consists of 33 room&, in¢ludlng 16 on the ground
and 17 on the second level. In to,al, the sil~ is 15,000 square feet. Following the completion of
die proposed projc¢% thc n¢~ resu/t will bo 37 lodge rooms and one employee dwelling tnf. t The
· pplicam indicates that the total net increase m square footage will be 1,500 gross square feet
(plus roughly 620 ~quare fcc: of subgrmic ~ace and ~pproximately 130 square feet of
second floor de&s) Eom that which cur~ntly
The ~xpansion involves ~n additional with a footpriu~ of just under 74f squ~ fret ~o the
side of the ¢x/snng structure, to include: an approximately 620 square foe: one-bedroom
dweU~pg unit below Eradc; cwo new lodge uu{~ of appro~t¢ly 282 square feet each on the
ground level; and cwo new lodge unica of approximately 282 square f¢¢~ each a~ well a~ 130
square feet of new deoi~ o= the second floor,
The applicant states that no new employees wfll be generated by the expan~on since the existing
employees will servme the =aw umu. However, when calculating the amnber of employees
gmarated by the proposed dcvelopman% *,he Homing Office ha u~ed a generation rate of 0.245
employees per lodge room m evaluate the expected employee housing needs of lodge ¢xpm-mion
proposals, and requidmg that 60% of the employees generated be provided with deed restricted
housing. With four new iodg~ rooms proposed, Staff ealculates that 0.59 (4 lodge unim X
0.245/lodge uni~ X 60%) would be gmerated.
;--abruck Intt P-.~dc've.k~memt Appllca~a
p4~143
In accordance Wi~h SeoT~on 2~.470.070~ of ~c Ci~ ~d Us~ Code, ~c ~pp~c~t
to p~d~ ~o~ablc ho~g for ~c ~ployecs g~a~ by ~ proposed co~ ~o~
l~ge d~elopm~.
S ecdon 1 of~e A~i~ C~ A~ordable Ko~ ~idel~e~ ~abH~cs ~ pref~eno~ for
s~o ~d c~-bc~om ~g c~ed ~ Cate~oSes I, 2, =~ Iow ~ced 3.
p~pos~ to p~dc ~ 620 ~qu~c fee% on,beSom, C~eEo~ l on-sJ~a ~t.
SecSon 2 of ~e .~n Co~ AEo~able Ho~ ~del~nes r=q~es
ho~ing ~ts mc~ ~c ~z~, ~ ~ma, ~d o~up~cy :aquir~t~ centred
G~cs, ~c ~plio~t's ~opos~ for a 530 net Hvablo ~q~ foot ~c-bc~oom ~t mee~
~c ~ ~vabtc m~a of 400 sqB~ feet for Cg~ 1 ~d 2,
S~fion 2, Mffordabfe Ho~ng Uni~ Required for Migration. of ~c ~p~i~ Co~
~ble Ho~ing ~de~es estabH~es ~e feHow~g pm~sio~ for ~
~sm for ~1 ~ble hou~g ~t~ ~qu~ed as mitigation for re~dmSd or eomm~
~v~lopm~t in o~er to obt~ ~e~t ruder ~he ~o~ M~ag~ Q~ S~mm:
Prod~ticn of n~ dweS~g ~ts de~ m~med ~ p~ to r~
t~s ~ defined in ~e ~del~s,
· Conv~lon of e~t~g dwe~g re{ts to deed res~c~d ~.
· Pa~mt
The a~Hcmt is pr~o~ one one-b~om ~t rese~cd ~ deed-r~ct~ ~o~able ~u~.
~e ~pllo~t wiH be requked m deed m~ot ~e ~t ~ p~ m ~c
Under ~e ~q~mt for ~d~s, a 60% ~d~fi~ raq~ for my n~
u~ed ~ ~c p~ Stags c~adons a~ ~e .245 F~ mq~red per ~don~ lodge mom ~ 60%
mq~r~ ~dg~on of ~59 new mplo~e. ~e ~pHc~t is p~si~ a o~-be~om
m~g~es ~ 1.75 ~'8; ~fore, ~e midgadon req~m~ is
~CO~ATION:
The Ho~ S~ recc~ a~mv~' M~ ~¢ follo~g con~do~ in
1, ~e p~os:d one-b~0om ~ sa~sfi~s ~e mifg~on ~q~em~t of .59 ~r ~ fo~
~o~ lodge
2. ~e p~osed 530 net tv~le sq~ foot one-beSom deed-red.ed
3. The a,Fp~c~nt ahalI deed r~s~ct ~he unit ~ pe~e~
~. ~e de~ ~es~e~e~ s~ be filed p~or ~ b~g p~ app~v~ ~g ~e fo~cw~g
¢ ~e deed. ~s~cd~ on ~e ~o~i¢ ho~g
~e ~e ofb~g p~t app~v~ ~d~ C~egow 2.
b. ~e Ho~ 0~c¢ ~aI] qu~i~ all
~ ~ w~ved for ~y ~plo~ of the o~.
5. ~¢ ~pH~t ~hMl wo~de ~ 0.0I% ~t ~
to ~¢ ~p~i~ Co~U Hou~g iu~cd~ prior ~o C~fica:¢ of ~cup~cy, o~ ~y
such o~r ~ deemed a~t¢ by ~e Ci~ A~omey.
Inn t~¢dcv¢logm=¢'=~ At:Flic¢fimn 2
P145
PS, J3annette Whitcomb, 10:44 AM 05/22/2002 -0600, Innsbruck inn
X-Sender: jannette@comoev
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pre Versior 4.2.0.58
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 10:44:50 -0600
To: jamesl@ci.aspen.co.us
From: Jannebe Whitcomb <janne~e(~ci.aspen.co.us>
Subject: Innsbruck Inn
Air comments complete, am _ust waiting on information aoout the restaurant - oreaxfast room.
MEMOP, ANDUM
To: J ames Lindt. Communiw Develc Dmen~ Depar~men~
From: J annette XX/hitcomb. City Environmental Health Deoartmenr
Date: Ma,/22. 2002
lnnsbruck Inn Loage Expansion
Parcel ID #
The City of Aspen Environmental Health Depar~mem has reviewed the land use submi{tal unaer
authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, eno nas ~ne following comments.
AlP, _QUALITY: Sections 11-2.1 "it is ~ne ourpose of [the air aualitv section of the Municioal
Code] to achieve the maximum practical de~ree of air purity possible bv requirinE the use of ail
available practical methods and techniques To :ontrol 2revent and red'ucc air pollution
throughout the city..." The Land Use Regulations seek to "lessen cor].Eestion" ann 'avoid
transportation demands that cant ct be met" as well ~s to ~rovide :lean air Dy prote~tinE ~ne
natural air sheds and reducinE pollutants".
The land use code require: ~he :tens±fy of a ?UD ~t;av be =educed i£ Lhe
proposed development will have a pernicious [negative] effect on air
quality in tb~e surrounding area and the City.
The major air quality impact is the emissions resultin8 from the traffic generated by this project.
PM-lO (83% of which comes from traffic driving on paved roads) is a significant health concern
in Aspen. The traffic aenerated will also produce carbon monoxide and other emissions that are
health concerns. The municipal code requires developments to achieve the maximum prac:,ica[
de~ree of air purity by usiog all available practical methods to reduce pollution. The applicant
needs to implement measures that will minimize traffic increases of the development, or offset
the emissions from the proiect with PM]0 reduction measures elsewhere, in order to do this, the
applicant needs to determine the traffic increases generated by the project Iusina standard ITE trip
generation rates), commit'to a set of control measures, and show that the control measures offset
the traffic or PM]O produced by the project.
Printed for James Lindt <jamesl~ci.aspen.co.us> 1
Jannette Whitcomb, ' 0:44 AM 05/22/2002 -0600. Innsbruck Inn P¢5~
Standards used for ~r; os generated by new development are the trip generation rates and
reductions from the '?itkin County S, oad Standards'. which are based on the institute of
Transsortatior~ Engineers Trio Oeneration P, epor~, Fifth Edition. Housing units use the :r~
generation rate ~or lTf Lana Use coae 210. which i~ 9.55 ~rips per day oer unit. Ae~idential snit~
iocated w~thin one half mile of a transit s~op are allowed a redu~ion of ].5 trios per ~ay.
Affordab:e Housing units are allowed a reduX'on of 2.0 tri~s oer day, plus a reduX[on of
triDS Der ~a~ when,located ~ithin ~ m~Ie of a transit s~c p. Note[ and lo~in~ units use
trio generation ra[e for Land Use Code 310, HoteI/Occuoied Room which is 8.8 trips 3er day
Der tourist room.
Examples of mitigation measures ~hat have been employed in ~ne pa~ by deveic pets include
oroviding carpool/vanpool financial incentives ~o employees, providin~ free bus ~asses,
oroviding vanooois, providin~ diaNa-ride se~ce, paying for additional RFTA buses and se~ice.
providir ~ onva~e bus semite for employees, limiting parking, allowin~ residents ~o oav for
Barking spaces if the,/choose and giving discounts to those who don't, joining the
Transpolar[on OPtiOnS Program. havin~ homeowner~ association fees on a sliding
~epend[ng on the numb~r of cam provid[ngconneGmg bikeoafn inks~F popu[atedareas.
plow[ngbikeDa[ns ~Doou[ated areas, paving d~ shoulders or high-use parking Iot~.
covered ~nd secure bike storage, providing f~ee bike fleets for residents, building sidewalks to
ad~acen~ commerda] areas, donating conne~[ng bike oath links, and other measures. ~hatever
combination of measures ~ne applicant choose~ to mitigate P~-]O emissions and trip~ generated.
is acceotable as long as it 2revents additional traffic that would significantly impa~ a~r quality.
The City Environmental ~ea[th DeDa~ment has no oreference for which tdp reduX[on measures
are useG. 3nd (yp~ca[iv an aDDlfcant chooses measures t~a~ provide an anci][aw benefit ~o
Droje~.
Using the ]~E fig Jres. ~h~s redeve~oDmen~ wil generate 3 6 trfps/day without any
measures.
n or~er [o comDivw[th the provisions of the land use code. the
condition s recommended: that the applicant Brov~de a P~]O m~tig,at[on ~lan for
approva from ~ne City of AsDeF Environmental Health Department which
~ocumen~s that measures a~e sufficient to offse~ increases in PM caused Dy
10
project. This Dian should be aBDroved prior ~o detailed submission or ~ssuance
buiiding permits. The Environmental Health Department ~s happy [o assist
apDI~cants [~ using the ]TE books fo determine ~rip generation rates, anG ~o evaluate
trio reduction s~a~egies.
Jannebe Wh~tc0mb REHS
Foo~ Program Manager
Asoen Environmenta ~ea~zn DeDa~ment
970,920.5069
n~p://www.aspengov.com/eh/ci~ index, btm[
Printed for James Lindt <jamesl~ci.aspen.co.us> 2
P147
P~%rry~" Nye, 03:03 PM 05/29/2002 -0500, Re: innsbruck Expansion
X-Sender: jerryn@commons (Unverified)
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM. Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58.
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 15:03:49 -0500
To: James Lindt <jamesl@ci.aspen.co.us>
From: Jerry Nye <jerryn@ci.aspen.co.us>
Subject: Re: Innsbruck Expansion
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean
James, I would like to recommend that this alley be paved with the appropriate draining in place
since this alley is a high traffic area with the amount of parking spaces being used by this
applicant. We need to insure that any over hangs or alley narrowing leave at least 14 feet
nonzontal and ~z~ foot vertical soace for fire eouioment and snow remova eoubment, like to see
a; ~eas[ a 20 foot wide alley. Also they are talking about parking on Main street this is a no
parking 3am to 7am Zone. Thanks James
At 10:55 AM 5/22/02 -0600, you wrote: Hi Jerry,
Do/ou have ar, comments a~out the Innsbruck's revised exoansion ao~lication? Do your
comments %m [ne July 30th 2001 DRC Meeting represent your concerns with the new
application? Please let me Know
ThanKs
JaMes
Printed for James Lindt <jamesl@ci.aspen.co.us> 1
To: Develc 2menu Review Committee
From: Richard Goulding, Project Engineer
Reference DRC Casetoae Coordinator
Date: July 30 200I
Re: ~nns~rucK Inn PUD
The Developmem Review Committee has reviewed the Innsbruck PUD at their July 18
,2001 meeting, and nas compiled the following comments:
General
1 Sufficiency of Submittal: DRC comments are based on the fact that we
assume ~ne submitted site plan's accurate, that it shews all site features and
that Drooosea develooment s feasible. The wording must be carried forward
exacuy as written unless prior consent is received from the Engineenng
Daoartment. This is to alleviate oroblems anc delays related to approvals tied to
"issuance of building permit."
2. R.O.W. Impacts: '~ tnere are any encroachments into the public nghts-of-wa},,
[ne encroacnmem must either ce remove~: or be sueject to current encroacnmem
license reeuiremems
Site Review
1. Site Drainage - Requirement -.The foundation drainage system snouc ce
seoara[e from s~te storm drainage system. Rain one snow melt runoff must De
detained ano route(: on site. These facilities must (:e ShOWn on drainage :~ans
ano submitted for aooroval onor to application for building Detroit. The drainage
mar be conveyed to existing anascspeo areas if the drainage repor~
demonstrates that the percolation rate an(: [ne detention volume meet the design
storm
Information - The City drainage criteria needs to be imoIemented completely.
This includes but is not limited to erosion control, soil stabilization and
vegetation :- disturbed areas. Aisc [here neeos ~o be an analysis of where the
drainage will flow
2. Sidewalk, Curb. and Gutter- Requirement- sidewalk, curb. and gutter must be
designed using the City of Aspen design standards which are available in the
City Engineering Department.
3. Fire Protection District - Requirement-
Fire Protection District requests the following revisions be made:
p5~'149_ Pa=~e 2 0£8
July 23, 2.001
L~zsb~c]~ I~ PUD
a. A sonn~ler system and a new fire alarm system is required for the entire
StrUcture
4. Transportation - Requirements- The information were forwarded by
-rahs 3ortation deoar~ment:
a. Due to the parking shortages addressee below, the ao~licant should
consider joining the City's Transoor~auon O~tions Program (TOP).-FOP
members receive SeVeFa[ free services including transportetion newsletters.
emergency transportation for oualified employees, trans 3creation diso~ay
boards construction uodates and distribution of transit scneaules.
For more information the a~olicant should contact the City's Trane :ortation
Coordinator at 920-5038.
5 Building Department - Requirements - The following reauirements were
forwarded ay the Building De~ar~ment:
a. No comment
6. Parking - Requirement - The following requirement nas been forwarded oy the
Parking Deoartment:
a Applicant states ex~sting off street oarking behind me iooge orovides twelve
parking spaces Currently, there are twelv~ ang e spacds which cause about
a fiftj percent of each vehicle to be extended into ~ne alley ROW. Vehicles
snoulc? be oarKeo oaral[e~ to Tne rear of [ne oage..Whis would reduce the
number of off street seaces To about to approximatel:, six. Rewseo total Df
ex,sung off street would then De twelve.
o The orooosed number of bedrooms is forty eigm. For~y eight time~ 0.7
parking spaces per bedroom wouto eoua to a neeo for 33.6 minus [ne
existing twelve soaces would leave a deficit of 21.5 barK~ng seaces.
7. Engineering Department - Requirement- The following rea_ remen~s have
oeen provided b) [ne Engineering Deoar~ment:
a Provide a site 'morovement survey, orepared b/"tensed professional which
will include:
Monuments
Setback lines
iii. Utilities Lines Pedestals, Poles.
iv. Easements
v.Existing features: irrigation ditches sidewalks driveways, buildings,
vi. Surveyors Seal dated within the last 12 months
Page 3 of 8
July 23,200I
Innsbruck Inn PUD
D. Show plans for all imorovements, districts, curb aha gutter, aha sidewalk
improvements.
c. No construction materials are to be stored on the eublic ROW
o. Show snow and trash storage on site :)lan. where wilt snow removed from
parking spaces be stored
e, All utility oeeesta~s are to oe onsite
f Parking:
·As is there is 18 spaces and 33 units creating a parking defecate of 23 -
18 = 5 if all unit contain one aearoom
· The :)rooosed addition will change the parking requirement to 48 ' 0.7 =
33.6 hence defecate will be 34- 18 = 16. Secure off site parking will De
required to mitigate this. It is the resaonsibility of the aoplicant to obtain
Ibis and [~rovide what ever trans sort neeeeo to snume g Jests to aha from
this :arking area. Even though the PUD agreement allows for some
'eduction :- parking requirements mrougn alternative memo~:s this deficit
s too large and wilt reduce available space in the surrounding area
g. A traffic control Dian for construction including construction vehicle parking
and intended routs for heavy machinery. A noise and dust mitigation plan ~s
to be submitted for the construction of the prooosed addition.
h. Obtain any Encroachment license that are rec Jired
The roof drains are not oresently connected to any son of drainage system
and it would aooear that all water from these flows c nra rne street. This will
water should be contained on site to pre eeve~c pment levels.
Inform ation- The following information nas oeen provided By the Engineerir g
Ds sar[merit:
a. The submittal of the construction olans to Engineering Department for
reviews odor to application for building ~erm~r will benefit the develooer and
wil facilitate timel:, orocessing ~fthe Building Permits.
8. Streets Department- Requirement- The following requirements nave aeon
Drowoeo by me Streets depammem
a. The additional height of the buiiding may case gutters or Main Street to freeze
oue to the additional shading. This was nor aaoressee in me application and
ways to avoid this such as snowmelt should Be considered,
9. Housing Office - Requirements - The following rec:uirements have oeen
proweec] Dy the Housing Office:
a. No comment
10. Community Development - Requirements - The following rec Jirements nave
beer provided by the Community Develoament Office:
a. No comment
P56ri5lr, Page 4
o£8
July 23, 2001
lzmsbruck Irm PUD
11. Emergency Management Disaster Coordinator - Requirement - The
foIIowing requirement has been provided :~y the Pitkin County Disaster
Coordinator:
a. Reviewed no comment at this time
12. City Environmental Health Director- Requirements- The following
requirements were mace by the Environmental Health Director:
The City of Aspen EnvironmentaI Health Department has 'eviewed the Innsbruck
expansion land use submit[al under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of
Aspen, and has the following comments
WATER QUALITY MPACTS: Section "1-I.3 "For the 3urpose of maintaining
and protecting its mun~cioaI Water supply from injury eno ooilution, the city shalI
exercise regulatory and supervisory jurisdiction within the incorporated limits of
the City of Aspen eno over al streams and sources contributing to munic~oal
water supplies for a distance of five (5 miles above the points fro m which
municipal water supplies are diverted."
A drainage plan to mitigate me water quality imoacts from drive and parking
areas, and from the site during construction, will be evaluated by me City
Engineer.
AlP, QUALITY: Sections 11-2.1 "It is the ouroose of [the air quality section of the
Municipal Code] to achieve rne maximum 3ractical degree of air eurity oossible by
requiring the use of au available oractical methods and tecnnlcues to control
prevent and reduce air 2oliutic n rnroughout the city..." The Land Use Re, gulauons
seek to "lessen congestion" and "avoid transoorzation demands mat cannot De
met" as well as to "provide clean aw Dy protecting the natural air sheds and
reducing pollutants"
The major air quality imoact is the emissions resulting from the traffic generated Dy
this project. PM-10 (83% of which comes from traffic driving on paved redes s a
significant health concern 'n As3en. The traffic generated will also oroduce carbon
monoxide and other emissions tnar are nealrn concerns. The municiDa co(2e
requires developments to achieve the maxlmurr oracucal degree of air ourity by
using ali available practica methods to reouce 3ollution. The aoolicant needs to
implement measures met wi] m~nimtze traffic 'ncreases of the development, or
offset the emissions from me :reject with PMIO reduction measures e~sewnere. In
order to do this, the applicant wfl need to determine the traffic increases generated
by the project (using s;anoare ITE trio generauon re,esL commit to a set of control
measures, and snow mat the con,roi measures offset the traffic or PMIO oroduced
by the project.
Standards used for trios generatee Dy new oeve~ooment are the trip generation
rates and reductions from me Pitkin County Road Standards'. which are cosec on
the Institute of'Trans ~ortation Eng'neers Trip Generation Reporz, Fifth Edition.
Page 5 ors
Juiy ~3~ ~00~
Innsbmck Inn PUD
Housing units use the trip generation rate for ITE Land Use code 210. which is 9.55
rdps per pay per unit. Residential units located within one half mile of a transit stop
are allowee a reduction of 1.5 trips per any. Affordable Housing units are attowed a
'eoucdon of 2.0 trios per day. Hotel and lodging units use the ITE trip generation
'ate for Land Use Code 310. Hotel/Occupied Room which is 8.8 trips per day per
tourist room.
Examotes of mitigation measures that have been err eloyed in me past oy
oevelc sets include providing carpoollvanpoo~ financial incentives to employees.
~roviding free bus :asses providing vanoools, providing dial-a-ride service
paying for additional RFTA buses and service, providing private PUS service for
employees, limiting parkir~g, allowing residents to pa) for parking spaces if they
choose ann giving discounts to those who don't, having homeowners association
fees on a sliding scale oepending on me number of cars. providing connecting
bike oath links 'n populated areas plowing bike paths in populated areas, paving
dirt shoulders or n an-use parking lots, providing covered and secure bike
storage, providing free bike fleets for residents, building sidewalks to adjacent
commerma~ areas donating connecting bike oath links, ann other measures.
WhaTever combination of measures the applicant chooses to mitigate PM-10
emissions ann mOS generate(:, is acceptable as long as it prevents additiona
traffic that would significantly impact air ouality. The City Environmental Health
Department nas no creferedce for which trim reduction -eesures are usea anc
typically, an applicant ChOOSeS measures that ~rovide an ancillary aenefit to the
project.
With a net'ncrease of 13 lodge units and two employee dwelling units, [ne
project will genera[a. Jst over 100 additional trips/day. Mitigation measures
include the proximity to pus and pedestrian/bike routes and cmseness m
aowmown ann the tent. (Trio genera~mn calculation assumes credit for this
feature.. Measures proposed by the aeolicant include providing free bikes now
manj will be maintained at one time neeos to be clarified and should De at.least
enough bikes tot a family to use. wltn OaCKU ~S In case of oreaKeown free taxi
vouchers for travel to and from me a~roor~, marKetmg [nat informs guests thai
mey ap no~ neec cans anc limited number of~:arking spaces. This as[ feature's
very moor[ant in reducing [nos most of which are snoF[-a stance tr :s. These are
more likey m oe made on foot or oy pus if the guest's car's not Dameo
immediatey n front of the unit. One area mai ' coutd not find in the amolication
was discussion of paving the two ex~sting grave~ parking areas. While this ma~
not De desirable from an aesthetic or drainage point of view. if aaving is planned.
along with other mitigation measures ~roeosed. me applicant wil nave usea all
reasoname means to reduce air pollution.
A condition of approval should be that the applicant clarify these
details of the proposed PM 10 mitigation plan for approval from the
City of Aspen Environmental Health Dep~ rtment. If gravel areas are
not to be paved, alternative mitigation measures can be substituted.
FIREPLACENVOODSTOVE PERMITS The a~olicant nas agreea not to install any
woodbuming devices aaa this should De a ;ondition of aoDroval.
P58P153 Page 6
}uly 23~ 200I
Irmsb~uck Inn PUD
FUGITIVE DUST A fugitive dust control pIan is reauired which includes out is not
limited to fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of
adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried ouT. soeed Iimits or
other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing ~ne property
line or causing a nuisance. Dust controi will be crucial due to ~ne c~oseness of
existing homes to the site.
ASBESTOS before remodel, expansion or demoIition of any Bortion of the
~uiIding, incl.udinq removal of drywall, carpet, tile. etc. ~ne s~a~e must be notified
and a person licensed by the state to do asoes~os 'nsoections must do an
i'nspection. The Building Department cannot sign any building permits undI they
get this reporL If there is no asbestos, the demolition can oroceeo If asbestos's
present, it must be removed by a licensed asbestos removal contractor
ECOLOGICAL BILL OF RIGHTS: This issue was not addressed in the aoetication.
We would recommend that a cendi:~ion of approval be that ;ne aeoticant address
this portion of the Aspen Area Community Plan and orovide the Environmenta
Health Department with a description of measures being taken to conform with this
provision. Applicable elements may be already o~annee But not discussed in the
application. Staff would like the opportunity to make suggestions to the aoolicant in
this area before issuance of a building permit.
NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 1~-1 "The city council finds and dec,ares that noise
is a significant source of environmental pollution tna~ reoresents a present and
increasing threat to the public peace and to the nea~tn, safety and welfare of the
residents of the City of Aspen and it its visitors. ..According% it is the oolicy of
council to provide standards for permissible noise levels in various areas aha
manners and at various times and to prohibit no,se n excess of those evels."
During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum oermissible sauna level
standards, and corqstruction canno[ De cone eKoeet between the hours of - a.m.
and 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Any particular ¢ oud noise should '~o~ sta~
before 9 am.
It is very likely that noise generated during the construction enase of this project
have a negative impact on the neighborhooo. The ao~ icant should be aware of th~s
and take measures to minimize the predicted r~ gn noise levels.
13. Parks - Requirement- The following requirements nave peen maoe by the
Parks Depa~ment:
a. No comment
14. Utilities:
Water:
July 25,200~
I~nsbrack Irm PUD
City Water Department - Requirement- As a reeuesr of rne City of Aspen
Water Depar~mem. revisions need to be made as follows:
a. All uses and construction wil comply with the City of Aspen Water System
sta_ndards and with Title 25 and a ~olicable Dortio~s of Title 8 (Water
Conservation aec Plumbing Advisory Code' of the As 3en Municipal Code
Wastewater:
As pen Consolidated Waste District - Requirement - The following was
srovloecl by the Aspen Consolidated Waste District:
a. In the application to regular tad fees, a downstream constraint fee will be
essesseo to this develooment.' Ps/men~ of all tota~ connection charges must
ee said to me District srior to issuance of Building :ermits.
b. A.C.S.D. wil need to review drainage and aeascane mans srior to
was~ewater service approval
c. A.C.S.D. will nees to review me utility ~ ~an ween made available by me
aoolicant
ct. If new services are re~:uired for additiona develc 2mem. me ~ld service Iines
must ce excavated in the alle~, and disconnected at the main sewer ine.
e. Shared service agreements may De reouired
£ Below grade facilities will reau~re a pumpin, g system
g. Clear water connecuons are not allowed
h. Development must corns y with all A.S.C.D rmes regu~auons anc
seecifications
Construction:
Work in the Public Right of Way
Requirement - Given me continuous 2reD,ems of unaDDrOVeO WOrK and
oevelooment in 3ublic rights-of-war adjacent to private properzy, we aewse the
applicant as foIlows:
Aeprovals
1. Engineering: The applicant receives aoDroval from the City Engineering
Depanmem 920-5080 for design of imorovemenrs acluding
grading, drainage, transeortation/streets Iandscapmg aec
encroachments within public right of way.
P60P155page 8 of $
Ju].y 23, 2001.
[~sb~ck I~O_T~ Pm
2. Parks: The applicant receives approval from the Parks Depar~mem [920-
5120) for vegetation soecies and for ~ublic traiI disturbance.
3. Streets: The aoolicant receives approvs from the Streets deoar~ment
920-5130' for mailboxes, finished oavement, surface materials :n
streets and alieywaj, s
4. Permits: Obtain R.O.W oermits for any work or oeve~ooment involving
stree~ cuts ara lanascaping from tnb Engineering Deoartment
DRC Attendees
Staff:: Tom Bracewell Applicant's Representative: Mitch Haas
Harold Smith David Gibso-
Tim Ware
Richard Goulding
Julia Ann Woods
Ch 'is Bendon
Ed Van Walraven
Steve Cla¢
Rebecca Schicklin9
RESOLUTION NO. 20,
SERIES OF 2002
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING A GMQS EXEMPTION FOR LODGE PRESERVATION AND
RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINOR PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND GMQS EXJEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING FOR THE INNSBRUCK INN, LOCATED AT 233 WEST MAIN
STREET, LOTS A-E, BLOCK 52, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 2735-124-54-001
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Irmsbr~tck Holdings, LLC, represented by Haas Land
Plarming, LLC, submitted an application (hereinafter "the application") requesting
approval of a Minor Planned Unit Development, and GMQS Exemptions for Lodge
Preservation and Affordable Housing to expand the Iunsbruck Inn, located at 233 W.
Main St., Lots A-E, Block 52, City and Townsite of Aspen, by four lodge rooms and an
employee housing unit; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Developmem Department determined that the
application met the applicable review standards, and recommended approval with
conditions; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and
considered the application under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as
identiIled herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Commurury
Developmem D/rector, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public
comment ar a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS. the Aspen Planning and Zon/ng Commission finds that the
development proposal meets or exceeds alt applicable development standards .and that the
approval of the development proposal, with conditions, ~s consistent with the goals and
elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS. at a public ]xearing, which was legally noticed and held at a regular
meeting of the Aspen Plauning and Zoning Commission on June 18, 2002, at which time
the Commission considered and found the apl: [ication to meet the review standards, and
approved a Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemption for Lodge
Preservation and recommended that City Council approve with conditions a Minor --
Planned Unit Developmem and a GMQS Exemption for the development of an Employee
Housing Unit, by a vote of six to zero (6 to 0) for the Irmsbruck Irm, located at 233 West
Main Street. Lots A-E, Block 52, City and Townsite of Aspen; and.
WI-LEREAS. the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission £mds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health: safety, and welfare.'
P157
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
Section 1
Pnrsuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
the Aspen Plarming and Zorfing Commission hereby approves a GMQS Exemption for
Lodge Preservation and recommends that City Council approve a GMQS Exemption for
Affordable Housing and a Minor Planned Unit Development for the Innsbruck Irm, a
property located at 233 West Main Street, Lots A-E, Block 52, City and Townsite of
Aspen, with the follow/.ng conditions:
1. A PUD Agreement shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval
by City Co~mciI and shall include the following:
a.The information required to be included in a PUD Agreement.
pursuant to Section 26.445.070(C).
2. A Final PUD Plan shall be recorded within 180 days >f the final approval
granted by City Council and shall include:
a. A final plat meeting the requirements of the City Engineer and
showing easemems, encroachment agreements and licenses with
reception numbers for physical improvements, and location of utilit7
pedestals.
b. An illustrative site plan of the project showing the proposed
~nprovemenrs, landscaping, parking, and the dimensional
reqnirements as approved.
c. A drawing representing the project's architectural character.
3 Prior to applying for a building permit, the applicant shall record a PUD
Agreement and the Final PUD Plans, as specified above, with the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder.
4. The following dimensional reqmrernenrs of the PUD are approved and
shall be printed on the Final Illustrative Plan. units measured in feet or
sq~mre feet):
P158
No requirement
One lodge or residential bedroom per 390 square feet
4.5 feet for building/0 ~eet for existing swimming
retaining wall
Requirement
Per Final PUD Plans
.9:1 without basemenff. 95:l including b~ement
addition
0.31 spaces per bedroom (12 spaces ~nd 38
bedrooms, including the one employee housing
bedroom).
5. The building permit application shall ir. zlude:
a. A copy of the final Ordinance and recorded P&Z Resolution.
b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building
permk set.
c.A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District.
d. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Depmtment and
any approval from the Parks Department Director for off-site
replacement or miugarion of any removed trees.
e. A drainage plan. including an erosion control plan, prepared by a
Colorado licensed Civil Engineer which maintains sediment and debris
on-site during and after construction. Ifa ground recharge system is
required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the
facility. A 2-year storm frequency should be used in designing any
drainage ~mprovemems.
P159
6. The Applicant shall install an adequate fire alarm system thzoughom the
structure as determined to by the Fire Marshal. The Applicant shall also
install a fire sprinkler system that meets the requirements of the Fire
Marshal.
7, Prior to issuance of a building permit:
a. The primary contractor shall subroht a letter to the Community
Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been
read and understood.
b. All tap fees, impacts fees. and building permit fees shall be paid, Ifar,
alternative agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks
Impact fee is finalized, those fees shall be payable according to the
agreement.
8. The Applicant shall convey an undivided fractional interest (one tenth of
0. t %) in the ownership of the deed restricted employee housing ro the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority for the purposes of complying
with the recent Colorado Supreme Court Decision regarding rent control
legislation. To satisfy the rent control issue, the Applicant may submit an
alternative option acceptable to the City Attorney.
9. The Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority and City of Aspen from any claims, liability, fees or
similar charges related to ownership in the deed restricted employee
honsing unit.
t 0. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall record a deed
restriction for the employee housing umr, and gram the undivided
fractional interest !n the ownership of the affordable housing unizs to the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority.
1 t. The Applicant shall adequately mitigate for employee generation by
providing deed restricted employee housing for at least .59 FTEs as per
the recommendation from the Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority.
12. The employee housing unit shall be deed restricted at the Category 2 rental
rate, but since the unit is included in the lodge itself, income and asset
restrictions shalI be waived. Further, the Applicant shall meet with the
Housing Office Staff prior to the completion of the addition to establish
mtttually acceptable lease terms for employees whose units are attached to
the business.
13. The Applicant shall submit a PM- 10 mitigation plan to the Environmental
Health Department for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. The
P160
mitigation plan shaI1 include sufficient measttres to mitigate for 36
additional vehicular trips per day.
14. The Applicant shall complete (prior to any of the remodel work, including
removal of drywall, carpet, tile, etc.,) the Building Department's asbestos
checklist, and if necessary, a person licensed by the State to do asbestos
inspections must conduct an inspection. The Building Department cannot
sign any building permits until they get this report. If there is no asbestos,
the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos
removal contractor must remove it.
15. The Applicant shall pay the City of Aspen $8,200 in park development
impact fees. These fees shall be due and payable at the time of issuance of
a building permit for the development.
I6. The Applicant shall provide priority to the occupant(s) of the employee
housing unit, the use of one of the off-street parking spaces to the north of
the building. In the event that occupant(s) does not use the space, it shall
remain available for the general use of the Innsbruck Inn lodge guests.
17. The Applicant shall obtain a revocable encroachment license to continue
to allow the lodge to ntilize the parking spaces on the alley as angted
"head in" parking as they currently exist.
t8. That the Applicant shall sign a sidewalk, cnrb and gutter construction
a~eement and pay the applicable recording fees prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy.
19. That the Applicant shall pay the appropriate Street Impact Fees.to the City
of Aspen for excessive wear to the streets caused by construction traffic as
determined by the:Engineering Department.
20. That the Applicant shall be required to show plans for ali improvements,
snow storage areas, utility pedestals, districts, curb and gutter, and
sidewalk improvements prior to building permit issuance.
21. The Applicant shall submit to the Environmental Health Department a
fugitive dust control plan which includes, but is not limited to fencing,
watering of distc~rbed areas, continual cleaning of adjacent paved roads to
remove mud that has been carried out, or other measures necessary to
prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a
nuisance. This shall be .required prior to the submittal for building
permits.
22. That the Applicant shall install tree saving construction fences around the
drip line of any trees to be saved.
P161
a. The City Forester or his/her designee must inspect this fence
before any construction activities commence.
b. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction
equipment, construction backfill, tbot or vehicular traffic shall be
allowed within the drip line.
23. That the Applicant shall compty with the City of Aspen Water System
Standards, with Title 25, and with 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.
24. The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Sanitation District's rules and
regulations. If new sewer lines are required, then the existing service must
be excavated in the alley and disconnected at the main sewer line. No
clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter drains) shall be
allowed. All improvements below grade shall require the use of a
pumping station.
25. The applicant shall abide by ail noise ordinances. Construction. activity is
limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m on Monday thru Saturday.
26. The Applicant shall agree that there will be no construction material or
dumpsters stored on the public rights-of-way unless a temporary
encroachment license is granted by the City Engineer. In addition, the
Applicant shall submit a full set of construction management plans as part
of the building permit application, and the management plan shall include
a noise, dust control, and construction traffic management plan which
addresses, at a minimum, the following issues.
a. Defining the construction debris hauling routes and impact on local
streets; and
b. The city encourages that site workers be shuttled in from the airport
parking area.
27. A bear-proof dumpster shall be located on-site meeting the standards of
the City of Aspen Wildlife Ordinance.
28. One ground floor lodge room shall meet handicap accessibility
requirements.
29. The Applicant shall snbmit a food service plan for review by the
Envirommental Hea2h Department and obtain a food service license if
required, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the added
P162
lodge rooms. I£ determined to be necessary, the Applicant shall install an
oil and grease interceptor in the breakfast room/kitchen.
30. The Applicant shall post a sign indicating that the westermmost parking
space on the alley is for compact cars only.
31. The Applicant shall join any future improvement districts that are formed
to complete ff~ture City approved improvements to the adjoining/
surrounding right-of-ways.
Section 2:
All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the
development approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or docmmentation
presented before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in
such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if 5.tlly set forth
herein, tm[ess amended by an anthorized entity,
Section 3:
This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances, r
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a conrt of competent jurisdiction, snch port/on
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall nor affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereo£
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 18:h day of
June, 2002.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
P~63
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT FOR AN
EXPANSION OF THE INNSBRUCK INN LODGE, 233 WEST MAIN STREET,
LOTS A, B, C, D, A_ND E, BLOCK 52, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel ID #2735.124.$4.001
RESOLUTION NO.. , SERIES OF 2002
WHEREAS, the applicant, Innsbruck Holdings LLC, represented by Mitch Haas of Haas
Land Planning and Dave Gibson of Gibson Architects, has requested final development
approval for an expansion of the Irmsbruck Inn, a non-designated building within the
Main Street Historic District located at 233 West Main Street, lots A, B, C, D, and E,
Block 52, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and,
WHEREAS, conceptual HPC development approval for the Irmsbmck Inn expansion
was granted on November 28, 2001 pursuant to HPC Resolution No. 55, Series of 2002,
which was prior to the adoption of City Co~mcil Ordinance No.I, Series of 2002 that
amended the Significant Development Review Standards; and,
WHEREAS, final HPC review for the Innsbruck Inn expansion shall be subject to the
significant development review standards in place at the time that application was made
for conceptual review; and,
WHEREAS, all development in an "H," Historic Overlay District or development
involving a historic landmark must meet ail four Development Review Standards of
Section 26.415.010.B.4 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval,
namely:
I. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing
and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures located on the
parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H,"
Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For Historic
Landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and
rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance betxveen buildings on the lot or
exceed the allowed floor area by up to five hundred (500) square feet or the atIowed
site coverage by up to five (5) percent, HPC may grant such variances aker rank-hug a
findi~ag that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark
and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional
req;tirements. In no event shall variations pr~rsnant to this section exceed those
variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling
urfits pm:suant to Section 26.520.
2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character
of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development.
P164
3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the
historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed
for development or o~ adjacent parcels.
4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the
architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof;
and,
WHEREAS, James Lindt, in his staff report dated Jtme 26, 2002, performed an analysis
of the application based on the standards, and recommended approval of the application,
with conditions; and,
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing and regular meeting on June 26, 2002, the
Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, comments made by the
applicant, comments offered by the general public, found the application to meet the
standards, and approved the application, by a vote of to (~-_~).
THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED:
That the HPC grants final development approval for the Irmsbruck Ira2 Expansion, 233
West Main Street lots A. 13, C, D, and E, Block 52. City and Townsite of Aspen.
Colorado. finding that the review standards are met, with the following conditions:
i. HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all
exrerzor lighting fixtures.
2. There shalI be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved
without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor.
3. The previous two conditions of approval will be reqtfired to be printed
on The cover sheet of the building permzt plan set and all other prints
made for the purpose of construction.
4. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of
the HPC resolution applicable ro this project The comracror must
submit a letter addressed ro HPC staff as parr of the building permit
application indicating that all conditions of approval za'e known and
tmderstood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior
to applying for the building permit.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 26th day of
June. 2002.
P165
Approved as to Form:
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney
Approved as to Content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Suzannah Reid, Chairman
ATTEST:
Kathy Stricldand, Chief Deputy Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Direct~
FROM: ~y Gu~e, Historic Prese~ation Officer
Appeal of Historic Prese~ation Commission Decision on 629 W.
Smuggler Street. Final Significant Development and Variances
Review- PUBLIC HEA~NG
DATE: August 12, 2002
SUMMARY: The applicant, Steven St. Clair, requested Final Significant Development
and Variances approval from the Historic Preservation Corrm~ission (HPC) for an
addition to the historic home he owns ar 629 West Smuggler Street. The property is
listed on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures." HPC
conducted a hearing on the project on May 8, 2002, and, at staff's recommendation,
moved to continue the review to a date certain in order to receive clarification from the
applicant on some of the proposed materials, and in order for the applicant to restudy and
minimize the need for some of requested variances, particularly a height variance. Mr.
St. Clair indicated that he would not be willing to remm to the board with the requested
information and asked HPC to vote on the merits of the proposal as presented to them
that evening. Because the FI_PC had legitimate questions that needed to be answered
before they would be able to make findings related to the review standards a motion was
made to approve the project, which failed by a vote of 0 in favor and 4 opposed.
The applicant has appealed the decision ro City Council on the grounds of that the
decision was '*arbitrary, capricious, and not supported by the evidence." Please see
Exhibit A for the letter from the applicant's representative requesting an appeal
APPLICANT: Steven St. Clair, owner, represented by David Myler of Freilich, Myler,
Leimer, and Carlisle.
LOCATION: 629 W. Smuggler Street, Lot A and the west half of Lot B, Block 21, City
and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: Following is Section
26.72.040(C); the criteria on which the City Cotmcil must judge appeals of HPC
Decisions:
P167
The city council shall consider the application on the record established before
the HPC. The city council shall affirm the decision of the Ir[PC unless the city_
council shall determine that there was an abuse qf discretion or denial qf due
process by the HPC. Upon determining that there was an abuse of discretion or
denial of due process, th,e city council shall be attthorized to take such action as
it shall deem necessary to remedy said situation, including but not limited to
reversing the decision, altering the conditions of approval, changing the length
of time during which action on a demolition, partial demolition, off-site
relocation, or on-site relocation application has been suspended on the terms of
the suspension, or remanding the application to tlPC for rehearing.
The review of Final Signiitcant Development and Variances for 629 W. Smuggler Street
followed all of the Code requirements and procedures for a public hearing. Appropriate
public notice and affidavit of notice was provided. The record, including the staff memo,
architectural plans, minutes, and HPC resolution is attached for Council review. Staff,
the applicant, and the applicant's representatives were permitted to make sufficient
presentations, and the public was invited to speak.
The Commission reviewed the proposal with the correct and applicable criteria with
which it has authority; and the Commission acted to deny the case because they found
that the standards were not met based on the design and information that was available to
them on May 8, 2002. The applicants were given the same opportunities to present their
case as any other applicant. There was not an abuse of discretion, arbitrary or capricious
conduct, or denial of due process on HPC's part.
Council's role in the appeal is not to determine whether or not they agree with HPC's
conclusion in regard to the merits of the project, but rather to confirm that there is
sufficient evidence in the record to support their decision and to determine whether
procedures were followed so that the applicant was afforded the same opportunities as all
other applicants requiring Historic Preservation Commission revieW.
As noted in the attached letter from David Myler, and discussed at some length in the
staff memo to HPC, Council did award conceptual approval for this project on
November 26, 2001, after it was denied by HPC and appealed. It Was clear at the time of
the Conceptual appeal that there were variances needed for the project which had come
about after the original application was submitted to the Community Development
Department. The variances evolved as the project changed during HPC's review. The
variances had never been publicly noticed, as is required in order for them to be awarded,
and the relevant review criteria had never been applied when Conceptual ended in a
denial. Cormcil's overturning of HPC's decision did not include the granting of
variances.
P 168
At HPC's May 8th bearing for Final rewew, staff and HPC clearly understood that the
design of the historic home and addition had been approved, and that the final review
criteria, and variance criteria were the points of discussion. Final review ar HPC is
focused on the selection of materials and on the overall details of the proposal. Relevant
topics include landscape design, lighting, proper treatment of historic materials, appropriate
replacement materials on historic srn~cmres, appropriate materials on additions,
distinguis~ng "new" and "old" construction, and sensitive location of mecharfical
equipment/vents. In addition to those items, variances requested by the applicant m order
to construct a :~ew detached garage and extra bedroom on the proper~y were: a 5 foot rear
yard setback variance, a 5 foot west sideyard setback variance, a variance from a
"Residential Design Standard" for garages, a height variance of 3 feet 6 inches and a floor
area bonus of 275 square feet.
The staff memo and the HPC comments at the hearing offered little or no opposition m
the requested setback variances, .or the variance from the "Residential Design Standards"
which states that garage doors may not face the street, as is the case in this design. Where
staff and the board did question the merits of the prQecr was with regard to the height
variance and floor area bonus.
HPC has the authority ro vary numerous dimensional requirements that are established by
the zoning that is applied to a parcel. Setback and parking variances can be granted by
HPC based solely on their finding that the granting 0fthe variance helps to preserve the
historic resource (by allowing an addition ro be located fm~aher away from it, etc.)
Variances from the "Residential Design Standards" are also flexible when a property
ow~aer proposes a solution that meets the overall goals.
HPC has the ability to grant height variances, but must do so by applying the same
criteria as would be used by the Board of Adjustmem (BOA.) To save the applicant time,
HPC is allowed to hear the request in lieu of the BOA, but the standards review standards
are strict. They are:
L The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals,
objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title;and
2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the
reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and
3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title
would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same
zone district, and wottld cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical
difficulty. In determining whether an applicanFs rights would be deprived, the board
shall consider whetl~er either of the following conditions apply:
P169
a. There are special conditions and circamstances which are unique to the
parcel, building or strttcture, which are not applicable to other parcels,
structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result
from the actions of the applicant; or
b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special
privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this
Title to other parcels, buildings, or stractures, in the same zone district.
The discussion at HPC was that the height variance was not appropriate because there are
other options for the development of the space desired by the applicant that did not
require vioIating height restrictions. For instance, the design of the garage could be
restudied to reduce its height, possibly as simply as by lowering the plate height (the
spring point of the roof). Alternatively, some of the living space could be placed below
grade, a very common scenario in most residential development in Aspen. While the
letter from the applicant implies that HPC desired to see living space Iocated above the
garage, the record shows many comments from HPC throughout the review questioning
the appropriateness of the height of the new structure. The letter also mentions that
height variances have been granted for garage structures in town, however, it is unlikely
that any variances were granted for a new strncture unless an ADU was involved. In
addition, no such examples exist for buildings constructed under the HPC's design
guidelines, adopted in 2000, so they are not comparable.
At the May 8t~ meeting, the requested floor area bonus was also debated. This award is
also subject to stringent criteria, which are:
1. In selected circumstances the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional
square feet of, allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic
properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that:
a. The design of the project meets ~ applicable design guidelines;
b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the
addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the
historic building and/or
c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance;
and/or
d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the
historic building's form, materials or openings; and/or
e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or
f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or
g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or
h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained.
P170
2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is
contingent upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of
the merits of the proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic
preservation practices. Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above
will have a greater likelihood of being awarded additional floor area.
3. The decision to grant a Floor Area Bonus for Major Development projects will
occur as part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to
Section 26.415.070(D). No development application that includes a request for a
Floor Area Bonus may be submitted until after the applicant has met with the HPC
in a work session to discuss how the proposal might meet the bonus considerations.
In general, the HPC had indicated suppor~ for the proposed location of the new garage,
which mimics an existing structure on the site, tl~roughout the hearings, but was unable to
make a finding on May 8~ that ali of the criteria were met for a number of reasons. First,
as outlined in the resolution of denial, several of the design review standards either were
not met, or the HPC could not determine whether they would be me~ because the
applicant declined their request to provide further information. Second, it was felt that
there were reasonable ways tc decrease the amotmt of bonus needed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff believes that the proper and legal procedures were followed on this case, and does
not believe the applicants' request for appeal is warranted. The HPC has been appointed
by Council to provide their expertise related to historic preservation. Staff recommends
Council uphold the Commission's decision.
If Council upholds the decision, the applicant still retains a conceptual approval that is
valid until November 26, 2002. The owner may submit a new final review application to
be approved if the review standards are met.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to adopt Resolution # ., Series of 2002, upholding the decision made by the
Historic Preservation Commission on May 8, 2001, denying Final Significant
Development and Variances approval for the property located at 629 W. Smuggler
Street."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
P171
Included as exhibits to this Memorandum are the following:
City Council Resolution # , Series of 2002
Exhibit A: Letter of Appeal from David Myler
Exhibit B: HPC Resolution #18, Series of 2002, which resulted in the denial of final
review
Exhibit C: Staff memo to HPC
Exhibit D: Architectural plans
Exhibit E: Minutes of HPC final review
P172
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE
DECISION MADE BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR FINAL SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT
AND VARIANCES APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 629 W.
SMUGGLER STREET, LOT A AND THE WEST HALF OF LOT B, BLOCK 21,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 2002
WHEREAS, the applicant, Steven St. Clair, requested final significant development and
variances approval from the Historic Preservation Commission for an addition to the
historic home he owns at 629 West Smuggler Street. The property is listed on the "Aspen
Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures," and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission discussed the project on May 8,
2002. The meeting met the proper noticing requirements of Section 26.304.060.E of the
Land Use Code. The project was denied on May 8, 2002 by a vote of 4 to 0, after the
Historic Preservation Commission found that the review standards provided in the Land
Use Code were not met; and
WHEREAS, no abuse of discretion, arbitrary and capricious conduct, nor denial of due
process occurred during the above mentioned hearings; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council affirms that the proper procedures were followed
and wishes to uphold the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission as rendered in
their Resolution #I 8, Series of 2002.
NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED:
City Council affirms the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission denying an
application for final significant development and variances approval for the property
located at 629 W. Smuggler Street. Lot A and the west half of Lot B, Block 21, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, finding that there was not an abuse of discretion or a denial
of due process by the Commission.
APPROVED by the City Council at its regular meeting on this 12th day of August,
2002.
ATTEST: MAYOR:
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud
Pt73
RESOLUTION OF TEFE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
(tlPC) DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT AxND
VARIANCES FOR TIlE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 629 W. SMIJ'GGLER
STREET, LOT A AND THE WEST E[ALF OF LOT B, BLOCK 21, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. 18, SERIES OF 2002
WtLEREAS, the applicant, Steven St. Clair, represented by David Myler, of Freilich,
Myler, Leitner. and Carlisle, and Catch/Ma~'mez, of JBZ Architects has requested Final
Development and Variances for the property located at 629 W. Smuggler, Lot A and the
west half of Lot B, Block 21, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. The property is
listed on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures;" and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or
structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved
involving a designated historic properw or district until plans or sufficient information
have been submitted ro the Commurdty Developmem Director and approved in
accordance with the procedures established for their review; and
WIt[EREAS, the HPC re-dews the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence
presented ar a hearing-to determine-the project's conformance with the City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the
Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove,
approve with conditions or continue the application ro obt~fin additional information
necessary ro make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, the application for 629 W. Smuggler Street final review inchided a request
for setback variances. In order to grant these variances, according to Section
26.415.110.C of the Muncipal Code, the iqPC must fred that the variance:
a. Is similar ro the pattern, features and character of the historic property or
district: and/or
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact ro the historic significance or
architectural character of the h/storic property, an adjoining designated historic
property or historic district; and
WR¥,REAS, the application for 629 W. Smuggler Street £mal review included a request
for a variance from the "Residential Design Standards," related to garages. In order for
HPC to grant the variance, according ro Section 26.410 of the Muncipal Code, the HPC
must fred that:
A. The proposed design yields greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen area
Community Plan (AACP); or,
B. The proposbd design more effectively addresses the issue or problem a g4ven
standard or provision responds to; or.
P174
C. The proposed desi~ is clearly necessary for reasons of fa/mess related ro
unusual site specific conslra'mts; and
WItEI~EAS, the application for 629 W. Smuggler Street final review included a request
for a Floor Area bonus, hn order for FI?C to grant the variance, according ro Section
26.415.1 I0.E of the Municipal Code, HPC must find that:
1. In selected circumstances the HPC may grant up ro five hundred (500)
additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects [nvolving designated
historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that:
~. The design of the project meets all applicable design gnidelines; and
b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the
addit/on is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the
historic buildLng and/or
c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance;
and/or
d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the
historic building's form, materials or openings; and/or
e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or
f. An appropriate transit/on 'defines the old and new portions of the building;
and/or
g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or
h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained; and
WFIEREAS, the application for 629 Wi Smuggler Street final review included a request
for a height variance. In order for HPC to grant the variance, accord/rig to According ro
Section 26.314.040 of the Municipal Code the F_PC must make a finding that the
following three (3) c/rcumstances exist:
1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent w/th the purposes, goals,
objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and th/s Title;
2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the
reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and
3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title
would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the
same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or
practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's fights would be
deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the folIowing conditions
apply:
a. There are special conditions and czrcumstances wkich are umque ro the
parcel, building or structure, which are nor applicable ro other parcels,
structures or buildings in the same zone distr/ct and which do not result from
the actions of the applicant; or
b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any spec/al
priv/Iege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of th/s
k _.. Tide to other parcels, bu/ldings, or structures, in the same zone district; and
P175
· ",,, WHE~AS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated May 8, 2002, performed an analysis
/ of the application based on the standards, and recommended that the review be continued
in order for the applicant to provide additional information for the HPC to use in making
a decision; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on May 8, 2002, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application, found the application was not consistent with the
"City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and other applicable sections of
the Municipal Code and was prepared to make a motion to continue. The applicant
refused a continuation, after which the HPC made a motion· to approve which received a
vote of 0 in favor and 4 opposed, therefore the application was denied.
WlJ~EREAS, the HPC passed a motion, by a vote of 4 in favor and 0 against, stating their
findings with regard to a denial of the application:
1. The submitted proposal ·does not satisfy Design Guideline 10.4 in terms of providing
· proper distinction between old and new through the way the new addition is detailed,
especially the gable ends and trim around the windows:
10.4 Desi~ma a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
[]An addition should be mad~ distinguishable from the historic buildfmg, while al~o
remaaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
~ A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in
material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles, are ali
techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new
construction.
2. The hardy plank on th.e historic building does not meet Design Guideline 2.7:
2.7 l~iatch the original material in composition, scale and Finish when replacing
materials on primary surfaces.
If the original material is wood clapboard, for example, then the replacement material
must be wood as well. It should match the original in size, the amount of exposed lap
and finish.
n Replace Only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then
only those should be replaced, not the entire wall.
3. Absent a mater/al sample to review, there is a question as to whether the proposed
vinyl windows in the new addition are of sufficient quality {o meet Design Guideline
I0. II:
10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materialJ that are 6omphfible with the
historic materials of the primary building.
The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials.
4. The guidelines for the FAR bonus are not met for a number of reasons, including
concerns with the material palette. The standards for awarding an FAR bonus require .
P176
that ali the desig2 g2idelines must be met, which is not the case with the current proposal.
The ar2ounz of FAR bonus needed could be minimized by moving the bedroom over the
garage to a basement under the new addition, or by otherwise decreasLng the FAR of the
new addition to some degree.
5. The prop~)sal does not mer/t a height variance because it does not satisfy, as required,
ail three of the criteria set forth in Section 26.3 I4.040(A).
NOW, TELEREFOR_E, BE IT RESOLVED:
That Final Development and Variances for the property located 629 W. Smuggler, Lot A
and the west half of Lot B, Block 21, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, is not
approved.
DENIED BY TItE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 8th day of May,
2002.
Approved as to Form:
D avid'Ho~er, 2ssistan~i Attorney
Apl~r~oved as to content:
l~IS:~ P~I¢C OMMISSION
Gilt~e'rtJS anc~0z, Vice
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Directck~UcD
FROM: Amy Gnthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 629 W. Smuggler- Final Development and Variances- Public Hearing
DATE: May 8, 2002
SUMMARY: This property is listed on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites
and Structures" and contains a 19th century house and shed.
The proposal before HPC involves demolishing a 1950's addition to the house, and a
garage built around the same time, and feplacing those elements with new construction.
Conceptual review was before HPC in 2001. The board denied the application on August
8, 2001, and the applicant appealed to Council based on an ab~s~ ~ffdiscretion. CoUncil
overturned the Coramission's decision and essentially approved the Resolution which
HPC had denied, Resolution #36, Series of 2001, attached as "Exhibit B."
HPC is now asked to grant Final approval, along with var/ances needed for the proposed
new garage, a circumstance that was recognized in the Conceptual ~eview process.
APPLICANT: Steven St. Clair, represented by David Myler, ofFreilich, Myler, Leimer,
and Carlisle and Catchi Martinez, of JBZ Architects.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-09-001
ADDREss: 629 W. Smuggler, Lot A and the west half of Lot B, Block 21, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential)
CURRENT LAND USE: 4,500 sq. ft. lot containing a single-family residence, garage,
and shed.
SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPM..ENT (FINAL)
The application was originally submitted under the old historic preservation ordinance,
which was replaced in March' via Ordinance #1, Series of 2002. Although the usual
practice is to complete a review under the code language that was in place when the
P178
application was first submitted, the Cky Attorney's ofiice has advised staff to apply the
new ordinance because of an important feature which is more permissive to the applicant
pertaining ro the effect of conceptual approval. The old code language did not give the
applicant any "guarantees" as a result of conceptual approval. All aspects of the design
were open for discussion until final was awarded. The new code language stares that
conceptual approval "shall be binding upon II_PC in regards to the location and form of
the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan
application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made
to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final
Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. If the applicant choo§es to make
substantial amendments ro the Conceptual Design after it has been approved, a new
Conceptual Development Plan hearing shall be required." This protects the applicant
from having HPC revisit the overall design of the addition to the historic house, which is
something the board clearly had concerns with when Conceptual was den/ed. Council's
intent m overturn/rig the I-IPC's decision was to allow the application to move forward.
What Council did not approve in the appeal process, however, were the variances needed
by the project. Findings on the criteria for the variances, and a review of compliance with
those "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" which are relevant to
Final review are on the table now.
Final review is focused on the selection of materials and on the overall details of the
proposal. The relevant design guidelines are listed on "Exhibit C" [o this memo. The
guidelines for £mal touch on the following topics; landscape design, lighting, proper
rrearrnenr of historic materials, appropriate replacement materials on historic s~rucrares,
appropriate materials on additions, distinguishing '.'new" and "old" construction, and
sensitive location ofmechan/cal eqn/pmenr~vems.
With regard to the landscape design, no site plan has been provided to indicate any
significant changes are planned. Minor planting has already occurred on the site over the
last year. Thd applicant must inform lqPC if any new trees or s~gnificant shrubs are planned
m any location which would obscure views from the srree[ ro the historic house. This
would be in conflict with the design guidelines.
Conditions of approval will be included in the F/PC decision to address the Topics of
exterior hghting and mechanical eqn/pmenTvents that may show up on the outside of the
structure. These are elements that I-]2PC always reviews to ensure that fixtures which are
installed on the historic building are appropriate to the style and fixtures that are on the new
construction are differentiated as new (more comemporary m style.) Vents are to be placed
in sensitive locations which avoid damage to historic fabric or kistoric character.
In terms ofmaterials, the applicant has indicated all along an intent to remove the aluminum
siding on the historic house. That is the only alteration proposed for the original building
and it is restorative in nature. The drawings show that the house will be re-sided with
P179
Hardy Plank, a cementitious board. This, in staff's opinion, will not meet the following
design guidelines:
2.1 Preserve original building materials.
Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place.
Only remove siding which is deteriorated and must be replaced.
Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as wails, cornices,
pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved.
c~ Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired.
Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its h/storic integrity.
2.5 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by Patching, piecing-in,
consolidating or otherwise reinforcing the material.
(~ Avoid the removal of damaged materials that can be repaired.
rn Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and
resins may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components
· also may be used.
2;7 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing
materials on primary surfaces.
ri If the original material is wood clapboard, for example, then the replacement
material must be wood as well. It should match the original in size, the mount of
exposed lap and finish. ·
c~ Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then
only those should be replaced, not the entire wall
2.8 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for primary building
materials.
In some instances, substitute materials may be used for replacing architectural
details, but doing so is not encouraged. If it is necessary to use a new material, such
as a fiberglass column, the style and detail should precisely match that oft. he historic
model.
Primary building materials such as wood siding and brick should not be replaced
with synthetic materials.
rn Synthetic materials include: aluminum, vinyl siding and panelized brick.
= EIFS (synthetic stucco) is not an appropriate replacement for real stucco.
The first action must be to confirm whether or not the original siding still exists under the
aluminum. If it does, it must be restored to the extent possible. Sigrfificantly decayed
boards would be replaced in kind: If the original siding is gone or is not salvageable, then
the guidelines require that wood siding, wkich is what would have exis[ed historically, be
installed. Hardy plank may not have the same characteristics of wood siding, including
P180
texture, bevel/shadow line, or weathering characteristics, and has not been allowed on any
other historic buildings in town.
The materials proposed for the new addition include wood siding, shake shingles in the
gable ends, a wood shingle roof, and vinyl windows. The following guidelines should be
discussed:
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
'~ An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
[] A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in
material or a differentiation between historic, and more current sLyles are all
techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new
construction.
10.11 On a new addition, 'use exterior materials that are compatible with the
historic materialg of the primary building.
~ The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the on~naI materials.
11.7 Roof materials should appear similar in scale and texture to those used
traditionally.
~- Roofmaterials should have a matte, non-reflective finish.
11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale.
c Materials that appear similar in scale mhd finish to those used historically on the site
are encouraged.
[] Use oftnghly reflective materials is discouraged.
During the prewous review process, the idea of using a wider exposure on the clapboards
was proposed and seemed to be acceptable. The fascia .detail on the addition, and the
window design are different from the historic resource, which helps to set the addition off
as new. HPC must determine if this is an adequate distinction. One issue that staffwould
like a determination on is the use of vinyl windows. In the past, this has not been allowed
because of concerns over the quality of the product. There may be good new products
available that the HPC should consider and staffrequesrs that a window comer Ia sample)
be provided at the hearing. One other clarification is needed on the proposed material
palette. Staff has been provided with a cut sheet that HPC will review at the meeting
which shows a solid wood plank door that ~s proposed to be used on the exterior.
however, the drawings only indicate paneled doors and full lite doors, which are likely
more appropriate to the historic structure.
With the resolution of the issues identified above, the only remaining area for HPC
discussion is the variances required for the garage. There is an existing one sto~, non-
P181
historic garage in the location of the proposed new garage. The doors of the existing
garage face 6th Street. This is a condition that is discouraged by a number of reg~2tations
that are in place now, however, over the course of the previous meetings, HPC indicated
general support for maintaining that orientation, and awarding some variances, because it
was felt that having the gable end face 6th Street created a more appropriate west
elevation on the site than having the gables facing north and south did. The criteria being
used below for the setback variance and FAR bonus are from the new ordinance. They
are more specific, although not necessarily more restrictive, than what was found in the
old code.
The variances needed in order to approve the garage as shown on the attached plans are:
a 5 foot rear yard setback variance, a 5 foot west sideyard setback variance, a variance
from a "Residential Design Standard" for garages, a height variance of 3 feet 6 inches and
a floor area bonus of 275 square feet.
Starting with the setback variances, the criteria, per Section 26.415.110.C of the
MuncipaI Code are as follo~vs:
HPC must make a finding that the setback variance:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or
district; and/or
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or
architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic
property or historic district. '
Staff Finding: Staff finds that the setback variances are appropriate because they
maintain the current location of the garage, in the comer of the property. This is fairly
typical of alley buildings on historic properties and provides the greatest possible distance
between this detached structure and the historic house. This standard is met and the
setback variances should be granted.
The criteria for granting a waiver from the "Residential Design Standards," Section
26.410 of the MuncipaI Code, are:
All residential development must comply with the following review standard or
receive a variance based on a finding that:
A. The proposed design yields greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen
area Community Plan (AACP); or,
B. The proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given
standard or provision responds to; or, '
P182
C. The proposed design is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to
unusual site specific constraints.
The standard that is in question is:
Standard: PARKING, GARAGESAND CARPORTS. The intent of the following
parking, garages, and carport standard is to minimize the potential for conflicts between
pedestrian and automobile traffic by placing parking, garages, and carports on alleys, or
minimize the presence of garages and carports as a lifeless part of the streetscape where
alleys do not exist.
For ail residential
uses, parking, garages, and
carports shall be accessed
fi.om an alley or private road
if one exists.
Staff Finding: Staff finds that I-:[PC has previously discussed their opinion on why the
gable end, and the garage door, should face the street in th/s instance, since it is
replicating an old pattern. The garage door must be redesigned though, ro comply with
another "R6sidentiaI Design Standard" that requires the garage door be designed to look
like individual stall doors. The change to the appearance of the ddor shall be a condition
of approval. Staff finds that this standard is met and the garage door should be allowed to
face 6th Street.
Staff has noted to the applicant during the Conceptual review, that the FAR tabulation
they have-been providing in the plans is incorrect because they have allowed themselves
the exemption for garage/storage areas that is only permitted when the garage is entered
from the alley. Because they are not entering from the alley, albeit at HPC's urgmg, the
pr~ecr is 275 square feet over the allowed FAR. The following standards apply To an
FAR bonus~ per Section 26.415.1 I0.E:
1. In selected circumstances the ItPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional
square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic
properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that:
7
a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; and
("-b:~fhe historic building is the key element of the property and the
"-a~fdition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the
historic building and/or
P183
c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance;
and/or
~hd. ~ The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the
istoric building's form, materials or openings; and/or
e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; .and/or
~(f~.~.~_n appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the and/or
building;
~'~. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or.
h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained.
2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is
contingent upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of
the merits of the proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic
preservation practices. Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above
will have a greater likelihood of being awarded additional floor area.
3. The decision to grant a Floor Area Bonus for Major Development projects will
occur as part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to
Section 26.415.070(D). No development application that includes a request for a
Floor Area Bonus may be submitted until after the applicant has met with the HPC
in a work session to discuss how the proposal might meet the bonus considerations.
Staff Response: Council made the determination that the design review standards
applicable to the overall massing and design of the project were met, The HPC's current
evaluation is focused on whether those standards related to Final are being addressed
sufficiently. Jfthat is found to be the case, then criterion "A" is met. Inappropriate siding
is to be removed from the historic house so criterion "C" is met. The applicant is
preserving a small historic shed on the site, so criterion "G" is m~t. A large conifer
be protected on the site (it's removal would not be allowed by the Parks Department in
any case) but no other historic landscape features have been protected, and some,
including older lilacs, will likely be removed by this plan, so staff does not find that
criterion "H' is met to any great degree. Overall. staff finds that HPC has some
obligation to assist with the FAR issue created by the garage because the Board have
guided its location. However, 'staff also feels that there are questions as to whether this
project meets any of the above criteria "B, D, E, and F,' and that there are some ways in
which the bonus could be minimized, including the following: 1) The garage could be a
single stall garage, 2) The bedroom over the garage could be moved to a basement under
the new addition, or 3) The FAR of the new addition could be otherwise decreased to
some degree. Staffbelieves that the second option is important to explore because it has
the effect of reducing the FAR by at least 75 square feet, addresses the fact that the garage
is over the allowable height limit, an important problem that will be discussed below, and
also reduces the oYerall bulk being added on this property. The project as proposed does
not include any basement at ali. While that may be seen as a positive with regard to the
historic house [where lifting the building can sometimes have negative impacts), it is a
missed opportunity on the new addition and means that the entire program is being placed
above grade, maximizing impacts on the historic resource. The options available
P184
properly handle the amount of square footage desired on the site must be explored before
any bonus square footage is awarded.
The final variance needed for the garage is a height variance. Accessory structures
located on the rear 1/3 of a lot in this zone district are limited in height to 12 feet, in this
case measured to a point one third of the way between the spring point and the ridge. The
proposed structure is i5' 6" tall at this location, therefore it is 3'6" over the height limit.
HPC only has the ability to grant variances to height based on a finding of hardship.
According to Section 26.314.040, in order to authorize a variance from the dimensional
reqmremems of Title 26. the HPC must make a finding that the following three (3)
circumstances exist:
L The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals,
objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title;
Staff Finding: The AACP does nor specifically address this issue. The Land Use Code
does support the concept of detached residential structure located along alleys. Staff
finds that this standard is met.
2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the
reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and
Staff Finding: There are ways to reduce the height of the garage and still accommodate
the desired living space on the site. Staff finds that this standard is.not met.
3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title
would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same
zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical
difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the board
shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply:
a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the
parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels,
structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from
the actions of the applicant; or
Staff Finding: The property is designated historic and is therefore subject [o design
review criteria that apply to many, but not every property in this zone district. The height
would not be an issue if the garage was physically connected to the main house, because
then it would all be considered the "primary sumcmre," however FI-PC has previously
found that [o be inappropriate from a massing perspective. While this creates design
challenges, staff does not believe that it amounts to a hardship or practical difficulty.
Staffrecommends a restudy of the design of the garage ;o bring its height into compliance
either by lowering the plate if possible, or moving the bedroom to a basement location.
? 185
b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special
privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this
Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district: and
Staff Finding: The applicant has other opnons to comply with the requirements,
therefore this variance would confer a special priveledge. Staff finds that this standard is
not met.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the application for Final Review at 629
W. Smuggler Street be continued to a date certain to answer the following questions:
1~ Does palette on new provide an adequate
the
material
the
construction
distinction
between new and old construction?
2. After reviewing a sample of the proposed vinyl windows, do they meet the design
gt/idelines?
3. Where is the solid wood plank door ro be used and does it meet the design
guidelines?
4. Are there ways in which the FAR bonus could be minimized, including the
following: 1) By ~ the o, gara~ S'~ --'.~- :~- 2) By moving the
bedroom over the garage to a basemem under the new addition, or 3) By
otherwise decreasing the FAR of the new addition to some degree.
5. Can the garage be restudied to bring its heig~ht into compliance with the limit by
either by lowering the plate, or moving the bedroom to a basement location?
The following could be made conditions of approval:
1. Inform HPC if any new trees or significant shrubs are planned in any location which
would obscure views from the street to the historic house.
2. Confirm whether or not the original siding still exists under the aluminum. If it
does, it must be restored to the extent possible. If the original siding is gone or is
not salvageable, then the guidelines require that wood siding, which is what would
have existed historically, be installed.
3.The setback variances needed for the garage meet the rewew criteria.
4. The "Residential Design Standard" variance needed for the garage meets the
review cmeria.
5. The garage door must be made to look like two doors, per the Residential Design
Standards.
6. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the
approved drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor
when the information is available.
7. Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating
exactly what areas of the historic house are to be removed as parr of the
renovation.
P186
8. Submit a preservation plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating what
materials on the exterior of the house are h/stor/c, and how those materials, wi'rich
are to be retained, will be restored. The requirement is to retain/repair ail original
materials and replicate only those that are determined by lq_PC staff and monitor to
be beyond salvage.
9. No elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist. No
existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein
may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor.
I0. HPC staff and monitor must approve the type and location of all exterior lighting
fixtures.
11. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevatinns as approved without first
being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor.
12. The preservation plan described above, as well as the conditions of approval ~vill
be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and ail
other prints made for the purpose of construction.
13. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the I-IPC
resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter
addressed to Fi]PC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all
conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet w/th the Historic
Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building perrmt.
14. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a
specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to continue the public hearing on 629 W.
Smuggler Street, Final review and Variances, to a date certain."
Exhibits:
A. Staff memo dated May 8, 2002
B. I-~C Resolution #36, 2002, which has been approved by City Council.
C. Relevant Design Guidelines
D. Apphcation
P187
"Exhibit C, Relevant Design Guidelines for Final Review"
1.10 Preserve historic elements of the yard to provide an appropriate context for
historic structures.
o The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner, with planting material
and sod, and not covered with paving, for example.
1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees
and shrubs.
[] Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of
damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department.
~ If a tree must be removed as parr of the addition or alteration, replace it with species
of a large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project.
1.12 Preserve and maintain historically significant planting designs.
¢ Retaining historic planting beds. landscape features and walkways is encouraged.
1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic
context of the site.
[] Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term
impact of mature growth.
[] Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent.
~ Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials.
1.14 Additions to the landscape that could interfere with historic structures are
inappropriate.
n Do not plant climbing ivy or trees too close to a building. New trees should be no
closer than the mature canopy size.
[] Do not locate plants or trees in locations that wiI1 obscure significant architectural
features or block views to the building.
rn It is not appropriate to plant a hedge row that will block views into the yard.
Site Lighting
1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting.
= Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glare onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting
on walks and entries, rather than up into trees and onto facade planes.
Treatment of Materials
2.1 Preserve original building materials.
Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place.
[]Only remove siding which is deteriorated and must be replaced.'
[] Masom'y features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices,
pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved.
[] Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired.
Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity.
P188
2.2 Protect wood features from deterioration.
[] Provide proper drainage and ventilation to minimize rot.
~ Maintain protective coatings to retard drying and ultraviolet damage.
2.3 Plan repainting carefully.
~ Always prepare a good subs~rate. Prior to painting, remove damaged or deteriorated
paint only to the next intact layer, using the gentlest means possible.
rn Use compatible paints. Some latex paints will not bond well to earlier oil-based paints
without a primer coat.
2.4 Brick or stone that was not painted historically should not be painted.
[] Masonry naturally has a water-protective layer, or patina, ,o protect it fi-om the
elements.
Repair of Materials
2.5 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching, piecing-in,
consolidating or otherwise reinforcing the material
-n Avoid the removal of damaged materials that can be repaired.
[] Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants, Epoxies and
resins may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also
may be used.
Replacement Materials
2.7 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing
materials on primary surfaces.
[] If the or/gmal material is wood dlapboard, for example, then th~ replacement material
must be wood as well. It should match the original in size, the amount of exposed lap
and fizzish.
[] Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then
only those should be replaced, not the entire wall.
2.8 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for primary building materials.
In some instances, substitute materials may be used for replacing arch/tectural details,
but doing so is not encouraged. If it ~s necessary m use a new material, such as a
fiberglass column, the style and detail should precisely match that of the historic
model.
[] Primary building materials such as wood siding and brick should not be replaced with
synthetic materials.
[] Synthetic materials include: aluminum, vinyl siding and panelized brick.
[] E~FS (synthetic stucco) is not an appropriate replacement for real stucco.
3.4 Match a replacement window to the original in its design.
P189
rn If the ori~nal is double-hung, then the replacement window should also be double-
hung, or at a minimum, appear to be so. Match the replacement also in the number
and position of glass panes.
a Matching the original design is particularly important on key character-defining
facades.
3.7 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash a~nd its components to that
of the original window.
n A historic window ofien has a complex profile. Within the window's casing, the sash
steps back to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments,
which individually only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important
details. They distinguish the actual window from the surrounding plane of the wall.
Treatment of Architectural Features
6.1 Preserve significant architectural features.
r3 Repair only those features that are deteriorated.
~ Patch, piece-in, splice, consolidate or other~vise upgrade the existing material, using
recognized preservation methods whenever possible. -'
rn · Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and
resins may be considered for wood repair and special masonry repair components also
may be used.
[] Removing a damaged feature when it can be repaired is inappropriate.
6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use
methods that minimize damage to the original material.
[] Document its location so it may be repositioned accurately. Always devise methods of
replacing the disassembled material in its original configuration.
6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and' must be
replaced.
n Match the original in composition, scale, and finish when replacing materials or
features.
[] If the original detail was made of wood, for example, then the replacement material
should be wood, when feasible. It should match the original in size and finish, which
traditionally was a smooth painted finish.
6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features should be based on
original designs.
rn The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating
a misrepresentation of the building's heritage.
[] When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical
evidence, develop a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the
ori~naI, and maintains similar scale, proportion and material.
P190
6.5 Do nol guess at "historic" designs for replacement parts.
Where "scars" on the exterior suggest that arckitectural features existed, but there is
no other physical or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that
are similar in character to related buildings.
[] Using overly ornate materials on a building for wkich there is no documentation is
haappropriate.
[] It is acceptable to use salvaged materials fi.om other buildings only if they are similar
ha style and detailing to other features on the building where they are to be installed.
6.6 Replacement of missing elements may be included in repair activities.
[] Replace only those portions that are beyond repair.
[] Replacement elements should be based on documented evidence.
[] Use the same kind of material as the original when feasible.
A substitute material may be acceptable if the form and design of the substitute itself
conveys the visual appearange of the original material. For example, a fiberglass
cornice may be considered at the top ora building.
New Additions
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
[] An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, w~Ie also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
rn A change in setbacks of the addition fi.om the historic building, a subtle change in
material or a differentiation between historic, and more currem styles are all
techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new
construction.
10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the
historic materials of the primary building.
[] The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original mater/als.
11.7 Roof materials should appear similar in scale and texture to those used
traditionally.
c~ Roof materials should have a matte, non-reflective finish.
Materials
11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale.
c~ Materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site
are encouraged.
[] Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged.
11.10 The imitation of older historic sty. les is discouraged.
[] This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
P191
ca Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of. Aspen's
history are especially discouraged on historic sites,
14.3 Keep color schemes simple. (Advisory)
rn Using one base color for the building is preferred.
ca Using only one or two accent colors is also encouraged, except where precedent
exists for using more than two colors with some architectural styles.
14.4 Coordinating the entire building in one color scheme is usually more successful
than working with a variety of palettes. (Advisory)
o Using the color scheme to establish a sense of overalI composition for the building is
strongly encouraged,
14.5 Develop a color scheme for the entire building front that coordinates all the
facade elements. (Advisory)
[] Choose a base color that will link the entire building face tokether. For a commercial
building, it can tie signs, ~ornamentation, awnings and entrances together. On
residences; it can function similarly. It can also help your builcFmg relate better to
others in the district.
n The complexity of the accent colors should be appropriate to the architectural style of
the building.
:2 Doors may be painted a bright accent color, or they may be left a natural wood finish.
Historically, many of the doors would have simply had a stain applied.
[] Window sashes are also an excellent opportunity for accent color.
n Brilliant luminescent or "day-glo" colors are not appropriate.
Lighting
14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity
to that used traditionally.
~2 The design of a fixture should be ,simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be
approved by the HPC.
~All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence.
14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting.
Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not
be permitted.
Shield lighting associated with service areas, parking lots and parking structures.
ca Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by
controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night.
Do not,wash an entire building facade in light.
Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper
wails of buildings.
ca Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same
area.
P192
14.8 Minimize the visual impact of light spill from a building.
~ Prevent glare onto adjacent properties by using shielded and focused light sources that
direct light onto the ground. The use of downlights, with the bulb fully enclosed
within the shade, or step lights which direct light only on to walkways, is strongly
encouraged..
c~ Lighting shall be carefully located so as not to shine into residential li,Ang space, on
or off the property or into public fights-of-way.
On-going Maintenance of ttistoric Properties
14.9 Use the gentlest means possible to clean the surface of materials and features.
Perform a test patch (in an inconspicuous place) to make sure the cleaning method
will not damage the surface. Many procedures can have an unanticipated negative
effect upon building materials and result in accelerated deterioration or a loss of
character.
Harsh cleaning methods, such as sandblasting, can damage the h/storic materials,
make them vulnerable to moisture, accelerate deterioration and change their
appearance. Such procedures fire inappropriate.
rn If cleaning is necessary, a low pressure water wash is preferred. Chemical cleaning
may be considered ifa test patch is first conducted to determine safety.
rn Also see technical rehabilitation literature published by the National Park Service and
available through the Aspen Community Development Department.
14.10 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching, piecing-
in, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing the material.
c~ Avoid the removal of damaged materials that can be repaired.
c~ Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants. Epoxies and
resins may be considered for wood repair and spec/al masonry ~:epmr componems also
may be used.
14.11 Plan repainting carefully.
Note that frequent repainting of trim materials may cause a buildup of paint layers
that obscures architectural details. When this occurs, consider' stripping paint layers to
retrieve details. However, if stripping is necessary, use the gentlest means possible,
being careful not to damage architectural details and finishes.
m Remember good preparation is key to successful repalnting but also the buildup of old
paint is an important historic record of the building. The removal of old paint, by the
gentlest means possible, should be undertaken only if necessary ro the success of the
repainting. Remember that old paint is of very good quality and is enviable in today's
painting world.
Old paint may contain lead. Precautions should be taken when sanding or scrapxng is
necessary.
14.12 Provide a weather-protective finish to wood surfaces.
rn The rustic bare-wood look is nor a parr of the heritage of the h/storic districts or
i;ndividual landmark properties.
P193
~ P~mted surfaces are most appropriate. Stains may be accepted in combination with
materials that give a well-finished appearance. Use water seal ro preserve the porch
deck.
= Rustic finishes will not be approved.
14.13 Leave natural masonry colors unpainted where feasible.
Where the natural colors of building materials exist, such as with stone or brick, they
should be Ieft unpainted.
For other pans of the building that require painting, select colors that will
complement those of the natural materials.
~ If an existing building is already painted, consider applying new colors that simulate
the original brick color.
~ It is also appropriate ro strip the paint from a masonry, building ro expose the natural
color of the stone or brick.
14.16 Locate standpipes, meters and other service equipment such that they
will not damage historic facade materials.
~ Cutting channels into historic facade materials damages the historic building fabric
and is inappropriate. Do not locate eqmpment on the front facade.
~ If a channel must be cut. either locate it on a secondary facade, or place it Iow on the
wall.
P194
-.4o
<
_
P195
j
P196
P197 ...... l'
0
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF, P198
MAY 8, 2002
Michael relayed that the site itself works extremely well. Paul and Teresa
relayed that the process on this house worked very smoothly.
Jeffrey said that the applicant came in with an unassuming addition to the
historic resoin:ce and the board appreciates the effort put forth by the owner.
Gilbert said with the recommendations made by staff this project will be
exemplary.
MOTION: ,leffrey moved to approve Resolution #] 7. 2002, grantingfinal
approval and conditions for 323 rE Hallam Street, Lots D & E. Block 43,
City and Townsite of Aspen. Colorado: second by Michael. Motion carried
5-0.
7es yore: Michael, Paul, Teresa, ~/effrey, Gilbert
Rally recused himself on the yore.
629 W. SMUGGLER - FINAL REVIEW & VARIANCES -Pt{
Michael recused himself.
Amy informed the board that city council approved conceptual and the only
condition was that the applicant needed to deal with the variances with
regard to the garage at their final review. The City Attorney advised staff
that the review should be conducted under the terms of the new ordinance
which says that final is only about materials and by approving conceptual
we are tied and commhtted to the shape and mass and form of the addition.
The new ordinance is more permissive to applicants and when adopted we
need ro allow applicants to take advantage of it.
Steven St. Clair t~resented a materials book to staff and the HPC for review.
Amy informed the board the following:
1. The applicant intends to remove the aluminum siding on the historic
house and the representation is ro replace ir with hardy plank. If the
original siding is underneath every effort needs to be made to restore
it. If it is to be replace it should be replaced with/n-kind. The HPC
P199 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
NIA¥ 8. 2002
needs to decide whether hardy plank is an in-kind replacement or
cedar beveled siding.
2. Is there enough c f a distinction between the new and old construction.
We did ar conceptual discuss having a wider exposure o£the siding
on the addition than,is going ro be on the historic house and everyone
seemed ro be corf~ortable with that We need to determine that the
overall detailing is sufficiently different.
3. There is a proposal ro use vinyl windows in the new consn-uction and
typically we see either wood windows which we absolutely require on
the historic house or clad which is often used on the addition. We
need to discuss whether vinyl is an appropriate material.
4. The bigger issues that need dealt with are variances that related to the
construction of the garage along the alley. The board had discussions
about wanting to maintain a garage on the alley in the same side street
orientation that exists now. The board determined that the garage
should be free standing from the original house.
Variances required: HPC has the ability to grant setback variances
purely for the reason that ir is the most compatible arrangement with the
.~.- historic house. It maintains an exi. sring condition that sta£f feels that is
appropriate to grant The second is the residential design standard that
exists which disco~rages having garages face the street when they could
face an alley. Amy relayed that it is appropriate on this case because ir
maintains an existing condition. It is typical on historic houses to have a
garage right on the rear property line along the alley.
The third is a FAR bonus that is needed because usually when you have
a garage it is exempted from floor area calculations but not if it doesn't
come off the alley when you could do that.
The FAR bonus standards must apply. The first standard says the project
must meet all applicable design guidelines. Regarding criteria A,
because council granted conceptual we need to feel that all o£ the criteria
related to the basic mass and bulking are met and it is up to the HPC to
deterrrgne if the thnat details are met through our discussions tonight.
Criterion C has been met due to the restoration work that is being done
on the historic house. Cr/terion G has been met because there is another
historic outbuilding on the site that will be preserved as a small shed.
?200
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINIJTES OF.
MAY 8, 2002
Before granting an FAR bonus the HPC needs to determine and evaluate
whether it is the minimum variance required to achieve a good project..
1. Make the garage smaller.
2. Look into the idea of taking advantage of below grade space.
There ~s also a height variance needed. HPC is reviewing this yanance
in lieu of the Board of Adjustment. The garage building is 3'6" over the
height limit for an accessory building. Overall th/s is not a variance that
couldn't be avoided. There is nothing special about this sire or some
unique feature about this site. The plate height could also be lowered.
Steven St. Clair was sworn m.
Dave Myler, attorney
Dave Myler said they will remove the alum/hum siding and preserve what is
there if they can. The ~ssues ro be discussed are the hardy plank siding that
has durability and lasts longer than wood. The other issues are v/ny]
windows and the garage door design.
Amy said the design standards say for all residential buildings they need to
look like single stall doors. Steven St. Clair said they will change the
design to show a division m the center.
Dave Myler said the width of the boards and the different fascia treatments,
generally they feel that is a design issue that has been resolved.
Two basic variance issues are ar play here, one is the floor area itself and the
other is height.
Material discussion:
Dave Myler said if the board has strong feelings about not using the hardy
plank they are prepared to use the cedar.
Steven St. Clair said the ourbuilding is on the survey but not on the
architectural drawings but will remain on the sire. Sreven clariSed that the
doors will be
P201 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF:
MAY 8, 2002
exactly as drawn.
Amy clarified that there are concerns about some o£ the newer materials
have deterioration issues. Steven said he can get the specks on the windows
and they are of a higher grade.
Gilbert polled the board and they have no issues with the setback.
Dave Myler said he is looking at the FAR a little differently and not as a
typical request for an FAR bonus. If the garage doors face the alley they do
not need the bonus. The height limitation in the code does pose a practical
difficulty and our desire to minimize the floor area in the addition to the
principle stracmre. Allowing a variance on the garage is consistent with
previous actions that have been taken by the HPC (examples were hung up).
The applicants believe that the 3 ~/2 foot height variance in this case is the
minimum variance that would rnake possible the reasonable use of the
structure. We believe that sub-grade living space is not reasonable. It is not
desirable space and expensive for the applicant. Putting the apartment
· above the garage was at HPC's request. Frankly, reducing the size of the
garage or using below grade for the apartment does not work for the
applicant. -
Dave pointed out that the principle structure is about 18 feet and the garage
is 15 feet. The principle struct~rre is below the maximum allowed height on
the site.
Vice-chair, Gilbert Sanchez opened and closed the public hearing.
Commissioner comments:
Jeffrey said the garage element i~ taller than what we like ro see on the
property. Allowing the site variance should in fact make the connection
smaller, that is why we have the ability to give that type of variance. The
plate height in the garage maizes that two-story element just overwhelming
for that elevation. The west elevation is troubling. It is difficult for the
non-educated to understand where the new and old construction begins and
a material change and dimensions could differentiate and make that
P202
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF.
MAY 8, 2002
inflection successful Jeffrey said he had no problem with the hardy plank
and vinyl windows based on the applicant's presentation today.
Regarding the FAR bonus, it would not be needed if they rotate the garage
toward the alley.
Rally said regarding the vinyl windows, we would need to see a sample.
Rally does not support the hardy plank. One of the elements of old
buildings is seeing the wood grain of siding and that would be missing if
you did the house in hardy plank. It would make the house "too cusp"
looking. Regarding the FAR bonus, b,d and f, are nor complied with
The building materials do nor properly del/ne the old from the new.
The shake shingle siding in the gable ends further adds to the complexity of
being able to distinguish old from new. The garage height is too tall and
shows visual competition between the historic house and the garage. Rally
supports the orientation of the garage. The trim profiles of the windows
seem sim/lar if not identical to the historic windows and they should be
restudied.
Teresa dittoed the vinyl windows. She would support wood siding on the
historic house because ir adds so much to the historical veracity of it, rather
than trying ir make it into a reproduction. The. g.~age facing 6~h street is
acceptable but the height of the garage competes too much with the house
and because it is a secondary building there should be a g-rearer
differentiation in the height.
Paul said he could acc6pr the vinyl window if it was brought in to mate sure
the profiles and widths are suitable to the szze that a wooden window would
be. Paul had no problem w/th the hardy plank.
Gilbert said the hardy plank on the historic building does not comply with
the guidelines. The guidelines are very clear about that topic. In order for
additional FAR to be granted all of the guidelines should be satisfied,
especially on the historic house. Hardy plank on the addition is acceptable.
The treatment of the gables that Rally mentioned does confuse the style of
architecture. It would be better without the shingles. If that happens there
would be enough distinctions between old and new. The vinyl windows in
P203 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
MAY 8, 2002
the addition are OK as long as they are a satisfactory quality. The garage
door should tike two garage doors and comply with the guidelines.
The FAR could be granted if it met the requirements for additional FAR.
The height issues a difficult one. Gilbert said he appreciated the comments
from the applicant as to why the variance should be granted. The
requirements that we have to j~zdge this by, he agrees with Amy's analysis
and tl~ere are two/rems that do nor meet the ~riteria. Ali of the disc~ssions
that we had before and during Conceptual related ro the bulk and volume of
the addition. We were always concerned about mimrmzing that bulk and
volume of the addition. It might not be desirable ro locate space m a
basement or sub-grade space, in fact it is nor unreasonable and that is the
cnter/a that is stated (reasonable use). There are plenty of examples ali over
Aspen where lower grade space zs used. He could not grant the height
Variance.
Steven St. Clair, owner said they did a one-story cormector and the HPC
requested that they go back and redesign the living space above the garage
as long as ir was nor connected ro the house. At conceptual mass and form
were approved, height and shape. Mass and shape, according ro what we
looked into, ar final, are nor up for debate.
David Myler, said in terms of the criteria for the FAR bonus we disagree
that b,d and fhave not been satisfied. We feel they were satisfied by wrme
of the conceptual approval because they all relate to design issues.
The s/dinE size, differentiation and attempt ro distinguish between the old
and new was a design issues that we feel was approved ar conceptual and
binding. The detail in the eave of the garage is another design ~ssues that
were approved ar concepmaI.
We disagree with staff's analysis as ro the lack of any hardship or practica]
difficulty that are associated with this project. The practical difficulties are
pretty obvious in this case and are incurred almost exclusively m our
attempt to satisfy what we feel are very significant historic preservation
issues in terms of minimizing the size of the addition to the principle
structure.
7
P204
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF.
MAY 8~ 2002
$reven St Clair said when we were asked to detach the portion of the house
and raise the garage back up; obviously we would have never done that if
we thought we were going to be here today talking about a variance. We
wouldn't have raised it so we could come back to ali of you so you could
deny it.
Rally said he understood that form and mass were concepmallyapproved
and should we be talking about the height of the garage?
Amy stated yes because the council's approval specihcally did not include
any kind of variances or means by which the project was exceeding the
dimensionai requirements. That height of the garage is not contained in
council's conceptual approyal.
Gilbert said in fact if the form were only 3.6" lower it would comply and we
would not be here dj ;cussion this topic.
David Myler concurred that the variance was nor in front of council.
Conceptual approYal complies that the structural was acceptable to them
from a form and mass standpoint but it didn't consnmte a variance and that
is why we are here today. We find ourselves in a strange situation that we
don't need a FAR bonus if we mrn the garage~ hut we don'_r want to do that
but we are prepared to do so, You have the authority and discretion to apply
some degree of common sense and decide if there xs a dose issue on the
bonus criteria but you really want to see the garage doors open on Sixth
Ave. you have the discretion to say the FAR is ok and move onto the height.
Regarding the height there are different issues involved. We feel there are
practical difficulties that are not the fault of the applicant that are incurred
by strict application of these roles to our attempt ro do a better job
addressing historic preservation ~ssues on the main structure, and that
constitutes a hardship.
MOTION: Rally moved that the application .For review at 629 ~ Smuggler
be continued ro a date certain and answer the following questions ]-5 on
the memo presented in the packet, second by Teresa.
Discussion:
P205 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
MAY 8, 2002
Jeffrey felt that some of the issues could be handled b.y staff and monitor.
Issues #2 and #3 were eliminated.
Amy said #1 addressed the gable end. Gilbert said it also addresses the
siding issue.
Steven St. Clair said he could accept wood siding. He wants to work
through this and be done.
David Myler said they object restudying the gable ends because ir is not a
material issL~e it is a design issue, which we think has been resolved. We
are not going to agree to any of the items in 4 and 5.
Amy asked the applicant if the board grants final approval with all of the
normal conditions but wouldn't grant the variance that your intennon is ro
redesign and break down tl~e height of the garage and eliminate the need for
those variances? Steven St. Clair said no.
They do not want a motion that would not include the height variance.
Rally withdrew his motion and Teresa withdrew her second.
MOTION: Rally moved to recommend that resolution #J S, _£or final
application for 629 ~. Smuggler be granted with the following conditions
of approval, J -14 in the memo presented in the Facket; second by Teresa.
Motion denied 4-0.
?a~d abstained from voting.
}'es vote:
No vote: Teresa, Rally, Jeffrey, Gilbert
A motion will be made to identify which of the review standards were nor
met and why.
Amy said the findings could be focused around the five q~.~estions. Three of
those the board found that were not met 1,4,5.
~¥OTZON: Rally moved to make a motion to establish the firzdings by the
board regarding 629 FF. Sm,tggler:
9
P206
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
MAY 8, 2002
Guideline ]0.4 The submitted jvroposal does not satisfy the guidelines in
terms of lvroviding proper distinction between old and new.
]. The hardy fllank on the historic building does not meet the gzddelines.
2. There is some question about the qztality of the vinyl windows.
3. There is also concern about the architectural treatment of the gable
ends, specifically the finished materials.
4. Trim around the windows.
The guidelines for the FAR bonus are not met for a lot of reasons discussed
above concerning the material palate. The FAR bonus could be minimized
by moving the bedroom over the garage to a basement under the ne,v
addition, or by otherwise decreasing the FAR of the new addition to some
degree. Regarding the FAR bonus all review standards must be met.
The proposed ~ubmittal does not satisfy the height variance because it does
not satisfy all three of the criteria in section 26.3]4.040. Motion second by
Teresa. Motion carried 4-0.
~Zes yore:
No yore: Teresa. Rally, JeJfrey, Gilbert
320 W. MAIN STREET - HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT - PH
& VARIA_N CE-S
Suzarmah Reid and Michael Hoffman were seated at 6:45 p.m.
Amy relayed that the property is in the office zone district. Ir/the office
zone distr/ct the FAR is different depending on whether you have a house or
a commercial property. This particular lot is 9,000 square feet. There are
two large historic buildings on the lot that are associated with each other
and we haven't had an example before where that kind of property was m
for a lot split.
The property is considered mixed use because there is aresidence,
apartment, and an office in the building. The entire property is calculated as
commercial FAR which is .75 To one. The property is allowed 6,750 square
feet today but the HPC would have To approve anything that is being built.
The lot split would be divided equally in half with one remaining a
residence and the other building mixed use. There are FAR issues due to
the residential/mixed use which could be resolved one of two ways, either
l0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor IClanderud and Aspen City Council
THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director~
Cktis Bendon, Long Range Planner
FROM: Katie Ertmer. Long Range Planning Imem
RE: House Bill 0152-1006 Concerning the Mandatory Adoption of Local
Government Master Plans - Action Item
DATE: August 12, 2002
SUMMARY:
In the Second Extraordinary Session of 2001, the Colorado General Assembly passed
HB 0152-1006, requiring co-train municipalities and counties to adopt master plans,
also known as comprehensiv~ plans, for the development of their communities. The
bill specifically requires any murdcipality within Pitkin County to adopt a master
plan, and that the master plan "shall contain a recreational and tourism uses element."
The City of Aspen adopted the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) on
January 25, 2000 via the Planning and Zoning Resolution No. 2000-03 and the City
Council Resolution No. 12, Series of 2000 on February 28, 2000. The AACP
specifically addresses recreation and tourism concerns in Addendum A, the Action
Plan section.
The State does not require the development o£a new plan if existing plans address the
required elements. The state requires these elements, but does nor reqmre any
operational elements. Therefore, the proposed resolution does nor reference
recreational and tourist programs, land acquisition, capital improvements, or
marketing efforts of the City.
Staff recommends City Council find the Aspen Area Community Plan meets the
requirements outlined in HB 0152-1006 and declare that is in compliance as
outlined in Resolution No.... , Series of 2002.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Adoption of Resolution stating compliance with Iar~3 0152-1006, concerning the
adoption of master plans
STAFF COMMENTS:
The Colorado Leg/slature passed House Bill 0152-1006 on Novcnnber 6, 2001. Th.is
bill specifically requires certain counties to adopt master plans. Section 1, 30-28-106
(4) part (Il) (b) specifically mentions that Pitkin County "Shall adopt a master plan
w/thin two years after the effective date of this subsection (4)." Section 2, 31-23-206
Master Plan (4) (a) requires that "Each municipality that has a population of two
thousand persons or more and that is wholly or partially located in a County that is
P209
subject to the requirements of section 30-28-106 (4), shall adopt a master plan within
two years after the effective date of this subsection (4)"
Section 2, 30-23-106 (5) states that master plans "Shall contain a recreational and
tourism uses element pursuant to which the Municipality shall indicate how it intends
to provide for the recreational and tourism needs of residents of the Municipality and
visitors to the Municipality through delineated areas dedicated to, without limitation,
hiking, mountain biking, rock climbing, skiing, cross country skiing, rafting, fishing,
boating, hunting, and shooting, or any other form of sports or other recreational
activity, as applicable, and commercial facilities supporting such uses?
The City of Aspen has had different versions of a master plan in place since 1976.
The most recent version is the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). The goals
of the AACP address growth, affordable housing, transportation, economic
sustainability, open space and the environment, and community character.
Addendum A, the Action Plan section of the AACP, specifically addresses plans to
enhance recreation and tourism elements within the City of Aspen. The specific
language is outlined in the proposed resolution.
Staff believes that the City of Aspen has been in compliance with HB 01S2-1006,
since it was passed in 2001. The most recent version of the master plan, the 2000
Aspen Area Community Plan, was adopted by the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission's Resolution No. 2002-03 on January 25, 2000 and by City Council
Resolution No. 12, Series 2000 on February 28, 2000.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends City Council determine that the City of Aspen is in compliance
with HB 0I S2-1006 concerning the adoption of Master plans.
CITY MANAGER CO1VI2vlENTS:
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Resolution No. 75~, Series of 2002, declaring the City of Aspen
to be in compliance with the requirements of HB 01S2-1006 requiring a recreation
and tourism uses element in its master plan.'
ATTACttMENTS:
Exhibit A -- House Bill 01S2-1006
2
P210
RESOLUTION NO. ~ (SERIES OF 2002) ~
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL DECLARING A
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH HB 01S2-1006, CONCERNING THE
MANDATORY ADOPTION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT MASTER PLANS.
WHEREAS, in the Second Extraordinary Session of 2001, the Colorado General Assembly
passed HB 0IS2-I006, requinng certain municipalities and counties to adopt master plans, also
known as comprehensive plans, for the development of the/r communities; and
WHEREAS, HB 01 S2-1006 also requires that each such plan contain a "recreational and
tourism element," pursuant to which the municipality "shall indicate how it intends to provide
for the recreational and tourism needs of residents of the municipality and visitors to the
municipality t~ough delineated areas dedicated to, without limitation, hiking, mountain biking,
rock climbing, skiing, cross country skiing, ra~ng, fishing, boating, hunting, and shooting, or
any other form of sports or other recrdational activity, as applicable, and commercial facilities
supporting such uses;" and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen adopted a comprehensive plan, entitled Aspen Area Community
Plan on January 25, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, Asp en's plan addresses the recreation and tourism requircxment of HB 01 S2-1006
in th= following manner;
The Aspen Area Community Plan addresses the elements of recreation and tourism in the
following sections of Addendum A of the Aspen Area Community Plan, entitled Action Plan:
n 11. Downtown Enhanced Pedestrian Plan (DEPP)
Following the completion of the Down-town Enhanced Pedestrian Plan (DEPP) Pilot
Project, work with area business owners to complete the full implementation of the project.
r- 15. Work to Preserve Open Space
Study opporturfities to preserve parcels or portions of parcels identified in the
"Greenfrastructure Plan" to be undertaken by the Parks Department for future parks and
open space. Acquire properties along river corridors, including the Roaring Fork River, and
Maroon and Castle Creeks. Where needed, acquire properties to establish and enhance
"greenfrastmcture" and pedestrian access, including acquiring easements along river
corridors.
:~ 35. Aspen in-town transit service
Develop and implement a plan for ~mprovmg in-town transit service and reversing recent
declines in in-town rider ship. The plan should consider a variety of service improvements
and take into account traveler demand and net public cost per rider. Among the service
improvements that might be considered include:
· Relocating or adding bus stops where necessary.
Resolution of 2002
Page 1
P211
· Providing bus stop shelters and other amenities.
· Procuring new and better vehicles.
· Rurming the Hunter Creek bus service in both directions.
· Establishing an East End fixed-route service.
Extending the operating hours of the Galena Street Shuttle to serve evening and nighttime
travel destinations more effectively.
· Increasing the frequency and reliability of bus service to the Music Tent.
· Providing bus service to the Red Brick Arts Center and other places in the West End.
· Providing increased transit service to sporting, cultural and other special events.
· Providing or encouraging the private sector to provide vanpool, dial-a-ride, or other
forms of transit service to upper Red Mountain neighborhoods.
39. Transportation Data
Improve the ability of elected officials, staff and citizens fo understand transportation
problems and the effectiveness of solutions by collecting better data on local travel
patterns. For example, establish new and permanent traffic count locations and conduct
periodic scientific surveys oftraveI pattmms.
40. GIS Inventory of Sidewalks, Trails and Bike Routes
Create a GtS-based inventory of existing and proposed bikeways, b/ke storage facilities,
existing and proposed sidewalks, and other walkways and trails in the Aspen metro area.
The inventory can be used to develop a brochure/bicycle map of the Aspen area that
includes information on the Iocation of bicycle/transit interface points, bike shops, bicycle
parking, pavement types, etc.
[] 42. Preserve the Rio Grande Right of Way
Preserve the Rio Grande Railroad right-of-way as a transit and a pedestrian corridor within
the City of Aspen.
[] 43. Consider Other Innovative Transportation Modes
Continue to study the idea of cormecting skier facilities, residential areas, etc. via gondolas,
funiculars, aerial tramways and other non-automobile means.
[] 46. Greenfrastructure Plan
Develop a Comprehensive Map and Inventory of ali existing public property, trail
easements, and fishing easements including land trust properties and conservation easement
holdings. If possible, the map or maps should include areas of Aspen, Pitkin County,
Snowmass Village and (to the extent possible) down valley areas. The map, preferably
done on a GIS system, should be updated every 2-3 years. A comprehensive database
should be developed, keeping track of all conservation easements and open space parcels,
the beneficiaries of these, the date of purchase and intent of the acquisition, any
development stipulations, etc. These should be linked to the GIS map.
[] 47. Sixth Penny Ordinance
Study the impacts of revising the Sixth Penny Ordinance that prov/des funding for City
Parks, Trails and Open Space, to make it consistent with Pitkin County Open Space
Resolution of 2002
Page 2
P212
lan~o~aage. That language requires replacement of any converted park, open space or trail
interest with a comparable parcel of land.
n 48. Wagner and Iselin Parks Master Plans
Complete the Master Plans for Wagner Park and Iselin Park. Look at ways to continue
active use of the parks in development of the plan.
49. Increase Revenues to Support Recreational Operations
Study opportunities to increase revenues to support recreational operations including
increased user fees and other sources.
50. Promote Volunteer Involvement in Parks Maintenance
Organize "Volunteer Days" for parks and open space preservation and maintenance
projects.
56. Affordable Housing and Parks Partnerships:
· Ensure that parks and open space are available or are provided near development of
affordable housing, especially in areas of increased densities.
· When up-zoning for Affordable Housing, consider the pros and cons of deed restricting
those portions of the property that are to be preserved as open space.
Upon completion ora Master Plan for these individual sites which will identify where open
space should be preserved, deed restrictions should be placed on the property to ensure
these open spaces will be sterilized from future development, including ster/lization from
additional affordable housing.
[] 62. Quality of Transit Service in the Region
Improve transit service in the Roaring Fork Valley by increasing the speed, frequency,
reliability and attractiveness of transit service between and within valley communities.
[] 63. Visitor Use of Transit
Work with RFTA to increase visitor use of transit service, including service to and from
Glenwood Springs and other communities in the valley.
[] 64. Transit Passenger Safety and Experience
Work with RFTA to improve passenger safety and experience through the following kinds
of efforts:
· Procure transit vehicles that maximize the comfort of riders in order to encourage high
rates of use. For example, transit vehicles should have ample leg and shoulder room and
adequate reading lig_hts. Also, use of quieter and alternative-propulsion vehicles should
become standard.
· Develop guidelines for providing shelters, lighting and bicycle parking at transit stops.
· Improve carriage of bicycles on board transit vehicles and storage of bicycles at transit
stops.
· Improve storage of traveler items on transit vehicles and at transit stops.
· Consider dedicating a portion of paid parking revenue to improve transit stop conditions.
Resolution of 2002
Page 3
P213
65. Traveler Information
Improve travelers' experience by providing local travel information at bus stops, on the
Intemet, through brochures, etc. Reduce travel by visitors in automobiles through support
of innovative traveler services. Develop means to provide real-time information on transit
service and road conditions to travelers in the Roaring Fork Valley: Conduct a study of
methods to transferring and checking luggage through from the airport to hotels. Improve
the quality and availability of information on travel options (i.e., transit, lodge shuttles,
walking, bicycling, etc.) provided to visitors both before and after arrival in Aspen. Provide
information to visitors in multiple languages and using international symbols.
67. Parks Advisory Board
Explore the creation ora City of Aspen Parks, Open Space, Trails & Natural Resources
Advisory Board.
rn 72. Improve Commercial Air Service tO Aspen and Pitkin County
Study opportunities to improve customer service and the quality of air service consistent
with the Airport Plan recently adopted by Pitkin County. Work with the airport
management staff to determine problems and opportunities for solutions. Quality air
service is critical to our economy.
r~ 74. Update Aspen Waikwa¥ and Bikeway System Plan
Update and revise the Aspen Walkway and Bikeway System Plan to include the following:
,, Completed or proposed changes to the bikeway and walkway network since 1990.
· Policies and an action plan for improving bicycle storage at or near employment and
other activity sites throughout the Aspen metro area.
· Better integration of bicycles and transit.
· Bicycle and Pedestrian Level-of-Service (LOS) standards.
· More in-depth consideration of pedestrian access to transit.
· Traffic calming recommendations.
· Establishment ora more-definite timetable for completion of projects.
Identification of more-specific project funding sources.
~ 75. Improve the Bikeway System
Improve bicycle path directness, inter-cormectivity, and safety through the following:
Conduct an inventory of locations where bikeways are discontinuous, indirect or poorly
maintained.
· Develop an action plan to remedy bikeway deficiencies.
Implement the trail improvements outlined in the Trail System Refinement Report for the
Entrance to Aspen.
Implement the trail components of the Roarin~ Fork Greenway Plan (i.e., specifically
between Heron Park and the area around the Ute Children's Park).
rn 76. Study a "Free Bike" Program
Study the development of a program to provide a fieet of "free-use" bikes in Aspen.
Q 77. Improve Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety and Security
Resolution of 2002
Page 4
P214
Where needed, improve bicycle safety through improved signage, striping, shrub
maintenance, and education. Evaluate Aspen street comers to determine if parked cars,
shrubs or other objects hinder the ability of motorists to see pedestrians ~d vice versa.
Study the feasibility and need to increase the availability of secure bicycle parking (racks
and lockers). Study the feasibility of establishin~ a d'edicated ~r!dlhg source (i.e., budget
line item) for bicycle facility maintenance and improvements.
rn 78. Improve Pedestrian Infrastructure
Look for opportunities to improve the pedest25an infrastructure to encourage walking. For
example:
· Develop an action plan for sidewalk additions and improvements.
· Improve crosswalk conditions at the intersection of Main and Mil1 St?ets (including
reestablishing the four-second "head start" for pedestrians).
· Improve crossing conditions at appropriate locations along Main Street to enable safer
and more convenient travel by foot through town.
· Improve pedestrian crossing cpnditions on Highway 82 at TmscotX/GolfCourse.
· Improve pedestrian crossing conditions on Highway 82 at Buttermilk.
· Improve pedestrian crossing conditions on Highway 82 at 8th Street.
,,Improve east-west pedeslrian travel conditions in the West End ~gugh the addition of a
walkway that is detached from the street or that provides some separation between people
and moving traffic.
,,Install a sidewalk on the south side of Puppy Smith Street.
· Install a sidewalk on Red Mountain Road, if feasible.
· Clean up the Aspen alleys for easier and more pleasant use by pedestrians.
· Install a truck alley/pedestrian way on the north side of Wagner Park (to be consistent
with the proposed master plan for Wagner Park).
80. Complete Community Trail System
Complete community trail systems such as: the Benedict/Roaring Fork R/ver Trail from
Herron Park to the Aspen Club, and the Shadow Mountain Trail.
81. Improve Public Access to Parks and Recreation
Improve public 'access to and information about parks and recreation facilities through
brochures and signage programs.
r~ 83. Increase Rates of Carpool and Vanpool Use
Maintain and improve the appeal of carpools and vanpools for a wide variety of trip types
through expanded ride matching, outreach and education.
a 99. Improve the Pedestrian Experience and Streetscape on Main Street
In conjunction with ongoing transportation planning projects on Main Street, improve the
pedestrian experience and streetscape.
WHEREAS, the following sections are Completed Action Items in Addendum A of the Aspen
Area Commun/ty Plan:
Resolution of 2002
Page 5
P215
r~ A. Future Land Use Map
This land use map will formalize the Community Growth Boundaries, identify what land
uses and densities are anticipated in the Aspen metro area, and identify parks and open
space parcels that are important to preserve and which should be maintained and/or
acquired. This futare land use map will provide a vision and guide for future land use
decisions in the Aspen metro area and depict what the community can expect to look like in
2020.
ca D. Open Space Replacement Property
Study and evaluate the idea of revising the city's Sixth Penny Ordinance to require that
replacement property be established prior to an election for trading of open space. Study
the benefits and costs of identifying the replacement parcel in the ballot language. The
intention of identifying the parcel would be to help the electorate in evaluating the benefit
of the conversion or replacement interest.
WHEREAS, the Aspen Area Commfinity Plan references the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan and
the Trails Master Plan; and,
WHEREAS, this information provided in th~ City of Aspen's existing plan describes how the
City of Aspen intends to provide for the recreational and tourism needs of both res/dents of the
City of Aspen and visitors to the City of Aspen.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, that:
The City of Aspen hereby finds and declares that it is in compliance with the requirements of liB
01S2-1006 requiring a recreation and tourism element in its master or comprehensive plan.
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of ,2002.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
City Attorney Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Resolution of 2002
Page 6
EXZ4IBITA P216
CHAPTER 5
GOVERNMENT - LOCAL
HOUSE BILL 01 S2-1006 [Digest]
BY REPRESENTATIVE(S) Stengel, Dean, Kester, Larson, Lawrence, Mace, Miller, Scott,
Stafford, and Webster;
also SENATOR(S) Pedmutter, Gordon, Hagedom, Link. hart, Pascoe, Tate, and Windels.
AN ACT
CONCERNING THE MANDATORY ADOPTION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
MASTER PLANS.
£e it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado:
SECTION 1. 30-28-I06, Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended BY THE ADDITION OF
THE FOLLOWING NEW SUBSECTIONS to read:
30-28-106. Adoption of master plan - contents. (4) (a) EACH COUNTY THAT HAS NOT
ALREADY ADOPTED A MASTER PLAN AND THAT MEETS ONE OF THE FOLLOWTNG
DESCRIPTIONS SHALL ADOPT A MASTER PLAN WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SUBSECTION (4):
(I) EACH COUNTY OR CITY AND COUNTY THAT HAS A P~OPULATION EQUAL
TO OR GREATER THAN TEN THOUSAND AND THE POPULATi0iq ~)F WHICH HAS
DEMONSTRATED AN INCREASE OF EITHER:
(A) TEN PERCENT OR MORE DURING THE CALENDAR YEARS 1994 TO t999; OR
(B) TEN PERCENT OR MORE DURING ANY FIVE*YEAR PERIOD ENDING IN 2000
OR ANY SUBSEQUENT YEAR;
P217
(II) EACH COUNTY OR CITY AND COUNTY THAT HAS A POPULATION OF ONE
HUNDRED THOUSAND OR MORE.
(b) TO THE EXTENT THE COUNTY DOES NOT MEET A DESCRIPTION SPECIFIED
IN SUBPARAGRAPH (I) OR (II) OF PARAGRAPH (a) OF THIS SUBSECTION (4), THE
COUNTIES OF CLEAR CREEK, GILPIN, MORGAN, AND PITKIN SHALL ADOPT A
MASTER PLAN WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS
SUB SECTION (4).
(c) THE DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS SHALL ANNUALLY DETERMINE,
BASED ON THE POPULATION STATISTICS MAINTAINED BY SAID DEPARTMENT,
WHETHER A COUNTY IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION
(4), AND SHALL NOTIFY ANY COUNTY THAT IS NEWLY IDENTIFIED AS BEING
SUBJECT TO SAID REQUIREMENTS. ANY SUCH COUNTY SHALL HAVE TWO
YEARS FOLLOWING RECEIPT OF NOTIFICATION FROM THE DEPARTMENT TO
ADOPT A MASTER PLAN.
(d) ONCE A COUNTY IS IDENTIFIED AS BEING SUBJECT TO THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION (4), THE COUNTY SHALL AT ALL TIMES
THEREAFTER REMAIN SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION (4),
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT CONTINUES TO MEET ANY OF THE DESCRIPTIONS
IN PARAGRAPH (a) OF THIS SUBSECTION (4).
(5) A MASTER PLAN ADOPTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THIS SUBSECTION (5) SHALL CONTAIN A RECREATIONAL AND TOURISM USES
ELEMENT PURSUANT TO WHICH THE COUNTY SHALL INDICATE HOW IT INTENDS
TO PROVIDE FOR THE RECREATIONAL AND TOURISM NEEDS OF RESIDENTS OF
THE COUNTY AND VISITORS TO THE COUNTY THROUGH DELINEATED AREAS
DED%CATED TO, WITHOUT LIMITATION, HIKING, MOUNTAIN BIKING, ROCK
CLIMBING, SKIING, CROSS COUNTRY SKIING, RAFTING, FISHING, BOATING,
HUNTING, SHOOTING, OR ANY OTHER FORM OF SPORTS OR OTHER
RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY, AS APPLICABLE, AND COMMERCIAL FACILITIES
SUPPORTING SUCH USES.
SECTION 2. 31-23-206, Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended BY THE ADDITION OF
THE FOLLOWING NEW SUBSECTIONS to read:
31-23-206. Master plan. (4) (a) EACH MUNICIPALITY THAT HAS A POPULATION
OF TWO THOUSAND PERSONS OR MORE AND THAT IS WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY
LOCATED IN A COUNTY THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION
30-28-106 (4), C.R.S., SHALL ADOPT A MASTER PLAN WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SUBSECTION (4).
(b) THE DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS SHALL ANNUALLY DETERMINE,
BASED ON THE POPULATION STATISTICS MAINTAINED BY SAID DEPARTMENT,
WHETHER A MUNICIPALITY IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS
P218
SUBSECTION (4), AND SHALL NOTIFY ANY MUNICIPALITY THAT IS NEWLY
IDENTIFIED AS BEING SUBJECT TO SAID REQUIREMENTS. ANY SUCH
MUNICIPALITY SHALL HAVE TWO YEARS EOLLOWING RECEIPT OF
NOTIFICATION FROM THE DEPARTMENT TO ADOPT A MASTER PLAN.
(¢) ONCE A MUNICIPALITY IS IDENTIFIED AS BEING SUBJECT TO THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION (4), THE MUNICIPALITY SHALL AT ALL
TIMES THEREAFTER REMAIN SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS
SUBSECTION (4), REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT CONTINUES TO MEET THE
CRITERIA SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPH (a) OF THIS SUBSECTION (4).
(5) A MASTER PLAN ADOPTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THIS SUBSECTION (5) SHALL CONTAFN A RECREATIONAL AND TOURISM USES
ELEMENT PURSUANT TO WHICH THE ivlITNICIPALITY SHALL INDICATE HOW IT
INTENDS TO PROVIDE FOR THE RECREATIONAL AND TOURISM NEEDS OF
RESIDENTS OF THE MUNICIPALITY AND VISITORS TO THE MUNICIPALITY
THROUGH DELINEATED AREAS DEDICATED TO, WITHOUT LIMITATION, HIKING,
MOUNTAIN BIKING, ROCK CLIMBING, SKIING, CROSS COUNTRY SKIING,
RAFTING, FISHING, BOATING, HUNTING, AND SHOOTING. OR ANY OTHER FORM
OF SPORTS OR OTHER RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY, AS APPLICABLE, AND
COMMERCIAL FACILITIES SUPPORTING SUCH USES.
SECTION 3. Effective date. This act shall take effect at 12:01 a.m, on the day following
the expiration of the ninety-day period after 15hal adjournment of the general assembly that is
allowed for submitting a referendum petition pursuant to article V, section 1 (3) of the state
constitution; except that, ifa referendum petition is filed against this act or an item, section,
or part of this act within such period, then the act. item, section, or part, if approved by the
people, shall take effect on the date of the official declaration of the vote thereon by
proclamation of the governor.
Approved: November 6, 2001
Capital letters indicate new material added to existing statures; dashes through words indicate
deletions fi.om existing statutes ~d such material not part of act.
The City offls~e~l
Memorandum CiL','fllZorne¥ JOffice
TO: Mayor and Members of Council
FROM: John P. Worcester
DATE: August 12, 2002
RE: Proposed Ballot Questions for November Election * Charter Amendment for Publication Requirements for Ordinances
* Sale of City Property to Facilitate Obermeyer Project
* Trolley Question
Attached for your review and consideration are a muuber of proposed resolutions thal if
approved would refer to the voters certain ballot questions for the November Special Election.
Ail ballot questions should be completed by the end of August as the City Clerk ~s required to
submit ali City questions to the County Clerk in early September.
Resolution for Charter Amendment - The first resolutibn would refer to the voters a proposed
ordinance that would amend the City Charter by changing the publication requirements for the
adoption of ordinances by the City Council. The ordinance itself with the proposed changes and
a memorandum ~om the City Clerk have been included on the agenda for your consideration and
approval at Council's meeting of August 12, 2002.
Resolution for Sale of City Property to Facilitate Obermeyer Prqiec_r. - The next resolution
would refer to the voters a ballot question seeking voter approval ro selI or otherwise dispose of
certain out lots in the Rio Grande Subdivision to facilitate the completion of the proposed
Obermeyer project. Please note that the authority to dispose of the City properzy is contingent
upon City Council granting final land use approvals for the project before December 31, 2005. In
other words, the authority to convey the City property runs out on December 31,2005, if Council
does nor grant final land use approval for the use of the property by that date.
Resolution for Trolley Question - The third resolution would refer to the voters a ballot question
regarding the future of the City-owned trolleys. The resolution also authorizes the City Manager
to execute a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Aspen Street Railway
Company that attempts to clarify some of the terms and conditions of the ballot question.
P221
All three of these resolutions have been placed on your agenda for the meeting of the 12th of
August. Should additional discussion or work on the ballot questions be necessary following
your meeting on the 12th of the proposed resolutions, they can be considered again at your
meeting on the 26th of August.
JPW-07 31/2002-G: john\~yord\memos\ballot-res-mem.doc
P222
RESOLUTION NO. ~ (Series of 2002)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORATE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN A CERTAIN
QUESTION RELATING TO THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE
CITY OF ASPEN HOME RULE CHARTER CHANGING THE PUBLICATION
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY
COUNCIL.
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Home Rule Charter
requirement that ordinances be published in full has proven to be a great expense to the
City of Aspen without appreciably providing a good method for informing the public of
proposed legislation before the ~ity Council; and
WHEREAS, Section 13.10 of the Home Rule Charter authorizes the City Council
to propose amendments to the City Charter in accordance with the State Constitution; and
WHEREAS, the State Constitution requires that Home Rule Charter amendments
be made by the adoption of an ordinance and thereafter approved by the voters; and
WHEREAS. the City Council has adopted on first reading an ordinance to amend
the Aspen Home Rule City Charter and desires to refer to the voters a ballot question
seeking voter approval of the proposed amendment.
NOW, tHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
The following question, seeking voter approval of Ordinance No. , Series of
2002. shall be placed on the ballot at the City's special election to be held on November 5,
2002; provided, however, that Ordinance No. , Series of 2002. is duly adopted by the
City Council.
P223
AMENDMENT TO CITY OF ASPEN HOME RULE CHARTER
Shall Ordinance No. , Series of 2002, be adopted? This ordinance proposes to
amend the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter by changing the requirement for the
full text publication of ordinances and instead allow for proposed and adopted
ordinances.to be published by title only.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the __ day of_ ,2002.
Helen Kalin Klandemd~ Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the
City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
JPW-07/31/2002-G:\john\word\resos\ballot02-¢harter-amend.doc
P224
RESOLUTION NO.
(Series of 2002)
A RESOLUTION OF TJ:LE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORATE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN A CERTAIN
QUESTION RELATING TO THE CONVEYANCE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT
THE NOVEMBER 5, 2002. SPECLAL MUNIC~ ELECTION, AND SETTING SUCH
BALLOT TITLE AND QUESTION.
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to ask the electors of the City of Aspen for
authorization to convey certain City-owned our lots in the Rio Grande Subdivision
facilitate the redevelopment ofpropemy in the SCI zone district commonly referred to as the
"Obermeyer Project"; and
WHEREAS, Section 13.4 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter requires voter
approval for the sale, exchange or disposition ofreaI estate m use for public purposes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. THAT:
Section 1.
The following question, seeking authorization to sell, exchange or dispose of certain
City-owned property, shall be placed on the ballot at the City's special election to be held on
November 5, 2002.
SALE OF CITY OWNED LAND FOR OBERMEYER PROJECT
Shall the City Council of the City of Aspen be authorized to sell, exchange, convey
or otherwise dispose of lots 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Rio Grande Subdivision, comprising
a total of approximately 0.32 acres, to facilitate the redevelopment of property in the
SCI Zone District adjacent to the southern border of the Rio Grande Park
(commonly known as the Obermeyer Project); provided, however, that the City
Council pants final iand use approval for all proposed redevelopment plans on or
before December 31, 2005.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen
on the day of ., 2002.
P225
Helen Kalin Klandemd, Mayor
I, Katkryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
fdregoing is a true and accztrate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the
City o£Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day here~above stated.
Katl-n-yn S. Koch, City Clerk
JpW-OS/O2/2OO2-G:\john\word\resos\ballotO2-obermeyer doc
P226
DRAFT 8/2/02
RESOLUTION NO.
(Series of 2002)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORATE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN A CERTAE'q
QUESTION AT THE NOVEMBER 5, 2002, SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION, AND
SETTING SUCH BALLOT TITLE AND QUESTION.
WHEREAS, the City Cotmcil desires to ask the electors of the City of Aspen for
authorization to continue ownership of certain trolley cars and to continue cooperating with
the Aspen Street Railway Company, a non-profit corporation established by Aspen citizens
to refurbish said trolley cars and re-introduce their use along City right-of-ways; and
WHEREAS, Section 5.7 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter authorizes the
City Council to submit any question to a vote of the people.
NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. THAT:
Section 1.
The following question, seeking authorization to continue ownership of certain
trolley cars and to continue City cooperation with the Aspen Street Railway Company
introduce the use of trolley cars hi the City's right-of-way, shall be placed on the ballor at
the City's special election to be held on November 5, 2002.
TROLLEY CARS
Shall the City of Aspen continue [o own certain trolley cars and continue
cooperate with the Aspen Street Railway Company ("ASRC"), a non-profit
corporation established by Aspen citizens to refurbish said trolley cars and introduce
their use along City right-of-ways, provided that:
·The trolley cars are refurbished and the requisite tracks are built at
an estimated cost of $5.5 million at no public expense:
· l'he trolleys do not require overhead wires and shall have on-board,
self contained power to operate;
P227
· The proposed route of the trolley system shall be approx/mately
fi.om the Rube¥ Park transit center, down Galena Street. loopina
_aro~md the Rio Grande Park, and ending in the vicinity of the Post
plaza;
· Any trolley barn or storage and maintenance facility with all
necessary equipment is constructed at the be.oinning of the Pdo
Grande trail adiacent to the Post Office at no public expense;
· Prior to the start of any construction, ASRC posts a completion bond
in a sum sufficient to cover the total anticipated capital costs of the
trolley system;
· The City is satisfied that the operational costs of the proposed trolley
system are equal to or less than the total costs for operatLng that
portion Of the current Galena Street shuttle that it replaces;
· The City provides the use Of the land necessary to accommodate a
trolley barn or storage and maintenance facility deemed necessary
for the successful operation of the trolley system; and
· The City assumes ali operational costs upon acceptance of the
trolley system.; and
· The trolley system complies in all respects with the Americans
With Disabilities Act.
And, provided further, that the City Manager is authorized to dispose of the
trolley cars and cease cooperation with ASRC in the event that ASRC is unable to
complete the following task by the deadlines set forth:
ASRC shall, at their sole cost, prepare requisite engineering and
operational analysis for the construction and operation of the
proposed trolley system as needed for the safe and efficient
operation of the system and as necessary to obtain ail requisite
permits and approvals on-or before December 31, 2003;
· ASRC shall, at their sole cost, raise sufficient funds to pay for the
cost of refurbish/ng the trolley cars, lay trolley tracks on City right-
of-ways, and construct all attendant facilities required to operate and
maintain the trolley system on or before December 31, 2006; and
· ASRC shall, at their sole cost, complete all construction for the
trolley system <>nor before October 31, 2008.
YES
NO
P228
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen
on the day of ,2002.
Helen Kalin Klanderud, 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 b. eld on the day hereinabove stated.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
JPW-08/02/2002-G:\john\wordYesos\ballot02-trolley.doc
P229
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
THE ASPEN STREET RAILWAY COMPANY
AND
THE CITY OF ASPEN
TH]iS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING entered into at Aspen, Colorado. this
day of ., 2002, by and between the
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, a municipal corporation and home-rule city I"hereina£ter
"City"), and THE ASPEN STREET RAILWAY COMPANY, a Colorado not-for-profit
corporation (hereinafter "ASRC").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City is the owner of certain trolley cars and rights-of-way m the City of
Aspen; and
WHEREAS, ASR.C desires to refurbish said trolley cars and re-introduce their use along
rights-of-way within the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen has agreed to submit a question to the
voters of the City that seeks authorization to continue to own the said trolley cars and to continue
cooperating with ASRC to re-introduce their use in Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the ballot question, in an effort to keep its [ength as short as possible,
contains terms and conditions that may require clarity in their interpretation and implementation
in the future.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows with respect to the terms and
conditions of said ballot question:
1. City Council's decision to refer to the voters of the City of Aspen the ballot
question referenced herein shall not be construed or interpreted by ASCR or any third party to be
a binding determination by the City Council to proceed in any particular fashion with respect to
the construction of a trolley system in the City of Aspen. The ballot question is advisory in nature
and shall not obligate the City or ASCR to proceed in any particular fashion. By entering this
Memorandttm of Understanding, the City Council does not hereby relinquish any of its plenary
legislative discretion in any respect. Approval by the voters of the ballot question referenced
above shall not waive any land use, permits or approvals required for the proposed trolley
system.
2. ASCR has agreed to refurbish the trolley cars. The refurbishment of the trolley
cars shall be to a condition that is acceptable to the City in its sole discretion. The number of
trolley cars to be refurbished shall be sufficient in number to operate a trolley system in an.
P230
efficient and economical manner. The City shall have the sole discretion to determine what is an
efficient and economical manner for operating and maintaining a trolley system.
3. The ballot question indicates that no overhead wires shall be required to operate
the trolley syszem. "No overhead wires" includes ali appurtenant and accessory equipment or
machinery (other than tracks and trolley cars, s~gnage and building(s) at the terminus of the
system) in the public rights-of-way or visible within the public rights-of-way.
4. Before any engineering and operational analysis are accepted by the City as
contemplated in the ballot question, the specific route and all accessory building(s) (including
maintenance and storage strucmres3 proposed to be used by the trolley system shall be identified
with specificity sufficient to prepare competitive bids for their construction.
5. The completion bond referenced in the ballot question shall include performance,
payment and maintenance bonds each in an amount specified in contract documents used to
construct the trolley system as security for the faithful performance and payment of ali
construction contractors engaged to construct the trolley system. The City shall approve all bonds
required by this section. These bonds shall be in effect until the work of constructing the trolley
system is complete except for the maintenance bonds that shall remain in effect for a period of
two years from the date of project completion.
6 The completion bond referenced in the ballot shall aisc include an agreement from
ASRC to indemnify and hold harmless the City for any liability, claims, and demands on accoum
of illness, personal injury, death or proper~y loss occasioned by the construction of the trolley
system. ASRC shall secure insurance sufficient to insure against all liability and obligations
assumed by ASRC by this paragraph. The City shall approve the amount and insurer.
7. The City shall have the authority to approve all contract documents and the
contractors selected to construct the trolley system.
8. The ballot question contains a condition that the operational costs of the proposed
trolley system shall not exceed the operational costs of the currem Galena Street Shuttle.
Whether the proposed trolley system's operational costs exceed the cum'em Galena Street Shuttle
shall be in the sole discretion of the City Council using the 2002 fiscal year operating costs of the
Galena Street Shuttle adjusted by the Consumer Price Index (All Urban Consumers (CPI-U),
U.S. City Average, Ali Items (1967 = I00) compiled by the United States Department of La~)or,
Bureau of Labor Statistics) for the year in which the proposed trolley system is proposed to begin
operation. ~Operationai costs" shall include, but not be necessarily limited to, persom~el
expenses, maintenance, utility and overhead expenses, and depreciation of the trolley cars,
buildings, and tracks used by the system.
9. The ballot question indicates that the City shall provide the use of the land
necessary to accommodate any trolley barn or storage and maintenance facility needed by the
trolley system. The parties hereto agree that the donation of City land is specifically conditional
upon the parties' being able to mutually a~ee upon the proper site for such sm~cmres. In
P231
addition, ASRC acknowledges that pursuant to the Aspen City Charter certain lands owned by
the City may require voter approval to change their cra-rent use.
10. The ballot question requires ASRC to raise sufficient funds to pay for the costs of
refurbishing the trolley cars, lay tracks on City rights-of-way, and construct all attendant facilities
required to operate and maintain the trolley system by a date certain. For purposes of that
provision of the ballot question, "raise" shall mean ftmds that are on deposit in an ASRC bank
account and available for distribution to ASRC, or funds represented by legally binding and
irrevocable donor pledges to ASRC pursuant to pledge a=m-eements approved by the City
Attorney, or the corresponding bid of in-kind contributions of materials or labor to the
completion of the trolley system that are approved by the City, or a ~ombination of such funds.
Whether or not ASRC has, or has not, raised sufficient funds shall be in the sole discretion of the
City Council.
11. The ballot question contains language regarding the proposed route of the trolley
system and the ~oropoSed location of a barn and storage faci}ity. The parties hereto understand
that the exact route of the trolley system and location of any barn and storage facility shall be
determined by the City Council, in its sole discretion, at such time that final desima of the system.
is approved,
1_2¢. The parties hereto acknowledge that the terms of this Memorandum of
Understanding is not intended to be a binding contract and shall not be interpreted by the parties
hereto or third parties as such. It is merely a document that attempts to clarify the intent of the
parties with respect to the language of tl~e ballot question referenced above.
WI-tEREFORE, the parties, through their duly attthorized representatives, have executed
this Memorandum of understanding upon the dates as forth herein.
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
By:
Steve Barwick, City Manager
ASPEN STREET RAILWAY COMPANY
By:
Title:
LAW OFFICES
FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE
IN ASPEN COLOKADO 106 SOUTH MILL STREET FRE, ILIC~, Lrrrl~R & CAItUSLE
OAV~ ~'. MYI,IiK I'.C. ' SUITE 202 ^TTOP..WEys AT LAW
E. ~nc:ta~. aOn;M~ ' AS?EN. COLORADO $1611 ~oB~ ~ F~c~ ~.c. ~'
(970) 920-1018
July 31, 2002
Honorable Helen Klanderud, Mayor
and The Aspen City Council Hand Delivered
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Appeal by Steven St. Clair ora decision of the Historic Preservation Commission
relating to 629 W. Smuggler in the City of Aspen
Ladies and Gentlemen:
In anticipation of a hearing in the above-referenced matter on August 12, 2002, I am
submitting this letter on behalf of Steven St. Clair to provide the City Council with background
information, a general statement of our reasons for appeal and the basis upon which such an appeal
should be granted.
In January of 2001, Mr. St. Clair purchased the property at 629 W. Smuggler and began a
process to remodel and enlarge the historic structure located thereon. It has been and continues to
be his intent and desire to preserve the integrity and character of the historic structure. But as is too
often the case, the devil lurks in the details.
Mr. St. Clair spent a little over nine months working with the Aspen Historic Preservation
Commission (the "HPC") on conceptual (albeit quite detailed) plans for the renovation of the historic
structure and a two-story addition. That process resulted in a denial of his. conceptual plan by the
HPC on August 8, 2001. That denial was appealed to the Aspen City Council. On November 26,
2001, the City Council found that the decision of HPC denying the conceptual application was
arbitrary and capricious. The City Council reversed the action of the HPC and, in effect, granted
conceptual approval for the last version of the conceptual plan that had been before the HPC at the
time of denial.
FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE
Honorable Helen Klanderud, Mayor
July 31, 2002
Page 2
That plan envisioned a two-story addition to the south side of the historic structure containing
approximately 1300 square feet and the reconstruction of a detached garage with a second story
bedroom and bath. A rendering of that plan, which was reviewed by the City Council at the
November 26, 2001 heating, is attached.
Following conceptual approval, Mr. St. Clair filed an application with the I-IPC for final
approval of his development plans. Those final plans were identical to the ones that were reviewed
by the City Council and found to be consistent with the historic preservation guidelines. In order
to accommodate concerns and desires ~xpressed by the HPC during the conceptual review, the final
plans and design also included a request for a floor area bonus and minOr variances.
On May 8, 2002, the HPC denied Mr. St. Clalr's application for final approval, den/ed the
request for a floor area bonus and denied the requeSt for a height variance. All of those denials were
arbitrary, capricious and not supported by the evidence.
Virtually all of the reasons for den/al of the application itself had to do with design features
that had been incorporated into the conceptual plans, carried over to the final plans, and thus already
approved. The HPC simply ignored the prior approval and den/ed the final plans because they did
not conform to the highly subjective vision that the City Council had previously rejected. And, as
if to underscore their capriciousness in this case, the HPC cited as one of the reasons for den/al of
the final plans, the fact that Mr. St. Clair requested the ability to substitute Hardy Plank for natural
wood siding on the proposed addition. The request for the substitution was made with the caveat
that it would be withdrawn if it was unacceptable to the HPC. Mr. St. Clair made it abundantly clear
that, although he preferred the more durable material, he was willing to use natural wood if that is
what the HPC wanted. Apparently, the mere request for a substitution of materials was enough of
an affront to the HPC's sensibilities to warrant den/al.
A floor area bonus was requested in this case because the HPC preferred that the doors of the
detached garage open directly onto Smuggler Avenue rather than on the alley to the south of the lot.
If the garage were to be designed so that the doors opened onto the alley, no floor area bonus would
have been needed in this case. The combined floor area of the principal and accessory structures is
less than the maximum allowed as long as the garage doors open on the alley. The City's Land Use
Regulations provide for a floor area penalty for garages that open on to a street thus necessitating the
application for the bonus, an application that the HPC had previously encouraged.
Admittedly, Mr. St. Clair prefers to have the garage doors open onto Smuggler as well. And
we believe, as does HPC's staff, that the criteria for a floor area bonus has been satisfied in this case
and that it should be granted. Nevertheless, Mr. St. Clair is willing, and so expressed to the HPC,
to reorient the garage to avoid the issue.
FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE
Honorable Helen Klanderud, Mayor
July 31, 2002
Page 3
As with the floor area bonus, a height variance was requested in order to accommodate the
desires of the HPC to minimize the flq0r area and thus the size of the proposed addition to the
hiStoric structure in order that the addition WoUld apPe~ Sub6rdinate to that Structure. After several
attempts to address this issue, the plan that emerged; the plan that best preserved the integrity of the
historic structure and best satisfied the City's historic preservation goals and criteria call for a
detached garage with a second story bedroom/bath. As an accessory structure on the rear one-third
of a lot, the height limit for the garage is twelve (12) feet. In order to accommodate the second story
bedroom, a height of fifteen feet six inches (15'6") feet is required.~
This project is not the first and probably won't be the last to seek relief from the height
restrictions in order to achieve other important public benefits. The practical difficulties in this case
which justify a variance are caused by an overriding desire on the part of both the landowner and the
community to satisfy historic preservation criteria. Without the ability to obtain a variance, an
otherwise sensible approach to the balancing of important community objectives may not be
possible. In order to reenforce this position, we will provide examples of other structures in the West
End where living areas have been constructed above garages in excess of the height limits otherwise
applicable to accessory structures.
Minor setback variances were also requested in order to replace the existing garage in its
present location. In addition, a variance from the Residential Design Standards was requested in
order for the gable end of the new garage (along with the doors) to face Smuggler. These variance,
with conditions that were acceptable to Mr. St. Clair, were supported by staff and, although not acted
upon, were acceptable to the HPC and thus are not at issue in this appeal.
In conclusion, we do not believe that the HPC was able to objectively evaluate Mr. St. Clair's
final plans. We believe, as did the City Council in its previous action, that his plans for 629 W.
Smuggler satisfy the'goals, objectives, standards and criteria of historic preservation. Mr. St. Clair's
substantial efforts to accommodate th~ C0~!~S goals should not go unrewarded. His plans
represent a very reasonable and balanced attempt t6 renovate md PreServe a historic structure that
should be approved, including the minor variances that only improve the project.
I It should also be noted that the City routinely allows for an increase in maximum height in order to
accommodate construction of an accessory dwelling unit above a garage and that the height limit for an accessory
structure onthe front 1/3 ora lot is 21'.
FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE
Honorable Helen Klandemd, Mayor
July 31, 2002
Page 4
Very Truly Yours,
FREILICH, MYLEK, LEITNER & CARLISLE
BY:~
David J. Myler
DJM:ds
cc: Steven St. Clair
Enclosure
I. 'INTRODUCTION:
This application for review of Subdivision Exemption for a lot line adjustment and
rezonin§ is flied on behalf of Charles Marqnsee (owner of Lots G & H, Block 1 and
associated vacated rights-of-way), Julie Anthony (owner of Lots A through F, Block 7
and associated vacated rights-of-way) and H & C-Marqusee, Inc. t~owner of Outlot B,
according to the Aspen Meadows Final S. P. A. Development Plan and Final
Subdivision Plat recorded in Plat Book 28, beginning at page 5).
The owners of the three parcels have authorized this requ. est to merge the western
portion of Outlot B with the land immediately to the south owned by Marqusee and
to merge the eastern portion of Outlot B with the land immediately to the south
owned by Anthony. In addition, H & C Marqusee, Inc. is requesting approval to
rezone Outlot B from the Academic to the R-15 zone designation. Upon approval of
these requests, the three parcels will be combined into two parcels designated as Lot
One and Lot Two of the Anthony/Marqusee Lot Line Adjustment Flat with an R-IS
zone designation. A draft of the Plat is being submitted for review with this
application.
Outlot B, which is a parcel which was zoned Academic when specific zone district
categories were assigned to parcels within the Aspen Meadows SPA, was transferred
to H & C Marqusee, Inc. as a consideration for the Marqusees' giving tand for the
right-of-way to allow the construction of New Meadows Road. The agreement by
the Marqusees to give up land for the new road right-of-way was instrumental in
resolving a development plan for the Aspen Meadows property, in that it provided
an alternative access to the property other than what is now referred to as Old
Meadows Road, a portion of which has since been converted to a public trail This
agreement, in turn, resulted in the ownership of much of the land at the Meadows
being returned from private hands to several of the important non-pro~
organizations whose facilities are at the Aspen Meadows. The transfer of Outtot B to
the Marqusees was intended to provide a buffer of sorts for the Marqusees' parcels
along the south side of the new street.
Once New Meadows Road was completed, the City ag-reed that certain rights-of-way
in the area were no longer needed and acted to vacate portions of the Eighth Street
and North Street rights-of-way under two separate ordinances. Under the first of
. these, Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1993, the City vacated that portion of the North
Street right-of-way lying to the east of the Eighth Street right-of-way and extending
to Seventh Street. Under the second, Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1997, the City
approved the vacation of the remainder of the Eighth Street and North Street rights-
of-way lying to the east of Old Meadows Road and [o the south of Outlot B. The
Planning Office has concluded that the current City Zoning i%4ap, which shows the
north side of vacated North Street with an R-6 designation, is in error, because of
the Code requirement that vacated land takes on the zoning of the adiacent private
[and
H & C Marqusee, Inc. nov; wishes to divide Outlot B along the centerline of vacated
Eighth Street in order to be in a position to give the eastern portion of Outlot B to
Iulie Anthony, who previously purchased the residence and the land in Block 7
from the IVfarqusees. This will lessen to some degree (by 6.81 feet, to be precise) the
non-conformity as to the front yard setback on the Anthony Parcel which was
created when the City approved the New 1Vfeadows Road in its present location.
The lot line adiustment request is discussed in Section II of this application,
beginning on page 3.
The applicants want to avoid the possibility of an interpretation in the future that as
a result of the merger, the portion of the new lots lying to the south of the Aspen
Townsite line (outside of the original SPA boundary) have become subject to the
provisions of the Aspen Meadows approval. Therefore, notes clarifying that issue
have been added to the draft Plat.
Further, H & C Marqusee, Inc. is requesting rezoning of Outlot B from its current
Aca~fe~'¢ zone designation to R-75. This is necessary because of the language of Sec.
26.710.022, which includes limitations on parcels which are designated with more
than one zone designation when the proposed use is not allowed in one of the zone
districts. In any case, Jcz~fe;~ic zoning is not an appropriate zone designation for
the land now that it has been transferred from the operator of the academic facilities
at the Meadows to a residential property owner. The rezoning request is discussed
in Section III of this application, beginning on page 18.
II: SUBDIVISION (Chapter 26.480):
The applicants propose to adjust the boundary of the three parcels through a
subdivision exemption for a lot line adjustment. Chapter 26.480 spells out the City's
regulations regarding subdivisiQns, as discussed below.
II A. Exemptions (Sec. 26.480.030):
Sec 26.480.030 identifies those activities which are exempted from the City's
provisions regarding subdivision.
II A.L General Exemptions (Sec. 26.480.030.A):
The general exemptions of Sec. 26.480.030.A include an exemption for lot line
adjustments, as discussed below.
II A.l.a. Lot Line Adjustment (Sec. 26.480.030.A.1):
The merger of the three tots into two new parcels through a lot line
adjustment procedure is exempted from the provisions of Chapter 26.480,
Subdivision, as a result of the language of Sec. 26.480.030.A~1, which
provides for the adjustment of a lot line between contiguous lots exempt
from the requirements of Subdivision if five conditions are met. Those
conditions and the applicants' responses are as follows:
i. "It is demonstrated that the request is to correct an engineering or
survey error in a recorded plat or is to permit an insubstantial
boundary change between adjacent parcels. ":
The request is to permit an insubstantial boundary change between
adjacent parcels to merge Outlot B of the Aspen Meadows Final
S:P.A./Subdivision, presently owned by H&C Marqusee, Inc. with the
two parcels to the south. The westernmost of these parcels (Lot One, as
proposed) is owned by Charles B. Marqusee, individually and the
easternmost (Lot Two, as proposed) is owned by ~ulie Anthony.
ii. "Ail landowners whose lot lines are being adjusted shall provide
written consent to the application. ":
Letters of consent to the application from the owners of the three
parcels are attached as Exhibits Al, A2 and A3.
3
iii. "The corrected plat will meet the standards of this ChapteT; and
conform to the requirements of this Title, including the dimensional
requirements of the zone district in which the lots are located, except in
cases of an existing nonconforming lot, in which the adjustment shall
not increase the nonconformity of the lot. The plat shall be submitted
and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Failure to record the plat within a period of one hundred eighty (180)
days following approval shall render'the plat invalid and
reconsideration of the plat by the Community Development Director
will be required before its acceptance and recording. ':
The proposed adjustment will not increase the nonconformity of the
parcels. On the contrary, since the three lots will be merged into two,
one parcel will be eliminated and any noncdnformity which presently
exists on the two lots to the south will be lessened. The Plat will be
submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder immediately after final approval by the Community
Development Director.
iv. "It is demonstrated that the lot line adjustment will not affect the
development rights, including any ~ncrease in FAR, or permitted
density of the affected lots by providing the opportunity to create a new
lot for resale or development. A plat note will be added to the
corrected plat indicating the purpose of the lot line adjustment and the
recognition that no additional FAR will be allowed with the
adjustment. ":
At the time Outlot 1~ was created through SPA review procedures, the
City approved Academic zoning for the parcel but did not establish any
development rights for the parcel. Any development rights for the
property would therefore have to be established through an SPA
Amendment procedure in the future. No such amendment request is
anticipated at the present tLme. The proposed lot line adjustment will
not increase the development rights, including permitted floor area or
the permitted density of the subdivision exemption as a whole, or
create a new lot for resale.
By eliminating one of the three parcels, the development rights within
the Subdivision exemption are logically reduced. A plat note will be
added to the Plat prior to recording indicating that the purpose of the
lot tine adjustment is to merge Outtot B with the parcels immediately
4
to the south. The note will include an acknowledgement by the
applicants that no additional FAR results from the adjustment
II B. Procedures/or Review (Sec. 26.480.040):
A development application for a subd!vision approval or exemption shall be
reviewed pursuant to the procedures and standards in this Chapter 26.480 and
the Common Development Review Procedures included in Chapter 26.304.
II B.1. Lot line adjustment(Sec. 26.480.040.A):
After an application for a lot line adjustment has been determined complete
by the Community Development Director, the Director shall approve,
approve with conditions, or deny the application.
II C. Applicaffon (Sec. 26.480.060):
Although the proposal is exempted from the provisions Of Chapter 26.480,
Subdfvfsfon, and is not an application which is to be considered by either the
Planning and Zoning Commission or the City Council, it is necessary to address
certain provisions of Sec. 26.480.060 in order to doczlrnent any administrative
approval which is granted.
II C.1. Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission
(Sec. 26.480.060.A):
A development application for subdivision review and approval by the
Planning and Zoning Con, mission is to include the following information:
II C.l.a. General Application Information:
The general application Lrfformation as set forth in Sec. 26.304.030,
Application and Fees of the Common Development Review Procedures,
as discassed below:
5
i. General (Sec. 26.304.030.A):
"The requisite number of copies of the development applications shall
be submitted to the Community Development Director containing ail
of the information and materials specified by the applicable Sections of
this Title and such additional information or materials identified in
the pre-application conference. The development application shall be
accompanied by the applicable fee. (See Chapter 2.~2 for schedule of
.fees.)": -~ '
Three copies of the development application are being submitted to the
Community DeveIopment Director containing the relevant
information and materials specified in Sec. 26.480.030, Sec. 26.480.060
and Chapter 26.304 of the Code. No additional infoi'mation or
materials were identified in the pre-application cortference. A £ee
deposit of $ 620.00, as requested by the Community Development
Department, has been paid by the applicants.
ii. Application (Sec. 26.304.030.B):
"At a minimum, ail development applications shall include the
following information and materials. ':
(a). "Contained within a letter signed by the applicant, the
applicant's name, address and telephone number, and the name,
address, and telephone number of any representative authorized to
act on behalf of the applicant.":
Letters from the owner of each of the three parcels authorizing
Joseph Wells Lafid Planning to act as representative of the
applicants during the lot line adjustment review are attached as
Exhibits Al, A2 and A3.
(b). "The street address, legal description, and parcel identification
number of the property proposed for development.":
The street address of the Marqusee Parcel (Lot One) will either be an
address in the 800 block of New Meadows Road or the 600 block of
Old Meadows Road, depend~g on which yard is ultimately
designated as the front yard by the Owner. The street address of the
Anthony ParceI is presently listed as 655 (Old) Meadows Road.
Upon approval, the legal description of the two parcels will become
Lot One and Lot Two, Anthony/Marqusee Lot Line Adjustment
Plat. The Marqusee Parcel is incorrectly shown on the County
Assessor's maps as being part o£ Outiot B (the I-t & C Marqusee, Lrtc.
6
Parcel) so it does not have its own parcel identification number.
The parcel identification number for the H & C Marqusee, Inc.
Parcel is 2735-122-31008 and for the Anthony Parcel is 2735-121-
13007.
(c). "A disclosure of owns'ship of the parcel proposed for
development, consisting of a curre_nt certificate frbm a Title
insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of
Colorado, listing the names of alt owners of the property, and ail
mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements
affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply
for the Development Application.":
Ownership & Encumbrance Reports prepi~red by Stewart Title for
the three parcels are included as Exhibits to the application. Exhibit
B1 confirms that Charles Marqusee is the record owner of Lots G &
H, Block 1 and assodated vacated rights-of-wky. Exhibit B2 confkms
that H & C Marqusee, Inc. is the record owner of Outlot B, according
to the Aspen Meadows Final S. P. A. Development Plan and Final
Subdivision Plat. Exhibit B3 confirms that Julie Anthony is the
record owner of Lots A through F, Block 7 and assodated vacated
rights-of-way.
(d). "An 8 1/ 2 " x 11' vicinity map locating the subject parcel within
the City of Aspen.":
A vicinity map l~cating the subject parcels within the City of Aspen
is included on the draft Plat.
(e). "A site plan depicting the proposed layout, and the project's
physical relationship to the land and its surroundings.":
A draft Plat indicating the proposed boundo_ries of the parcels and
the subdivision exemption's physical relationship to its
surroundings is being submitted with this application.
7
(f). "A site improvement survey certified by a registered land
surveyor, licensed in the State of Colorado showing the current
status of the parcel including the current topogToaphy and
vegetation. (This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived
by the Community Development Director if the project is
determined not to warrant a survey document.)":
A d_raft Plat indkating boff~ the cu~rrent a~d proposed bormdaries of
the parcels involved in the lot line adjustment is being submitted
with this application. A full survey of all improvements on the
two parcels is beyond the scope of this application.
(g). "A written description of the proposal and a written
explanation of how the proposed development complies with the
review standards relevant to the development application.":
A written description of the proposal is included ~ Section I of this
application. An explanation of how the proposal complies with the
review standards relevant to lot tine adjustments is included in
Section II of this application, beginning on page 3 and with the
review standards relevant to rezor~ng is included in Section III of
this application, beginning on page 18.
(h). "Additional materials, documentaffon, or reports as deemed
necessary by the Community Development Director.":
No additional materials, documentation, or reports other than
those provided in this application have been requested by the
Community Development Director. The applicants have
authorized Joseph Wells Land Planning to provide additional
information if needed to complete the review.
iii. Consolidation of Applications (Sec. 26.304.030.D):
"If an applicant has requested the conso Iidation of development
applications, the Community Development Director may waive any
overlapping application submission requirements in the consolidated
development application. (See Section 26.304.060(B), Modification of
Review Procedures.)":
Consolidation of the lot I~ne adjustment application a.rrd the rezoving
request, as discussed in Section I~ of th~s application, is requested.
ivt Copyrighted materials (Sec. 26.304.030.E).
"The City of Aspen will not accept for development application or
recordation purposes any mate~qals to which copyright applications
8
have been made unless the applicant shall waive ali claims and
indemnify the City. Any person submitting a development application
shall consent that any document submitted to the City of Aspen as part
ora development application may be utilized by the City in any
manner deemed necessary, including recording at the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder, to preserve the representations made during the
development review process. ':
The applicants agree that any document submitted to the City of Aspen
as part of this application may be utilized by the City in any manner
deemed necessary, including recording in the records of the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder, to preserve the representations made
during the development review process.
II C.l.b. "One (1) inch equals four hundred (400)feet scale city map
showing the location of the proposed subdivision, all adjacent lands
owned by or under option to the applicant, commonly known landmarks,
and the zone district in which the proposed subdivision and adjacent
properties are located.":
A Vicinity Map showing the location of the proposed lot line adjustment
and commonly known landmarks in the area is included on the draft Plat.
None of the applicants currently own or have under option other lands
which are contiguous to the parcels which they own which are the subject
of this application. The current City Zone District Map identifies the
zoning of the Marqusee Parcel and the Anthony Parcel (both to the south
of the Aspen Townsite4ine) as R-15 to the north of vacated North Street
and 1{-6 to the south, the latter being a mapping error. As mentioned
previously, Outlot B is zoned Academic.
II C.l.c. "A plat which reflects the layout of the lots, blocks and structures
in the proposed subdivision. The plat shall be drawn at a scale of one (I)
inch equals one hundred ~lO0) feet or larger. Architectural scales are not
acceptable. Sheet size shall be twenty-four (24) inches by thirty-six (36)
inches. If it is necessary to place the plat on more than a one (1) sheet, an
index shall be included on the first sheet. A vicinity map shall also appear
on the first sheet showing the subdivision as it relates to the rest of the city
and the street system in the area of the proposed subdivision. The contents
of the plat shall be of sufficient detail to determine whether the proposed
subdivision will meet the design standards of this Chapter and this Title,
and shall contain the following itemized information:
i. "The name of the proposed subdivision, which shall not be the same
or similar to any name used on a recorded plat in Pitkin County,
Colorado.":
The name of the proposed subdivision exemption is Anthony/
Marqusee Lot Line Adjustment Plat.
ii. "The name, address, and telephpn_e number of the owner/applicant,
designer of the proposed subdivision, and the licensed surveyor.":
The name of the owners/applicants are Charles Marqusee, Charles
Marqusee, President of H & C Marqusee, Inc., Trustee and ~ulie
Kathleen Anthony. The address and phone number of Mr. Marqusee's
attorney is Garfield & Hecht, P. C., 601 East t-tyman Avenue, Aspen,
Colorado 81611, 970.925.1936. Ms. Anthony's address and phone
number is 655 Meadows Road, 925.6091. The designer of the proposed
subdivision exemption is Joseph Wells Land Planning. The licensed
surveyor is Alpine Surveys, Inc.
iii. "The location and boundaries of the proposed subdivision.":
The location and boundaries of the proposed subdivision exemption
are shown on the draft Plat.
iv. "A map showing the existing and proposed contours of the land in
the proposed subdivision at two-foot intervals, where the slope is less
than ten (10) percent, and five-foot intervals where the slope is ten (10)
percent or g~'eater, dud the designation of ail areas with slope greater
than thirty (30) percent.":
For clarity of the other information shown, existing and proposed
contours of the land in the proposed subdivision exemption are not
shown on the draft Plat. The land throughout the site of the
subdivision exemption is essentially flat and therefore not an issue in
future development on either parcel. Since no development is
anticipated at the present time, information about proposed contours is
not available currently.
v. "The location and dimensions of ali existing streets, alleys,
easements, drainage areas, irrigation ditches, public and private
utilities, and other significant manmade or natural features within or
adjacent to the proposed subdivision.":
The location and dimensions of all existing streets and other significant
manmade features within or adjacent to the proposed subdivision
exemption are indicated on the draft Plat. For clarity of the other
information shown, easements, drainage areas, irrigation ditches,
public and private utilities, and natural features are not shown. No
such features are affected as a result of the lot line adjustment,
however. There are no alleys contiguous to the subdivision
exemption.
vi. "The location and dimensions o/ail proposed streets, alleys,
easements, drainage improvements, utilities, lot lines, and areas or
structures reserved or dedicated for public or common use in the
proposed subdivision.":
No streets, alleys, easements, drainage imp~bvements, utilities, and
areas or structures reserved or dedicated for public or common use are
proposed as a part of the subdivision exemption. Proposed lot lines are
shown on the draft Plat.
vii. "The location, size, and type o/existing vegetation and other
natural landscape features, and the proposed limits o/any excavation
or regrading .in the proposed subdivision, including the location o/
trees with a trunk diameter o/six (6) inches or more measured/our
and one-hal/(4 1/2)feet above the ground, and an indication o/which
trees are proposed to be removed. Where large groves are to remain
undisturbed, single trees need not be located.":
For clarity of the other information shown, the location, siz6 and type
of existing vegetation and other natural landscape features, including
the location of trees with a trunk diameter of six (6) inches or more
measured four and one-half (4 1/2) feet above the ground and an
indication of any trees which are proposed to be removed are not
shown on the draft Plat. No landscaping or other site work has been
planned for and any such future work is unaffected by this application.
Further, the proposed limits of any excavation or regrading in the
proposed subdivision exemption is not known at the present time, but
will be defined at the time of any application for building or other
required permits.
viii. "The designation of ali areas that constitute natural hazard areas
including but not limited to snowsIides, avalanche, mudslide,
rocksIide and the one-hundred-year floodplain.":
There are no areas within the subdivision exemption which are
believed to be natural hazard areas including but not limited to
snowslide, avalanche, mudslide or rockslide areas and the one-
hundred-year floodplain of any strea~m.
ix. "Such additional information on geological or soil stability,
avalanche potential, projected traffic generation, air pollution and
similar matters as may be required by the planning agency or other
reviewing agency.":
Additional information on geological or soil stability, avalanche
potential, projected traffic generation, air pollution and similar matters
are beyond the scope of the application and have not been requested by
the Community Development Department or other reviewing agency.
x. "Such other information as may be required by the planning agency
or other reviewing agency in order to adequately describe proposed
utility systems, drainage plans, surface ~mprovements, or other
construction projects contemplated within the proposed subdivision in
order to assure that the proposed subdivision is capable of being
const~'ucted without an adverse effect upon the sun'ounding area. ':
Additional information to adequately describe proposed utility systems,
drainage plans, surface improvements or other construction projects
contemplated within the proposed subdivision exemption in order to
assure that the proposed subdivision exemption is capable of being
constructed without an adverse effect upon the surrounding area has
not been requested by the Community Development Department and
is beyond the scope of the application.
12
xl. "Site data tabulation listing acreage of land in the proposed
subdivision, number, type and typical size of lots, structures and/or
dwelling units; number of bedrooms per dwelling unit; ground
coverage of proposed structures and improvements including parking
areas, streets, sidewalks and open space, and the amount of open space
that is being provided pursuant to Section 26.480.040(C)(5)(a).":
Site data tabulation:
(a). Total acreage of land in the three parcels to be merged into
two parcels: 27,232 Sq. Ft.
(b). Number, type and typical size of lots:
Two single-family lots of 10,390 Sq. Ft. and 16,842 Sq. Ft.
each.
(c). Number of structures and/or dwelling units:
One prindpal residence and permitted accessory
structures/uses.
(d). Number of bedrooms per dwelling unit:
In conformance with Code at building permit issuance.
(e). Ground coverage of proposed structures and improvements:
In conformance with Code at building permit issuance.
(f). Amount of open space that is provided pursuant to
Sec. 26.480.040(C)(5)(a) (No such Code provision):
No new public or common open space provided.
xii. "In the case of a division of land into condominium interests,
apartments or other multi-family or time-share dwelling units~ the
location of all proposed structures, parking areas, structures and/or
areas for Co17Imon use?:
A division of the land into condominium interests, apartments or
other multi-family or time-share dwelling units is not proposed.
xiii. "Where the proposed subdivision covers only a part of the
applicant's adjacent holdings, a sketch plan for such other lands shall
be subm~tted,.and the proposed streets, u~iIities, easements, and other
improvements of the t~'act under review shall be considered with
reference to the proposed development of the adjacent holdings. ':
The proposed subdivision exemption does not cover only a part of the
applicants' adjacent holdings.
13
xiv. "Letters from the public or pTqvate utility companies that will
service the proposed subdivision with gas, eIecD'icity, telephones,
sanitary sewer, water, and fire protection facilities stating they can
service the proposed subdivision. ":
Letters from the public or private utility companies that will service
the proposed subdivision exemption with gas, electricity, telephones,
sanitary sewer, water, and fire protection fadllties are not necessary
because the lots in question are pre-existing. The existing residence on
Lot Two is presently connected to the named utilities.
II C.l.d. GIS Data.
"Ali subdivision applications shall submit the requirements specified in
section 26.480.040(C) and section 2~.480.040(D) in a digital format acceptable
to the Community Development Department. Base information shall be
obtained from the Community Development Department. ":
These references to Code provisions ("the requirements specified in
Sec. 26.480.040(C) and Sec. 26.480.040(D)") are also in error. If the
Community Development Department can clarify the requirement, the
applicants will provide the information once any changes have been
incorporated on the Plat.
II C.2. Review by the City Council (Sec. 26.480.060.B).
Subsequent to review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and prior to
review of the development application for plat by the City Council the
applicant is required to submit the following additional application contents
for a subdivision review:
II C.2.a. "A final plat drawn with permanent ink on reproducible linen or
mylar. Sheet size shall be twenty-four (24) inches by thirty-six (36) inches
with an unencumbered margin of one and one-half(1 1/2) inches on the
left hand side of the sheet and a one-half (1/2) inch margin around the
other three (3) sides of the sheet. It shall include:"
i. "Accurate dimensions for all lines, angles and curves used to
describe boundaries, streets, setbacks, alleys, easements, s~ctures, areas
to be reserved or dedicated/or public or common use and other
important /eatures. Ali curves shall be circular arcs and shall be defined
by the radius, central angle, tangent, arc and chord distances. Ail
dimensions, both linear and angular, are to be determined by an
accurate control survey in the field which must balance and close
within a limit o/one (lJ in ten thousand (10,000).':
Accurate dimensions for all lines, angles and curves used tc describe
boundaries and streets are included on the draft Plat. All curves are the
result of prior subdivisions approved in the area. All dimensions have
been determined by an accurate consol surv. ey in the field which closes
within a limit of one (1) in ten thousand (10,000).
ii. "A systematic ident~'fication o/all lots and blocks and names for
streets. ":
· . The two proposed lots and the names of all existing streets in the area
are identified on the draft Plat.
iii. "Names o/ail adjoining subdivisions with dotted lines o/abutting
lots. If adjoining land is unplatted, it shall be shown as such. ":
The names of adjoining subdivisions have been identifed on the draft
Plat. Most of the surrounding land was subdivided under the original
Aspen Townsite Plan and additions thereto. No adjoining land is
believed to be unpl~ted.
iv. "An identification o/the streets, alleys, parks, and other public
areas or facilities, and a dedication thereo/ to the public use. An
identification o/the easements as dedicated to public use. Areas
reserved /or /uture public acquisition shall also be shown. ,:
No streets, alleys, parks, other public areas or facilities, easements for
public use or areas reserved for fuVare public acquisition are proposed
as a result of the lot line adjustment.
v. 'A written survey desc~qption o/the area including the total acreage
to the nearest one-thousandth (0.001) o/an acre.":
A written survey description of the area including the total acreage to
the nearest one-thousandth (0.001) of an acre is included on the draft
Plat.
vi. "A description of ail survey monuments, both found and set,
which mark the boundaries of the subdivision, and description of ail
monuments used in conducting the survey. The Colorado Coordinate
System may be used.":
A description of all survey monuments, both found and set, which
mark the boundaries of the subdivision exemption, and description of
all monuments used in conducting-the survey are included on the
draft Plat.
II C.2.b. "A statement by the [and surveyor explaining how bearings, if
were determined..
A statement by Alpine Surveys, Inc. explaining.how bearings were
determined is included on the draft Plat.
II C.2.c. 'A certificate by the registered land sm~oeyor as to the accuracy of
the survey and plat, and a statement that the survey was performed in
accordance with Colorado Revised Statutes 1973, Title 38, Article 51, as
amended from time to time.":
A certificate for signature by Alpine Surveys, Inc. as to the accuracy of the
survey and plat, and a statement that the survey was performed in
accordance with Colorado Revised Statutes 1973, Title 38, Article 51, as
amended from time to time is included on the draft Plat.
II C.2.d. 'A certificate by a co~7~orate Title insurer, that the person or
persons dedicating to the public the public rights-of-way, areas or facilities
as shown thereon are the owners thereof in fee simple, free and clear of all
liens and encumbrances.":
A certificate by a corporate Title in,surer, certifying that the 'person or
persons dedicating to the public the public rights-of-way, areas or facilities
as shown thereon are the owners thereof in fee simple, free and dear of all
liens and encumbrances is not required because no dedications to the
public are proposed.
II C.2.e. "Certificates showing approval of the final plat by the City
Engineer, Community Development Director and the Planning and
Zoning Commission. ":
Certificates showing approval of the draft Plat by the City Engineer and
Community Development Director are included on the draft Plat. A
certificate showing approval of the draft Plat by the Planning and Zoning
16
Commission is not required because Planning and Zoning Commission
review is not required.
II C.2.f. "A cerffficate showing approval of the plat and acceptance of
dedications and easements by the City Council, with signature by the
mayor and attestation by the city clerk. ":
A certificate showing approval of the draft Plat by the City Council is not
required because City Council review is not required.
II C.2.g. "A certificate of filing for the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. ':
A Clerk and Recorder's certificate is included on the draft Plat.
II C.2.h. "Complete engineering plans and speci'fications for ail
improvements to be installed in the proposed subdivision, including but
not limited to water and sewer utilities, streets and related improvements,
trails, bridges and storm drainage improvements."
No improvements are proposed to be installed as a result of the lot line
adjustment.
II C.2.i. "A landscape plan showing location, size, and type of proposed
landscape features. ":
No landscaping is proposed to be installed as a result of the lot line
adjustment.
II C.2.j. "Copies of any monument records requ&ed of the land surveyor
in accordance with Colorado Revised Statutes 1973, Title 38, Article 53, as
amended from time to time. ":
Copies of any monument records required of Alpine Surveys in
accordance with Colorado Revised Statutes 1973, Title 38, Article 53, as
amended from time to time will be provided upon request.
II C.2.k. "Any agreements with utility or ditch companies, when
applicable. ":
No agreements with utility or ditch companies are applicable to the lot
line adjustment request.
II C.2.1. "Any subdivision agreements as required by this Chapter. ":
Since no improvements are proposed as a result of the lot line adjustment
request, entering into a subdivision agreement should not be necessary.
17
Iii. AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE
AND OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP
(CHAPTER 26.310)
Outtot B was given a zone designation of Academic wheat the Final S. P. A.
Development Plan for the Aspen Meadows was approved, 'one of 'a number of the'
parcels at the MeadOws so designated at that time. Merger of Outlot B with the two
parcels to the south, which are zoned R-15, without rezoning Outiot B would result
in two relatively small residential parcels each with two different zone designations,
one of which does not permit residential uses, subject to the provisions of Sec.
26.710.022 Zoning of Lands Containing More Than One U~derlying Zone District. It
is the applicants' position that the presence of Acqdem ic zoning unnecessarily
complicates the zoning regulations affecting these two single-family homesites.
Under current circumstances, Academic zoning is not the appropriate zone
designation for Outlot B, principally for two reasons. F/rst, the property has been
transferred by the operator of the Academic facilities at the Meadows to a party who
owns an adjacent residential parcel. Secondly, Outlot B is completely surrounded by
properties which have both a Residential zone designation and a residential use.
The land to the west of Outlot B, across Old Meadows Road, is zoned R-15. The four
residential lots to the north and east of Outlot B, across New Meadows Road, were
also zoned R-15 at the time the Final S. P. A. Development Plan for the Aspen
Meadows was approved. Mr. Marqusee and Ms. Anthony own the land
immediately to the south of Outlot B. The current City zoning map incorrectly
locates the boundary between the R-6 zone (to the south) and the R-15 zone (to the
north) along the north side of the North Street right-of-way, vacated through the
applicants' respective parcels. Staff has determined that the north half of the North
Street riglxt-of way would have been designated R-I5 when it Was vacated, under the
requirements of the Code.
In ~ght of the arguments in favor of the rezoning request, H & C Marqusee, Inc.
proposes to re-zone Outlot B from Academic to R-15, as discussed below.
18
Ill A. Purpose (Sec. 26.310.010):
The purpose of Chapter 26.310 is to provide a means for amending the text of
Title 26 (the Aspen Land Use Code) arid the official zone district map. It is not
intended to relieve particular' hardships or confer special privileges or rigl~ts on
any person.
Ill B. Procedure for Amendment (Sec. 26.310.020):
III B.1. General (Sec. 26.310.020.A):
Under the provisions of Sec. 26.310.020, an application for amendments to the
official zone district map may be initiated by the persons identified in Sec.
26.304.040, Initiation of Application ,for Development Order. Sec. 26.304.040
provides that an applicatior~ for a development order may only be initiated by
a person or persons owning more than fifty percent (50%) of the property
~ubject to the development application and proposed development. In this
case, the sole owner of the parcel has agreed to initiate the amendments (see
Exhibit Al). An application for amendments shall be processed in accordance
with the Common Development Review Procedures set forth at Chapter
26.304, addressed in Section II of this application.
III B.l.a. General Application Information {Sec. 26.435.080.A):
The applicants' responses to the general application information required
in Sec. 26.304.030, Application and Fees are included in Section II C.l.a,
beginning on page 5.
III B.2. Steps Required (Sec. 26.310.020.B):
The applicants are not requesting initiation of the rezoning by the City
Council utilizing the procedure for emergency ordinances as provided for in
Sec. 26.310.020.C. Therefore, two steps, with a public hearing before the
Planning and Zoning Commission and a public hearing before the City
Council are required to determine if the application meets the standards for
amendment to the official zone district map. Publication as spelled out in
Sec. 26.304.060.E.3.a is required for the Planning and Zoning Commission
hearing and notice as defined for adoption of an ordinance is required for the
City Council hearing.
19
III C. Application (Sec. 26.310.030):
A development application for amendment to the official zone district map shall
include:
III C.1. "The general application information required in Section 26.304.030.'
The general application iaformation required in Section 26.304.030 ~s
addressed above in this Section II C.l.a, be'ginning on page 5.
III C.2. "If the application requests an amendment to the text of this Title, the
precise wording of any proposed amendment.'
This application does not include a request for an amendment to the text of
the Aspen Land Use Code (Title 26).
III C3. "If the application requests an amendment to the official zone district
III C.3.a. "The present zone district classification and existing land uses of
the real property proposed to be amended.'
The present zone district classification of both the Marqusee parcel (Lots G
& H, Block 1 and associated vacated fights-of way) and the Anthony parcel
(Lots A through F, Block 7 and associated vacated rights-of-way) is R-15.
The southern portion of the two parcels (vacated North Street) is
incorrectly shown on the current City Zoning Map as R-6 zoning. Under
the relevant Code lang.uage, however, when City land is vacated, it
assumes the zone designation of the adjacent private land, which is R-15.
The present zone district classification of Outlot B, according to the Aspen
Meadows Final S. P. A. Development Plan and Final Subdivision Plat is
Academic The Marqusee parcel and Outlot B are presently vacant. The
Anthony parcel is developed with a single family residence.
llI C.3.b. "The area of the property proposed to be amended, stated in
square feet or acres, or a major fraction thereof."
The total area of Outlot B which is proposed to be re-zoned is 4,470 sq. ft. of
land.
III £3.c. "An accurate survey map of th e real property propos ed for
amendment. '
An accurate map of the real property proposed to be zoned/re-zoned
(Outlot B), is included on the draft Anthony Marqusee Lot Line
2O
Adjustment Plat, prepared by Alpine Surveys, Inc. A reduced copy of the
Plat is included as Exhibit E.
III D. Standards of Review (Sec. 26.310.040):
In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council
and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider:
III D.1. "Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable
portions of this Title."
To the best of the applicants' knowledge, the proposed rezoning from
Academic to the R-15 zone district is not in conflict with any applicable
portions of Title 26, the Aspen Land Use Code.
III D.2. "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with ail elements of
the Aspen Area Community Plan."
The proposed rezoning of Outlot B from Academic to R-15 in order to bring
the zoning in line with the surrounding residential neighborhood is so
limited in scope as to have little relationship to the broader goals of the
Aspen Area Community Plan. In fact, the Plan itself includes the following
language:
"The Aspen Area Community Plan is broad in scope and does not address
every issue or parcel individually. The plan should be interpreted to apply
generally to ali properties and issues in Aspen and the immediately
surrounding area."
The Marqusee's past actions in facilitating the adoption of a redevelopment
plan for the Aspen Meadows, which in turn resulted in the transfer of Ouflot
B to the Marqusees, was supportive of several goals of the Plan. The proposal
is not believed to be inconsistent with any of the elements of the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
The 1993 Aspen Area Community Plan established a blueprint for Aspen's
future. The 1993 Plan focused on four major themes that were generated by
citizen committees. They were:
a. Revitalizing the Permanent Community;
b. Providing Transportation Alternatives;
21 ·
c. Promoting Environmentally Sustainable Development~ and
d. Maintaining Design Quality/Historic Compatibility.
The 2000 Update added four new themes to help address changes in the
community since the original Plan:
a. Capturing the Impa~ts of Growth an__d_Change;
b. Containing Development to Limit Sprawl;
c. Economic Sustainability and
d. Arts, Culture & Education.
The applicant is including responses regarding the following sections of the
2000 Plan Update:
a. Managing Growth:
The proposal is within the Aspen Townsite and the Urban Growth
· Boundary and the residential developmant associated with the proposal is
exempt from Growth Management. The proposal is therefore consistent
with the intent of the section of the 2002 Aspen Area Community Plan
("AACP") regarding Managzng Growth, which is to encourage land use to
occur in such a way that it protects and enhances the existing physical and
natural environment of the valley and to limit the ultimate population in
the Aspen area through a Growth Management System.
b. Transportation:
Through the prior commitments made by the Marqusees to accommodate
a realignment of Meadows Road, a significant new pedestrian trail
segment was established on old Meadows Road. The proposal is therefore
consistent with the intent of the section of the AACP regarding
Transportation, which is to provide a balanced, integrated transportation
system for residents, visitors and commuters that reduces congestion and
air pollution. Walking, bicycling and transit use is promoted to help reach
that goal.
c. Housing:
The residential development associated with the proposal is exempt from
housing requirements, although approval of caretaker units may be
requested in the future. The proposal is therefore not inconsistent with
the intent of the section of the AACP regarding Housing, which is to create
an affordable housing environment that is appropriately scaled and
distributed throughout existing and new neighborhoods, is affordable and
respects overall community concerns.
22
d. Economic SustainabiIity:
The intent of the section of the AACP regarding Economic SustainabiIity,
which is to maintain a healthy, vibrant and divers/fled year-round
economy that supports the Aspen area commun/ty, to maintain and
enhance existing business and cultural entities and to support and
promote the "Aspen Idea" of "mind, body and spirit" is not applicable to
this proposal, which does not include commercial uses.
e. Parks, Open Space and the Env&onment:
The intent of the section of the AACP regarding Parks, Open Space and the
Environment, which is to preserve, enhance and restore the natural
beauty of the envLronment of the Aspen area, to provide Iow-impact'
facilities to support the sustainable use of uniml~roved areas and to
support an envi'ronment that betters the lives of all, preserves our natural
resources and provides opportunities and access for all to enjoy is not
applicable to this residential proposal.
f. Historic Preservation:
The intent of the section of the AACP regarding Historic Preservation,
which is to preserve Aspen's irreplaceable historic resources, is not
applicable to the proposal because there are no historic resources on any of
the parcels.
g. Design Quality:
The applicants will comply with the City's Residential Design Review
when required and will therefore comply with the intent of the section of
the AACP regarding Design Quality, which is to ensure the character of the
built environment in A~pen is maintained through public outreach and
education about quality design, histor/cal context, and the influence of the
existing built and natural environments.
h. Arts, Culture and Education:
Through the prior commitments made by the Marqusees to accommodate
a resolution of the development plan for the Aspen Meadows, the
applicants have supported the intent of the section of the AACP regarding
Arts, Culture and Education, which is to recogn/ze the contribution of the
arts, culture and education to the quality of life in Aspen and to support
the arts and the cultural community in its efforts to increase awareness of
its significance to the ~uture and quality of life in Aspen.
23
LAND USE APPLICATION
PROJECT: ,-'
(Indicate street address, 'lot & block number, legal description 'where appropriate)
A'PPLICANT:
Address:
Phone #: ~ .~,
P, EPREESENTATIVE:
Phone#:
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check ail that apply):
{~]. Conditic~n~,l Use [] Conceptual PUD [] Conceptual Historic Devt.
[] Special Review [] Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) [] Final Historic Development
[] Design Review Appeal [] Conceptual SPA [] Minor Historic Devt.
[] GMQS Allotment [] Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) [] Historic Demolition
[] GMQS Exemption [] Subdivision [] Historic Designation
[] ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream j~ Subdivision Exemption (includes [] Small Lodge Conversion/
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion
Mountain View Plane
[] Lot Split [] ' Temporary Use [] Other:
[] Lot Line Adjustment ~ Text/Map Amendment
I=XISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses,,previous approvals, etc.)
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
!
Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ ~-~-~ Wo
' Pre-Application Conference Summary .
Attachment gl, Signed Fee Agreement '
{~ Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form
· 1~, Response to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents ~ ResPonse to Attachment ~4, Specific Submission Contents
J~ Response to Attachment #5, Review standards for Your Application
ATTACHMENT 2
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
Zone District: /~_..-/g-~' ~ ' --
LotSize:
'Lot~e~ff~fl,, ~ ~, ~~& ~ ~ ,,-~~
~ (f~ the pu~oses of calculating Floor ~ea, Lot Area may be reduced for areas
wkhin ~e high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the
definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.)
Co~ercial net leasable: Existing: ff~ Proposed: ff~
Number of residential ~ts: Existing: ' / .Proposed: ~~ . '
Number of bedrooms: Existing: ~ proposed.· ~ ~/ ~
Proposed % of demolition ~istoric properties 0nl}):~ .'.
P~ncipal bldg. heiaht: E~s,in~:~Xllow~le:
~ PropoSed:
Access. bldg. height: Existing.'~Allowable: ~),,~Proposed:~
On-Site p~king: Existing: ~/d .Required: ~ ~ '~ Proposed:
% Open Space: Existing.'.' ~ . Required: ~ .~ ~ Proposed: ~
Front Setback: Existing..~ Required: ~ ~ Pr°Po}ed.·
Re~ Setback: Existing.' ~ Required: ~ ~ / Proposed:
Combi~edF~: Exi~ting.'~..~equired: ~ ~ ~ro~osed:
Side Setback: Exist]ng: ~Required: ~ t Propose& /
Side Setback: Existing:. ~ Required: ~roposed.'~
~ations requested: