Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.19930913 AGENDA September 13, 1993 5:00 COUNCIL MEETING · · I. Call to order . II. Roll =all III. Scheduled Publio Appearanoes a) Proclamation - Alternat:ve Transportation Day IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions Ve VI. Spooial Orders of tho day a) Mayor' s comments b) Councilmembers' comments c) city Manager's comments Consent C&lendar~ a) Minutes - July 26; August 9, 10, 23 b) c) d) Request For Funds - Kraut Affordable Housing October Council Meeting Resolution %63, 1993 - Contract Grand Junction Pipe - Irrigation System for Golf Course a) Change of Location ~ Steak Pit ]~~ Transfer - Mezzaluna to Lunam~zza a) Ordinance ~, 1993 - Central Bank Condominiumization (T~le b) Ordinanc~ ~47, 1993 - ~ending Ord. 74, 1992, Charbroilers~ IX. Aotion Items a)~:~1992 Financial Statements b) Comments to Governor Romer on Partnership Against Violence (Tab e to c) Ordinance # 1993 - Code Amendment~%~.C_o_nd0miniumization (To Bo Continued to O~tober 12, 1993) ~ _ d) Ordinance #49, 1993 - Kastelic PUD/Subdivision ~ I~]l~. e) Ordinance %50, 1993 - 935 East H~an Historic Designation ~T~_ f)]~t~rdinance %48, 1993 - Ute Park ~ Subdivision GMQS Exemption ~endment ~ ~Z% X. Information Items XI. adjournment Next Regular Meeting September 27. 1993 Count i 1, III This fall the Aspen/Pitkin Cry. Energy Efficiency Committee will hold it's '~hird Annual Energy Town Meeting. The Committee asks you to Support and participate in an "Alternate ~ommute Day" on Wedne'sday Oct. 6%~. .The event, will be kicked-off in the morn.~ng wi th a continental breakfast for all those who I~a~ ;icipate by walking, bicycling, car-,,c, oling, or by riding the bus to work or school! Prizes are bein~ ~olicit~d. These will be given out ~o encourage everyone who par*.icipant'.s. There will also be an exhibit at the Hotel Jerome on that day. In addition to the Town meet in~ itself. As part of the event, we would iike to get a Proclamation proclaiming the date as ".Alternate. Commute Day"! Please see attached draft Proclamation. We hope you will support this event! Sincerely, Roaring Fork Energy Forum Michae! Hutton PROCLAMA~ON WH~EREAS, for the past three years, the City of Aspen has held an Energy Town Meeting in an effort to reduce the total energy co~nsumption for ali typ~ of users including Commercial/Large Energy tt~ers, Residential Users, and Transportation; and .WHE~, the new lntermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act or 'ISTEA" now considers aH types of vehicles as legitimate and important forms of transportation and are just as high a priority item for improvements; and WHEREAS, the City Council has recently affirmed the long range Bicycle, Trails and Pedestrian Plan which will further be acknowledged by an 'ALTERNATE COMMUTE DAY'; and WHEREAS, the City Council is currently working on a Comprehensive Transportation Plan which will consider all forms of transport in an effort to deal with Energy Use, Air Pollution (PMI0), and congestion problems; and WHEREAS, for more than a century, the bicycle has been an important part of the lives of most Amezicans, usually providing their first form of independent transportntion; and WHEREAS, today more than one hundred million Americans engage in bicycling for fitness, recreation, sport and transportation; and WHEREAS, the 'Roaring Fork Transit Agency has been recognized for its outstanding mass transit service to Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley, and WHEREAS, RFTA now serves the entire Valley from Glenwood Spring~ to Aspen and all points in between; and WHEREAS, the needs of cyclists for safe and clean roads, bridge access and vehicle code improvements are receiving increased attenti~,n. NOW, THEREFORE, I, John S. Bennett, Mayor of the City of Aspen, do hereby proclaim the date of October 6, 1993, as 'ALTERNATE COMMU'I~ DAY' and further, I encourage all of our citizens i~cluding Staff and Council to get out of your car and WALK, ROLLER BLADE, BIKE, TAKE A BUS, RIDE A H'DRSE OR CAR POOL~! 'At,TERNATE COMMUTE DAY-=THE WAY TO (30 Dated this 13th day of September 1993 ATTEST: ~ohn S. Bennett, Mayor Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Mayor and City Council / Amy Margerum, City Manager~ Manager's Comments September 13, 1993 AGENDA CHANGES Ordinance 45 (Public Hearing a) is to be tabled to September 27. Action item b): Comments on Governor Romer's Partnership for Violence was not complete at the time of this writing and needs to be reseheduled to September Action Item c): Code Amendment on Condominimization was not ready for this packet and needs to be continued to October 12. BUDGET SCHEDULE Please find attached our proposed 199,1 budget schedule. BRICK SCHOOL PROJECT We would like to schedule a work session with Council, the Arts Council, the Red Brick Committee and the architects for the Red Brick School to review plans for the renovation of the Red Brick I~ailding on September 20 at $ pm. JOINT MEETING ON WATI~R POLICY/ANNEXATION The BOCC has requested a joint work session on annexation/water policy. They have suggested Sept ~.$ from 3 - 4 pm. Please advise. STATUS OF HOUSING PROJECTS Please see the attached memo from Tom Baker. REOUEST FOR FUNDS: GRASSROOTS EXPERIENCE Please find attached a request for $1,000 from .',ontingency funds for local kids involved in the Grassroots Experience to make a follow-up trip to Los Angeles to check in on the kids who came to Aspen last August. This is coming to you outside of the non- profit grant request due to the timing of the trip to Los Angel~. If you are interested in funding this request, please add it to your consent agenda tonight. TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM Mayor and City Council ../ Amy Margerum, City Manager · Rob Umbreit, Budget Director September 3, 1993 Proposed Budget Meeting Schedule The following is our recommended schedule for budget meetings with Council: September 22 Goals (4:30 - 8:30) September' 28 Asset Management Plan October 4 Overview of Budget, Long Range Plans, Amend- ment One Issues October 5 General Fund (*invite BOCC to review joint departments) October 18 Parks and Open Space, Mall, Golf Funds October 19 Wheeler Fund, Arts G~ants November I · Water and Electric Funds November 2 Parking Garage, Parking Enterprise November 15 Housing Office (invite BOCC to review Housing Office), Truscott & Marolt, Housing Fund, Daycare Grants November 16 RFTA November 29 Human Service/Non-Profit Grants November 30 Supplementals (invite BOCC to discuss those supplementals for joint departments) December 13 Adopt Budget an~ set mill levy et regular Council meeting Please let us know if these dates work for you. AI'I meetings will be held in Council Chambers from 5-7 unless otherwise noted. /mc TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council , / Tom Baker Housing Offlc~fl'~i[~) Septembe':' 13, 1993 .'Informational Item: Affordable Housing Update PURPOSE,: The purpose of this memorandum is to give Council an update on existing and future affordable housing developments. West Hopkins - The West Hopkins (11 sales units) project is under budget and complete: the books will be closed out in September. The West Hopkins project is our most successful development to date, good planning, design and project management have resulted in this development being approximately $30,000 under budget. East Hopkins - The Housing Office has hired an architect, held several neighborhood meetings, and submitted a development application to the Planning Office. The application requests approval for four (4) 3-bdrm, sales units. The City Council will review this proposal this Fall/Winter. Kraut - As Council is aware, this development is in the conceptual planning stage. The consulting team of Curtis/Rose/Teague are in the process of creating a development application. We expect a development application to b~ submitted and reviewed beginning this Fall. At this point, the Kraut property is being considered for 27 studio and 1-bdrm, sales units with underground parking. Austin - The Housing Board is in the process of establishing a program recommendation for this property (rental, sales, family, non-family). The Housing Board is interested in a Design/Build RFP for this property which can give the private sector more flexibility for project development and give the Housing Board experience with this development option. Truscott Place Remodel - The remodel of the 50 Truscott Place studio units is complete except for the seven '(7) addi~ional parking spaces (to be completed in Sept). The units are a great improvement over what was there previously and all the residents are very happy. Trusoott Place is also under ~udget ~y appzoximately $44,000. September 7, 1993 City btanag~r: City Co~Jncil Amy De~r Ms. Margerum, In August 3 - 11, 1993 ten local youth participated in A Grassroots Aspen Experience (AGAE). As you know, AGAE invites kids from different cities and Native American rese~ations for a week of self-esteem growth and introspection. We, the I~1 youth, participate in the program for many masons. Aspen is a graat place to grow-up. It is basically safe and clean. But Aspen is also isolated for most of us and we like the opportunity to meet and become friends with kids who may live in different environments. We've learned to accept people for who they are- people are much deeper than what we may see on the surface. But more importantly, AGAE gave us a safe environment where we ws,e able to express our fears, experiences, and mistakes. It is this haring that made all of the kids realize that no matter where we come from we have a lot in common. This summer, 9 News covered the first few day ~ of the program, we were glad for the opportunity for peopl$ to see the kin d and generous side of Aspen-. Often people think that Aspen is full of rich snobs, but we know there are many people who am willing to help others. Through AGAE a lot of people had the chance to see that side of Aspen. We know the City of Aspen has generously donated money in the past; however, we are asking the City to support our efforts to attend the follow-up program in South Central Los Angeles, and Aspen youth to follow-up on the goals to maintain the friendships we established this $~Jmmer. We live in complex world. AGAE has given us the opportunity to understand people from different backgrounds and cultures. We ask the City for $1,000 to support our efforts to continue to develop cultural sensitivity so we can become effective leaders for tomorrow. Thank you. Jennifer Worcester Fabian Soliz Annie Greengras Neil Stapleton Mike Nakagawa ASPEN LOCAL YOUTH Renee West Edc Smith Z. ach Soule Adam Mooney Edc Smith P.O. Box 10394 · Aspen, Colorado 81612 · (303) 925-6671 · (303) 923-3619 Mayor and City Council Amy Margerum, City Manager , Tom Baker, Housing Director,J~'Jb Rob Umbreit, Budget Director Jim Curtis, Kraut Project Manager September 13, 1993 $547,000 Budget Appropriation Request Kraut Property Pre-Development & Subsidy Funding III I III II II I B&CKGROUND: On August 2, Jim Curtis and Jonathan Rose were awarded the Kraut Project Management/Construction Management contract through a competitive bid Request for Proposals ~eiection. They will work with Harry Teague Architects to be the Development Team to plan, process and manage the Kraut development. The objective. is to have the project under construction ne~t Spring/Summer. The Development Team initiated work on August 2 and the budget appropriation is for pre-development funding. The City's long-term Budget Plan budgeted $671,000 for Kraut pre-development and subsidy in 1994 based on the rental development alternative in Attachment A. RBOOMMEND&TZON: The Housing Office requests Council appropriate $547,000 in 1993 for pre-development and subsidy for the ~raut property development. The $547,000 pre-development and subsidy estimate is based on the prior feasibility study and the development alternative of 27 sales units and i level of parking as shown in Attachment A. This was the preliminary development program Council preferred with the understanding it was open to review and change. Only a small amount of the $547,000 appropriation wtll be spent in 1993 with the unspent balance being automatically carried forwa~-d to 1994. Staff feels this is the .easiest manner to handle Kraut pre-development appropriation rather than to try to estimate specific 1993 and 1994 expenditures separately and appropriate each year separately. As the Kraut project development is refined over the coming months, the Housing Office and Development Team will provide updated budgets and pro formas for Council's review. Attachement From: Kraut Property Deve. A,nalysis Dated 11/19/92 - 27 Units - 1 level, underground parking ~ 42 cars Development Subsidy a. 27 Rental Units $1,522,000 _ b. 27 Rental Units with Investment Tax Credits 671,000 .. e,.'27":Sale~ units: '. .,'...... '"::,...:."... :~'' . ....... . ..... ::.:'...' , "." :"'..:..:~':.'~ :':~:-':.'::'::;~?::.:., ;5'4.7':~000'. --. '::: .,: .:':.:,,..:..,:. . ,.,.~..,:. ,: ..... :... ......... ".':.::iLl.,,'.::'.:'::.;::.:':'/:.:.,. ' '.. ~,:':.,),'.,". ,: ','.' . ,.:'".'"k:'~ii'h ..... ~'""~ .... "'" . ..... . ...... 1 4, Mixed Use - 6,700 sq. ft. Commercial - 16 Units - I level underground parking -Surface alleyway parking ~ 41 cars ~ 12 cars a. Comm. Rental - $25 sq. ft. b. Comm. Rental - $25 sq. ft. with Investment Tax Credits c. Comm. Rental - $25 sq. ft. d. Comm. Bulk Sale - $225 sq. ft. e. Comm. Bulk Sale - $225 sq. ft. with Investment Tax Credits f. Comm. Bulk Sale - $225 sq. ft. & 16 Rental Units & 16 Rental Units & 16 Sales Units & 16 Rental Units & 16 Rental Units & 16 Sales Units $ 901,600 240,200 + 51,000 * 488,00O + 175,100 * + 192,000 * Mixed Use with Live & Work LOyout -6,700 sq. ft. Commercial - 16 Units - 1 level underground parking - Surface alleyway parking ~ 41 cars (~ 12 cars a. Comm. Rental - $25 sq. ft. & 16 Rental Units $ 901.600_ 2nd Level Underground Parking -42 cars ~ $150 month year leasing - 42 cars ~ $175 month year leasing , 562.,000 .... 474,000 * These tl-a'ee alternatives pay for themselves and recapt, ure some of the land · 'MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Amy Margerum, City Manager FROM: DATE: Kathryn Koch, City .C. lerk September 8, 1993 October Council Meeting The first meeting in October is scheduled for October 11. This is a holiday in which city offices are closed. In the past Council has met on the next day. By approvinq the consent calendar Council is approving their regular meeting to be Tuesday, October 12, 1993. MEMORANDUM Vid TO: Mayor and City Council' THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager THRU' Bill Efting, Assist. City Manager, John Worcester, Assist. City Attorney and Steve Aitken, Golf Superintendent FROM: Richard Coulombe, Assist. Golf Super, ntendent~./~- ~ ~-~'~ DATE: September 7th, 1993 RE: Purchase of Rainbird Maxi 5 Central Irrigation Control System SUMMARY:We have been operating a Rainbird Master MC-! 1 Central Control System for the past 13 years, however it has become outdated and there are no longer any parts available to fix breakdowns. We have gone through the bid process and received 5 bids. Micad Inc. is our irrigation consultant and after s thorough review his recommendation was to go with Grand Junction Pipe and Supply Company the Maxi 5 System. We have awarded the bid to Grand Junction Pipe and Staff recommends that council approves. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The Rainbird master MC-11 System was purchased in 1979 when the new 18 holes was built. CURRENT ISSUES: Golf staff and the Advisory Committee have decided that improving the irrigation system is the most important aspect of the golf Course and should be addressed first. We are upgrading the system to current technological levels. This will save both water usage and electrical costs. It will also improve the quality of our turf with a more evenly distributed watering schedule resulting in less wet or dry spots. The old System is outdated and constantly in a state of repair. This improvement will help take the Aspen Golf Course to a higher level of excellence in playability. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Budget was made available for this project through the appropriation ordinance in May 1993. At that time $142,000 was approved for purchase and installat;on of a new irrigation control system. The cost of the Maxi 5 central control system is $53,149.77. These fur, ds are available in the current 1993 budget. This Maxi 5 system will help cut electrical costs in future years. It will also favorably impact future costs ir, water usage and system repairs. RECOMMENDATION: The general consensus of the Long Range Advisory Committee and Staff is that the golf course is in need of a substantial improvement in the irrigation system. We have gone foreward with th~s concept and ask council to accept our recommendation, ALTERNATIVES: This upgrade is necessary to improve the level of playability of our golf course. It is the first accomplishment needed in the entire process of improving the course. If this is not done we will be inhibited in bringing the Aspen Golf Course to its true potential. PROPOSED MOTION: "1 move to approve Resolution 63 on the consent agenda. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Series of 1993 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A SUPPLY PROCUREMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN GRAND JUNCTION PIPE & SUPPLY, BASALT DIVISION, AND THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the C:ty Council a supply procurement agreement between Grand Junction Pipe & Supply, Basalt Division, and the City of Aspen, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that supply procurement agreement between Grand Junction Pipe & Supply, Basalt Division, and the City of Aspen, a copy of which is annexed hereto and inco~orated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspt-n to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the Cit;, Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 1993. John S. Bennett, 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 SUPPL~' PROCUREMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into, th~s 27t.'~a,, of Au~u'-~t . _, 199.~. by and beiween the C~ty of Aspen, Colorado, hereinafter referred to as the "City" .and (1) Grand Junction Pi::)a , hereinafter referred to as the "Vendor." WITNESSETH, 'hat whereas the City wishes to purchase (2) Maxi V Irri3ation Central Control System , hereinafter called flooring, in accordance with the terms and conditions outlined in the Contract Documents and any associated Specifications, and vendor wishes to sell said flooring to the City as specified in its (3) (Pr..oposal, Bid, or Sales F,~imaste) ¢ro.oosal , attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by this reference incorporated herein. NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the Vendor, for the considerations hereinafter set forth, agree as follows' 1. Purchase· Vendor agrees to sell and City agrees to purchase (4) Central , all as more fully described in the Contract Documents and more specifically in Vendor's rS) (Proposal, Bid. or Sales Estimate) for the sum of (5)Fifty-three thousand, on~ hhlrlclred fort¥~nine ($ 53 149.';'7 ). City agrees to pay Vendor (6) payment terms {25% tt/i u . _ t _ _ ~wn, remainder at delivery_ etc.). 2. Delivery· Delivery shall be made f'7) 10 Bays ;a. RO . City shall have the right to inspect and reject any or all parts thereof that fail to conform to specifications. In the event that the City rejects goods delivered, Vendor shall refund in full all funds paid in advance of delivery. 3. Contract Documents. The Contract Documents that are hereby made a part of this Agreement as if fully set forth herein shall include City's Invitation for Bids and Vendor's Proposal, Bid or Sales Estimate attached hereto as Exhibit "A". ~. Successors and .a~g3..~. This Agreement and all of the covenants hereof shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the City and the Vendor respectively and their agents, representatives, employee, successors, assigns and legal representatives. Neither the City nor the Vendor shall have the fight to assign, transfer or sublet its interest or obligations here. under without the written consent of the other party. : Third Parties. This Agreement does not and shall not be deemed or construed to confer upon or grant to any third party or part,es, except to parties to whom Vendor or City may assign this Agreement in accordance with the specific written permission, any rights to claim damages or to bring any suit, action or other proce~ing against either the City or Vendor because of any breach hereof or because of any of the terms, covenants, agreements or conditions herein contained. 6. Waivers. No waiver of 'default by either pan)' of any of lhe lerms, covenants or conditions hereof to be performed, kept and observed by the other party shall be construed, or operate as, a waiver of any subsequent default of an>' of the terms, covenants or.condition~ herein contained, to be performed, kept and observed by the other party. 7. Agreement Made in Colorado. The parties agree that this Agreement was made in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and shall be so construed. Venue is agreed to be exclusively in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado. 8. Attorney's Fees. In the event that legal action is neces~ to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and reasonable attorney's fees. 9..Waiver.of Presumption. This Agreement was negotiated and reviewed through the mutual efforts of the parties hereto and the parties agree that no construction shall be made or presumption shall arise for or against either party based on any alleged unequal status of the parties in the negotiation, review or drafting of the Agreement. 10. q:ertification Regarding Debarment. Suspension. Ineligibility. and Voluntary_ Exclusion. Vendor certifies, by acceptance of this Agreement, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from participation in any trans~ction with a Federal or State department or agency. It further certifies that prior to submitting its Bid that it did include this clause without modification in all lower tier transactions, solicitations, proposals, contracts and subcontracts. In the event that vendor or any lower tier participant was unable to certify to this statement, an explanation was attache, z:l to the Bid and was determined by the City to be satisfactory to the City. 11. Warr~ti¢~ Against Contingent Fees. Gratuities. Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest. Vendor warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Vendor f.:)r the purpose of securing business. Vendor agrees noi to give any employee or former employee of the City a gratuity or any offer of employment in connection with any decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, preparation of any pan of a program requirement or a purchase request, influencing the content of any specification or procurement standard, rendering advice, investigation, auditing, or in any other advisory capacity in any proceeding or application, request for ruling, determination, claim or controversy, or other particular matter, [,ertaining to this Agreement, or to any solicitation or proposal therefor. Vendor represents that no official, officer, employee or representative of the City during the term of t' 's Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in th,s Agreement or the proceeds thereof, except those that may have been disclosed at the time City Council approved the execution of this Agreement. In addition to other remedies it may have for breach of the prohibitions against contingent fees. gratuities, kickbacks and conflict of interest, the City shall have the righl Io: l. . . Cancel this Purchase Agreement without any liability by the City; Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a vendor, contractor or sub-contractor under City contracts; ' Deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the value of anything transferre:l or received by the Vendor; and Recover such value from the offending parties. 12. Termination for Defa9lt or for Convenicn~ of City_. The sale contemplated by this Agreement may be canceled by the City prior to acceptance by the City whenever for any reason m~d in its sole discretion the City shall determine that such cancellation is in its best interests and convenience. 13. Fund Availability. Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available. If this Agreement contemplates the City utiliz~g state or federal funds to meet its obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon the availability of those funds for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 14. City Council Approval. If this Agreement requires the City to pay an amount of money in'excess of $25,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the City Council of the City of Aspen. 15. Nor~-Discriminatiorl. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, affectional or sexual orie,"~tion, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or religion shall be made in me employment of persons to perform under this Agreement. Vendor agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, section 13-98, pertaining to non-discrimination in employment. Vendor further agrees to comply with the letter and the spirit of the Colorado Antidiscrimination Act of 1957, as amended, and other applicable state and federal laws respecting discrimination and unfair employment practices. 16. Inte_zration and Modificad~. This written Agreement along with all Contract Documents shall constitute the contract between the parties and supersedes or incorporates any prior writte,~ aqd oral agreements of the parties. Any Agreement or modification to this Agreement must be in writing and be executed by the parties hereto. 1'/. Authorized Representative. The undersigned representative cf Vendor, aa an inducement to the City to execute this Agreement, represents that he/she is an authorized re;'~resentative of Vendor for the purposes of executing this Agreement and that he/she has full and complete authority to enter into this Agreement for the terms and conditions specified herein. 18. City of A$~n procurement Code. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein or in the Contract Documents this Agreement shall be subject to .,i~; City of Aspen Procurement Code, Chapter 3 of the Municipal Code. , IN WITNF~S WHEREOF, The City and the Vendor, respectively have caused this Agreemen. t to be duly executed the day and year first herein written in three (3) copies, all of which, to all intents and purposes, shall be considered as the original. FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN: VENDOR: By: ~ Branch l~ana~ler Title. Approved as to Form: purghqr.b~d vcrl~m a1192 VII BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY PRBLZMIITARY REPORT AND FINDINGS OP THB STAFP INVESTIGATION IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A CHANGE IN LOCATION BY: BTEAK PIT, XNC, DBA STEAK PIT PETER GUY; $0 WARREN CREEK IJ~NE, ASPEN - PRESIDENT GEORGE RANDALL; SOUTH LAGUNA BEACH~ GA.- VXCE-PRESIDENT WHEREAS, an application for a change in location of a license has been filed by the above referenced applicant pursuant to the Colorado Liquor Code, Section 12-47-101, ~, C.R.S., with the Aspen Liquor Licensing Authority (hereinafter "Authority"); and WHEREAS, a staff investigation has been conducted in accordance with the Authority's Policies and Procedures; NOW THEREFOR, THE FOLLOWING PREL/?,~INARY FINDINGS ARE HEREBY REPORTED TO THE AUTHORITY BY THE UNDERSIGNED: DATE APWLICATION COMPLETED: 0-2,3-93 Typ_~ OF LICENSE: THREE WAY WITH EXTENDED HOURS LOCATION OF CURRENT PREMISES= 7L! E, OOOPER LOCATION OF PROPOSED PREMISES: 30S E, HOPKINS - ASPEN, (K~TIE REED BUILDING) PROOF OF PROPERTY POSSESSION: L0 YEaR LEASE WITH ASPEN ARCADE LZMXTED In accordance with the Authorityts Policies and Procedures, the application for a change in the location of the licensed premises was referred to the following agencies or City departments to determine whether the applicant is in compliance with all laws, rules or regulations relating to the type of license sought at the proposed location of the premises to be licensed: Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department, Aspen/Pitkin Planning Department, Aspen/Pitkin Regional Building Department, and the Aspen Fire Protection District. Based upon those referrals and the responses received, the following information was disclosed: (a) All written remonstrances, protests, petitions, or other similar comments received by the City Clerk ts Office, .if any, are attached hereto as exhibits. (b) Within two years preceding the date of the application, neither the state nor the Authority has denied an application at the sam~ location for the reason that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood and the desires of the adult inhabitants were satisfied by existing outlets. (c) An inspection of the premises has been made to determine that the applicant has complied'with the architect's drawing and the plot plan and detailed sketch for the interior of the building submitted with the application. The building in which the business is to be conducted (lB) /~_~.~) ready for occupancy with such furniture, fixtures, and equipment in place as is necessary. (If the building is not ready for occupancy, approval by the Authority may be conditioned upon a successful inspection prior to the issuance of a license.) Tmn&nt finish is ~ot oompleted and liosnse will be held until CO issued. Applicant does not intend to move until November. (d) Tltere are no zoning laws of the City of Aspen that would prohibit the sale of liquor as contemplated. (e) The building in which the liquor is to be sold, by the drink, is not located within one hundred (100) feet of any public or parochial school or the principal campus of any college, university or seminary. THXS XS A PRELXMXNMtY REPORT Oil PXNDXNGS BY THE CITY OLERK'S OFFICE, NEITHER THE ~PPLXC~NT NOR XNTERESTED P~RTIRS SHOULD P~ELY UPON ITS CO~E~S. ONLY THE AUTHORITY ~0 THE DXBC~TXON~Y ~R ~ XBBUB ~ DB~ THE APPLXCATXON POR A ~~GB XN ~CATXON O~ THE Respectfully submitted, CITY CLERK'S OFFICE MOTION: X move to approve the transfer of looation for the Steak Pit from ?LO m. Cooper to 305 B. Hopkins. BEFORE THE CITY OF ASP~-N LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY PRBLIMIN~%RY REPORT ~ FINDINGS OF THE ST/iFF INVESTIGATION IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A TRANSFER IN OWNERSHIP BY: LUNAMEZZA LTD. LIABILITY COMPANY IS REQUESTING A TRANSFER OF THE LIQUOR LICENSE HELD BY ME~.~.ALUNA ASPEN INC. (CHARIF SOUKI) WHEREAS, an application for a transfer in the ownership of the above referenced business has been filed by the above referenced applicant pursuant to the Colorado Liquor Code, Section 12-47-101, e~__9_9~, C.R.S., with the Aspen Liquor Licensing Authority (hereinafter "Authority"); and WHEREAS, a staff investigation has been conducted in accordance with the Authority's Policies and Procedures; NOW THEREFOR, THE FOLLOWING PRELIMINARY FINDINGS ARE HEREBY REPORTED TO THE AUTHORITY BY THE UNDERSIGNED: DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED: ?-13-,3 TYPE OF LICENSE: THREE-W~Y LICENSE EXTENDED HOURf LOCATION OF PREMISES: $00 E. COOPER NAME OF CURRENT OWNER: CIa%RIP SOUKI CURRENT TRADE NAME OF ESTABLISHMENT: M~SZ~LUN& INC. Identity of new persons, firms, or corporations that will have an interest in the business: NAME ADDRESS INTEREST JOSEPH COSNIAC 200 PETER~ON #E SAN ANTONIO TEXAS 50% DOYLE WAGNER, JR. 1250 N.E. LOOP 410 S]tN ANTONIO TEXAS 50% If a hotel or restaurant liquor license, identity and address of new manager: Name Address Der2k Cave 411 Z. Main Apt. A, Aspen, Colo. has completed the alcohol awareness program and has been in os aur&n us ness he o As en s noo done on Doyle and 811 background ~hecks have been completed. ~oseph Cosniac is part o~er in the Cantina Restaurant here in &spen. The restaurant ~ill retain the ourrent tr~e nmne (Nez~aluna ~estaurant). The City ~k~s office ~eco~endB approval of this li~or license. In accordance with the Authority's Policies and Procedures, the application for a chpnge in the ownership of the business referred to the following agencies or City departments to determLne whether the applicant is in compliance with all laws, rules or regulations relating to the eligibility of the applicant to become a licensee: The City of Aspen Police Department, the Pitkin County Sheriff's Department, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Based upon those referrals and the responses received, the following information was disclosed: (a) The new. proposed own.er(s) ..j~_~j~ a p. erson, corporation or partnership prohibited by Section 12- 47-111, C.R.S., from being a licensee. The City of Aspen Police Department is unaware of any facts which would adversely reflect upon the application for a change in tbs ownership of the establishment. (c) The applicant, if a corporation, is incorporated pursuant to the laws of the state of Colorado. (d) There is no probable cause applicant is not of good reputation. to believe that the moral character and (e) No written remonstrances, protests, petitions, or other similar comments have been received by the City Clerk's Office. THIS IS A PRELIMINARY REPORT OF FINDINGS BY THE CITY CLERK'S OFFI(~.. NEITHER THE APPLICANT NOR INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD RELY UPON ITS CONTENTS. ONLY THE AUTHORITY NAS THE DISCRETIONARY POWER TO ISSUE OR DENY THE RENEWAL OF A LIQUOR LICENSE. Respectfully submitted, City Clerk's Office MOTION~ Z move to approve the transfer of the liquor license bela b~ ~ezsaluna Inc. to Lunamezza Lta. dba Nezzaluna. MEMORANDUM Vlll b TO: TltRU: THRU.. FROM: · DA TE., RE: A,~r ~,,fiui~en~n, Ci0' Manoger Thomn.v S. D~t~lop, 'E~,iro~nnenml Heahh Director,~,,~ Barhora Umhr¢it, E~'iromncntal Health Officer ASPEN .P~TKIN IRO'~MENTAL H~.~.LTH D£?ARTMD, 1' · Septen~her ,% 1993 Onlit~ttt~c'e 47, St, cv;nd RetMing' · SUMMARY: On August 23rd Council approved this ordinance on first reading. Ordinance 47 revises Ordinance 74 (1992), which regulates the u~e of charbroilers at food service events. The revision includes four changes: 1. The word "commercial" has been deleted from the definition of food service establishment to be consistent with the defxnition used in the Colorado Revised Statutes. 2. Language in the. ordinance referring to "alternative control devices," pertaining to grills installed between 1983 and 1993, has been deleted to satisfy EPA requirements. 3. Environmental Health is authorized to enter a food service establishment in order to review data on the fat Content of meat.' 4. .Any food service establishment may use an outdoor charbroiler for a maximum of four , days from April through October of each calendar year. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ~¢TION: Ordinance 74 was passed by Council in December, 1992 in an effort to consolidate and simplify our existing air quality regulations. When it became apparent this summer that the ordinance would regulate outdoor charbroilers at short-term "special event" type food service establishments, staff was directed to revise the ordinance. Tne revisions, contained in Ordinance 47, were approved on first readin~ August 23, 1993. BACKOROUND: From 1983 until 1993 the Clean Air Advisory Board had the authority to grant variances to food service events wishing %o use outdoor charbroilers (although very few such variances were requested in this ten year period). When the air ..quality ordinances were condensed into one ordinance in 1992 the zssue of grilling at "special events" never came up. At this ti, me the variance procedure was repealed for reasons unrelated to the grill issue, however, no one realized the impact on special events. SOl. TH G~L£X~ ST~t[~ , Asr~x. Cotol~t)o 81611 , PHO'~t 303 920.5070 , ]:Ax 303.920.51o7 Regarding change number two: when the original ordinance regulating charbroilers was passed in 1983 Environmental Health wanted to allow as much flexibility as possible regarding possible devices that would reduce emissions. We therefore included the wording' "alternative control devices" to cover new technologies that might be invented in the future that would allow an establishment to comply with the regulation. CURRENT ISSUES: The Deletion of the Word "Commercial" from the Definition of a Food Service Establishment (Municipal Code Section 11-2.2.(j)) This change makes the definition in the ordinance consistent with the definition used in the Colorado Revised Statutes. Such consistency is desired to avoid confusion over what constitutes a food service. Title 12, Article 44 of the Colorado Revised Statues defines a food service establishment as "any place where food is prepared ... regardless of whether ... there is a charge for the food served." (The definition includes a l~st of establishments that are exempt as well, such as private homes.) Deletion of Language Concerning Alternative Device..g (Municipul Code Section 11.2.30(b)) After Ordinance 74 became part of the State Implementation Plan for PM10, the EPA asked the City to define "alternative control devices." Since this wording was only relevant to devices installed in a ten year time period, and since no. such devices were ever installed, the City Attorney's Office advised Environmental Health that the most simple way to deal with this issue would be to delete this language. There will be no impact on existing restaurants since no establishment installed any' such device during the 1983-1992 time }%eriod, and the EPA will accept the ordinance as part of our implementation plan. Environmental Health Authorized to Review Establishment Data Regarding the Fat Content of Meat (Also in Section 11.2.30(b)) This change allows staff an additional option concerning establishments who comply with the ordinance in the fashion described in Section 11-2.30(b), i.e., charbroiling low-fat meat. This will allow Environmental Health to review test data provided by the establishment (regarding the fat content in meat) or enter an establishment and collect samples directly as we are already authorized to do. (Note that this change has nothing to do w.'[th the use of outdoor grills. Staff is proposing this change now simply due to the fact that other changes to the ordinance are being considered, it is efficient to include it at this time.) Charbroilers at Short Term Events (Municipal Code Section 11.2.30(c)) The issue of charbroilers at special events became controversial during the first big special event of the sun,mer, the 1993 Food and Wine Classic. Staff agreed to consider revising the ordinance to allow limited grilling at these events from April through October, when particulate pollution is less of a problem in Aspen. At the August 9th regular council meeting, Environmental Health and the City Attorney's Office were directed to draft an ordinance allo%~ing a maximum of four days of unrestricted charbroiling during the April - October time period. In addition, staff suggested that a variance procedure which had been requested by the Restaurant Association be included to allow for the possibility that future.special events could last more than four days. Council directed staff to include the concept of a variance and requested that Environmental Health be listed as the responsible department for variance requests. The details of the variance procedures will be set forth in a policy memorandum written by the director of Environmental Health and approved by the City Manager and City Attorney'. Council also requested that Environmental Health write a memo explaining how the charbroiler ordinance is being enforced. This memo has already been distributed to Coumcil. In addition, Council asked that the Clean Air Board review the changes; this is occurring at the CAAB's regular meeting on September Sth. Any comments or recommendations made by the Board will be reported to Council during the public hearing. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: No financial impact to the City is likely. Environmental Health does not anticipate any significant increase in staff work load if the revision is passed. RECOMMENDATION: Staff ~ecommends that Council pass Ordinance 47 on second reading. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Council can pass the ordinance on first reading or; 2. Council could look at other alternatives although, these were previously discussed and rejected on August 9th. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Ordinance Number 47 revising the ordinance which regulates air quality, on second reading. CITY~'NAGER COMMENTS: ORDINANCE NO. (Series of 1993) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING ARTICLE II OF CHAPTER 11 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, ENTITLED "AIR QUALITY", TO ALLOW FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS TO OPERATE CHAR- BROILERS FOR UP TO FOUR DAYS PER SUMMER SEASON IN A MANNER NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 11-2.30 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM "FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT", AND TO CLARIFY SECTION i l-2.30(b) RELATING TO CHAR.BROILERS INSTALLED AFTER APRIL 25, 1983, BUT BEFORE JANUARY 1, 1993. WHEREAS, the "Air Quality" Section of the Municipal Code prohibits food service establishments from operating charbroilers except in compliance with Section 11-2.30 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, Section 11-2.30 of the Municipal Code requires new charbroilers to be operated only with a control device that reduces uncontrolled PM~0 emissions by at least ninety percent (90%); and WHEREAS, such emission control devices are relatively expensive and would effectively preclude the use of outdoor charbroilers even during the summer season when the air quality in the City of Aspen is normally good and PM~0 concentrations are normally low; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to allow the use of outdoor charbroilers by food service estat-!ishments for a total of four (4) days during the summer season; and WHEREAS, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, as part of its review of the Aspen Element of the State Implementation Plan in accordance with the Clean Air Act, has asked for a clarification of the Aspen Municipal Code relating to charbroilers installed - between the period of April 25, 1983 and January I, 1993; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to clarify Section 11-2.30(b) of the Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1. That section 11-2.2(j) of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended to read as follows: (j) Food service establishment snail have the same meaning as the definition for the term in Section 12-44-202 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended. Section 2. That section 11-2.30 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended to read as follows: (a) Charbroilers installed in food service establishments on or after January 1, 1993, shall install, operate, and maintain a control device that reduces uncontrolled PM~0 emissions by at least ninety percent (90%), according to manufacturer specified removal efficiencies. This subsection (a) shall not apply to the replacement of an existing charbroiler with a eharbroiler having a cooking surface area that is less than or equal to the cooking surface of the charbroiler being replaced. Food service establishments with charbroilers that reopen for business after being closed for a period of six (6) months or more shall be subject to the provisions of this subs~,tion to the same extent as food service establishments that install charbroilers on or after January 1, 1993. Control devices required by this subsection (a) shall be maintained according to manufacturer's recommended guidelines. All owners and operators of food service establishments subject to the provisions of this subsection (a) shall maintain records containing the control device's installation date, manufacturer's recommended guidelines, and the actual maintenance performed on the control device. (b) Charbroilers installed in a food service establishment after April 25, 1983, but before January 1, 1993, shall not be used to cook high-fat-content n'ieat unless an emission control device that reduces uncontrolled PM,o emissions by at least ninety percent (90%), according to manufacturer specified removal efficiencies, is installed and thereafter operated in accordance with manufacturer's suggested guidelines or instructions. Owners and operators of food service establishments subject to the provisions of this subsection (b) who claim to serve meat that is not high-fat-content shall allow tl,e Department to enter upon the establishment at all times reasonable for the purpose of obtaining a sample of meats prepared on the charbroiler or to review and evaluate tes: ~ata maintained by the establishment illustrating the fat-content levels of the meat prepared in such establishment. (c) Notwithstanding any provision to the c.)ntrary as contained hereinabovc, food service establishments shall be exempt from the limitations as ~et forth in this Section 11-2.30 for up to four (4) days per year during a period commencing May ! and ending October 30 so as to accon',modate the utilization of outdoor cbarbroilcrs in food preparation. Such exemptions shall be subject to those rules and regulations as may be adopted from time to time by the City Manager to implemer~t this subsection. Section 3'. The City Manager, in c~onsultation with the Director o£ the Aspen/Pltkin County Environmental Health Department, shall devise and implement such rules and regulations as · deemed necessary to execute and enlbrce the provisions of Section 11-2.30(c) granting a limited operational exemption for outdoor charbroilers, including, bul not limited te, a variance procedure for expanding the exemption limit on a case-by-case basis. All rules and regulations as subsequently adopted must be consistent with the general declaration of policy set forth at Section 11-2.1 of Article II of Chapter 11 of the M'unicipal Code. Section 4. That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for an), reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction., such pot lion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independet~t 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 ~nder or by virtue of the ordinances : an-..encied as herein provided, and the same si'mil be construed and conclud~ under such prior ordinances. Section 6. A public hearing on the ordiaance shall be held on the ~ day of. 1993, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. IbrrRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 1993. ATTEST: John S. Bennett, Mayor Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this 1993. _..__ day of ATTEST' John S. Bennett, Mayor Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk mi quaitly .ord TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Amy Margerun, City Manager FROM: Craig Overbeck, Ass't Finance Director C_~ DATE: September 7, 1993 RE: 1992 Financial Statement Acceptance SUMMARY: Staff recommends that Council accept the 1992 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and audit results of the 1992 financial year. Dave DeZutter, Audit Manager from Grant Thornton, will be at the September 13 Council meeting to review the financial statements and answer any questions you might have regarding the 1992 CAFR, auditors management letter, or the annual audit. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: None BACKGROUND: The City Charter Article 9 Section 9.14 and State regulations require that the City have an independent audit of all .city accounts done at least annually by certified public accountants experienced in municipal accounting. The City has contracted wi'th Grant Thornton for the past nine years to perform year end audit services. Grant Thornton is a large national accounting firm with offices throughout the U.S and also a local office in Denver. The Finance Department has been quite pleased with the depth and amount of preparation that Grant Thornton displays each year. CURRENT ISSUES:: A copy of the 1992 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report has been distributed to each of you previously. Each year in conjunction with the audit, the auditors prepare a Memorandum of Advisory Comments (also referred to as the Management Letter). These comments are the result of situations which the auditors noted during the field work phase of the audit. Staff prepares a response, along with any necessary action taken if necessary, to the comments prior to the next annual audit. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council accept the 1992 financial statements with the following motion: "I move to accept the 1992 City of Aspen Comprehensive Annual Financial Report as prepared by the City Finance Department and audited by Grant Thornton." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 March 10, 1993 Honorable Mayor, Members of City Council and City Manager City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the city of Aspen for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1992 is submitted herewith. This report was prepared by the City's Finance Department. Responsibility for both the accuracy of the presented data and the completeness and fairness of the prese~tation, including all disclosures, rests with the City. We believe the data, as presented, is accurate in all material aspects; that it is presented in a manner designed to fairly set forth the financial position and results of operations of the City as measured by the financial activity of its various funds; and that all disclosures necessary to enable the reader to gain maximum understanding of the City's financial affairs have been included. The comprehensive annual financial report is presented in three sections: introductory, financial, and a~atis~ical. The introductory City's organizational chart and a list of principal officials. The financial section includes the general purpose financial statements and ~l'e combining and individaal fund and account group financial s~atemente and schedules, as well as the auditor's report on the financial statements and schedules. The statistical section includes selected financial and demographic information, generally presented on a multi-year basis. This report includes all of the funds and account groups of the City. ~ was prepared in accordance with NCGA Statement 3 to determine the reporting entity. The City provides a full range of services. These services include public safety (police and animal control) highway and street maintenance and construction, cultural events, recreational activities, public improvements, planning and zoning, health and general administr,~=ive services. The City of Aspen and Pitkin County cooperate in providing a. number of services. The data processing, environmental health, building, 'communications and planning and zoning departments are "joint" departments. These departments report to both the City and County managers. Both the City Council and Board of County Commissioners review their budgets. The City's share (usually 50%) is reported in the General Fund of the City financial statements. The County also pays the City for animal control services. The City and County created the City of Aspen-Pitkin County Housing Authority. The Authority reports to both the City Council and Board of County Commissioners. The City's share of joint expenditures are reported in its financial etatements in the Affordable Housing/Daycar~ Fund. The Housing Authority's total assets, liabilities, equity, revenues and expenditures are disclosed in the notes of the City's financia! statements. The Roaring Fork Transit Agency (RFTA) was formed in 1983 by the City and County. Both entities approve RFTA'. anrual budg.t. Th. citynot--°nly, includes · .ummary.l°f financial information in the to the City financi statements because the service area, permanent ma~or financial resource and permanent major obligations are at the county level. The City of Aspen and Pttkin C¢~unty are co-owners of a license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission which authorized the development of the hydropower resources of Ruedi Dam and Reservoir located in Pitkin County. The Ruedi facility began producing power in October, 19S5. Revenues in excess of expenses in the initial years of operation were held by the city un:ii ~hey accumulat.d to $200,000. Net revenues are distributed as follows: 40% to the City of Aspen 40% to Pitkin County 20% to the Ruedi Water and Power Authority The City has contracted to purchase all of the Ruedi hydroelec~ric power for the City of Aspen electric customers, the full faith and credit of the City is obligated for repayment of bonds, and the City has 'ful.~. ownership o£ the generating equipment. Selected Economic Information ,. Tourism is the largest single industry in the area. The largest single revenue source for the City is the sales tax. With the exception of 1991, sales tax collections have increased steadily in recent years. This trend is expected to continue although the percentage increases are expected to be smaller in future years. The City levies and collects a total of 1.7% tax on all retail sales within the City, and receives a proportionate share of a County-wide 2% tax on retail sales throughout the County. The revenues derived from the City 1% sales tax are dedicated to the acquisition and maintenance of open space land and capital improvements. All of the 1% sales tax revenue is pledged to the repayment of the City's outstanding Sales Tax Revenue bonds. Revenues from the City's share of the County's 2% sales tax not required for debt service on the sales tax revenue bonds are used by the General Fund for general governmental expenditures, thus reducing the City's need for property tax support of the General Fund. In January 1989 the City added a .25% sales tax. Revenues from this tax are dedicated to paying debt service on the parking structure. In July 1990 the City added a .45% sales tax. Revenues derived from this new tax are dedicated for purposes related to employee housing and day care for children. The folly:wing table shows the revenues collected by the City from all sales tax revenue sources since 1983: Sales Tax Revenues 1983-1992 County Olxn Spice System INIprOviment .&3% SiLts 1992 S3,S97,355 il,SS?,3&? 199~ 3.288,136 2,359,169 1990 3,523,381 ~989 3,203,8~2 1988 2,821,228 2,090,218 ~987 2,522,009 ~.849,108 0 1986 ~.363,00& 1,651,&~ 0 1985 2,244,736 1,588,022 1984 2,036,?27 1,42S,095 1,425,095 1983 1.908,252 1,3L~,612 0 S639,337 SI,150,806 s?,gGL,S&S 8.9~ 0 S89,793 1,061,626 ?,298,TLS S.6X 0 611,032 328,545 6,909,201 15.9~ 0 476,9?0 0 5,959,585 Zl.3X 0 0 0 4,911,&46 1J.3x 0 0 4,371,117 8.8X 0 0 4,014,483 0 0 &,9~S,966 0 0 &,Ss6,91? 6.Sx 0 0 4,S93,476 (1) In July of 1985 the Transit System Sa~es Tax became a county-wide tax and was no longer collected by the City. Revenues shown, therefore, are for the first seven months of 1985 only, .representing collections for retail sales from November 1984 through June 1985. The percent change in sales tax revenues for 1985 and 1986 shown are for the City's share of the Co.unty's 2% sales tax and the ¢ity,s 1% open space sales tax only. Skier Visits A? a major ski resort, the economic well-being of the City szgnificantly relies on the number of visitors to the ski area annually. Aspen Skiing Corporation, the ski area operator, has an ongoing development program to continue to expand and improve the skiing experience for the City's winter visitors. Annual skier visits in Aspen area skiing facilities are set forth in the following table. Precise information concerning the 1992-93 skier visits is not yet available. Aspen Aspen Ski Season MouptaiD Buttermil~ Hi~hlapd~ Snowmass ~ 1991-92 395,591 163,658 152,379 732,617 1,444,245 1990-91 366,962 144,419 145,678 645,374 1,302~433 1989-90. 352,665 188,984 151,007 579,854 1,272,510 1988-89 382,341 177,364 142,968 708,872 1,411,545 1987-88 384,433 158,602 132,822 648,058 1,323,915 1986-87 353,160 135,871 148,050 665,370 1,.302,451 1985-86 284,238 134,824 165,000 700,824 1,284,886 1984-85 299,836 163,034 164,899 711,655 1,339,424 1983-84 291,779 164,611 160,003 634,388 1,250~781 1982-83 254,581 192,627 156,679 679,849 1~283~736 1981-82 245,471 169,839 163,492 619,364 1,198,166 1980-81 141,603 214,399 141,000 572,688 1,069,690 1979-80 253,127 250,239 201,422 715,812 1,420,600 1978-79 263,793 235,239 221,877 699,568 1,420,477 1977-78 241,943 225,092 216,400 645,430 1~328,865 --mmmmmm--mmmmmm Source: Years 1977-78 through 1983-84 and 1987-92, Colorado Ski cou~:.y U.S.A.; 1984-85 through 1986-87, United states Forest Service. New Construction The level of new construction in the City increased during 1992. Growth in the local economy can be related to the growth in new construction. Growth is still occurring in both residential and commercial construction. Residential construction includes homes or condominiums which are not occupied for the entire year. The following table shows the value of new construction in ~he City based on building permits issued by the City. Value of New Construction by Years Year 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 New Commercial & Other ~esidentia~ Than Residentia~ Total $28,644,664 $ 6,400,510 $35,045,174 11,668,286 995,500 12,663,786 21,682,017 11,619,089 33,301,106 20,315,918 11,249,827 31,565,745 12,469,578 24,544,075 37,013,653 3,534,001 13,516,459 17,040,460 2,215,775 3,734,728 5,950,503 2,062,500 1,083~230 3,145,730 5,358,891 0 '5,358,891 3,023,889 2,954,100 5,977,989 364,000 3,676,086 4,040,086 Source: City Department. of Aspen and Pitkin County Joint Building Labor and Employment Statistics Unemployment statistics for the City as a separate statistical unit are not available. Mowever, the economy of the City, like that of the entire County, is largely dependent upon the ski industry and tourism. The annualized unemployment rate in the County was 4.0% in 1992. The following table sets forth the County's unemployment rate during each month of 1992, reflecting the cyclical nature of the economy over the course of a year: January 4.4% July 5.9% F~bruary 4.5% August 5.9% March 3.9% September 6.0% April 11.4% October 9.2% May 17.4% November 7.9% June 11.7% December 4.0% mmmm, m,mmm, mmmmmmmmmmmmm Source: Colorado State Department of Labor. m ~ajor Initiatives The following projects were underway in 1992: 1) Street Sweeper - A new Tennant Sweeper was purchased at & cost of $129,353. 2) Street Improvements - Various streets were repaired or overlaid at a total cost of $144,558. 11 3) Centercom Dispatch System - The City's share for this emergency communication system purchased jointly with Pitkin County, Snowmass Village and Basalt was $83,686. 4) Geographic Information Services - $114,197 was spent on computer hardware and software for th.is system. 5) Nordic Pisten Bulley - New cross country skiing trail maintenance machine was purchased for $85,000. 6) Meadows Property - This land was purchased for conservation purposes at a cost of $2,082,664. 7) Trails/Bridge Improvements - In 1992,' $128,302 was spent on bridge, trail improvements and a whitewater river course. 8) Wheeler Sidewalk replacement - The sidewalk in front of the Wheeler Opera House was replaced with a heated sidewalk for $43,048. 9) City Hall Renovation - Various structural repairs, work necessary to comply with the American Disabilities Act and other building renovation work was completed at a cost of $917,951. , 10) Water Plant Renovations - Various repairs were begun in 1992 and will continue in 1993 on the East Water Plant for the City. The total spent in 1992 was $89,132. For The Future Asset Management Plan - In 1992 City Council endorsed the Asset Management Plan which was put together by a group of City Staff working along with a citizen's committee called the "Blue Ribbon Committee". The Asset Management Plan includes an inventory of all the City's assets, five year plans for maintenance and capital acquisition and includes funding analysis for these needs. While the current City Council cannot legally commit future councils beyond 1993, adoption of the plan serves as a recommendation of the projects to future City Councils. It also provides direction to staff by identifying which projects to emphasize and research further in future years. The following are the projects approved for 1993: Cap ita i: Red Brick School bond payment Geographic Information Services Smuggler Sidewalk City Shop Plan/Debt Streets Overlay Parks and open space property 361,000 30,000 ~03,000 226,000 15O,000 235,000 Major Maintenance: City Hall Red Brick School Cemetery .Lane Houses Moore Swimming Pool Bridge Repairs Parks and open space major m~intenance Rio Grande Parking Garage Wheeler Opera House East Water Plant chlorine system Golf Course buildings Ongoing Maintenance: Storm Drainage Animal Shelter Fleet Management Geographic Information Services 100,000 30,000 18,700 11,000 10,780 87,500 7,500 20,000 87,000 32,000 10,000 5,000 238,000 31,000 Equipment: Electric Zamboni for ice rink Other equipment Parks Department equipment Parks and open space equipment Wheeler Opera House equipment Water Department equipment Golf equipment $ 66,000 $ 64,069 $ 40,200 $ 34,700 $ 48,500 $ 44,200 $ 37,700 1992 Projects not completed, funds approved for 1993: Cemetery Lane houses City Hall remodel Geographic Information Services City Shod Pedestrian Trail improvement Parks and open space property Red Brick School acquisition & renovation East Water Plant renovation Other Water Fund projects 8,809 25,668 72,400 180,825 130,131 363,964 3,747,969 558,191 372,983 Financial Information Accounting System and Budgetary Controls In developing and evaluating the City's accounting system, consideration is given %0 the adequacy of internal accounting controls. Internal accounting controls are designed to provide reasonable, but not absolute, assurance regarding: (1) the safeguarding of assets against loss from unauthorized use or disposition; and. (2) the reliability of financial records 13 for preparing financial statements and maintaining accountability for assets. The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that: (1) the cost of a control should not exceed the benefits likely to be derived; and. (2) the evaluation ~f costs and benefits requires estimates and judgments by management. All internal control evaluations occur within the above framework. We believe that the City's internal accounting controls adequately safeguard assets and provide reasonable assurance of proper recording of financial transactions. The City is legally required to adopt budgets for all City funds except the Police Pension Plan. Expenditures may not legally exceed appropriations at ~he fund level, but administrative control of the budget is maintained at the department level. General Governmental Functions General governmental functions include financial activity in the General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, and Debt Service Funds. Revenues for general governmental functions totalled $16,286,276 in 1992, an increase of 7.6 percent over 1991. Sales taxes produced 48.8 percent of general revenues as defined above, compared to 48.2 percent last year. General property taxes produced 11.1 percent of general revenues compared to 8.5 percent last year. The amount of revenues from various sources and the increase over last year are shown in the following tabulation: _ Revenue Source .... Taxes Licenses and permits Intergovernmental Charges for services Fines and forfeits Rents Interest Other Percent (Decrease) Amount of Total From 1991 $12,478,993 76.6 $1,449,731 ' 119,439 .7 (290,714) 780,823 4.8 55,836 1,175,697 7.2 260,598 483,246 3.0 96,928 410,302 2.5 40,673 405,394 2.5 (295,497) 432.382 2.7 (170.454~ $16.286.276 The increase in taxes of 13.1% is primarily due to a better economy and one half year of self collection of the 1.7% City sales tax, which resulted in one extra month of revenue due to reporting timing. The decrease in licenses and permits is due to the City "netting out" revenues from building department operations, since Pitkin County administers this department. Charges for service increased since the Ice Garden operations were merged into the General Fund in 1992. Interest earnings decreased due to market rates continuing to drop. Assessed valuations of $359.9 million in 1992 represented an increase of 3.8 percent from the preceding year.. The increase was due to new growth. The State of Colorado assesses residential property at :1% of market value and commercial property at 29% of market value. In 1991, $2.40 per $1,000 of assessed value (or 2.40 mills) was levied for general operations, debt repayment and streets capital improvements; this amount was p~yable in 1992. In addition, voters approved a 3.00 mill levy for capital projects which was also due in 1992. Allocations of property tax levy by purpose for 1992 and the seven preceding fiscal years are as follows: . purpose 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 General Fund General Obligation Debt Street Improvements Operating Maintenance Capital Projects · 94 .94 1.24 1.23 1.19 ~.09 2.38 2.28 · 31 .31 .46 .53 .60 .61 1.50 1.60 0 0 .70 .74 .73 .70 1.50 0 1.94 1.94 0 .21 2.00 The following table presents a summary of general, special revenue and debt service funds expenditures for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1992 end the increase or decrease in relation to prior year amounts. Increase Percent (Decrease) FunctioD ....... Am~uD.~ of Total From 199~ General government Public safety Public works Public health and welfare Culture and recreation Capital outlay Debt service $ 2,357,291 15.2 $ 379,709 2,072,108 13.3 (379,000) 1,772 , 290 11.4 (22,424) 1,074,$34 6.9 74,496 2 , 457 , 383 15.8 356,709 2,527,733 16.2 (27.5,953) 3.297,803 21.2 (521.430) ,~15~,559,442 15 Expenditures for general governmental purposes totaled $15,559,442, a decrease of 2.4 percent from 1991. Lease purchase financing in the Asset Replacement Fund was paid off in 1992 and note payments in the Mousing/Daycaze Fund were $575,000 lower than in 1991. Capita.1 outlay expenditures decreased due mainly to no new acquisition of properties by the Affordable Housing/Daycare Fund in 1992, although capital improvements in the Parks and Open Space Fund were nearly $2 million more than in 1991. Public safety expenditures decreased due to vacancies in the Police Department. Public health and welfare expenditures i~creased due to increased daycare contributions and housing subsidies in the Affordable Housing/Daycare Fund. The unreserved General Fund balance of $2,991,137 increased $921,544 from last year; unreserved and undesignated Special Revenue Fund balances of $3,952,388 increased $1,161,654 from last year. Enterprise Operations The City's enterprise operations are comprised of five separate and distinct activities - the water system, the electric system, the Ruedi hydroelectric system, the City golf course and the employee housing operation. The water, electric, and the Ruedi hydroelectric systems have no financial support from other City funds. The golf course is subsidized by the Parks and Open Space Fund for debt service. At year end 1991, the Ice Rink Fund was discontinued and the operations were transferred to the General Fund. Fixed assets of the Ice Rink Fund were transferred to the General Fixed Assets group of accounts. Water System The water system is separate from the City's general and other funds and all water operations are accounted for in the Water Fund. The City's water fund showed a slight decrease in operating revenues (.2%) and a slight increase in operating income (1.1%) from 1991 to 1992. This was primarily due to demand charges increasing from new users. Comparative data for the past two calendar years are presented in the following tabulation: 1992 . ~991 Operating revenues $2,206,516 $2,211,410 Operating income $ 765,213 $ 736,926 Income available for debt service $3,406,157 $1,823,523 Annual debt service $1,417,160 $1,409,742 Coverage (income available for debt service divided by annual debt service) 2.40 1.29 During the year, $985,000 of regularly maturing general obligation bonds, serviced with earnings of the Water Fund, were retired. All water bonds outstanding are general obli~n bonds. ~reached an all time high in 1992. The total was a~-6ut $1,450,000 more than in 1991. This allowed retained earnings in the Water Fund to remain high. Retained earnings were $5,195,532 at the end of 1992. Electric Fund The City's electric system showed a slight decrease in operating revenues (1.6%) and an increase in operating income (34.7%). This was due to decreased sales of electricity. Comparative data for the past two calendar years are presented in the following tabulation: 1992 1991 Operating revenues Operating income Income available for debt service Annual debt service Coverage (income available for debt service divided Dy annual debt service) $3,6B4 , 065 $3,743 , 715 $ 682,525 $ 506,547 901,530 $ 740,884 384,188 $ 434,001 2.35 1.71 During the year, $186,484 of regularly maturing general obligation bonds, serviced with earnings of the Electric Fund, were retired. Ail electric bonds outstanding are general obligation bonds. Retained earnings were $2,814,023 at the end of 1992 and increased due mainly to reduced electric wholesale costs. Ruedi Hydroelectric Fund The Ruedi Hydroelectric Fund made full profit distributions in 1992 for the third year since the cash reserve requirement of $200,000 was fully funded. Comparative data for the past two calendar years are presented in the following tabulation: 1992 ~,991 Operating revenues Operating income Income available for debt service Annual debt service Coverage (income available for debt service divided by annual debt service) $ 842,082 $ 344,988 476,591 466,715 $1,055,290 $ 424,450 $ 550,331 $ 538,136 1.02 1.02 During the year, $223,516 of regularly maturing general obligation bonds, serviced 'with earnings of the Ruedi Hydroelectric Fund, were retired. All bonds outstanding are general obligation bonds. Retained earnings had a deficit balance of $279,696 at year end 1992, due mainly to an accounting loss of over $443,000 on the advance refunding of the 1985 GO Electric Bonds in 1991. Fiduciary Operations The City provides pension benefits for police officers through a defined contribution pension plan. The City contributes 8% of an officer's salary to the plan until ten years of employment, at which time the City contributes 10%. The City's contributions are fully vested after five years. All permanent employees other than police officers are eligible to participate in one of three deferred compensation plans. The City contributes 3% of the employees salary to the plan of his/her choice until ten years of employment, at which time the City contributes 5%. The City has no unfunded liabilities in the polic~ pension plan or in either deferred compensation plan. Debt Administration Outstanding general oblipation bonds at December 31, 1992, totaled $30,450,000 of which $26,460,000 were issued for water, electric and housing improvements which are considered to be self-supporting. The remainder of $3,990,-000 is considered to be net direct 'lax supported debt. In addition, $795,000 of special assessment bonds and $9,200,000 of:sales tax revenue bonds are outstanding at December 31, 1992. The City's general obligation bonds are rated "A" by Moody's Investors Service. The City Charter limits the general obligation debt to 20% of the preceding year's assessed valuation of property. As of December 31, 1992 the City's applicable outstanding general debt of $6,810,000 was well within the legal limit of $62,508,126. Applicable bonded debt per capita was $%,339. Cash Management During the past fiscal year, temporarily idle cash was invested in time deposits, state investment pools, U.S. Treasury,and U.S. Agency securities. Although most cash was invested with maturities ranging from i to 365 days, a small percentage of the Ci"y's total restricted and unrestricted portfclio was invested in securities with maturities greater than one year and up to eight years. The majority of idle cash was invested in state investment pools or other securities. Demand deposits were kept at a zero balance through the use of automatic transfers from time deposits as checks were presented for payment. Yields on individual investments ranged from 2.89 to 8.97 percent per annum and the amount of earnings on investments in all funds except fiduciary funds was $602,003. This represented an annualized yield of approximately 3.79% on an average investment portfolio of $15,897,641 and a decrease of $306,668 from the earnings on investments from the prior fiscal year. The primary factors accounting for this decrease were lower interest rates and a lower average investment portfolio amount than the prior year. Risk Management The City is a member of the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA). CIRSA provides defined liability, property, crime, police professional and error and omissions insurance coverage and assists members in preventing and reducing losses and injuries. During 1992, the City had a $5,000 deductible on these policies, ex~:ept for errors and omissions insurance which has a $2,500 deductible. City staff participates in risk prevention activities sponsored by CIRSA. Ti%e City obtained workmen's compensation insurance from ,:he State of Colorado in 1992. There is no deductible on this insurance. Other Information Independent Audit The City Charter requires an annual audit of the books of account, financial records, and transactions of all adminis- trative departments of the City by independent certified public accountants selected by the City Council. This requirement has been complied with and the auditor's report has been included in this report. Awards The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) awarded a Certificat~ of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the City of Aspen for its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1991. The Certificate of Achiev.ment is a prestigious national award recognizing conformance with the highest standards for preparation of ~tate and local government financial reports. In order to be awarded a Certificate of Achievement, a government unit must publish an easily readable and efficiently organized comprehensive annual financial report, whose contents conform to program standards. Such reports must satisfy both generally accepted accounting principles and applicable legal requirements. A Certificate of Achievement is valid for a period of one year only. We believe our current report continues to conform to the Certificate of Achievement program requirements and we are submitting it to GFOA. In addition, the City also received ~he GFOA's Award for Distinguished Budget Presentation for its annual budge~ for the 1992 fiscal year. This was the sixth consecutive year that the City received this award. Xn order to qualify for the Distinguished Budget Prusentation Award, the City's budqe~ document was judged to be proficient in several ca~egories including the budget as a policy document, an operations guide, a financial plan and a communications device. 2O Ackn ow 1 edgements The preparation of the comprehensive annual financial report on a timely basis could not be accomplished without the efficient and dedicated services of the entire staff of the finance department. Each member of the department has our sincere appreciation for the contributions made in the preparation of this report. Without the leadership and support of the City Council, preparation of this report would not have been possible. Sincerely, eckit Cra verb Assistant Finance Director Dallas Everhart Finance Director TO: City Council From: Tom Stevenson RE: Comments to Governor Romer on Partnership Against Violence DATE: September 9, 1993 Please remove this item from the Council meeting agenda on September 13th. We are presently in contact with Governor Romers office and find we are needing more research time. Please reschedule this for the next Council meeting on Monday September 27th. Thank you. ~ORANDUM TO: FROM: Mayor and Council Amy Margerum, City ManageiO~/.--.~ Diane Moore, City Planning Dire~orf~]~) Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner Kastelic - Subdivision, PUD Review and Vested Rights for 2 Single- Family Parcels, First Reading Ordinance ~, Series of 1993 DATE: September 13, 1993 m m m m m mmm mmmm mm mm mm mmm m mm mm mm m mm mm mm mmmmm mm mmmm mm mm m m mm m m m mm mm mmmm m m m m m m SUMMARY: The applicant, Anthony Kastelic Estate, represented by Glen Horn and. Lenny Cares, propose to subdivide a 74,.726 square foot parcel xnto.2 single-family parcels. The .applxcant also requests vested rxghts and a consolidated PUD revxew process for this subdivision. Subdivision and PUD ~evtew (if consolidated) isa two step review process. The Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed this application at their August 24, 1993, meeting. The Commission recommends, to Council, consolidated PUD review and subdivision approval for this proposal. Because this is a two lot subdivision with existing development, a four step PUD review process was determined by the Commission to be redundant and it served no public purpose. However, Council may determine that the application should be subject to both conceptual and final PUD plan review, in which case consolidated review shall not occur. Please see attached OrdinanceS, Series of 1993, Exhibit A. STAFF COMMENTS d&okground - The property is a single 74,726 square foot parcel zoned R-15 with a PUD overlay. Currently there are two detached single-family residences and an assortment of sheds on the property. The parcel is bordered by the Red Wood Condominiums to the north, Lot i of the Gordon Subdivision to the south, Riverside Avenue to the east, and the Roaring Fork River to the west. Mr. Kastelic died in 1989. Two family members seek to equitably divide the property into two lots while maintaining a single- family residence on each lot. There is no development or redevelopment contemplated at this time. If the two seperate parcels are created through this subdivision process, only single-family homes are the permitted use on both lots dh~ to slope density reduction calculations performed as part of PUD review. Because this subdivision application does not propose development or redevelopment of the property, GMQS review is not required. Similarly, because redevelopment is not proposed at this time, staff has declined to conduct a stream margin review. Stream margin review is more effective when considering an actual development proposal. In the past, developments based upon stream margin review using theoretical building envelopes have been problematic. Finally, because there is no new development proposed, and few if any impacts, typical public amenities that are usually acquired during subdivision and/or GMP review cannot be exacted during this subdivision review. Although, obtaining various amenities cannot be linked to a subdivision/PUD approval, staff requests, but require, a 14' trail easement through the property. An assessment of impacts related ~,~ growth will occur at the time of redevelopment of the property such as compliance with Ordinance 1. Project Summary - The applicant proposes to create two single- family parcels in the R-15 zone district. A lot split is not being pursued because a vacant lot is not being created for future development purposes. Therefore, subdivision is more applicable for the creation of two parcels each with existing structures. Please see proposed site plan, Exhibit B. Lot I is proposed to be 30,6~6 square feet and Lot 2 is proposed to be 44,110 square feet. Each parcel will support one of the two existing single-family structures. For Lot 1, the rear yard setback is proposed to be varied from the required ten feet to five feet in order to accommodate the existing structure. When redevelopment of Lot I occurs, the rear yard setback shall be brought into compliance. (This shall be noted on the subdivision plat.) According to the d.~-ft plat, Lot i will be reduced by approximately 12,827 square feet (land under high water and road/utility easement) for floor area purposes and Lot 2 will be reduced by approximately 12,147 square feet. These calculations shall also be indicated on the final plat. APPLICABLE REVIEW - I. PUD - The property is zoned R-15 with a PUD overlay. PUD is an overlay that adheres with the underlying zoning and is intended to allow site design flexibility within the confines of underlying zoning. The most significant aspect of PUD review for this proposal is reduction in density for slope consideration and variation of minimum rear yard setback. Please see Exhibit C for specific PUD review. X!. Subdivision subdivision review. Please see Exhibit D for specific IIX. Vested Rights -'the applicant requests vested rights status to protect the development approvals for three years from changes in the Municipal Code, Chapter 24. Necessary vesting language is included in the Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION= The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to Council consolidation of PUD review. The Commission also recommends to Council approval of subdivision and PUD for the Kastelic property for the creation of two residential parcels each of which are currently occupied by a single-family dwelling unit with the following conditions: 1. Due to slope density reduction c. alculations, only a single- family home is permitted on each lot. 2. Prior to the issuance of any demolition, excavation or building permits for Lot I or Lot 2, a stream margin review shall be required. 3. The rear yard setback for Lot i shall be varied from the required ten feet to five feet. Redevelopment of Lot i shall comply with the dimensional requirements of the R-15 zone district unless varied through the PUD review process. This shall be noted on the subdivision plat. 4. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for Lot I or Lot 2, tree removal permits shall be required for any trees over 6" in caliper. 5. A final plat shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department. The plat shall include the book and page of the recording and current improvements as would be required for redevelopment. 6. The subdivision plat and subdivision agreement shall be reviewed by the Planning Department and City Attorney. 7. The final subdivision plat shall be filed within 180 days of final approval. Failure to file said plat and subdivision agreement within 180 days shall render the subaivision approval void. 8. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the redevelopment of Lot i or Lot 2, the developer of such lot shall submit a drainage analysis performed by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado to the engineering department. 9. Prior to redevelopment of Lot 1 or Lot 2, the developer of such lot shall upgrade all utilities and locate them underground as required. 10. The applicant shall adhere to all representations made in the application and during the review process. 11. Prior to filing a final plat, the Zoning Officer shall review the plat to conf~ .tm proposed building envelopes. 12. Prior to the issuance of any earth moving, excavation, demolition or building permits, a review of any proposed changes from the approvals, as set forth herein, shall be made by the Planning and Engineering Departments. 13. Prior to second reading, the applicant shall submit to the Engineering Department survey maps and calculations for slope density reduction verification. Based upon the revised landscape plan submitted by the applicant, staff also recommends the following condition of approval: la. Prior to second reading, the applicant shall redesign the building envelopes to avoid as many significant trees as possible. PUD variations may be employed to adequately avoid the trees. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve consolidated PUD review of the Kastelic PUD plan as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission." .CITY NANGER COMMENTS J "I move to approve subdivision, PUD review and vested rights for the Kastelic property creating two single-family parcels as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission with the conditions outlined above and ame.nded by staff." "I move to approve OrdinanceS, Series of 1993, on first reading." · EXHIBITS: B. C. D. Ordinance ~'~, £eries of '~3 Site Plan PUD Review Criteria Subdivision Review Criteria ORDZNANCE~ CounCil ordinance _ -- SERIES OF 1993 AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING SUBDIVISION, PUD AND VESTED RIGHTS FOR THE KASTELIC PROPERTY LOCATED AT 570 RIVERSIDE AVENUE, ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 24-7-903 and 24-7-1004 C.1., of the Aspen Municipal Code the applicant, Estate of Anthony Kastelic, has submitted an application for subdivision and PUD review of a 74,726 parcel along the Roaring Fork River zoned R-15 PUD; and WHEREAS, the applicant requests to subdivide the parcel into two residential parcels and maintain the two ex/sting single family homes on the newly created parcels; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-7-903.C.3, the applicant has requested a consolidated PUD review of the proposal; and WHEREAS, redevelopment of the property is not proposed at this time; and WHEREAS, the applicant also applied for stream margin review but was advised that stream margin review is more effective at the time of redevelopment of the property; and WHEREAS, the applicant also requested a 5 foot rear yard setback variance through PUD review for Lot i of the Kastelic PUD/subdivision; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission") on August 24, 1993, to consider the subdivision and PUD review; and WHEREAS, the Commission having reviewed the application and considered the representations and commitments made by the applicant found that the subdivision complied with'Section 24-7- 1 1004 and is not in conflict with any applicable portions of Chapter 24; and WHEREAS, the Commission recognized that a trail easement cannot be required as part of this subdivision but would urge the applicant to consider granting an easement to help complete the City's trail system along the river; and WHEREAS, the Commission recommends to Council consolidation of the PUD review, approval of the 5 foot rear yard setback variance, and subdivision and PUD approval for the Kastelic property; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, having considered the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations, does wish to grant subdivision and PUD approval with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLOP.~DO: Section 1: Pursuant to Section 24-7-903.C.3, of the Municipal Code, the City Council finds that it is appropriate to consolidate conceptual and final PUD review of this proposal. S,~t~gn ~: Pursuant to Section 24-7-1001 of the Municipal Code, and subject to those conditions of approval as specified hereinafter, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the subdivision of the Kastelic property: 1. The applicant's submission is complete and sufficient to afford review and evaluation for approval. 2. The subdivision is consistent with the purpose of subdivision which is to assist in the orderly and efficient development of the city and safeguard the interests of the public and the subdivider and provide consumer protection for the purchaser. Section 3: Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section 2 above, the City Council does hereby grant subdivision and PUD approval of the Kastelic.property, consisting of 2 lots, each containing an existing single-family dwelling unit, with the following conditions: 1. Due to slope density reduction calculations only a single- family home is permitted on each lot. 2. Prior to the issuance of any demolition, excavation or building permits for Lot i or Lot 2, a stream margin review shall be required. 3. The rear yard setback for Lot I shall be varied from the required ten feet to five feet. Redevelopment of Lot I shall comply with the dimensional requirements of the R-15 zone district unless varied through the PUD review process. This shall be noted on the sulbdivision plat. 4. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for Lot i or Lot 2, tree removal permits shall be required for any trees over 6" in caliper. 5. A final plat shall be reviewed and approved by the Eng.ineering Department. The plat shall include the book and page of the recording and current improvements as would be required for redevelopment. 6. The subdivision plat and subdivision agreement shall be reviewed by the Planning Department and City Attorney. 7. The final subdivision plat shall be filed within 180 days of ~inal approval. Failure to file said plat and subdivision agreement within 180 days shall render the subdivision approval void. 8. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the redevelopment of Lot i or Lot 2, the developer of such lot shall submit a drainage analysis performed by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado to the engineering department. 9. Upon development of Lot I or Lot 2 the developer of such lot shall upgrade all utilities and locate them underground as required. 10. The applicant shall adhere to all representations made in the application and during the review process. 11. Prior to filing a final plat, the Zoning Officer shall review the plat to confirm proposed building envelopes. 12. Prior to the issuance of any earth moving, excavation, demolition or building permits, a review of any proposed changes from the approvals, as set forth herein, ~hall be made by the Planning and Engineering Departments. Section 4: Pursuant to Section 24-7-903.B.2. (a) (6), staff recommends a redesign of the proposed building envelopes to avoid as many significant trees as possible· PUD variations may be employed to adequately avoid the trees. Section $: Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code, City Council does hereby grant the applicant vested rights for the Kastelic subdivision/PUD development plan as follows: I · The rights granted by the site specific development plan approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested for three (3) years from the date of final adoption specified below. However, any failure to abide by the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly record all plats and agreements as specified herein and or in the Municipal Code shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested rights. · The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. · Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or the general rules, regulations or ordinances or the City provided that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the approvals granted and vested herein. · The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site development approval, the developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. Section $: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portio )f this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 7: 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 conduct~.d and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 8: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the day of , 1993 at 5:00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteer. (15} days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council 6f the City of Aspen on the day of Attest: , 1993. John Bennett, Mayor Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this , 1993 . , John Ben~'ett, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk day of 17' / / HOUSE HOUSE ' ~ LOT 2 ~tl.O~ ~ 7.OSO SO,FT.',/- RO/~ tAlE. $.017 dJQ.I:T../- TO'rA~. 44. ! JO I,Q.Irl'. */' iII.SI' IUILDING ENVELOPE RE- * I0' EXHIBIT C - PUD REVIEW Pursuant to Section 24-7-903.B.1, the General Requirements for PUD plan review are as follows: 1. (a) The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. RESPONSE: The land uses of the site will not change with this subdivision. If the properties are redeveloped in the future the land uses on the site will continue to be residential. Due to slope density reduction calculations, no more than one single- family home per parcel is permitted, unless accessory dwelling units are approved per lot. (b) The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land usus in the area. RESPONSE: The character of the surrounding neighborhood is residential. Although there is a multi-family building (Redwood Condominiums) to the north of the subject property, the subdivision will not alter the single-family character or be inconsistent with surrounding lot sizes in the neighborhood. (c) The proposed development shall not adversel.v affect the future development of surrounding areas. RESPONSEg The creation of two single-family parcels will not compromise future development or redevelopment of the surrounding residential area. The neighborhood is comprised of detached single-family and some multi-family housing. For many years the City has proposed the installation of a pedestrian/bike path along this side of the Roaring Fork River to complete the City-wide pedestrian/bike path along the river. Recently, the City successfully completed negotiations with the owners of the Gordon/Callahan subdivision (to the south of Lot 1 of the Gordon subdivision) to secure trail and bridge easements along the river. The existing structures on the Kastelic property are well away from any proposed trail alignment that has been considered through the property. The PUD review process and available dimensional variations may be necessary to ensure that the building envelopes of any redevelopment are not compromised by a pedestrian/bike trail and there is enough room to install the trail. (d) Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. Response: GMQS allotments are not required for this development plan. There are two existing single-family homes on the property. The PUD/subdivision propose to create 2 lots each maintaining a single-family home. Due to slope density reduction calculations no more residential development is permitted on either parcel, unless accessory dwelling units are proposed or a rezoning of the property. Bection' 24-7-903.B.2 addresses density standards for PUD review. a. General. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone district. Furthermore, densities may be reduced if: (1) There is not sufficient water pressure and other utilities to ~.ervice the proposed development; Response: There are sufficient utilities to service this PUD plan. (2) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance to the proposed development; Response: The property is accessed by the public ROW of Riverside Avenue. The 15 foot private drive that accesses the property will be enlarged to 30 feet. (3) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of its slope, ground instability, and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers; Response~ The site is free of avalanche, rock and mud flow hazards. (4) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution; Response: Currently no new development is proposed. At the time of redevelopment a full stream margin review shall be required in order to prevent runoff and erosion that could be detrimental to the river and surrounding watershed. (5) The proposed development will have a deleterious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the city; Response: The PUD plan does not increase the amount of development that currently exists, and has existed for. many years, on this property. Therefore, the air quality is not impacted. (6). The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not' compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Response= The proposed building envelope of Lot 1 encompasses 5 spruce trees greater than 6" in caliper. The proposed building envelope of Lot 2 encompasses 6 significant trees: 5 cottonwoods and one 12" spruce. Redevelopment of the property, utilizing the building envelopes as propomed, could eliminate significant vegetation - critical natural features of this property. However, it is possible to use the PUD review process to vary setbacks. Sta~ reco.m~.ends a redesign of both building envelopes avoid any impacts to those significant features during redevelopment. B. Reduction in density for slope consideration. (1) In order to reduce wildfire, mudslide, and avalanche hazards; enhance soil stability; and guarantee adequate fire protection access, the density of a PUD shall also be reduc~.d in areas with slopes in. excess of twenty percent 'n the following manner. (a) For lands between zero and twenty percent slope, the maximum density allowed shall be that permitted in the underlying zone district; (b) For lands between twenty-one and thirty percent slope, the maximum density allowed shall be reduced to fifty percent of that permitted in the underlying zone district; (c) For lands between thirty-one and forty percent slope, the maximum density allowed shall be reduced to twenty-five percent of that permitted in the underlying zone district; (d) For lands in excess of forty percent slope, no density credit shall be allowed. 2. Maximum density for the entire parcel on which the development is proposed shall be calculated by each szope classification, and then by dividing the square footage necessary in the underlying zone district per dwelling unit. 3. For parcels re,ting in more than one underlying zone district, the density reduction calculation shall be performed separately on the lands within each zone district. 4. Density shall be further reduced as specified in Article 3, Definition of Lot Area. Response: According to the application the following slope density reduction and lot area analysis applies to this proposal. This has been confirmed by the Engineering Department. Land Category Square Ft. (Slope) of Land Area Max. Density Allowed Resulting Lot Area (SF) 0-20% 24 , 000 100% 24,000 21-30% 14 , 000 50% 7,000 31-40% 8,250 25% 2,062 >40% 8,000 0% 0 Land Under Water 15,560 0% 0 Land Under Road 4,826 0% 0 Tota 1 Land Area 74,636 - 33,062 The minimum lot area requirement for the R-15 zone district is 15,000 square feet per single-family dwelling unit. Therefore, two single-family parcels may be created out of the 33,062 square feet of land area after slope density reduction calculations. Subtracting the land under water and the land under road for each newly created parcel, the resulting land area for floor area purposes is: 30,$15 sq. ft. for Lot I and 44,110 sq. ft. for Lot 2. The allowable floor area for Lot 1, based upon current code standards, is 5087 sq. ft. The allowable floor area for Lot 2, based upon current code standards, is 5938 sq. ft. Section 24-7-903.B.4 addresses dimensional requirements. dimensional requirement shall be those of the underlying district, provided that variations may be permitted in following: The zone the minimum distance between buildings, maximum height, minimum front yard, minimum rear yard, minimum side yard, minimum lot width, minimum lot area, trash access area, internal floor · area ratio, and minimum percent open space. Responses The R-15 zone district requires a ten foot rear yard setback for a primary dwelling unit, a five foot rear setback for accessory buildings and a twenty foot rear setback for all buildings except residential dwelling units and accessory buildings. According to the application, a covered porch on the existing home on Lot 2 will be demolished and the remaining structure will comply with the dimensional requirements of the R-15 zone district. However, the existing home on Lot ! is five feet from the rear yard line. Therefore, a five foot variance is requested to allow a five foot rear yard setback verses a ten foot setkack. The applicant agrees that any future redevelopment of the property will comply with all dimensional requirements of the R-15 zone district unless varie~ through a PUD review process. The Land Use Code does not identify specific review criteria for dimensional variations. However, the review of a reduction in dimensional requirements should consider whether the variation will adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. This variance request for the Kastelic property is necessary to address an existing situation and will be remedied at the time of redevelopment. In addition, identificatiun of the specific property boundary that divides Lots 1 and 2 has bemn a difficult process. It has been ongoing for three years. Staff supports the five foot variance with th, condition that redevmlopment shall comply with the R-I$ zone district dimensional requirements. As mentioned during subdivision review, redevelopment may reguire PUD variations to ensure that the proposed pedestrian/bike trail alignment does not impact future structures on the site. In addition, staff recommends PUD variations to redesign the building envelopes to better protect the existing vegetation from impact during redevelopment. E__~i~__IBIT D - SUBDIVISIO~ REVIEW In order to cr~. :,':e two separate parcels the applicant proposes to subdivide their approximately 74,726 square foot parcel into two seperate lots. Pursuant to Section 7-1004 C. 1., the General Requirements for subdivision are as follows- 1. (a) The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. RESPONSE: The land uses of the site will not change with this subdivision. If the properties are redeveloped in the future the land uses on the site will continue to be residential. Due to slope density reduction calculations, no more than one single- family home per parcel is permitted, unless accessory dwelling units are approved per lot. (b) The proposed subdivisicn shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. RESPONSEs The character of the surrounding neighborhood is residential. Although there is a multi-family building (Redwood Condominiums) to the north of the subject property, the subdivision will not alter the single-family character or be inconsistent with surrounding lot sizes in the neighborhood. (c) The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. RESPONSE: The creation of two single-family parcels will not compromise future development or redevelopment of the surrounding residential area. The neighborhood is comprised of detached single-family and some multi-family housing. For many years the City has proposed the imstallation of a pedestrian/bike path along this side of the Roaring Fork River to complete the City-wide pedestrian/bike path along the river. Recently, the City successfully completed negotiations with the owners of the Gordon/Callahan subdivision (to the south of Lot 1 of the Gordon subdivision) to secure trail and bridge easements along the river. The existing structures on the Kastelic property are well away from any proposed trail alignment that has been considered through the property. The PUD review process and available dimensional variations may be necessary to ensure that the building envelopes of any redevelopment are not compromised by a pedestrian/bike trail and there is enough room to install the trail. (d) The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this chapter. RESPONSE: The subdivision complies with all applicable s.tandards of subdivision. The subdivision will eliminate the non-conforming status of the property- two detached residences on one parcel that is not historically landmarked. Pursuant to Section 7-1004 C. Z - 5, the pertinent subdivision requirements are as follows: · (a) Land Suitability - The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rock slide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. RESPONSE: The parcel is located along the Roaring Fork River. Although stream margin review is not being considered at this time the building envelopes for future development are being located outside the flood hazard area. There are no natural hazards that exist on the site that would endanger the welfare of future residents. (b) Spatial Pattern - The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of ~ublic facilities and unnecessary public costs. RESPONSE: There are no unnecessary public costs associated with this proposal. The site is currently served by the necessary utilities. However when the properties are redeveloped, public facilities may need to be upgraded. The property is at the end of Riverside Avenue which is a public ROW. A dedicated 30 foot access and utility easement to the southern property line will be provided through the proposed subdivision. All future public improvements will be borne by the applicant· 3 & 4. Improvements and Design Standards - following is a review of the relevant subdivision standards: (a) WATER - The property is already served with public water· Should the parcels redeve=op, the Aspen Water Department has sufficient capacity to ser%ica ti:? redevelopment. However, new service taps and service line extensions may be necessary· (b) SEWER- The District currently .provides service to the existing residences. New development may be required to participate in upgrades of downstream constraints of the wastewater collection system. (C) ~.LECTRIC, TELEPHONE, NATURAL GAS AND CABLE TV - Ail required extensions will be located underground at the time of redevelopment. (d) EASEMENTS - A thirty foot utility and access easement is proposed to the southern property line. The City cannot exact a trail easement as part of this subdivision. (e) BIDEWALK, CURB, AND GUTTER - There are no existing sidewalks, curbs, or gutter in the near vicinity of the subdivision. The property is located at the end of Riverside Avenue and access onto the property is via a private, 15 foot easement which is being expanded to 30 feet. No sidewalks, curbs, or gutters are proposed for thi~ private drive. (f) FIRE PROTECTION - There exists sufficient flow and pressure in the service lines to provide adequate fire protection from the existing fire hydrant which is within 150 feet of the site's improvement. Should future redevelopment locate structures beyond this distance a new hydrant will 'be required. '(g) DRAINAGE - Any development or redevelopment of the two parcels shall require a drainageplan, complete with calculations and must be provided by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado submitted to the Engineering Department. The drainage engineer must also certify that drainage structures have been built as designed (prior to final inspection). Also, the applicant should indicate how the existing street drainage is to be maintained, but not necessarily included in the calculations. (h) ROADS -. There are no new roads proposed in the subdivision. (i) Final Plat - The final subdivision plat shall be filed within 180 days of final approval. ?allure to file said plat and subdivision agreement within 180 days shall render the subdivision/PUD approval void. 5. Affordable Housing - No affordable housing is required of the subdivision at this time. No dwelling units are being replaced and no new lots are being created for development purposes. When the existing residences are redeveloped, Ordinance i housing requirements or other reviews may apply. MEMORANDUM TO: THRU: THRU FROM: DATE: Mayor and Council Amy Margerum, City Manager Diane Moore, City Planning Directo~ Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer 935 E. Hyman, Landmark Designation of U.S. Location Monument, Ute No. 4, First Reading of Ordinance #.~--~), Series of 1993. September 13, 1993 SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of Ordinance #~, Series of 1993 on the proposed Landmark Designation of U.S. Location Monument,'Ute No. 4. Ute No. 4 was established in 1880 as a Bureau of Land Management survey marker and was used to site mineral claims. The monument is not included on Aspen's "Inventory of Historic Structures and Sites" and is potentially threatened with demolition. APPLICANTS: The application has been initiated by the Aspen Planning Department, at the direction of the Historic Preservation Committee. LOCATION: 935 E. Hyman Avenue, Proposed Lot I of the Sund Lot Split, also known as lots D and E, Block 35, East Aspen Addition. PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: Landmark Designation is a three-step process, requiring recommendations from both HPC and P&Z (public hearings), and first and second reading of a Landmark Designation Ordinance by City Council. City Council holds a public hearing at second reading. OTHER BOARD ACTION: On June 9, 1993 HPC made a motion directing the Historic Preservation Officer to begin research on the historic significance of this monument. On July 28, the board opened the public hearing on the proposed Landmark Designation of U.S. Location Monument, Ute No. 4. HPC unanimously found that the Monument has sufficient historic significance to be declared an Aspen Landmark, but continued the public hearing twice to allow the property owner an opportunity to work out conceptual plans for the building to be constructed on the site. HPC's intention is to landmark the entire parcel so that they can protect not only the monument, but also a certain area around it to ensure that it remains visible to the public. · T~e Historic Preservation Committee has the ability to grant p~eservation incentives to Landmarked parcels. HPC voted to approve Landmark Designation on August 25, 1993, and as of that date the property owner has agreed to support the designation in the hopes of accessing some of these incentives. Staff and HPC are working wiah the applicant to accommedate his proposed design and to limit any potential hardship caused by designation. If the designation application is successful, the owner will submit a more finalized building design for HPC review. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted to approve Landmark Designation on September 7, 1993. LOCAL DESIGN/%TIO~ STANDARDS: Section 7-702 of the Aspen Land Use Code defines the six standards for local Landmark Designation, requiring that the resource under consideration meet at least one of the following standards: A. Historical Import&nee: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social or political history of A~en, the State of Colorado or the United States. Response: In the summer of 1879, a party of prospectors crossed the Continental Divide from Leadville into the Roaring Fork Valley. They established a silver mining camp, first known as "Ute City," and began staking mineral claims. As word of their find travelled back to Leadville, more settlers began to come into the valley. Some of them stayed in the camp through the winter, under threat of Ute Indian attack, to protect their interests. In order to establish a post office, receive the benefits given an officially recognized town and attract investors, the mining camp had to become a surveyed townsite. The first step in this process was accomplished in the early spring of 1880, when B. Clark Wheeler laid out the town boundaries. Over the summer, new residents interested in mining poured in rapidly. U.S. Location Monument, Ute No. 4 was established during this period, in September of 1880. The moDument is a Bureau of Land Management Marker, which are generally established when there is no official survey point within '~wo miles. Ute No. 4 became the siting point used to locate a great number of mineral claims that were laid out on Aspen and Smug.]ler Mountains. Mining had a short "heyday" of only 14 years (1879-1893) in Aspen, but the extraction of mineral wealth was obviously essential to the founding of this town. }~any of the structures and artifacts associated with this period and with the mining process have been lost. No other such monument is known to exist now in Aspen. B. Architectural Importance: The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character. Response: This standard is not applicable. C. Architectural Importance: The structure or ~ite embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen. Response: This standard is not applicable. D. Architectural Importance: The. structure is a significant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: This standard is not applicable. Z. Neighborhood Character: The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Response: The monument is important to the character of this neighborhood in that it has been the scene of various activities related to Aspen's mining history. Drill holes on the west face of the rock suggest the sort of miner's drilling competitions which have been documented in other towns occurred here. F. Commun:,,.ty .Character: The structure or si~e is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen commonalty because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Response: Although this monument will no longer function as a surveying point, it is important to preserve its "integrity of location." This site was chosen for survey work presumably because of it was visible and provided expansive views of the valley. It is a geographic landmark which is clearly connected to the early history of this community's development. RECOMMEND&TION: Staff recommends City Council approve Landmark Designation of U.S.L.M., Ute No. 4, finding it meets standards A (historic significance), E (neighborhood character) and F (community character). ORDIN.~NCE NO. ~ (Series of 1993) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL DESIGNATING 935 E. HYF,~N AVENUE, LOT I OF THE SUND LOT SPLIT, ~LbO K~:OWN AS LOT D, BLOCK 35, CITY ~d~D TOI~SITE OF ASPEN, AS "H", HISTORIC L~.ND~K PURSU~IT TO SECTION 24-7-703 OF THE HUNICIPAL CODS. WHEREAS, the City of Aspen's Planning Department has filed an application for Historic Landmark Designation of 935 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot i of the Sund Lot Split, also known as Lot D, Block 35, East Aspen Addition, pursuant to Section 24-7-704 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, Stefan Sund, owner of 935 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot i of the Sund Lot Split, also known as Lot D, Block 35, East Aspen Addition, has agreed to support the Landmark Designation as of August 25, 1993; and WHEREAS, ~he Historic Preservation Committee recommended Historic Designation for the subject properties at a duly noticed public hearing on August 25, 1993; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommended Historic Designation for the subject properties at a duly noticed public hearing on September 7, 1993; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-7-702, the City Council has found that the subject property is historically significant and that the preservation of the property is necessary to enhance and preserve the character of the East End neighborhood and the Aspen community; and 1 WHEREAS, City Council wishes to affirm those recommendations as rendered by the Historic Preservation Committee and Planning and Zoning Commission and complete the Landmark Designation process. NOW THERe. FORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY · OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section That the structures and property at: 935 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot i of the Sund.Lot Split, also known as Lot D, Block 35, East Aspen Addition be granted "H "Historic Landmark Designation Section 2 That the Zoning District Map be amended to reflect the rezoning described in Section i and the Planning Director shall be authorized and directed to amend said map to reflect said rezoning. Section 3 That the Planning Director shall be directed to notify the City Clerk of such designation, who shall record among the real estate records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Section 4 That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of ~.his Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the walidity of the remaining portions thereof. Section $ That a public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 27th day of September, 1993, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the . day of , 1993. John S. Bennett, Mayor ATTEST Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this ..... , 1993. day of John S. Bennett, Mayor ! ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City C?.erk TO: THRU: THRU: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM Mayor and City Council Amy Margerum, City Manager~l/ Diane Moore, City Planning Director~~ ~ Kim Johnson, Planner September 13, 1993 Ute Park Subdivision: Amendment to Growth Management Exemption for Affordable Housing Units to Change Deed Restrictions - First Reading of Ordinance ~.~b, 1993 SUMMARY: The owner is proposing to change the deed restrictions of three of the seven townhomes from Category 3 to Category 4, and to increase the sales price of ali seven units. The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal on August 24, 1993 and with a 4-0 vote recommended approval with conditions. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The Ute Park Affordable Housing Subdigision / PUD was granted final approval by Council in 1992. It was the first project approved under the AH (Affordable Housing) zone district requirements. A paz~ of this approval included GMQS Exemption for the affordable housing component, which set forth specific deed restrictions. BACKGROUND: The project owner is James Martin. The amendment request is being sponsored by the Housing Office. The project is located at the far east end of Ute Avenue. The entire Ute Park approval consists of seven deed restricted townhomes and three free market single-family lots. Since the 1992 approval of the project, the owner has determined that the Category 3 deed restrictions and pricing structure will not cover his costs of producing the units. He cites that on- going interest payments and larger than expected water tap fees necessitate the revised deed restrictions and sales prices. Please refer to a more detailed explanation in Tom Baker's memo attached as Exhibit "A". COMPLIANCE WITH THE ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN: By receiving the proposed amendment the owner can make the project's financial ends meet. Thus, 'one policy within the Housing Action Plan section of the AACP is clearly supported: - Whenever available and appropriate, work with landowners whose property is well suited and well located to develop affordable housing. CURRENT ISSUES: Staff has determined that the proposed change is substantial enough to warrant a replication of the original review process via P&Z and City Council. Because the entire project is blanketed by a PUD approval, the Planning Director will be able to process a staff-level PUD Amendment upon approval of the revised GMQS Exemption by Council. As the first AH project to receive final approval, Ute Park has been a "proving ground" for many issues related to the AH zone district's blend of affordable and free market development. GMOS Exemption for Affordable Housinq: Pursuant to Section 8-104 C.l(c) the Council sh~ll exempt deed restricted housing that is provided in accordance with the housing guidelines. The Commission shall review and make a recommendation to Council regarding the housing package. According to the Code, 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, =he 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. Response: With this request, there are no changes to the approved number, size or configuration of the townhome 'units· Ail seven units will remain sale units· The Housing Board has forwarded its recommendation for approval of the change from Category 3 to Category 4 for three of the townhomes. They also have nodded to increased sales price of the original Category 4 units. The Board finds that the changes are appropriate giYen the price structures of all of the Ute Park units as discussed and the mix of units in the recently approved East Cooper AH project. The Planning Office and the Planning Commission agree with the Housing Board. on this request. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS~ None to the City. RECOMMENDATION: By a 4-0 vote, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed amendment to the 1992 Ute Park GMQS Exemption to change the three Category 3 townhomes tc Category 4 and to raise the sales prices of the origimal Category 4 un~, with the following condition which is included in Ordinance ~, 1993: i · The initial sales price for the three amended units shall be $135,000.00, and occupancy preference for these three units shall be to Category 3 households. · The initial sales price for the original four Category 4 units shall not exceed $180,000.00. · Ail ~.'~terial representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval,, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. ALTERNATIVES: The Council could establish different deed restriction categories or sales prices for the seven units. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to have first reading of Ordinance ~, 1993 to amen( the Affordable Housing Growth Management Exemption for the Ute Park Subdivision / PUD to change the Category 3 deed restrictions to Category 4, and to raise the sales prices of the seven affordable townhomes as presented in the application." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Ordinance ~ , 1993 ,, Exhibits: "A" - 8/13/93 Memo from Tom Baker Regarding ehe Amendment (SERIES OF ~993) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING AMENDMENT TO THE 1992 GMQS EXEMPTION APPROVAL FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THE UT~ AH (AFFORDABLE HOUSING) SUBDIVISION ! PUD TO CHANGE DEED RESTRICTIONS ON THREE UNITS WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-8-104 C.l.c. of the Aspen Municipal Code, th~ City Council may exempt deed restricted affordable housing units from the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) competition; and WHEREAS, the Ute Park Subdivision received Final Subdivision, PUD, and GMQS Exemption approval in 1992 pursuant to Ordinance No.18 (Series 1992) for the development of three free market lots, three Category 3 townhomes, and foyer Category 4 townhomes; and WHEREAS, due to unforeseen financial considerations, project owner James Martin requested that the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority consider a change of the Category 3 units to Category 4 units, and an increase in the initial sales price of all of the dee~ restricted units, such changes being approved by the Housing Authority Board; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on August 24, 1993, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission agreed with the Housing Board's recommendation and found that the proposed amended deed · restrictions and initial zale prices meet the requirements of the review criteria for GMQS Exemption; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval to the City Council for the amendment to the 1992 GMQS Exemption for the deed restrictions at the Ute Park townhomes with conditions; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered and agreed with the Housing Board and Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation, does wish to amend the 1992 Ute Park GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing, changing the Category 3 units to Category 4 units, and increasing the initial sales prices for all of the seven townhomes within the project. NOW, THEREFORE, ~ IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ~SPEN, Bection 2: That it does hereby grant an amendment to the 1992 Ute Park GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing as initially granted pursuant to Ordinance No.18 (Series 1992) to change the three Category 3 units to Category 4, to increase the maximum initial sales price for the four Category 4 units pursuant to Section 24- 8-104.C.l.c. of the Aspen Municipal Code. Section 2. The conditions of approval which apply to '~his amended GMQS Exemption are: 1. The initial sales price for the three amended units shall be $135,000.00, and occupancy preference for these three units shall be to Category 3 households. 2. The initial sales price for the original four Category 4 units shall not exceed $180,000.00. 3. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. Section 3: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the day of , 1993 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (~5) days prior 2 to which a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of ~eneral circulation within the City of Aspen. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of.the remaining portions thereof. Section $: 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. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 1993. ATTEST: K&thryn S. Koch, Citl~ Clerk John Bennett, M~yor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this , 1993 . day of ATTEST: K&~hryn S. Koch, City Clerk John Bennett, Mayor 3 TO: FROM: DATE: Kim. Johnson, Planning Office Tom Baker, Housing Offi~ August 13, 1993 RE: GMQS Exemption: Amending Ute Park Affordabl~ Housing Development Category )~ix PURPOSE~ The purpose of this memorandum is to initiate a GMQS Exemption amendment to the approved category mix of the Ute Park AH Project. The Housing Board has directed its staff to apply for a change in the unit mix on behalf of the developer, Jim ~.~artin. Jim was the first person to use the City's AH Zone. The current approval allows Jim Martin to construct seven (7) affordable housing units: four 3-bdrm, category #4 units; and three 3-bdrm category #3 units. As you are aware, attached 3-bdrm unit[ can be sold for a maximum of $193,500 (category #4) and $126,000 (category #3). Jim Martin originally priced these units as follows: o o category #3 ....... $126,000 category #4 ....... $162,500 During pre-construction Jim discovered his costs had increased substantially for two reasons: first, interest rates had increased since the time he started the development review process; and tap fees (primarily sewer) were significantly higher than expected. Apparently the sewer tap fee is high due to down stream line improvements which are necessary in this portion of the city. Due to these cost considez~tions Jim Martin requested that the Housing Board grant him the ability to increase his prices $91,000. Jim proposes to do this by increasing the sale price of his category #4, 3-bdrm units to $180,000 and increase the sale price of his category #3, 3-bdrm units to $135,000. Therefore, the new unit pricing will be as follows: categcry #4 ....... $135,000 category #4 ....... $180,000 The Housing Board wishes to emphasize that the only portion of the development approval which is being changed is the price of the units. HOU~IN~ BO&RD ACTION.', The Hous. ng Board supports Jim Mart' ~'s request for sales price increases. The Board pointed out that Jim has the ability to increase the sale price of his category #4 units up to $193,5e0 without additional approvals. Jim stated that all of the units are 3-bdrm units and similar in size and' design; therefore, he wanted the price increases to occur in a manner which did not preclude his buyers from qualifying and also spread the increases over all seven units (Jim has buyers selected for all seven units). The Board then pointed out that increasing the category #3 units from $126,000 to $135,000 technically changed the category designation of these units to category #4. This technical change causes the development ~o have seven (7) category #4 units. Since the ~pprouals for this development permitted 4 category #4 units and 3 c~ ory #3 units, we need to request this amendment. REOUEST: The Housing Board recommends approval of Jim Martin's request to change the sale price of the 3 category #3, 3-bdrm units from $126,000 to $135,000. The Board finds that this increase is appropriate given the price structure of all the affordable units and given the category mix approved on the East Cooper AH development. The Housing Board further requests that the 3 new category #4 units be specified to sell for a maximum of $135,000 and that preference be given to category #3 households for these ul~its. ~rt ir~.gmc~s BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY PRELIMINARY REPORT AND FINDINGS OF TH~ STA~FF INVESTIGATION IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A TRANSFER IN OWNERSHIP BY: ASPEN RESTAURANT ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP IS REQUESTING A TRANSFER OF THE LIQUOR LICENSE HELD BY'MAN~O~S INC. DBA ANGUILLA WHEREAS, an application for a transfer in the ownership of the above referenced business has been filed by the above referenced applicant pursuant to the Colorado Liquor Code, Section 12-47-101, et seq., C.R.S., with the Aspen Liquor Licensing Authority (hereinafter "A~thority"); and WHEREAS, a staff investigation has been conducted in accordance with the Authority's Policies and Procedures; NOW THEREFOR, THE FOLLOWING PRELIMINARY FINDINGS ARE HEREBY REPORTED TO THE AUTHORITY BY THE UNDERSIGNED: DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED: 8-31-93 TYPE OF LICENSE: THREE-WAY LICENSE EXTENDED HOURS LOCATION OF PREMISES: 205 S. MILL STREET NAME OF CURRENT OWNER: ROBERT & MELINDA BLANCHARD CURRENT TRADE NAME OF ESTABLISHMENT: ANGUILLA Identity of new persons, firms, or corporations that will have an interest in the business: NAME ADDRESS INTEREST ASPEN RESTAURANT CORPORATION IS THE GENERAL PARTNER AND COMPRISED OF TWO GENERAL PARTNERS EACH OWNIN~ 50% PAUL R. CHANIN 0011 SALVATION CIRCLE STEVEN H. CHANIN 8Z$ CEMETERY LANE If a hotel or restaurant liquor license, identity and address of new manager: Name Address STEVEN CHANIN 825 CEMETERY L~NE Steve will take the next available alcohol awareness class t~ addition to any employee selling alcohol. The City Clerk,s office recommends approval of this liquor license. In accordance with the Authority's Policies and Procedures, the application for a change in the ownership of the business was referred to the following agencies or City departments to determine whether the applicant is in compliance with all laws, rules or regulations relating to the eligibility of the applicant to become a licensee: The City of Aspen Police Department, the Pitkin County Sheriff's Department, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and '.he Federal Bureau of Investigation. Based upon those referrals and the responses received, the following informatio~ was disclosed: (a) The new proposed owner (s) is not a person, corporation or partnership prohibited by Section 12- 47-111, C.R.S., from being a licensee. (b) The City of Aspen Police Department is unaware of any facts which would adversely reflect upon the application for a change in the ownership of the estab[ishment. (c) The applicaDt, if a corporation, is inco~'porated pursuant to the laws of the state of Colorado. (d) There is no probable cause to believe that the apDlicant is not of good moral character and reputation. (e) No written remonstrances, protests, petitions, or other similar comments have been received by the City Clerk's Office. THIS ZS A PRELIMINARY REPORT OF FINDINGS BY THE CITY CLERKmS OFFICE. NEITHER THE APPLICANT NOR INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD REL~ UPON ITS CONTENTS. ONLY THE AUTHORITY H~S THE DISCRETIONARY POWER TO ISSUE OR DENY THE RENEWAL OF A LIQUOR LICENSE. Respectfully submitted, City Clerk's Office b~ ~ango m s Inc. to ~spen Restauran2 &ssociates L.P. dba Chanin~s