Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.council.regular.20050411
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA April 11, 2005 5:00 P.M. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Scheduled Public Appearances a) Proclamation Community Government (CGTV) Channel 11 b) Proclamation -Earth Day c) Green Leaves and Green Tree Award Presentation IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes) V. Special Orders of the Day a) Mayor's Comments b) Councilmembers' Comments c) City Manager's Comments d) Board Reports VI. Consent Calendar (These matters maybe adopted together by a single motion) a) Resolution #23, 2005 -Design Contract AABC Housing ~a. -3.S b) Food & Wine Request Banners on Main Street Light Poles ~. 3 ~-r{O c) Minutes -March 28, 2005 VII. First Reading of Ordinances a) Ordinance #24, 2005 -Burlingame Ranch AH PUD P.H. 4/25 p ~ l -q~ b) Ordinance #23, 2005 - AVLT/AMCORD Initial Zoning P.H. 4/25 ll.cj ~ - ~/p c) Ordinance #25, 2005 -Mother Lode Subdivision P.H. 5/9,.~ (~ ~ YY-(y:,~, VIII. Public Hearings a) Resolution #22, 2005 -Temporary Use Aspen Institute Tent f7 1~5- ~(05~ b) Ordinance #4, 2005 - 701 West Main Street Historic Lot Split . ~(p(~ - 1$~ c) Ordinance #9, 2005 -Code Amendment -Lodge District Co~inue to 4/25/2005 ~l~' d) Ordinance #10, 2005 -.Code Amendment - Signs ~ l8s - a ~S e) Ordinance #18, 2005 -Galena & Main Subdivision p `l ~(o - ®. a~~ f) Ordinance #20, 2005 -Code Amendment -Residential Design StandardsP • a~yg_ ,~$~ g) Ordinance #21, 2005 -Code Amendment -Growth Management ~ a$~ - gGv IX. Action Items a) Reclaimed Water System Feasibility Study ~ 3~ I -.31o'f X. Executive Session a) Property acquisition Xi Adjournment Next Regular Meeting April 25, 2005 COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council THRU: Ed Sadler, Assistant City Manager FROM: Michelle Bonfils, City Project Manager DATE: April 1, 2005 RE: Redevelopment Proposal for 212 AABC (Existing Animal Shelter) SUMMARY: Three proposals were submitted in response to the advertisement for the 212 AABC Request for Proposals (RFP). Staff has evaluated these three proposals and is unanimously recommending the proposal submitted by Novy Architects. BACKGROUND: The Aspen Animal Shelter will be relocating to its' new facility, currently under construction. It is anticipated that the existing facility will be vacated fa112005. The existing facility and land is owned by the City of Aspen. It has been determined that this site would be appropriate for additional City of Aspen Employee housing. Asset Management Staff initiated the Request for Proposals process February 2005 -- proposals were submitted Mazch 21, 2005. This property is in the County and will follow Pitkin County's land use process. Staff will keep City Council informed of the progress through the regular monthly prof ect updates. A subdivision application and zone change will be required to redevelop this property - a six to twelve month process. We do not anticipate breaking ground unti12006. This schedule will run pazallel to completion of the new animal shelter. DISCUSSION: Three proposals were submitted. Following are Staff comments on the three proposals: 1. SunDesigns Architects, Glenwood Springs, CO • While Staff has had a successful working relationship with this firm on the new Aspen Animal Shelter, this proposal did not demonstrate the completeness of the other submissions. 2. Palomino Barth Architects, Basalt, CO PROS: • This proposal described 2 buildings housing 12 residential units, 12 storage units, and 13 parking spaces (ofwhich 11 are covered). • This proposal is innovative in the use of green planted roofs. The idea of this proposal is to better manage site drainage, increase insulation of the units, and increase landscaped area for the residents. • 277 Efficient Building Points are proposed. MEMORANDUM CONS: • There is no proven experience on the team of constructing green planted roofs. • Staff research found no conclusive evidence (pro or con) that green planted roofs are successful. • Minimal efficient building experience is demonstrated in the submitter's qualifications. 3. Novy Architects, Carbondale, CO PROS: • This proposal includes 3 buildings housing 9 residential units (2 ADA compliant), 9 storage units, and a minimum of 9 covered parking spaces • Propose to achieve Platinum Residential Leed Certification - could be first in Colorado • Team has significant experience in the Roaring Fork Valley with green building design and technologies (including with the Building America program and CORE). • Team includes Leslie Bethel as the Planner -strong references. • 259 Efficient Building points proposed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Asset Staff unanimously recommends the Novy Architects proposal for this affordable housing endeavor. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This redevelopment opportunity is budgeted for $2,415,000 in the Asset Management Plan. This amount is derived from the following departments who will house workers at this affordable housing site - Pazk's, Water, Wheeler and the General Fund. The Novy Architects contract for Design and Planning services is for $195,000. It is noted in the Novy Architects proposal that the project can be built for $2,415,000. Furthermore, Novy recommends upgrades to achieve Leed Platinum certification will be paid through grant funding. ALTERNATIVES: The Palomino Barth proposal is generally very strong. If this proposal were to be pursued, further reseazch would be required regazding some design details. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: (~pc aw~,ti..e,,11 c~„~-rmr-( RESOLUTION NO. ~3 Series of 2005 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR REDEVELOPMENT AT 212 ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER, BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND NOVY ARCHITECTS, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR OR CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a proposal for employee housing redevelopment at the existing Animal Shelter, 212 Aspen Airport Business Center, submitted by Novy Architects, 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 proposal submitted by Novy Architects for redevelopment of the existing Animal Shelter at 212 AABC, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the Mayor or City Manager to execute said professional services contract on behalf of the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND .ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 2005. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk TLO- saved: 4/4/2005-249-G:\[ara\animal shelter\212AABC.resolution.doc AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement made and entered on the date hereinafter stated, between. the CITY OF ASPEN, Colorado, ("City") and Now Architects, ("Professional"). For and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Scone of Work. Professional shall perform in a competent and professional manner the Scope of Work as set forth at Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. 2. Completion. Professional shall commence work immediately upon receipt of a written Notice to Proceed from the City and complete all phases of the Scope of Work as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the Work in a timely manner. The parties anticipate that all work pursuant to this agreement shall be completed no later than May 31, 2006. Upon request of the City, Professional shall submit, for the City's approval, a schedule for the performance of Professional's services which shall be adjusted as required as the project proceeds, and which shall include allowances for periods of time required by the City's project engineer for review and approval of submissions and for approvals of authorities having jurisdiction over the project. This schedule, when approved by the City, shall not, except for reasonable cause, be exceeded by the Professional. 3. Payment. In consideration of the work performed, City shall pay Professional on a time and expense basis for all work performed. The hourly rates for work performed by Professional shall not exceed those hourly rates set forth at Exhibit "B" appended hereto. Except as otherwise mutually agreed to by the parties the payments made to Professional shall not initially exceed $195,000.00. Professional shall submit, in timely fashion, invoices for work performed. The City shall review such invoices and, if they are considered incorrect or untimely, the City shall review the matter with Professional within ten days from receipt of the Professional's bill. 4. Non-Assignability. Both parties recognize that this contract is one for personal services and cannot be transferred, assigned, or sublet by either party without prior written consent of the other. Sub-Contracting, if authorized, shall not relieve the Professional of any of the responsibilities or obligations under this agreement. Professional shall be and remain solely responsible to the City for the acts, errors, omissions or neglect of-any subcontractors officers, agents and employees, each of whom shall, for this purpose be deemed to be an agent or employee of the Professional to the extent of the subcontract. The City shall not be obligated to pay or be liable for payment of any sums due which maybe due to any sub-contractor. 5. Termination. The Professional or the City may terminate this Agreement, without specifying the reason therefor, by giving notice, in writing, addressed to the other party, specifying the effective date of the termination. No fees shall be earned after the effective date of the PS1-971.doc Page 1 termination. Upon any termination, all finished or unfinished documents, data; studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, reports or other material prepared by the Professional pursuant to this Agreement shall become the property of the City. Notwithstanding the above, Professional shall not be relieved of any liability to the City for damages sustained by the Cityby virtue of any breach of this Agreement by the Professional, and the City may withhold any payments to the Professional for the purposes of set-off until such time as the exact amount of damages due the City from the Professional maybe determined. 6. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Professional warrants that s/he has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working for the Professional, to solicit or secure this contract, that s/he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract. 7. Independent Contractor Status. It is expressly acknowledged and understood by the parties that nothing contained in this agreement shall result in, or be construed as establishing an employment relationship. Professional shall be, and shall perform as, an independent Contractor who agrees to use his or her best efforts to provide the said services on behalf of the City. No agent, employee, or servant of Professional shall be, or shall be deemed to be, the employee, agent or servant of the City. City is interested only in the results obtained under this contract. The manner and means of conducting the work aze under the sole control of Professional. None of the benefits provided by City to its employees including, but not limited to, workers' compensation insurance and unemployment insurance; aze available from City to the ,employees, agents or servants of Professional. Professional shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of Professional's agents, employees, servants and subcontractors during the performance of this contract. Professional shall indemnify City against all liability and loss in connection with, and shall assume full responsibility for payment of all federal, state and local taxes or contributions imposed or required under unemployment insurance, social security and income tax law, with respect to Professional and/or Professional's employees engaged in the performance of the services agreed to herein. 8. Indemnification. Professional agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, insurers, and self-insurance pool, from and against all liability, claims, and demands, on account of injury, loss, or damage, including without limitation claims arising from bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or damage, or any other loss of any kind whatsoever, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this contract, if such injury, loss, or damage is caused in whole or in part by, or is claimed to be caused in whole or in part by, the act, omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligence, or other fault of the Professional, any subcontractor of the Professional, or any officer, employee, representative, or agent of the Professional. or of any subcontractor of the Professional, or which arises out of any workmen's compensation claim of any employee of the Professional or of any employee of any subcontractor of the Professional. The Professional agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense for and defend against, any such liability, claims or demands at the sole expense of the Professional, or at the option of the City, agrees to pay the City or reimburse the City for the PS1-971.doc Page 2 defense costs incurred by the City in connection with, any such liability, claims, or demands. If it is determined by the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction that such injury, loss, or damage was caused in whole or in part by the act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or its employees, the City shall reimburse the Professional for the portion of the judgment attributable to such act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or employees. 9. Professional's Insurance. (a) Professional agrees to procure and maintain, at its own expense, a policy or policies of insurance sufficient to insure against all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. Such insurance shall be in addition to any other insurance requirements imposed by this contract or by law. The Professional shall not be relieved of any liability, claims, demands, or other obligations assumed pursuant to Section 8 above by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance, or by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance in sufficient amounts, duration, or types. (b) Professional shall procure and maintain, and shall. cause any subcontractor of the Professional to procure and maintain, the minimum insurance coverages listed below. Such coverages shall be procured and maintained with forms and insurance acceptable to the City. All coverages shall be continuously maintained to cover all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. In the case of any claims- made policy, the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting periods shall be procured to maintain such continuous coverage. (i) Workers' Compensation insurance to cover obligations imposed by applicable laws for any employee engaged in the performance of work under this contract, and Employers' Liability insurance with minimum limits of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) for each accident, FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - policy limit, and FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease -each employee. Evidence of qualified self-insured status maybe substituted for the Workers' Compensation requirements of this paragraph. (ii) Commercial General Liability insurance with minimum combined single limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) aggregate. The policy shall be applicable to all premises and operations. The policy shall include coverage for bodily injury, broad form property damage (including completed operations), personal injury (including coverage for contractual and employee acts), blanket contractual, independent contractors, products, and completed operations. The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision. (iii) Comprehensive Automobile Liability insurance with minimum combined single limits for bodily injury and property damage of not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,OOQ00- 0.00) aggregate with respect to each Professional's owned, hired and non-owned vehicles assigned to or used in performance of the Scope of Work. The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision. If the Professional has no owned automobiles, the PS1-971.doc Page 3 requirements of this Section shall be met by each employee of the Professional providing services to the City under this contract. (iv) Professional Liability insurance with the minimum limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) each claim and ONE MII,LION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) aggregate. (c) The policy or policies required above shall be endorsed to include the City and the City's officers and employees as additional insureds. Every policy required above shall be primary insurance, and any insurance carried by the City, its officers or employees, or carried by or provided through any insurance pool of the City, shall be excess and not contributory insurance to that provided by Professional. No additional insured endorsement to the policy required above shall contain any exclusion for bodily injury or property damage arising from completed operations. The Professional shall be solely responsible for any deductible losses under any policy required above. (d) The certificate of insurance provided by the City shall be completed by the Professional's insurance agent as evidence that policies providing the required coverages, condi- tions, and minimum limits aze in full force and effect, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to commencement of the contract. No other form of certificate shall be used. The certifi- cate shall identify this contract and shall provide that the coverages afforded under the policies shall not be canceled, terminated or materially changed until at least thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to the City. (e) Failure on the part of the Professional to procure or maintain policies providing the required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits shall constitute a material breach of contract upon which City may immediately terminate this contract, or at its discretion City may procure or renew any such policy or any extended reporting period thereto and may pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, and all monies so paid by City shall be repaid by Professional to City upon demand, or City may offset the. cost of the premiums against monies due to Professional from City. (f) City reserves the right to request and receive a certified copy of any policy and any endorsement thereto. (g) The parties hereto understand and agree that City is relying on, and does not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this contract, the monetary limitations (presently $150,000.00 per person and $600,000 per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101 et seq., C.R.S., as from time to time amended, or otherwise available to City, its officers, or its employees. 10. City's Insurance. The parties hereto understand that the City is a member of the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA) and as such participates in the CIRSA Properly/Casualty Pool. Copies of the CIIZSA policies and manual aze kept at the City of Aspen Finance Department and aze available to Professional for inspection during normal business hours. City makes no representations whatsoever with respect to specific coverages offered by CII2SA. PS1-971.doc Page 4 City shall provide Professional reasonable notice of any changes in its membership or participation in CIIZSA. 11. Completeness of Agreement. It is expressly agreed that this agreement contains the entire undertaking of the parties relevant to the subject matter thereof and there are no verbal or written representations, agreements, warranties or promises pertaining to the project matter thereof not expressly incorporated in this writing. 12. Notice. Any written notices as called for herein may be hand delivered to the respective persons and/or addresses listed below or mailed by certified mail return receipt requested, to: City: City Manager City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Professional: Steve Novy Now Architects 580 Main Street, Suite 310 Carbondale, CO 81623 970-963-6689 13. Non-Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform services under this contract. Professional agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, Section 13-98, pertaining to non-discrimination in employment. 14. Waiver. The waiver by the City of any term, covenant, or condition hereof shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term. No term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement can be waived except by the written consent of the City, and forbearance or indulgence by the City in any regazd whatsoever shall not constitute a waiver of any term, covenant, or condition to be performed by Professional to which the same may apply and, until complete performance by Professional of said term, covenant or condition, the City shall be entitled to invoke any remedy available to it under this Agreement or by law despite any such forbearance or indulgence. 15. Execution of Agreement by City. This agreement shall be binding upon all parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. Notwith- standing anything to the contrary contained herein, this agreement shall not be binding upon the City unless duly executed by the Mayor of the City of Aspen (or a duly authorized official in his absence) following a Motion or Resolution of the Council of the City of Aspen authorizing the Mayor (or a duly authorized official in his absence) to execute the same. 16. General Terms. PS1-971.doc Page 5 (a) It is agreed that neither this agreement nor any of its terms, provisions, conditions, representations or covenants can be modified, changed, temunated or amended, waived, superseded or extended except by appropriate written instrument fully executed by the parties. (b) If any of the provisions of this agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of any other provision. (c) The parties acknowledge and understand that there are no conditions or limitations to this understanding except those as contained herein at the time of the execution hereof and that after execution no alteration, change or modification shall be made except upon a writing signed by the parties. (d) This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado as from time to time in effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed, or caused to be executed by their duly authorized officials, this Agreement in three copies each of which shall be deemed an original on the date hereinafter written. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] PS1-971.doc Page 6 ATTESTED BY: CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: WITNESSED BY: By: Title: Date: PROFESSIONAL: By: Title: Date: PS1-971.doc Page 7 °^ PROPOSAL .. 212 AABC HOUSING SUMMARY OF UNITS: We are proposing to have a total of 9 units in this housing complex. These units would be divided into 3 buildings according to type of units. We believe this is the most appropriate mix of number and type of units for this site that will still allow for views and solar orientation. The buildings will be located around a raised central courtyard creating appropraite open space between the building units. Covered parking will be provided For each unit under parts of 2 of the buildings. Storage lockers for each unit will be provided for each unit near the parking area. Bike storage will be provide for in the parking area as well. A small laundry room and a common mechanical space for all of the units will be under the courtyard as well. (2) 2 Bedroom Townhome Units 1,056 sq. fF. ea. (1) 2 Bedroom Townhome Unit 960 sq. ft. (2) 3 Bedroom Townhome Units 1,452 sq. fF. ea. (2) 1 Bedroom Flats* 816 sq. ft. ea. (2) Studio Units 624 sq. ft. ea. Total Living Area: 8,856 sq. ft. (9) Storage Lockers 720 sq. ft. Laundry Room 120 sq. ft. Mechanical Room 200 sq. ft. Total Misc. Area: 1,040 sq. Ft. Total Area: 9,896 sq. ft. • Accessible Unit - ANSI A Standard ~,. 580 Main St., Suite 310, Carbondale, CO 81623 Tel. 970.963.6689 Fax. 970.963.0135 novy@sopris.net ,.--~ We will look at the appropriate mix of systems for this site at the Design i.._ Charrettes. Our design criteria will be: Comfort Affordability Sustainability Energy Efficiency Durability Longevity Appropriatness of Architectural Style The building elements will constructed of durable materials used in a manner that is appropriate and responds to the local vernacular in a way that is not "historic' but a new interpretation of existing styles in the area. Building Integrated Systems for domestic solar hot water, geoexchange, or a photovoltaic system may be used, again dependent on the outcome of the charrettes. These systems will be able to provide a majority of the energy ,.- ,,~ required by the project. The use of energy efficient materials, such as high R-value wall and roof insulation, solar oriented specific glazing, Low water consumption appliances and fixtures will be specified. Compact Fluorescent lighting will be used in each unit. Environmental Technologies Transportation: The AABC is along the existing RFTA routes, and along the existing bike and pedestrian trail system. Bike Parking will be provided for in the complex. Waste Reduction: Deconstruction of the existing building on the site, along with efficient building practices will contribute to significant reduction in waste. A central recycling center will be provided on the site. Energy efficiency /Renewable Energy: Tight, efficient building envelopes, combined with Passive Solar Heating and Active Solar Hot domestic hot water systems and Photovoltaic systems will be incorporated as part of the buildings design. ~«-~ 580 Main St., Suite 310, Carbondale, CO 81623 Tel. 970.963.6689 Fax. 970.963.0135 novy@sopris.net Water efficiency: Use of low-flow plumbing fixtures, xeric landscaping and 'v,..: rain/snowmelt water collecting for irrigation will be used. Materials and Resources: Efficient use of durable, long-lasting materials that contain recycled content will be used in all aspects of construction. Low VOC materials are preferred as well as locally available products will be used where applicable. Indoor Environmental quality: filtration, destratification, ASHRAE standard air changes. Operation and maintenance: Energy monitoring before occupation and over time, as well as owner training in the systems will be a vital part f the project. Budget The estimated budget for this project will fall within the Project Cost of $2,415,000 as per the Asset Management Plan included in the RFP. Upgrades to achieve a LEED Platinum certification will be paid through grant funding. ..~. 580 Main St., Suite 310, Carbondale, CO 81623 Tel. 970.963.6689 Fax. 970.963.0135 novy@sopris.net ~_ :1 _~~ ~~ ~~ Z ~~ ~~ ~'' q -~ ~.- ~ ~~ it ~~ z r ~ {'~ ,` ~ 8 _~ t ~~ i ~ i u` a a +~ " I 1 ~ ' ( o ~ ~ a f t~ a~ ~~ ~~ z // 0 a Q 3 1 Z Z _ _ City ofAsnen / ~M, f yrM~ti Pitkin County ~"~~ ' ~esurf#y Efficient Building Program OWNER: C' of As en PROJECTADDRESS: 211AABC PARCEL ID #: CONTACT NAME: CONTACT NUMBER: CONTACT E-MAIL ADDRESS: PERMIT #: circle all that apply) TYPE OF PROJECT: NEW SCRAPE-OFF REMODEL ADDITION New constructions uare foots e: 9896 Points re uired: 110 Interior remodels uare foots e: Points re uired: ddition s uare foots e: Points re uired: Detached ara e s uare foots e: Points re uired: ~ l C 7 TOTAL POINTS REQUIRED TOTAL POINTS ACHIEVED i` i ~ ., i!. :;1 .ie H `~ ~'~.: '"Z'¢~'"£~ 3 4 ~2. ~5 t IN 4 EEii ry!$ ~' "$ l,~'$f. tfif sped F I 4, ~: §v . C~ .'~' u. [ ~ 1~ :: ..~ N . .. .Wi~ iiirv: : ~ 3 N ~Y~ ~- :: ! ~ i t ~S d- , , ~ ~.. m_ . . . ... .. . _.._...... ~. ..a. .... P. _._ n. .. :. _ n ~.~ ~ r xu. City ofAspen/Pitkin County Efficient Building Program Checklist ~ ~ = Please read the EB Guidelines prior to completing the Checklist. The ~ y ° EB Guidelines serve as the official code document for this program. m a a 0 LEGEND o = Shaded box indicates mandatory compliance for all projects (14 for new houses / 27 for additions/remodels) i ~ 70 =Dark outline indicates mandatory measures for publiGy-funded affordable housing projects (PFAH) _ rn z S = Seli-certified (Applicant's signature on this checklist serves as certi(cation.) U 1.5 =Inspected (PC: Plan Check; ~: Foundation; 2: Framing; 3: Insulation; 4: Rough-in; 5: Final) a P =Prerequisite (These measures must be achieved /or fhe subsequent points to be earned.) N ? Quantity Levels QL 1 = 10% - 25%; QL 2 = 26% - 50%; QL 3 = 51 % - 75%; QL 4 = 76% - 100% =: ..~t-0& .._ zES.w vm:.w .m:~m.~lmmv~ :.v ~' .:, h... ~ ~ t E .. :: '-S SH S . ~k.. nia. r ~. -_ ..... ., a .. F~. _ . ... _: m ___.m..:.- sm .. _ Jc. v . a~ ~.... ;. 2.0 DECONSTRUCTION /DEMOLITION & CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS RECYCLING PC 3 s=':~ ~~. 2.1 Deconstruction Plan submitted with permit application (remodels and/or scrape-offs only) _ ~ 'I 2.2 Demolition debris reduced (4 points required of remodels and/or scrape-offs; select from 2.2.1 - 2.2.6) 1 3 3 2.2.1 Wood recycled /composted (z 75 % of all wood) 1 3 3 2.2.2 Metal recycled (z 90% of all metals) 1 3 3 2.2.3 Concrete recycled (z 75% of all concrete) 1 2 2 2.2.4 Carpet pad recycled (90% of all carpet pad) 7 2 2 2.2.5 Compaction (grinding, shredding, crushing, etc.) 1 2 6-24 2.2.6 Material salvaged for reuse (6 points per level) S 3 2.3 Deconstruction materials donated to anon-profit organization .: 2.4 Construction debds recycled (4 points required of all new construction &PFAH projects; select from 2.4.1 - 2.4.3) S 4 1~ .~:,,.,2-±1.1:,.Woatlsorap.Yecyq°ad~dsc'orrlpostdd.(1{faintperQuaittliSt"IsgY811 :__ :.~....~t, S 2 2 a :::: ~ ,. ,:r. p~~~~U ~. X4,2 ~ Metatspr,${s~recycted;(~:80lo.olaltunusadmetals}. .~ ._ ..~ ' s a ~< :'. ,.2'a.s cardbdard4~tyaltl:pvtirtpe?4tifaptityL~(!el} '~ _,,l__._.. ,_,~ 2nd Edition 9/03 City of Aspen /Pitkin County Efficient Building Program Page 1 USE OF RESOURCE EFFICIENT MATERIALS Part ll of section 2.0 S 5 5-20 2.5 Reclaimed lumber (5 points per Quantity Level) S 5 5-20 2.6 Reclaimed exterior trim /siding /interior Uim /flooring (5 points per Quantity Level) S 2 1 ~i 2.7 Recycled-content carpet (1 point per Quantity Level) S 3 1-0 2.8 Recycled-content in decking matedals (1 point per Quantity Level) S 1 d 2.9 Recycled-content sheathing (1 point per Quantity Level) S 1 d 2.10 Recyced-content or fiber cement siding (1 point per Quantity Level) S 1.4 2.11 Recycled-content ceramic file (1 point per Quantity Level) S 1 ~3 2.12 Recyced-content roofing (1 point per Quantity level) S S % 2 2 47 - J 2-S 2 ~ 2.13 Rapidly renewable content flooring used (2 points per Quantity Level) ~?t, :.,, . ~ .._.. ~I., _ r~Mq~entmr,Y,aitYCtirdBtwdorrno[e;b(E» `...: ,. ~ °' ". r ,t Sub Total 0 x jjv ' ~ . ~' ~ 1t k r y s ~ s '. ~, hot t t i ~ t~ ~ 413 . 3.0 LAND USE AND WATER CONSERVATION 1.3 3.1 Simple Footprint 1 3 3.1.1 5 4 exterior corners (no points for 3.1.2 or 3.1.3) 1 2 3.1.2 5 6 exterior cerners (no points for 3.1.1 or 3.1.3) 1 1 3.1.3 5 8 exterior corners (no points for 3.1.1 or 3.1.2) 13 3.2 Xeriscape Landscaping (2 points required of all PFAH projects; select from 3.2.1 - 3.2.5)) S S S S 1 1 7 1 1 1 3.2.1 Addition of organic matedal to and aeration of soil Fu.92~ ~; `d.3a . "'~"fa'sstlstntlscaped~Gca or=~t~.sq,t#, vj['jich®veF~. ' t . 3.2.3 All planting beds mulched withwood chips at least 2" deep _ Altar fantd_... ..,.. ..e_.. s:.... , ..,.; 3.2.5 Zoned irdgation system 5 5 1 1.13 1 1 d 3.3 Water conservation by pertormance (2 points required of all PFAH projects; select from 3.31 - 3.34) W ...°.'~ ?(. ,.~....~... .` 8~~rtm(ttutq_s~t~ri''.~'.(f1i~dacl8'teti0lr8rn8nis:?ii:. ,. ~.i~ :a , ._~. _. ,...,..:: 3.3.2 Dual-Flush toilet (1 point for each toilet, no credit for toilet under 3.3.1) 5 2-a 3.3.3 Composting toilet (2 points for each toilet, no credit for toilet under 3.3.1) 5 1 3.3.4 Only one showerhead in all showers 5 5 3.4 Drip Irtigation or no irrigation 5 1-0 3.5 Engineered/vegetated swales to filter stormwater runoff (1 point per Quantity Level of filtered runoff) 5 3 1.10 3.6 Planting trees beyond required trees (1 point for every tree over requirement) 3.8 3.7 Save and reuse all topsoil and/or excavated fill on site 1 3 3 3.7.1 Topsoil reused on site (Indicate storage location on site plan.) 1 5 5 3.7.2 100% of excavated fill reused on site (Indicate storage location on site plan.) S 8 2.8 3.8 Site-rock reclaimed on site (2 points for per level; Indicate storage location on site plan.) S 4 4 3.9 Non-potable water used for irrigation S 2-a 3.10 Pervious matedals in "hardscepe" areas (2 points per Quantity Level) 2 2 2 2 2 PC 2 27 12 2 8 6 3 3 2.42 3-12 2-S 2-8 2-S 3 3 1~ Sub Total pp~~ 0 4.0 FRAMING & MATERIALS 4.1 Incorporate optimal value engineering (OVE) framing techniques (6 points required of all PFAH projects) i :":wl..,~ u»ti ~ ;_ ,.._ ..~ .. z': .... . iSA`ran ~ Lavel~trJ'sll fraimiio .;= . _„ -: ~ ! r .- ,c ms's s,. ,,., ~.. i4 ;;~i.;,. 't: -~' .` .cometsm. .,~ ._ ~-[€.SSUASBki ~F4eY$t-~53F911.f#aiPif ):,.,..,x„rk..,.~,.v„ ~~ ~Srr ..xt ~::' ,~;s..,~~'-°':Y .. ~Idetaa ia..`;, ""~k~ttlaltt „~ psr'alkt'1h a, -~ E't ,„,-~.~T a,~Ls ,i 4.1.4 Stacking joists/studs -eliminating double top plate (2 points per Quantity Level) .......::~~'~.., ~ :2w..... ;,, p'~,"75°./o,'Of til9tpIitit)'e ":` .. .. ~ '' :,.. ~':,..i _s.~r:f°3'~~ft ~ ~ .€.~ hrietfits~`r$,.. ,. t1'. t'I'Mgs ~rcptanand Clevdtk+rl.r. ' .,.:s ,,,~ t ._:-'~ r;,=- 4.2 Oriented Stmnd Board in subfloors (1 point per Quantity Level) 2 4 1.4 4.3 Oriented Strand Board in wall sheathing (1 point per Quantity Level) 2 2.8 4.4 Low-toxic Odented Strand Board (OSB) (2 points per Quantity Level) 2 2.6 4.5 Finger-jointed studs or engineered studs for wall framing (1 point per Quantity Level) S 4 1 ~ 4.6 Finger-jointed interior trim (1 point per Quantity Level) 2.88 4.7 FSC cerflfied material 2 4-16 4.7.1 FSC certified sustainably harvested lumber (4 points per Quantity Level) 5 4-16 4.7.2 FSC certified cedar shakes and/or shingles (4 points per Quantity level) "~ "' S 4-16 4.7.3 FSC certified trim and Flooring (4 points per Quantity Level) FRAMING & MATERIALS continued on next a e 2"a Edition 9/03 City of Aspen / Pitkin County Efficient Building Program Page 2 4.0 FRAMING & MATERIALS continued 5 4-16 4.7.4 FSC certified cabinets (4 poinLS per Quantity Level) 5 4-16 4.7.5 FSC certified windows and/or doors (4 points per Quantity Level) 5 2.8 4.7.6 FSC certified outdoor structures, decking and landscaping forms (2 points per Quantity Level) 2-68 4.8 SFI certified matedal 2 3-12 4.8.t SFI certified sustainably harvested lumber (3 points per Quantity Level) 5 3-12 4.8.2 SFI certified cedar shakes and/or shingles (3 points per Quantity Level) 5 3-12 4.8.3 SFI certified Vim and Floodng (3 points per Quantity Level) 5 3-12 4.8.4 SFI certified cabinets (3 points per Quantity Level) 5 3.12 4.8.5 SFI certified windows and/or doors (3 points per Quantity Level) 5 2-8 4.8.6 SFI certified outdoor structures, decking and landscaping forms (2 points per Quantity Level) 2 3 1 d °^~Yd ~:. - _,~ ..... i;niofs #t."F(SI . k',S~di .._:_ I~-~?a(aMts.._.._- ....:.___ ~ }r ` ; 2 2 z ~ _...:.m.... .. m....:...: _. srs~rft~~!'~~~~)~t~y~ , .. w~".._.. ~,_ . , ~- 2 5-20 4.11 Structural alternatives to wood-frame construction (5 points per Quantity Level) 2 2-8 4.12 SVuctural Insulated Panels (SIP's) used for exterior walls and/or roof (2 points per Quantity Leveq 2 1~ 4.13 Factory-built or panelized construction (1 point per Quantity Level) 1 2 4.14 Recycled-content Insulated Concrete Forms (ICF's) used (z 75% of all insulated wncrete forms) 1 13 4.15 Insulated Concrete Forms (ICF's) (1 point per Quantity Level) S 2 4.16 Non-solvent based foundation waterproofing (100% of foundation wall) 1 3.12 4.17 Frost-protected shallow foundation (3 points per Quantity Level) 1 1 ~4 4.18 20% or more flyash content (1 point per Quantity Level) 47 Sub Total 0 fi`u ~ -~-•" T" e.. it ,~: .... _ .~P. .'Gni C ~. '3 P: ~ ~ h. L"t,~,. ~e y.~ j, .. .. .w %~'~ .....m.rv ..:: ..._m.. .. m 5.0 ENERGY MEASURES PC 6 6 1m_:~. FS., . °. ~ ~afi:89 r!t! ae~t8afert; -r.'Bu~riitlgAthi„'t(~a§ ,.__ - ~}~, ~,~,.,4:,,~.~. h~ _' : S 1 5.2 Window quilts or insulated window shades installed (Z 75% of all exterior windows) PC 1 1 5.3 Mechanical equipment centrally located 5 5 5 5.4 Energy Star® house (5 star rating on an E-Star^") `C 3 3 5.5 Energy 10 analysis 3 x==- ~ 5.6 All ductwork sealed with mastlc 3 1 ~. ~ .. {[{51{I~, ;~~ .-~~~ ~. ., .... ~tf#. t7r2.'a ., _ +a=_~.... ..`: .vs.f: ~a 6.~'. F" s.l. ..,_.. ..:. 3 3 3 5.8 Unvented crawlspace (conditioned, insulated walls, continuous vapor barrier, no vents, etc.) 5 2 5.9 Side-arm hot water heater 5-10 5.10 Energy-efficient boiler or furnace 5 5 5 ,;1. 5':901.:-(. ,... ~ .. r"or94%~(miay.efftnFfuh(alce°_k ` ;,~.. •~ ~ ~r ° a ~ , r.. 5 5 5 5.10.2 Modulating or sequentially staged boilers 5 3 5.11 Outdoor reset thermostat control 5 4 5.12 Highefficiency gas hot water heater (stand alone units only) PC 3 3 5 y _an ... -. I~f ti 'n htettr~tli+~t~ulPihbhf. ~ ' nom, a r....u~~ac mt„ 32 Sub Total sT''.m$m._ _.~.s'+t ,t~; ,~.[e, ?? ,~'`''~IE9s~M ~..: ~r ,_,. x ~! _, .;Yr. !, d~.,-~..~' .rt ,... ~: to !y~ .a:ius~»s, 6.0 PLUMBING 5 2 6.1 Tankless water heater 5 3 6.2 "On-demand" hot water system Sub Total 7.0 ELECTRICAL 5 2 2-3 ~tl:~s Energy,S`appl(aacpq",~Gint for each a P,liance~ (2 poirtts ~;#ttlirait of alt PF~F.t=#ipty2f~:~;, ~ ,. E .. _;... , ...:'. S 1 7.2 Clothesline (indoor or outdoor) 5 3 7.3 Energy-efficient clothes washer (selected from list on www.ceet.org -Tier 2 or higher) 5 2 2 ~;.r: l6mp,._m.__..._ ... :. mmm.:"m . intfor.ayary~4,:bultr~) ~(,1'ptifrat!'~;gtMiC~d'ofalli?FAF~pmfe ", ` ,..., .:.' 5 2 7.5 Efficient light controls (z 2 interior spaces controlled) 4 Sub Total 0 u._ , w: ~ _ . ~.. .: S'_ &, ':n :. 1$.. ' .._. :v- .. a~fVt 5 (,. ~. ,. " BY~A ~Ik ~4: i ~r ~itdY _.. .. .k 2nd Edition 9103 City of Aspen / Pitkin County Efficient Building Program Page 3 8.0 INSULATION 3 2 8.1 Wall insulation is 70% recycled material (z 75% of all wall insulation) 3 2 8.2 Roof insulation is 70% recycled material (? 75% of all roof insulation) 3 4 4 8.3 Blown /sprayed insulation (z 50% of all insulation) 3 2 2 8.4 Formaldehyde-free or low-toxic insulation (z 50% of all insulation) 1-10 8.5 Single-pane windows upgraded (additions and remodels only) 5 0.5 8.5.1 Doubleylazed (no points for 8.5.2 or 8.5.3) 5 1 1 8.5.2 Double-glazed with low-e coa0ng (no points for 8.5.1 or 8.5.3) 5 0.5 8.5.3 Spectrally-selective film applied to historic windows (no points for 8.5.1 or 8.5.2) 3 7 8.6 Existing ceiling insulated to R-38 or to capacity (additions & remodels only) 3 5 8.7 Existing walls insulated to capacity or rigid insulaton added to exterior (additions & remodels only) 7 l;~at,j~,~.?~,'F Sub Total 0 ,l r"fr*' ~;;i i1 i1~a_~.=n._am .mt =i: ~~:ts~.ii~: :'°.,.t, „en.r..... .` 5.'~f~,.~,, r: ,.~.__'._i~_t,~ 9.0 HEATING VENTILATING AND AIR CONDITIONING HVAC 5 1 1 9.1 Air destrafiflcetion system 13 9.2 Natural cooling (1 point required of all PFAH projects) 5 5 3 1 1 1 1 9.2.1 Vertical shading devices for east and west-facing glass ,.....,.,9:22 .,Rilfigetlua3flf}i~ibti"~astarr~vYest~faci .1'sss,strusewiriicwswltFtaSHGG~4t~~sUiahriT~S..c'; ... .., :: 9.2.3 Radiant heat-reflective barriers installed on roof applications S 5 5 1 1 1 5 9.2.4 Landscaping that shades east and west facing glazing during the summer season (June-August) 92 p .. ,Pfppzii ,s(~s1. , 'erltan9s iprsoidh fac~P.. ~~a~t9 area ,. 'i _.. i ......... '::., a °; 9.3 No mechanical air condi0oning 5 1 4-14 9.4 Evaporative cooling (no points for 9.3 or 9.6) 9.5 Air infiltration rate below specified levels (Blower Door Test required) (4 points required of all PFAH projects) 5 5 5 6 4 6 2 9.5.1 0.40 NACH (Natural Air Changes per Hour) r , _~..':~~:~5;2_. 'C)4NACkt„,:,,.~~j . - y ' ` ...._.... .__._ ~ .. ... L,:. .. 9.6 Whole-House Fan cooling (no points for 9.3 or 9.4) 5 10 9.7 Convert electric resistance heat to gas (additions & remodels only) 5 4 9.8 Replace electric water heater with a gas water heater (additions & remodels only) 5 3 3 9.9 Hydronic heat (z 50°h of heating system; no points for 9.7) 5 6 9.10 Air to air heat exchanger 12 r ~:., i a f _4, ._h :~ v Sub Total 0 ~ '~' ~ 6ct y y 'S:.. d L g.. i' 'S .:. E' ~ ! ~ t i I ~L ..~ :~ to .p =~y v-: i'~......:.. ..~ N~,rc ii, n .,ci.L,r ...... .CV_ m . rr :~-4:v .__ _v. _rsro. va. 4. _i{'FA U,: t ,._,?, .: - 10.0 SOLAR 10-20 10.1 Passive solar space heating PC PC PC PC 0 P P P 10 ~. _..~31f~ :quC(1;facili°" . ~i~.: ~!. ~11t~f'ilyratln ~,,,:~fl,nt:i©c'v[eat-af.tttesaei0i.:~~. :,,,,mm~ ,,'.~_ .:; i, , ., t,~lf~~~::1r ": tI $ z, ` " -_ °, if ' .'~itf.~t ~ `IfB 9~ .., iu: a:~ :,., k a ~ ;fig,. , .:- {0 ~,~glacande"1~= }, ': tea~efilg„iwuenatffs~strer= ituat~a ieenierits..~. _ is s c.~; ~, :,. ~ 1,D'14.~ unf8lnpakadrYt~B'~ 1 `• - PC 20 20 10.1.5 Passive solar design 5 10 10 10.2 Solar heating system for domestic hot water (no points for 10.3 or 10.4) 5 2 2 -F~,~,:~ni:~al~Fre-PIu[n a4htr imts:f(sri0.2.o~30.4)-=....a °i i 5 15 10.4 Active solar space healing combined with solar domestic hot water system (no points for 10.2 or 10.3) 10.80 10.5 Solar-generated electdcity 5 10 10 10.5.1 System size of 1 kW 5 15-80 10.5.2 System size of z 1.5 kW (5 additional points for every .5 kW supplied, with a 8 kW maximum) 52 ~. ... .::_.. S 4 4 Sub Total 0 ....._... ,.... ~... ., _. ~ m. ... .. ..,. ,~ .. .. 11.0 INDOOR AIR QUALITY 1~1~t° °kow-.~ ~and7orlow•fp)ricfgtedo0pa~~i..:':.jt.Pomfixc,GtuaPtifY>•c.,,vP~9;:, C2~poinSSrequiredof!aI1PFi$N,fZiojlctsj ~; :: S 1 11.2 Solvent-free and/or low-toxic constmcfion adhesives 2-5 11.3 High efficiency air filter 5 2 11.3.1 High efficiency pleated (electrostatically-charged) air filter 5 5 11.3.2 High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filter PC 3 3 .11,4 .:f+tou' h:in-far:iadon mtti~ atigp °(nb ~~tt1~1'Pr:11.~)~ ~ .. . „ .. .!_. ., „ ,.~ ~^: E .., .PC 5 11.5 Radon mitigation system wmpleted (no points for 11.4) i 14 11.6 Solvent-free and/or low-toxic wood finishes (1 point per Quantity Level) INDOOR AIR QUALITY continued on next a e 2nd Edition 9/03 City of Aspen / Pitkin County Efficient Building Program Page 4 11.0 INDOOR AIR QUALITY continued S 1~ 11.7 Low toxic Floor coverings (1 point per Gtuantity Leveq 5 3 .s=• 11$ G!ar6on,ri5bno7tldn~$ ..... [ ' ': J. ~ ;. '.. +: 5 10 5-10 ~iu9' ~1n"athloSpEr~HCaO~!vant~dl(§eajeycorrilxlst~o[r}gasSe,hOl~ro['watei;beafer '~'tks`re~uir'ttsxfFAlif...,~. 3 2 2 11.10 Sealed mechanical room 5 5 k:.,.„ i.i.i't'EZhatf~ri'Itiie,,, .:garage or noattactladg(ir'.i~~,..., ,'.' .' _: S 5 11.12 Elimination of all particeboard inside envelope of house S 3 11.13 Elimination of all mdf made with urea-formaldehyde used inside envelope of house S 2 11.14 All exposed particleboard sealed. 5 5 11.15 Amedcal Lung Association "Health House" 5 4 4 11>,d8 ~tiA+Sir((ar.1€. ~fcittHa kin _.... 31 Sub Total ~ ..x ~, ii~,_ !u [~`~... ~ _-a4...,r'~`Tx , 3 ~ .. ."u} fI iiy f j i~ I;~STess:__..t ..- ..... ':::~. §~.,, te..::::., .. ,. C.It li ~fr:. - n.....: €vL3u .Vwr:". '..._ ., z: i° .. .. .:.:.... ..i ilf~Il. ... _,r if, .,, , 12.0 INNOVATION POINTS PC i-20 12.1 Innovative product or design points 5 5 12.2 Allemative fuel infrastrocture for vehiGe use PC 3 12.3 Location-efficient project 5 15 12.4 Ground source heat pump -wind power fee u Sub Total 0 gyp.. ~ , . -r£iC} '~ t 2 g i:- 9 !. M{ ivy :.rE ~ h ~ r P ~ 2' jI ' 5 z ~ s ' s " x, ."~ ~ d '~ ~ :~- s , :. i i ' ~R {~ _ ... r.V~L.L~ ; rr.C.tFt .i*~"~' d ...r ~:d ..:_. __._S t. h.{?~. Y ...... ._... ._._. _.. ...:n .n._. _. ...._. ~a:. ~~y-iRE ..~i :_ z5s Total 0 APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE: PRINT NAME: TITLE: NOTE: Signature indicates the applicant will comply with stated requirements. , I, Y I * >I ~~v $ ~E: MCI:: ~ - 44"~~ E i ::~ ' ° ' ~ ~ $ = - . ..... : .. -.,;. .,.. h:Y -. .. -a . ;.. ..:. -. . : . . :,:._~ ,. ,. ~~ ,,, - _,_..5!!3il .c .c . FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY » » » PC Plan Check approval by: Date: i Foundation Inspection Approval by: Date: 2 Framing Inspection Approval by: Date: 3 Insulation Inspection Approval by: Date: 4 Rough-in Inspection Approval by: Date: 5 Final Inspection Approval by: Date: . :x m .~. err n•;~ur ,~.._ _ .. a: ..: ~ "~ ee ~:;:.. .;. i fl ,m..x •~• ., .._...:. ~ .... _.. u.tr;..: ..; .. t w 2ntl Edition 9103 City of Aspen I Pitkin County Efficient Building Program Page 5 Application Guide for Lodging ~_ ~_C_ . L.f `. Ai~~,~'Y._1 € 1$_a~~I~ 17 t~ ' ~4~.~E~ti°~ ~~ ~kV ~y~~~~_~ h'C(JdEC. iC S'. '~d ~fr2't#"'1 is 59 $c;~~ e~ '!;t'3~iien t~~ Y ~r L E E D; ' ~ ~~» ~ r~<< ~,,-~ ~ < <~ ~a Cis,`:: s,3m~ ~~c~F`:~~~~-._~ paladins < <E 4~arHc ~~ ~ 6x,tn'r-, St .ey,:• ~ i ~~~ Yt a ~a"°v~ "~ ._. ~~~^ Summer ~~i ~~ ~. LEEDTr"Application Guide for Lodging the Application Grude for Lodging has been developed in cooperation with. the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Green Building Coxmcil. The document is sribject to revision and updafing without notice. Revisions mad. include changes to both the layout and content of the document. The LEED'="'t~lpplica6onGuide for Lodging is the firstedition of this docu- ment that supports the LEED Careen Building Rating Systemr"+. The U ~. Green Building Council makes its best effort at pronui]gaturg a standard that improves enviroxunental and ex:onomic performance of commercial build- ings using established or advanced industry principles, practices, materi- als,andstandarcls. TheLEEDT^+ApplicationGrudeforLodgingis'intended to be used by low-rise, lodging building project stakeholders and project teams as a guide for green and sustainable. design hr conjunction with the LEED Green I3uildulg RatingSystemT". 17ie U.S. Green Building Council (U5CSI3C) asswnes no expressed or implied responsibility for the overall performance of buildings where LEEDT~+ is used for desi~x guidance and building operation. "Ilxe U.S. Green Buiid'irg Council does not guarantee, certify, or ensm~e performance of xmy products, systems, sfr~ategies, or technologies described in the LEED Green Building Reference Guide'r^'. The U.S. Green building Council cannot be held Gable for any criteria sef forth herein, which may not be applicable to pzevious or later versions of $xe LEED Green Building Systexri rM. Copyright © Copyright 2001 by the U. S. Green Building Council and the U. 5. Air lrorce. Atl rights reserved. The use of any pert of this publication, repro- duced, transmitted in any form or by any rneatLS, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recozding or otherwise, or stored in a retrieval system, w~th- outthe prior coxrsent of both copyright holders, is an infringement of the copycightlaw and is forbic{den. .. a ~:..,-.,o and Company ,. ~.. .. { P .., .,.... .. ... e ;~~ Introduction LEED Application Guide for Lodging 1 USAir Force Sustainable Design & Construction 1 LEED Green Building Rainy System 2 USAir Force Resources 3 Overview How to Use the Application Guide 5 Sample Interpretation Pages 6 LEED Scorecard 8 Interpretation Rages by LEED Category Sustainable Sites SSp 10 to SSc80 Water Efficiency WEc 10 to WEc31 Energy & Atmosphere EAp!0 to EAC60 Materials & Resources MRp 10 to MRc70 Indoor Er;vironmentai Quality EO p.0 to EC)c82 Innovation & Design Process !Dc 1 . to !Dc20 Appendix List of Referenced Documents A- i to A-4 ~~ Introduction Introduction The purpose of flais application guide Ls to provide direction to applying the 1.F h.f1 Green Buildirg Rating Sysh~m (LPF.D) to commercial and nan-com- mercial facilifies whose primary function is lodginf;. 1,odging facllities are defined a-s attadred living units that provideshaltec and basic servicessuch as electricity-, water, and sewage to building occupants. Alal?licable building types for this guide include dormitories and'barracks, apartment buildings anct condominiums, hotels and motels, nursuag homes, hostels and other facilifies where the: priman- use is to provide permanent or temporar~~ Lodging for people. This guide is not applicable to singles fauuty residences or medical facilities. The guide was developed ur coopexatiar with the U S [air Farce and the U S Green Building Council. USAir Force Sustainable Design & Construction the United States Air Poi ce (USAF) is committed to sustainable design and constructionpracfiees tou?ml?1y with LxecutiveOrder L873 and Fnecutive t7rder 12902. These orders direct federal agencies to consider the fol7ownag factors when designing and constructing new favitities: use of recycled and salvaged building products, li fe cycle analysis, use of environmentally pref- erable producas, waste prevention and the ultimate disposal of building materials, energc efficiency, water rnnservafion, and renewable energy tech- nologies. The USAF also recognizes the economic and environmental benefits of sus- tainable desi}~ and construction practices. Spacial emphasis is placed on hfe cycle analysis of designed structures. Life c}'de anatystis (L.CA), also referred to as life cpde arse ssment, is an. informed decision-making process that can be applied to building components, design strategies, and other mcisw~es associated with analyri~ng building alternatiaes. 'Fhe LCA pro- cess is beneficial because uaifiul capital costs arc considered in addifion to ownership and maintenance costs over a specified building Lifetime, typi- cally 50 Years or more. 1'o capitalize on parallel e'Iforts and knowledge from the civilian constnrc- tion industry, the; US/~.F dec-i dad tp adopt a standardized framework foi encoura,ing sustainable building design. Advantages of using an estab- Bshedsystem include thebenefitoffield-tested methodologies and access to coordinated reference materials that already exist. 11iis desire to adopt an existing approach led to khe selecfion of the LFFD Greerr Building Rating, System as the basis for evaluafing performance in ~aew dormitory facilities. - ;~ ? r, ~no anc Comezr ; . , ~.. , It Ef'c~as r -, -i :.~ i UTllriiCrCi 3f 7;U L- -Fi5 3k ~a:!~r, tn.,~~ri{rl} c,c:ii=;: ran la~sj,~,Led [r ~cxmEtcoii~, hcEPI>, rx:otelS nUfun~} f nme~ anJ crhier l~iou5lirg fnc I bas, At)ptia;blra Fsuitc=int.} `yKte C;otr~ait:;r,es & i3arr~irkz ~paitmant '~ iltF•, ,'; Candumirs¢~n tlate;s =k MoteE> (~.}l ~Ei Ott °iQII nt> Ft~st<~k S r t~.c lily Fc•i<<> Ceuiter. ~~- PG?t~6-ci in't°~rt21 E>t::,lcncc tce wtecw,afsee.bcaoks.afmil Yc~i ~rnrr fnfuemsclnn ern ttre ~3>>xF'~ c: mraUnant tc sc-zta!t~abit~ty. ~', i~SPd ties~g~ tisum-arts '~. ,r~~<}e~i.,; alt x ,=f:;t it.,, .ahc:rv~rs El? €? ~l ~irizlinns. ~E t CK'd!Si ~ ~['t~ti1011cB ~'. n. ~r~:. lief <or b:~8~ '. ~ .z~,i u ~ e~ c,,.. ;;,~ '. turu 4+1lEtou ~~ U~i~ °. Li io '. 9nE (• a ~~ i~t~<ass ~,,.... Introduction „ .. _. , LEED Green Building Rating SystemT" ~, ~,' ~ ~ ~ The 1 c adershtp m linergt and Lnviromnental 1")cvgn (I EEU), is a program :'_ ' -.,;;..,1 ofthc.U`iGt3Cthatest~ibhshesf~erformancet;aatsm6veen~~ironmentalcat- egonc s SustamableSites lA 2tcrEffiucncy, Energy & Atmosphere, Materi- Reference - ° G id als & Resouruus, and Induor I:nviranmental Quahh. In addition, a sixth u e category, hmovalion & Design Process addresses these environmental is- °°"""x'° sues not included in the environmental categonc s such as acoustics, corer- u 3I h{° munit~t-enhancement,education, andc.xpertisc^. in sustainabledesign. btanv T 3` issues specific to lodging facilities tlrart are not address<sd by the existtng „ ;. -` _ credits map be include^d in the hmovation ~ i)esign. T'rocess categot•y. £, F L ~ ~ llrc sir LEEU ~ ~tegories are divided into=l"t prerequisites and credits far a rr d ?., v "'°""" __ total of 6N points. T'rereqursrtes are required to achreve LEEU Cc.r6fication _ and receive no points. Credits include a variable number of points, same of which are cumulative based on performance levels and others that address dis6.nrt measures that are related by an overardring sustainable concept. ~, _t I t) ;< cr~rrµx, ,~~ ;r ~ualifiing LEEU projects axe awarded a specific 1113D cerfificaflon level by '~. ,iXyrr~aar2n,arycrc> the U,`iC.~BCdependingontherotalpointsachievedbytheprojeck'Phecerti- '~ b n +, ao;eo Saes fication 1evcLs available for LEED projects include certified, silver, gold., and '. 1Nater F€6h;=;;n::}~ platinum. ', r-r ry, °- h nr,;l~i i~~re "I'he t EED Green Building Rating System is supported by the LEED Refer- '.. titatenals~i s,,~rees enceGuide,adocumentthatpravidesadditionalinhnmationandguidance ''. '.ictrx~iiE€3n-svrranrai IoreachL.LIEDPreregnisiteandCreaditConsultiheLEEDRatingSystem,the '~ E ~,;Eti Lk 1;D ReferenceC;uide and the I,EI•:D web site (www.leedbuilding.org)tor irrr4asfc=.r:nl)r~.clrr more information on the LEEDprogtam,theLS:EDapplicationprocess,and Applying LEED to USAF Lodging Projects LEI ,; { nrti e.t l0 3r c~ s LF,ED was designed fox nev<-and renovated commercial buildings, general ~~, ~rr.JSli~~e= 333t;p!s officeb~ildings, and multi-family residences of four stories or greater.Chal- lenl;es arise when attempting to apply I,F:F.D to lodging faaliHes because .i ~~O!`i "~`''!'r' thesebuildingsareoftenlessthanfourstoriesandareclassifiedaslow-rise (? r=;2r r, 37 6P. ;r~s residential buildings. In addition, lodging facilities are designed as resi- dences for occupants (either on a permanent ar temporary basis) and are ocnr pied at all hours of the day. br contrast, commercial buildings are de- signed for occupancy ducing working hours onh~. As a result, sustainable design issues differ Eor lodging facilities, e_specialty in the Energy Effid2rtcv and hrdoor Environmental Qualit}' categories, tilany~ of these issues have been resolved by analyzing the intent of each LEEt7 Prerequisite or Credit designed fm couunercial facilities and applying this intent to dre lodging facilih~. .. _, P~ ~ d:rw en i Company. i . ,i~' .~. a i.. ~.~ Introduction In many case, no supplement to 1_La;U is needed for its app(ica Lion to Iodo ing facilities. Ivr instance, many preieyuisites and credits in the Su stainable Sites, Yfateri115 ufr Resomcc~s, and Water Tifficiencyeategories can be applied to Lodging facilities with no supplemental innterpretatfon. Fur some of tare L.1.FI) Prereyaisites and Gedits, lodging facilities have an advantage over commercial buildings due to their residentialnarive. For, instance, a variety of energy-efficient appliances and water-efficient fixtures are available for residential applicatiarus that are not available to commercial buildings. .~~i~i.acn•c~ ,inrsk:: ,Ej ar.agc c r ~r [tart;as .'i it C° >ci ti U ~°}'d~L+ji3C ~7 }v tv~~rs e , C f w_carµ~ i~ pHrr EE ~~~ LYisimportanttonotethattheUSAFdocumen.tsandl.lEDdocumenfschtfer - in their approach toincorporatingsustainablemeasuresintobuildings.LEED is a performance-based system and excels at providing bendttnarks for ', sustainability.Conversely,iheUSAFdocumentsprovideprescriptivemea- ' sores for achieving sustainable goals but do not outline the goals them- selves. For instance, the IdiED rntingsvste:m provides performance goals for water savings wht^.reas the USAF documents glee examples of water eEficiencv measures such as low-flow fixtures and appliances. While Hiemetttodsfor achieving sustainability are markedly different:, all of the documents are helpful references ut the design process. It is important to remember thaT USAF lodging facilities are designed as individual modules that are duplicated many Times To create amulti-unit building, Therefore, while environmental and economicimpactsassociated with one mod ale may appear to be negligible, these impacts are multiplied numerous times to create an entire [odging facility and may result in sub- sTantialimpacts inaggregate. This application grade does not supercede the standards set forth in the LLF;D Green Building Rating System. Tnshead, itvs an interpretation of the L.FhD criteria for lod}ring facilities. The LEED Green building Paling System and the LL:FL) P.eferencc. Gu ide are the governing documents for all I_F.'FU certification applications, USAir Force Resources "Lt4ro USAF documents that are essential to developing sustainable USAF lodging facilities include the Department of the Air Force Facilih' Design Guido for I'nfish=d Dormitories and the USAF Environmenhilh~ Responsible 1•acilitiesGcude. Both of these documents provide prescriptive methods for the development o,f sustainable USAF lodging facilities. These documents and other USAF documents {listed in t9re Appendix} should be used in con- junctinnwith The LEED Careen Btailding RatingSystenr, thel FED Reference Guide and the ' IiED Welcome Packet whc^n designing and constructing USAF lodgin;~ faaclities. ` ~~ _ ~ t. Overview How to Use the Application Guide This A,pptictt6on Guide isdesir Heel try mmplemenl the LEhI) Green Buiki- ing Rating System and the LEED Reference Guide. "fhe Application Guide should be used as a working document that is referenced and updated h e- yuently throughout the design process. In this ur<rruter, tlxe Application Guide serves as a checklist of suggested steps and can be used to track the progress of the design team in the c<?mpletion of those steps. 13c~ cruse eha ngr: s in the building design affect the antiap•rted LliED score^, these changes should be tracked as they occur. 7-he elements of this Application Guide inchuie a LEED Scorecard, the I'rercv.{uisite and Creel it 1'>esc~iptions and an Appendix. The certification Process in concert with the Application Guide, the LIED W clcome Packet provides two helpful aids when apply ing for certification by the L.S. C.;reen Building Council: the t }?HT) Calculator and the 1.13F.D Template. "Ihe LEED Calcula- tor is a Iviicrosoft Excel spreadsheet programmed to calculatE: compliazue with ifie requirements Eor }?articular LEED credits. The LEhI) Pemplate. is a Microsoft Word document that can be used to prepare the application Eor LS;ED certificatic?n. C:hxce atl the steps to achieve a partiarlar prerequisite or creditare complete, the project manager tI?en transfers imfonnation from the Application f;uide checklists to the LEED Template. 'T'he'I'emplate is an automated form that records the required Han alive, tracks the points being < attempted, andligtstkresubmittalsprovidedtndocumenteach,prerequisite ~`~'" and credit. °I"he LEPS) Scorecard (as shown on pages 9 and 10) lists each credit inchn{eel in the LEED Green Building Dating System. Protect managers should use the scorecard to track progress on the prerequisites and credits being pursued for their project. In the initial stages of a project the scorecard can be used to estimate which credits might be achievable. "17rrouyhout project deaelop- ment the same scorecard. can srunmarize the progress of the more detailed steps lists=don the individual page for each Lt:ED prerequisite and crediC. i'roject Tanagers should assess each prerequisite and creitit Eor the level of effatestimatedtoachievethem. Adjacenttoeachpre~~equisiteandcreditis a set of t}uee boxes labeled easy, moderate, and difficult. this serves to differentiate °low-hanging fntit" h~om more diff{cult green design choices. Eor prerequisites, enter a zero in the appropriate box, as these are required and have no pointsassociatcdwiththem. Porcredits,entertheanticipated points ht the appropriate bos. Eor those crec{its that are not being }?ursued, cross ou t the boxes or leave them blank. ToG~I the number of points for each category and swn ale of the points to estimate the anGidpated LEED score. A place to copy the esthnated points, and their 1cve1 of difficulty, is included on the sec<md page of the interpretation pages for each prerequisite and creel it. I'he descriptions for each prerequisite anc{ aectlt are organized'ux the .0ppli- cationGuide b4 LEEU Category and arenumbered by pre:rcquisite or o-edit number. Sample pages are shov\m in Figures 1. and 2 to illustrate theta fea- hu'es. 7 he Appendix lists all rusounes, irr print and available electronically, tlxat ~~ ~~ axe applicable to LE;BD L odging projects and USAF dormitory projects. <., .. ; ?z. rc no anc Comezr,y .. ..., easy mod diff ` Overview ~. Qedit Narratives The preregrusite and crediE narratives a}?plq the [ Lt'D Green Building Rat- 'l he first page of ead'{ tacilitiesand USA F dormiturirs in Sestem tolod in g . g g prerequisite and credit narrative inchu{es the official intent and reyuira:- m,ent5 informationGorntht t FtiDGreenBuildingRatingSystem. Thisserves to establish the provisions for successfully earning the prerequisite or aedit. 'the first page also includes a discussion of ho4v the prerequisite or credit applies to lodging facilities and specifically to LS/\F dormitories. "i7lese features art*. illustrabad in a sample first page in Eigare 2. Fiy_re .., ', (V{ } rfti,'.tFOt t .~i3 rl, 4 WCCi IrI tI .~ tEft~ P rer}i;e ~'. - Cilffh r nnq{ A.•w [. wYN - - - WE fA tCQ ID Prer uisite 7 'f (`[t'f ,UiS~.tC ',f rf 4E~3. •~I'fIL ~ ~-` Erosion and Sedimentation ConLd I, d"h~t)09SFfJF E VI€'li`.i ~:., cemrot ereiwrmreaucex5atlve irohvicem wane and akgwkrc. i^. ', '. ',. ~'Rn ioisku ltmmiemi vnvsrvn. mood ylan thstrcrdwm LLtlrelesf ooa~M t}w uhbA~du•IT{V$WYNW1bTMA[N~+YMgHntCA1N1 Zinn: AnN{tltt,rPAWVm¢nI NO fPA~N52N~AP5i(.brylrr R,CNtbtal4nrtranbr~ ' :. SJkmenwdw(l'arlrelfLLVJrtdsaM<vrkx, vfikhe.2r is more sr+inR2ne. Yk p6n - t)(f'4 J:k t• Nt:~ '. xM11mM «a fdbwvin6nbFk1H2x Me rot U d 'hluringa rulnttF in b}' unmwnme nmMf andld wkM , rcnS{tt I?L'1P3"1.7 it"C;(5' IftP, . .l m,l Y i' gyivxtiogrolerzv(by. mckp'I' Pfm raum Inver C nmllnn uCaWe •ivbrRArwrro md)w drydtuh+n f i i1 irlxGrt ~ nt~li(r~ ''. { ', wlN AUauM lur:iin4k wlsl- ~) '~ M1att EJ {~S~e$}QiY}'' IEttJ I~IU y llfaa myu _W. tmq uuM +t' 1'4 nererM1Vls ~. , IIIiY>m IlnriiJnry}cP pnr hilAinR rn?. L4vnralY>+'d evr i.. :,. niwhnflrl arKr mrhwivdntiaryyHnm~iorwlruNr Mdf¢. lhe.eflkro ~ Out nrnpa .n (nu. soytumW Mxm6htl. 1':rvn rnltM nrCeturex m[fiKr hr 1' IuA ~pn. badd-R .<nbtmn. inrk SITMVR zBnAivg rw-livi6es. ~. I. nrx1~{orm Jr,rlnntn•. 4~-C6a~Stirv {t1`F. (:C:<tU ' '., IbIMwtM FIAWreremu 94Maed arv/MVih pv kmrw+l'mrbnl flan r'veiM - tE f. r~r2 {CC~F. 4r Ci3{i [IV ',. yvkaxb •R Iva mp Th nn•e amin if ntamLrl JaN4rc t t tl' #e Min dtl v tl ] RlatterurH nku~i ' .1~.(~ C { j l '.. t,~iT ^ '. mt aypl th .Va .I rha:n t IinperLL - 1=r il5 tiSTFlfr {r .a PfRI'-lrtl Nf lb nvnl ISunn4f[wremwl ' '. ~ smn.6rA k. 'Irl +n tFV1411t I vjn~lkugr G':k•. 4bn}nv l@Cnnkm _.._ I, GmtmL4~l an iR3lnnGmC 1 Illnn tlnGPa .rs. Sloan e4'^.nA Nr to +, an [:nwircn Crrnhnk Plan. _. 'IIu~tP~~4 drn3:ryvhrn rlv (d :vv v(a 5L {.:l _H~rw.rlunlfurpl} : :, nCN.I)mrr4at ss:ectim.!]Yrt :x1im.~tamMMfmr.nnA n)#ad~AtiOn ~ I `))( =dI sl?[14dPt3GK3(15{Ur Irrru Ih'S.AN d Arty' N kt ¢µs- sting - '. .nCrk~nra «.y lpnrNSS 9y I; a_c%or. ynkml Leah s(.mr s.ro4ury lj.^ ~, t T~4 r:': U Slti (1( ilEdl i3$ $ ~ licilrkt V I "' P II i why I .1 pr. nwi ' - PI'~"^[I 's SL:i ~. ~i5 >w16}TMh Mi<.~11 u1neAMptun. In r'cd '. 1J. <: '~ f0 ~ Cj°. F` IilCl~tt"~ 1-Or~4 1T. #rinyrntd U -r{IIre EFA Po oeL Ytrve.43krwln6 fM (;hnVtit ul t 'll nrwf the ry rrtl fur itkl. ' Cu:=~,Jt-{ra +ame4 VUm armhblolnrn tl V: dY w,a,nku nn'n:: nr :. n, k.6mabi.lmm m. ersn ..Fb.h.• bnlne.. enFrnR2n, ~i-na;w, r ... _.... _.. I. i~<rvnv t: Il y-ec crass {. di:rx~nt liur'..t'I ¢.nMtn h.r llµ• yrvpc: ht vniwr the lrrnfaxrrL~JnrhrRangnrnionrovnsvre {ba!!he mc.rn nml =.din:cm:rln~. nrrh nve teind rnll5v^vl i .R ,', vt"Ihn„z - : r tv( .k )[7-^.Cn C vlrfFE~.'~:.IiSISG' ,...+.. .. ;;~, P~m,i'::} a^d Company '.. ,. Overview Credit Checklists The sc+l:axi page ptnvides a checklist for completing the prerequ islte or credit endlsialustratedi.nl~igute?. Chechecklistisintendedasastel?-bar-step list for projectmanagers Po (rack progress. "1'he three boxes (easy, moderate, and difficult) from the LI?I?D scorecard are included at tha*_ top of the page for proje'Lt managers to estimate the degree of difficulty to achieve each prerequ i- site and credit. Those elements of the checklist required as subudttals for L1-fi17 cerfification are in bold and are noted with the word Submittal." I he second page also includes a list of liSAF reference documents. "Chose documents shordd be reviewed by the projectmanager and Bteprojectteam to ensure compliance with USAF rel,ulafions and design procedures. : '~. 7Li~.lUt?ti ~J ,T c'~9G Wf EA MV fQ IU Eh i '°O~ i "''' ~ ~ ~ ~~ f litl(~ll14y r0 3f i iE E (J.;ti ', Prerc uisilr 1 (tt E'ri (R7151CE .,C ~f _.t 1. '. ~ ~~ El+osion and Sedimen4ition Cankroi : ;t ic~alsed~ ci,5:t~thivvc SU~e22ea SIC(1T: it ` fi YL'(lU}Sttr U; GI E'/tiL seer - R~ ., tM1e ^h1Fe~imr anA ee,9menLai„ •I t¢;iAe14v.. tbcermsvII .`IC llrz41$i;(t 'F let}r}t%„n mrr loteJnt7erv,I aaicW,-°Mnla tm algellcablrm wiyrt,Pd,Aa mrli~.r pmpnY '. '. ,J srcv= riai b i. „e e,wi;n I ,nn:o~: as,;aarn.ama;.,.;,,,a.~ - ' ilxagn4lelu,n Lin„n,nu'Ikn Atr unicNSdmbtg llv LcnnwlfLVn^vn1 '., '. M Nq,mrm lJ,aw '.. _.. ' '.J SfeP3 ' aimei mxt s.:' f xct.e'~r. Al rurg.wmnn lvno - ~ f)theL. tt~G JUJIISr1<Ii5 I.~nmg<ur. m'~,imm„va ~. ,,, im o~~r.xi,.n, I r - IF'QllYV2C1 FP 4, {liti :~tllf:dl flft tai iPSDBUhno1G1 ~:? IkcluervbelM1er llw Pn~xftfallpva lrcal mdbn amina,tlmanlelU,tien4W {(~ ){ii lii'~7 t(1 i'C;I(f : i NamkNaar the retermaeil EPA alnalanL sd EwwuieuFrie(InWgeCllw ', ~murn pnPY•mnaed lfkrnl uacdasdaandcaies arr li,ll.w,d, dru;rSti '. I,ow Mry'mvelIXeCAdIbPf!Y.lbaumemgemam Crn'Ikve. UltkUI tEEUSabmiNal: '. l•: Pm.um mexmaonrom tpWn( dlawmps mns~ir em„i,aln mr ~.. •tn}rr^ ra htiti::d nce t m .wt>ouai mnerrvroo rmmol rv,rm nlp,~mnl. . , ,.~ ',. ( i (3K~IIi't£ 1Sfx. ,}341 3rci1 h~ tl ILI> pl: ~ I' t.,f. I SI P ,girt II 4'I' _ uvf ~ jx;j€ye[<'j (X t(:t i~~tot~SJ MsUmemu:-„ m:ryvv.icu l}qv gniJA„rv, c..uh...ryam.,me!a:{ . ~. ae. aamabnfu. IrslPdomreme-~nLCUm rcA~-n(>c,g lheaR.xim • I I mdpne,aaemn <rvn,M m,eaim rm~,k+.»dw wprrjnr '., nmi I. Mxility lXN~n 4ulde fw [n1ISIM llwmifotlea r'uia to dm nuJ5n,vi fFnyhrl tm sic pLVmi,rg. '. {iSAF 1mJacaPe [krtig, 4uiAe '. _ RLluti~ tNe ga,a,i„n cmnrol vcasonp inClerpler i& .: ?a zc'no dnG Con orny _ ' 2:' ~„ ~~ ~r .~~~~<t del (EED fertitied: Z6 - ?2 (POints, I tfC) SlNrac 33 3£3 points, CEEU Golds 39 - 57 points, LFED Pl:~tinum: 52 -fig points C?SY T()tt fIIII 7 Erosion and Sedimentation Control 0 7 Site Selection 1 2 Urban Redevelopment 1 3 Brownfield Redevelopment 1 4.7 Alternative Transportation, Locate Near PUmio rransportadon 1 4.2 Alternative Transportation, Bicycle storage a changing Rooms 1 4.3 Alternative Transportation, Alternative r~ei Rerueung stadons 1 4.4 Alternative TranSportatlOn, Minimum or No New Parking 1 5.7 Reduced Site Disturbance, Protect nr Resmre open space 1 5.2 RedUCed Site DiSCUrba ace, Retluce Footprint & Increase Open Space 1 6.1 $LOfmW2ter Management, NO Net Increase or 25% Derrease 1 6.2 $LOrmW2ter Management, Treatment Systems 1 7.7 Landscape & Exterior Design to Reduce Heat Islands, site surraces 1 7.2 Landscape & Exterior Design to Reduce Heat Islands, Roof surtaces 1 8 Light Pollution Reduction 1 Credit 1 Credit 2 Credit 3 Wafer EffiClenl Landscaping, 50%Retluction to Potable Free System 2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies 1 Water Use Reduction, zo~so% 2 Hazy mod tlitl j Prereq t Fundamental Building Systems Commissioning 0 Prereq 2 Minimum Energy Performance 0 ' '~ Prereq 3 CFC Reduction in HVAC&R Equipment 0 Credit 7 Optimize Energy Performance, zo-eon New to~so%Existing 10 '~ Credit 2 Renewable Energy, s-zo°o 3 '~ Credit 3 Additional Commissioning 1 I Credit 4 Ozone Depletion 1 Credit 5 Measurement and Verification 1 Credit6 Green Power 1 rosy :n,n drfl ~. ~~ 1 Storage & Collection of Recyclables 1 BUilding REUSe, Maintain 75700% of Existing Shell & 0-50% of Non-Shell 2 Construction Waste Management, salvage or Recycle so-~s% 3 Resource Reuse, speciry s-1o% 4 Recycled Content, speciry z5-5o% 5.1 Local/Regional Materials, zo%Manuracmrea tocalry 5.2 Local/Regional Materials, or zo%noove so%Flarvesced totally 6 Rapidly Renewable Materials 7 Certified Wood 1 Minimum IAQ Pertormance 2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control 1 Carbon Dioxide (COZ) Monitoring 2 Increase Ventilation Effectiveness 3.1 Construction IAQ Management Plan, prior 3.2 Construction IAQ Management Plan, Dnring 4.1 Low-Emitting Materials, adnesives a.2 Low-Emitting Materials, paints a.3 Low-Emitting Materials, carpet a.4 Low-Emitting Materials, composite woos 5 Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control 6.1 Controllability of Systems, operanle window 6.2 Controllability of Systems, Individual controls Z1 Thermal Comfort, campy with asrlRnE ss~tgez 7.2 Thermal COmfOrt, Permanent Monitoring System s.1 Daylight and Views, Dirrnse sunlight to so% 6.2 Daylight and VIEWS, Direct Line or Site to 90% T- Credit 1.1 Innovation in Design Credit t2 Innovation in Design ~'. ' Credit 1.3 Innovation in Design ~'~ Credit 1.4 Innovation in Design ' ' Credit2 LEEDT"" Accredited Professional 0 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 v easy morl diL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS FOR INCLUSION IN THE YEAR 2005 ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN Facility Fund Account Department Year of Work City Housing - AABC Various (See Belorv) Asset 2005 Project Description: Construct 12 housing units in A_gBC on the land formerly occupied by the old animal-shelter Designs completed with money in prior appropriations (shows total price; net cost to be reduced by sale price) Parks 1 $175,000•- Genera] Fund 6 $1,230,000 Water 3 $615,000 Wheeler 2 $395,000 Total Project Cost: $2,415,000 (Must have completed worksheet attached) Department Director: Ed Sadler Date: 3 '~ ~/- O ~ g:~sadler~y2k-amp-forms ~~~ ~b MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council FROM: Sazah Oates, Zoning Officer Sa DATE: April 11, 2005 RE: Flags on Main Street Light Posts-2005 Food and Wine Attached is a letter from Jennifer Albright Carney and Hana Pevny of ACRA and Devin Padgett of Food and Wine Magazine on behalf of Food and Wine Magazine Classic requesting permission to install flags on the Main Street and Downtown Light Posts from June 10, 2005 to June 12, 2005 for the 2005 Classic. On December 17, 2001, Council adopted policies regazding signs on public property. Per Section IV(E) Eligibility for Banners and Flags on Main Street Light Posts states; Only applicants for significant anniversaries (25`", 50`", 75`" and 100`") of local non proftt organizations shall be eligible for consideration pursuant to this policy. All other requests from other organizations or for other types of events shall be forwarded to City Council. In the past, Council has granted requests for prominent local, regional, state or nation events including last yeaz's Food and Wine Magazine Classic. As Council approved the request last year, staff is assuming banners are acceptable again this yeaz. ~. AS P E N~ CHAMBER RESORT ASSOCIATION March 25, 2005 Ms. Kathryn Koch, City Clerk City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Kathryn: I am writing to you on behalf of the Food and Wine Magazine Classic in Aspen and the Aspen Chamber Resort Association. Often considered Aspen's annual "kickoff to summer," this year's event takes place June 10-12, 2005 and we are looking forward to another successful year. To honor Food & Wine Magazine's longstanding commitment to the Aspen community, we would like to request council's special consideration in allowing the Food & Wine Magazine Classic in Aspen to place lamp post banners on Main Street and in the commercial core on all available brackets. Council approved this request last year and we truly appreciate their consideration in allowing us to do so again. We do understand that the city's current policy allows placement for significant anniversaries only. Given Food & Wine's consistent powerful and positive economic impact on our community, we are asking for special consideration to this policy. Council's approval for the past few years of the X-Games and World Cup banners for events not taking place on significant anniversary years has demonstrated flexibility and support by the City for these important events. We would like to ask council to do the same for one of the community's long-standing favorite events, the 23`d Annual Food & Wine Magazine Classic in Aspen. According to the Jan. 23, 2004 edition of the Denver Post, The Food and Wine Magazine Classic event generates the highest economic impact to the Aspen community. With only 5,000 attendees, the Classic brings an estimated $15-$20 million in economic impact surpassing the X Games which estimates a total of $10-$15 million with 50,000 attendees. The Classic brings an educated and affluent attendee who loves Aspen and returns year after year for the experience. Ninety-five percent of participants say the Classic exceeds or meets their expectations. The average stay is five days; the average daily expenditure on food alone is more than $250; and the average household income is $454,000. This event clearly attracts the perfect demographic for the Aspen experience. We do respect council's efforts to develop a reasonable policy on these lamp post banners. Our request is to place tasteful and subtle banners throughout the commercial core and along Main Street that will enhance the Classic in Aspen experience. We appreciate your consideration in these matters. Please help us to continue to support the Food and Wine Magazine Classic in Aspen. Sincerely, Jennifer Albright Carney Hana Pevny Devin Padgett Director of Specia] Events - ACRA President & CEO - ACRA Producer Special Projects - RESOLUTION N0.42 (Series 2003) A RESOLUTION OF THE CFI'Y COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, GRANTING APPROVAL FOR FLAGS ON THE DOWNTOWN LIGHT POSTS FOR THE 2003 ASPEN FOOD AND WINE CLASSIC WHEREAS, a request was received by the Community Development Department from the Aspen Chamber Resort Association to allow Aspen Food and Wine Classic flags on the Main Street light posts and the Downtown light posts to celebrate the 2003 Aspen Food and Wine Classic; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council adopted Resolution 118, Series of 2001, approving the policies regarding signage on public property; and WHEREAS, Section IV(E) Eligibility for Banners and Flags on Main Street Light Posts of that policy states; Only applicants for significant anniversaries (25~h, SO`~, 75`h and 100`x) of local non- profit organizations shall be eligible for consideration pursuant to this policy. All other requests from other organizations or for other types of events shall be forwarded to City Council. WHEREAS, during a public meeting on May 12, 2003, the City Council found thatthe 2003 Aspen Food and Wine Classic does not meet Section IV(E) as cited above but is eligible for using the Downtown light posts, which are not subject to. Section IV(E) of the Policies Regarding Signage on Public Property; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE-CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: SECTION 1: The Aspen City Council does hereby approve of the request for mounting of the 2003 Aspen Food and Wine Classic flags o'nthe light posts in downtown for the dates of June 9, 2003 to Tune 15, 2003. APPROVED by the Aspen City Council as its regular meeting May 12, 2003. ~~ 463 'MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU; Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Sazah Oates, Zoning Office v DATE:. May 12, 2003.. .. RE: Request for Flags on Light Posts--2003 Aspen Food and Wine Classic SiJ1YIMARY: The Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA) is requesting permission to use the Main Street fight posts and the Downtown-light posts from Monday,. June 9, 2003 to Sunday, June 15, 2003 for the 2003 Aspen Food and Wine Classic..: The event is being -held Tune 13-15, 2003 and is the 21°` annual event.. On December 17, 2001,. Council adopted policies regarding signs on public property.- Per Section IV(E) Eligibility for Banners and Flags on 1~iain Street Light Posts states: Only applicants for significant anniversaries (25th; SO`", 75~' and 100`") of local non profit organizations.shall be eligible for consideration pursuant to this policy. AZl other requests from other organizations or for other types of events shall be forwarded to City Council. In the past, Council has granted requests for prominent local, iegional, state or national events. lnJanuary, Council held a worksession with City staff concerning special events signs and concurred with staff that use of the Downtown ligh# posts was acceptable for events that do not meet he above criteria. APPLICANT: Aspen Chamber Resort Association Ms. Pevny told Council the Food & Wine event has been approved for banners in the commercial core. They request Council approve banners on the Main street light poles. The adopted policy is for significant anniversaries of local events, 25, 50, .160 and events of national significance. Ms. Pevny noted there have been exceptions set for the X-games and for World Cup. Ms. Pevny noted Food & Wine contributes $21 million to the local economy and ACRA would like to honor that by having banners on Main street. Councilwoman Richards said she would like to see the banner policy changed rather than have piecemeal approvals. Mayor HIanderud agreed this is a larger discussion. John Worcester, city attorney, warned Council they are getting closer to designating light poles as a public forum. Councilwoman Richards said she would like the policy to be amended to allow banners for annual events that support the community. Councilwoman Richards moved to approve banners on light poles on Main Street for Food & Wine; seconded by Mayor Klanderud. All in favor, motion carved. Councilman Torre moved to adjourn at 7:45 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Semrau. All in favor, motion carried. Ka S. Koch, City Clerk t1 Dom'. a. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council /~' THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director / yAA^n John Worcester, City Attorney ~~~YYY~~r~~, {{{ FROM: Joyce A. Allgaier, Deputy DirectorJ~ RE: Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Development, Final Planned Unit D velopment (PUD)/Subdivision Approval, First Reading of Ordinance No. ~t}, Series of 2005, Second Reading scheduled for Apri125, 2005 DATE: April 11, 2005 PROJECT: BURLINGAME RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING APPLICANT: Shaw/Poss/DHM, represented by Clark Atkinson of Shaw Builders, LLC REQUEST: The Applicant is requesting approvals to develop a new affordable housing subdivision with 86 multi-family units and 11 single-family lots; commons building; transit facilities; refuse/recycling structures; parks; trails; and utility, storm water and road infrastructure PROPOSED ZONING: Affordable Housing/PUD (AH/PUD) LAND UsE Final PUD, Rezoning to AH/PUD Zone District, Subdivision, REQUESTS: Subdivision Exemption for Condominiumization,Grnwth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemption for Affordable Housing, GMQS Exemption for Accessory Uses in Mixed Use Development, Special Review for AH Parkin ,Conditional Use, and Vested Ri hts COWOP TASK FORCE TEAM: The COWOP Task Force Team's recommendations have been incorporated into the proposed development plan. Staff recommends that City Council approve the proposal with STAFF conditions upon first reading. RECOMMENDATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The Applicant for Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Development (hereinafter, Burlingame Ranch) is requesting Final PUD and Subdivision approval, along with the related land use actions noted above, in order to develop ninety-seven (97) deed restricted housing units, including Category units and Resident Occupied (RO) units to be built on lots. The development includes a community "commons" building that could accommodate neighborhood activities, a daycare, and general community space. This 100% affordable Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Staff Memorandum April 11, 2005 - 1 - housing project is proposed on 31 acres +/- of land in part owned by Bar/X Ranch LLC, and in part owned by the City of Aspen. The land owned by Bar/X Ranch LLC is to be deeded to the City of Aspen pursuant to the Fourth Amended and Restated Pre-Annexation Agreement (Agreement), Bar/X Ranch, dated November 8, 2004. Also pursuant to the Agreement, Burlingame Ranch meets the criteria of the AH/PUD's affordable housing minimum bedroom mix for the Stage Road PUD/Subdivision. Together; the Burlingame Ranch and Stage Road PUD/Subdivision developments respectively, are attaining the standard of the AH/PUD Zone District by creating a predominantly affordable housing development of 70% affordable housing bedrooms to 30% free market bedrooms. h t ___ __ '; ~ k ~ E1~+,Bf j Budiagame Ranch ASfordable Housing y~__. _ -wwe__.- --n-- ________. __ uW ~. 8arlX Ranch Free Market . ~ ~~a4 w, ,~ .t ,h _. ___ --~-,~ ~~ ' ~.~~~ Buttermilk i °` ~ 4 -~ i _ _..... ~ Maroon Creek Club ~:~~~) ~~ °°°°°~~-°--- Cemetary Lane ~, t ~~~ ,; ~ _ BACKGROUND: The Burlingame Ranch site is an area of land approximately 31 acres in size, located on the east side of Highway 82 (east of Deer Hill) with the Aspen Airport Business Center (AABC) to the north and the Bar/X Ranch to the south. The Roaring Fork River borders the property to the east. The development will take access off of Harmony Road which connects to Highway 82. The site is characterized by several terraces predominantly of sage brush and rabbit grass with gentle to steep slopes. The site is vacant and has been used over the years as part of the ranching operations on the neighboring Bar/X Ranch. Burlingame Ranch was designated a COWOP project by the Council in 2000 and the Burlingame COWOP Task Force Team developed the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Land Use and Development Plan, dated July 2003. The recommendations of this plan were accepted by the City Council through Resolution No. 98, Series of 2003. Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Staff Memorandum April 11, 2005 - 2 - In September of 2004, Shaw/Poss/DHM became the applicants through winning adesign/build competition conducted by the City's Asset Management Department. The Applicants gained Conceptual PUD approval on February 14, 2005 through City Council Resolution No. 120, Series of 2004, allowing fora 3-phase development of 236 affordable housing units. The applicants are now seeking final approval and entitlements for Phase I. Phase I is the subject of this staff report, except to the extent that the conceptual plan is amended due to changes brought about by the approval of Phase I. Future phases are required to finalize that phase separately and gain entitlements to proceed with construction. LAND USE ACTIONS REQUESTED and PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Phase I includes a total of ninety-seven (97) residential units. Eighty-six (86) multi-family units are contained within 15 buildings and 11 single-Family residences are intended for the 11 proposed lots. The Applicant is requesting final approval for the development at this time as required by the Land Use Code. Final land use entitlements for the development will include the land use actions as follows: • Final Planned Unit Development PUD allows for the master development of the site and establishes a site specific development plan with set dimensional, density, site plan, architectural and other parameters of the development. • Subdivision Subdivision is necessary in order to create the 31 acre subject parcel through, 1.) partitioning a piece of land off of the Burlingame Ranch Lot 1, 2.) partitioning a piece of land off of the Parcel 2 Park Trust Exemption (AVLT), and 3.) amalgamating the parcels to become the subject property. Subdivision is also necessary to create the new single family and multi-family lots within Phase I. • Subdivision Exemption for Condominiumization Subdivision Exemption allows for the multi-family buildings and associated lands to be condominiumized once built by filing of standard condominium plats and documents. • GMQS Exemptions for Affordable Housing Deed restricted affordable housing the meets the Housing Guidelines is exempted from the GMQS scoring provisions because of the attainment of community goals by addressing the need for housing for local workers. • GMQS Exemption for Accessory Uses in a Mixed Use Development The commons building (including a potential day care), transit stops, parks, trails, trash recycling facilities make the development mixed use. Such accessory uses as these supportive of the overall use of the property as residential and are exempted from GMQS scoring. • Conditional Use for Parks and Open Use Recreation, Transit Facilities and Child Care Center These uses are not "permitted outright" and require evaluation as a conditional use to ensure that they are compatible with the other uses in the neighborhood and vicinity. • Special Review for Affordable Housine Parking Parking for affordable housing is set through special review in order to specifically assign parking requirements to a development so that it fits the unique circumstances of the Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Staff Memorandum April 11, 2005 - 3 - development. Such parameters as location of the housing, proximity to transit, type and number of units, etc. are considered in making a determination. • Rezoning to AH/PUD Portions of the subject property need to be zoned with City of Aspen zoning because they were either recently annexed into the city or they were subdivided off of other parcels and needed zoning to support the residential use. The entire subject property will be zoned AH/PUD. The development program for Burlingame Ranch Phase I can be summarized as follows. Standard PtID A royal via this Ordinance 97 Deed-Restricted Units Maximum Allowable Unit Ilensity 14 I -bedroom 31 2-bedroom 52 3-bedroom Minimum Qpeu Spaee 56% for total subject area 55 /o for individual lots .32:1 (169,957 SF) .35:1 (187,669 SF w/possible expansions) 144,738 SF for multi-family buildings Allowable FAR 5,570 SF for commons building 3,061 SF for transit stops 24,200 SF for single family homes on lots (last four listed numbers show maximum SF with expandability) 34 feet for multi-family and Allowable H~gbt community buildings 25 feet for single family lot buildings Minimum front, side, rear yards for Multi As represented on the Final PUD famil Plans Minimum front, side, rearyards for 10 feet front 5 feet side 10 feet rear Sin ` e-fami !lots , , Minimum lot width gad size 32 foot width and 3,000 sq. ft. size for lots 10 feet for single family lots buildings Minimum distance between structures 21 feet for multi-family buildings . 20 feet between multi-family and transit buildings Mittimum ©ff-Street Parking by Special- I 1.67:1 Parking Spaces per Unit, 162 Review total Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Staff Memorandum April 11, 2005 - 4 - Guidelines for the Category and Bedroom Mix for Burlingame Cat. 1/2 Cat. 3/4 Cat. S/6 Cat.7+ R.O. Sum 1Br 8 2 4 0 0 14 (1 bath) 2 Br 5 13 12 1 0 31 (1 bath) 3Br 0 15 19 7 0 41 (2 bath) Lots 0 0 2 3 6 11 (3.5 bath) Totals 13 30 37 11 6 97 This chart indicates the general goal for the mix of categories, resident occupied housing and the number of bedrooms/baths intended per unit. This gives an idea of the type of affordable housing that will be supplied through Burlingame Ranch. The City Council will make a final determination on the category assigned to each unit once further financial evaluation is performed for the development program factoring in construction costs and exact unit sizes. The Council will assign categories at a time prior to sales of units. Compliance with COWOP Task Force Team Recommendations: City Council reviewed and accepted the COWOP Task Force Team's recommendation (Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Land Use and Development Plan, dated July 2003) through the approval of Resolution No. 98, Series of 2003. Since that time, the recommendation has served as a basic set of guidelines for the applicants to accomplish. These guidelines are both general and specific in nature indicating an overall approach to the project (i.e. green building, transit-oriented, pedestrian-oriented, ranch architecture) and providing direction on more definitive parameters (i.e. category of housing, unit mix, building types, parking ratio). A summary of these guidelines is contained within the application and overall, Staff finds that these guidelines are met through the development application. Subdivision: Subdivision is necessary in order to create the subject property and subdivide the new lots within Phase I. The steps to doing this are as follows: a) The 2-lot subdivision of Burlingame Ranch Lot 1 which will create a parcel to add on to and become the westernmost portion of the subject property, with a remaining parcel not part of the subject development property, b) The 2-lot subdivision of Parcel 2 Park Trust Exemption to add on to and become the northernmost portion to the subject property, with a remaining parcel not part of the subject development property, c) The subdivision/plat showing the amalgamation of the parcels that will comprise the entire subject property, (this will include those new lots noted above and include the addition of the " 20 acre parcel" from the Bar/X subdivision), and d) The subdivision of the lots within Phase I for single family lots and any other lots necessary as common elements for multi-family buildings. For second reading, Staff will recommend a process for the timing of the recordation of the various subdivision plats that will establish the proper creation of lots. Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Staff Memorandum April 11, 2005 - 5 - Rezoning to Affordable Housing/PUD: Zoning of two portions of the subject property are essential to laying the groundwork to enable the development of Burlingame Ranch. One parcel coming from Burlingame Ranch Lot 1, is currently zoned in part RR, Rural Residential, and in part C, Conservation. The other parcel comes from the Park Trust Exemption (aka AVLT) that is currently zoned AFR2, Agriculture, Forestry, Residential. Both parcels would be rezoned to AH/PUD. The assignment of AH/PUD zoning is in conformance with the Aspen Area Community Plan of 2000 and its designation within the Future Land Use Composite Map of the site as Affordable Housing. Staff finds the zoning to be in keeping with other land uses in the vicinity including the MAA, AABC and the Maroon Creek Club Affordable Housing. As a whole, along with the Stage Road PUD/Subdivision, the development accomplishes the preservation of a large area of open space and lands intended for agricultural use. In addition, from the perspective of this development in the context of the community and what it accomplishes in terms of achieving affordable housing goals and open space goals, Staff recommends this zone change. Open Space Conservation: Planning for Burlingame Ranch has been in the process over many years. Through the City's acquisition of land and through the Pre-annexation Agreement with Bar/X Ranch, the land mass has been compiled. In addition to providing affordable housing, one of the City's goals has been to preserve the working agricultural landscape of the Bar/X Ranch and conserve additional lands in the general area of Burlingame Ranch, including Deer Hill, and lands along Highway 82. The primary land masses have come together by the acquisition of Burlingame Ranch (from the Paepcke Estate), the 29 acre AVLT piece and the " 20 acre" parcel provided from Bar/X Ranch. The Future Land Use Map of the 2000 AACP designates this area as Affordable Housing/Open Space mix. This is clearly achieved with 77% of the land being conserved. Of these land masses, approximately 210 acres will be set aside either as designated open space/parks or lands with conservation easements. • From AVLT land, 23.7 of conservation land will be designated. • From the Burlingame Ranch (east side of Hwy 82 only), 88 acres is in conservation. • From the Bar/X Ranch 85.4 acres are set aside through conservation easements. • From the Burlingame Ranch AH development 12 acres is designated open space or parks. School Lands Dedication: The Land Use Code contains a provision for the dedication of land for school purposes or cash- in-lieu from developments. The purpose of this provision is so that the current level of service can be maintained as demand from new development increases on the district. The Code states, "..the Council shall consider the comments of the Aspen School District, to determine whether the lands proposed to be dedicated are of adequate size and can be suitably developed for school purposes or whether the lands have the capability of being sold, with the proceeds being used for school purposes. Council shall also consider the probable impacts on neighboring properties of Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Staff Memorandum April 11, 2005 - 6 - the development of the land for school purposes. When the lands proposed to be dedicated are not adequate or suitable for school purposes and cannot feasibly be sold, the Council shall require a cash payment in-lieu of the land dedication." The Aspen School District (See Exhibit B) has indicated their interest in having land dedicated to the district for the purpose of housing district employees, for other district purposes (possibly a bus barn), or selling the land for revenue. The intended purpose of Burlingame Ranch is residential and the possible inclusion of school uses within the development is not compatible with the intended residential land use. Additionally, Burlingame Ranch is a master-planned neighborhood and does not establish a parcel for some type of school-related use that could be proposed in the future. The provision of a residential lot(s), as master planned as part of the PUD, or the payment of a fee-in-lieu to the district and using those fees to purchase housing for district employees are ways the to fulfill the intent of the Code provision. Staff does not feel that any school-related use other than a residential use would be compatible with the the Burlingame Ranch PUD or neighboring properties and recommends that Council either enter into discussions about the provision of a residential lot(s) or provide cash-in-lieu, based on the City's adopted formula. Development Review Committee Meetin¢: A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was conducted to review the development proposal. At the DRC meeting city departments, utility providers and districts were present to identify key issues for the applicants to be aware of or address through plan amendments. These comments are summarized in the DRC Memorandum dated, March 9, 2005 from Joyce A. Allgaier, attached as Exhibit C and have been provided to the applicant. Where Staff found necessary, the comments from DRC have been converted into conditions of final approval and are included in the proposed ordinance. Other comments are more informational in nature. Of special note from the DRC include the following: • Various requests for additional technical information in plan and/or profile form having to do with utilities and storm water management. • Additional information regarding irrigation, landscaping and specifications for seed mixes and restoration processes to ensure sound recovery of disturbed areas, • Requirements for refuse and recycling facilities that meet with the wildlife protection ordinace of the city. • Addressing will be assigned with the final phases in mind, meaning that while Mining Stock Parkway will be one-way only from the north to the south in Phase I, with future phases it becomes one-way only from south to north. Addressing will commence at the south. • Mining Stock Parkway shall be available for two-way movement for utility and emergency service providers. Expandability of Units: Sixty-six (66) units of the eighty-six (86) multi-family units within Phase I are proposed as eligible for vertical expansion. The specific units designated for expansion need to be identified Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Staff Memorandum April 11, 2005 - 7 - and the maximum allowable floor area of expandability per unit needs to be specified. This information is necessary to accurately entitle the property, allow for predictability to the owners and neighborhood and allow for efficient administration by the city of the expansion building permit. All expansions require building permits. This information shall be included in the recorded PUD Plan and Homeowners Documents. The concept of expandability has been endorsed by the COWOP Task Force, Housing Staff and Housing Boazd. The Housing Staff and Board recommend that the expansion of these units be at the cost of the owner but be considered as a capital improvement into the price of the unit for resale purposes. The expansion of any unit shall not affect the unit's designation in the affordable housing inventory. Conditional Uses: In the AH/PUD Zone District, the uses of Park and Open Use Recreation Site, Child Care Center, and Transit Facilities are considered conditional uses and require special approval. Staff finds that the uses of transit facilities and parks and open use recreation sites aze well integrated into the development plan and would have no special impacts on the development. The areas for these uses and the facilities are straight forward and pose no threat to adjoining properties and need no special conditions to make them compatible. The ordinance already stipulates various conditions about the transit stop facilities, park landscaping maintenance etc. The child care center is the type of facility and use that needs special review in the future when and if the center comes to fruition. Staff feels that a specific conditional use review is necessary to ensure compliance with state and local regulations, to ensure proper and safe operational features of the center (hours of operation, noise compatibility, etc.), to ensure safe and efficient site planning design (drop-off/loading areas, grading, fenced play areas, adequate outdoor space, etc.). For these reasons, Staff has structured the proposed ordinance to allow for the commons building to be constructed but requires that the child care center gain a separate conditional use approval from the City Council once the child care center is proposed and a better sense of the use and site are known. Transit and Mobility Plan: The Final PUD submittal offers three (3) transit and mobility plan options, each providing strategies to minimize the use of personal vehicles, reduce trip generation, reduce PMIo generation and minimize negative effects from the development to Highway 82 and other city roads. The plans propose the use of bus transit, care sharing programs, on-demand trvisportation services, personal mobility equipment. The plans further factor in the availability of car share parking spaces, bike and pedestrian trails, and the provision of bike racks within the development. Staff feels that the options, especially Option No. 1, will address and manage the trips generated by the provision of frequent bus transit services such that the development can mitigate its impacts through the implementation of one of the plans. Obviously, the option chosen has larger implications both financially and as it allows for services to other neighborhoods in addition to Burlingame Ranch. It is Staffs recommendation that the City Council make a determination as to which transit and mobility plan will meet the needs of the larger area proposed to be served. The proposed ordinance requires this be accomplished prior to recordation of the PUD/SIA Agreement. Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Staff Memorandum April 11, 2005 - 8 - Landscape Preservation: Staff has concerns about the unnecessary disturbance of the site that will upset native vegetation which is very difficult to recultivate and which would add to the change of the landscape. Specifically, the Parks Department finds that the berm designed for storm water management from Deer Hill is unnecessary and unduly impacts a greater amount of land than needs to be altered outside of the Phase I area. Staff recommends that the berm be eliminated from the PUD plan. Staff is suggesting a stringent set of operational standards requiring fencing and erosion control mechanisms to minimize unnecessary disturbance of the site during construction. Residential Housing Design Guidelines: A waiver from the City's Residential Design Standards is proposed to be granted as part of the PUD. Staff finds this allowance to be desirable as the applicant's Housing Design Guidelines are customized and designed to fit the unique site features, the intended on-going ranch uses and the existing ranch structures in the vicinity; the layout of the neighborhood and the specific focus on ranch architecture. As proposed, Burlingame Ranch will be governed by its own Design Review Committee utilizing a set of guidelines that are adopted as part of the PUD approval. These guidelines represent the style, massing and architecture that brings about an architectural style represented in the Shaw/Poss/DHM winning conceptual proposal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Burlingame Ranch Final PUD as amended through the conditions contained within the proposed ordinance. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No.~T~ ,Series of 2005, upon first reading, approving with conditions, the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing PUD and Subdivision, as shown and described in the Shaw/Poss/DHM submittal, dated, Februazy 14, 2005, entitlied PUD/Subdivision Phase I Development, Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing, including the plan set contained therein, as amended in accordance with this ordinance." CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: ~irnP-r.,0 G?~.~1Y~-Q 0'y` l s r ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A-Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B-Letter from Diana Sirko, Aspen School District, dated 3/30/05 Exhibit C- Referral Comments-DRC Memorandum Exhibit D-Application by Shaw/Poss/DHM Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Staff Memorandum April 1 1, 2005 - 9 - ORDINANCE N0. 'a (SERIES OF 2005) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN APPROVING THE FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FOR 97 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS (PHASE I), GMQS EXEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING (AH), GMQS EXEMPTION FOR ACCESSORY USES IN MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, SUBDIVISION, SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR CONDOMINIUMIZATION, SPECIAL REVIEW FOR AH PARKING, REZONING TO AH/PUD, CONDITIONAL USE, VESTED RIGHTS AND APPROVING THE REVISED CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR ALL PHASES OF THE BURLINGAME RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT IN THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID No.27350-03-100805 WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, pursuant to Resolution No. 120, Series of 2000, determined Burlingame Ranch PUD (hereinafter the "Project") eligible for the process of the Convenience and Welfare of the Public (COWOP) For the purpose of developing deed restricted affordable housing; and, WHEREAS, the COWOP land use review process, Section 26.500 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, was created and adopted by the City of Aspen to allow the planning of projects of significant community interest, when determined necessary by the Aspen City Council according to said Section, to conduct an iterative process considering input from neighbors, property owners, public officials, members of the public, and other parties of interest, and assembling a Burlingame Affordable Housing Task Force Team, providing recommendations directly to Aspen City Council; and, WHEREAS, the COWOP review process enabled the planning and design of the Project to reflect essential community goals and values, taking into consideration various opinions and expressed points-of--view from neighbors, the land owner, citizens and city staff; and, WHEREAS, the Project is of higher quality as a result of the Burlingame Affordable Housing COWOP Task Force Team review process and its thoughtful and interactive discussions, than may have otherwise resulted if the project had not been reviewed as a COWOP application; and whereas, the COWOP land use review process does not and has not lessened any public hearing, public noticing, or any critical analysis or scrutiny of the project as would otherwise be required; and, WHEREAS, the Burlingame Affordable Housing COWOP Task Force Team met nine (9) times, at legally noticed public hearings, to identify the site's opportunities and constraints and to develop guidelines for the development of the property. The COWOP "task Force Team forwarded a recommendation to the Aspen City Council who adopted the recommendation through Resolution No. 98, Series of 2003, at a regular meeting; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Asset Management Department conducted a Burlingame Ranch "Design/Build" competition in order to find a capable development Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. ,Series of 2005, Page team to design and build an exemplary affordable housing development. The designs submitted for the competition were publicly displayed at the Pitkin County Library and public comments were taken on the designs at public meetings of the Aspen City Council on October 25 and November 8, 2004. On November 8, 2004, the Aspen City Council chose the proposal submitted by Shaw Builders, LLC, Poss Architecture, and DHM Design (described as "Applicants" herein); and, WHEREAS, on November 22, 2004, the City Council granted, through Ordinance No. 120, Series of 2004, conceptual approval with conditions to a three-phase development plan as proposed by the applicants in the "Conceptual Master Plan Submittal", dated after September 7, 2004, after finding that the Project met with the development standards as required by the Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the applicants have proceeded to gain approvals and land use entitlements for Phase I of the Project by submitting a final development plan application entitled, "Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing", dated February 14, 2005. Such application addressed the application requirements and applicable review standards of the Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Community Development Director has reviewed the proposed development in consideration of the recommendations of the COWOP Task Force Team, the conditions of the conceptual approval, the requirements of the land use code, and comments from applicable referral agencies and has recommended approval of the Final PUD subject to conditions of approval as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners and the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority conducted meetings to discuss the development project and provided input and recommendations to the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Burlingame Ranch COWOP Task Force Team, the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, approval of this ordinance does not complete the COWOP process, but constitutes another step of the COWOP review process. Future steps may include applications for Final PUD Plan of Phases II and III of the development and/or Conceptual PUD revisions, followed by land use entitlement by the Aspen City Council, pursuant to provisions of the Municipal Code, including Section 26.500, Development Reasonably Necessary. for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the Final PUD plan for Phase I, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan, especially those goals relating to the development of affordable housing within the Urban Growth Boundary and the preservation of open space; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. ~ Series of 2005, Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Section 1: Amended Conceptual Plan Approved The Burlingame Ranch project (all phases) may include up to 236 deed-restricted employee housing units, community buildings, parks and recreational facilities, transportation facilities, and other infrastructure and amenities as described in the Shaw/Poss/DHM Conceptual PUD submittal dated, September 7, 2004 and revised through the Final PUD Submittal dated, February 14, 2005 and including revisions to address any conditions of approval. Conceptual approval is applicable to all phases with each phase subject to final approval and entitlement pursuant to the standards and processes of the COWOP land use review process, Section 26.500 of the Municipal Code, and as specified herein. Components of the Conceptual PUD plan shall be confirmed or amended in conjunction with the tlnal approval of each phase. Development features of future phases may be amended by the Aspen City Council, in conjunction with final approvals for each particular phase. In consideration of the phased aspect of the entire project, City Council hereby exempts the development from the limitations of Conceptual Development Plan approval as specified in Section 26.445.030.D of the Land Use Code. No prescribed limit or timeframe for submitting a final development plan for the project, or phases thereof, shall apply. Section 2: Process for Gaining Final Approvals for Each Phase The final review and entitlement for each phase shall be subject to the COWOP land use review process pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.500, Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public. This step shall consist of a review of the final development plan for each phase by the Aspen City Council and shall incorporate all required land use approvals necessary for the particular phase, such as GMQS Exemption, Subdivision, Condominiumization, etc. and other necessary land use actions to gain entitlement for the particulaz phase of the project. Final entitlement for each phase shall be by Ordinance. The entire Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing project shall remain active as a COWOP land use review until determined concluded by the Aspen City Council. City Council may stagger the conclusion of the COWOP review on a phase-by-phase basis. Once the COWOP review is concluded for a particular phase, amendments to development within the phase shall be subject to the processes and standazds of the Land Use Code unless other provisions are established as applicable. The Applicant for each phase shall submit application materials, as listed below, for all required land use actions to gain full entitlement of each phase of the development, including a draft Subdivision plat and PUD plans along with agreements meeting the land use code requirements established in Sections 26.480 -Subdivision, 26.445 -Planned Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. ,Series of 2005, Page 3 Unit Development, 26.470 -Growth Management (exemption), and other Sections and Chapters of the Land Use Code as applicable. • Subdivision Plat and PUD Plans • PUD/SIA Agreement • Architectural Character Plans • Detailed Private and Public Utility Plans • Detailed Phasing Plan • Detailed Parking Plan • Detailed Landscaping Plan • Detailed Street Lighting Plan and Exterior Lighting Plan for Multi- family Buildings • Detailed Trails and Recreation Plan • Detailed Vegetation Restoration Plan • PM-10 Mitigation Plan/Transportation Plan • Accessibility Plan (site only, not building interiors) • Homeowner's Association Documents and initial budget Each of the above submission components shall be reviewed by the applicable referral agencies prior to submitting for final PUD approval. Apre-application conference with the Community Development Department is required prior to submission of a land use application for entitling each phase. The required land use reviews and the application materials and criteria of future reviews are subject to change. Applicants of future phases of Burlingame Ranch shall submit final applications pursuant to the submittal requirements in place at the time of the final application. Section 3: Phase I Final PUD Plan Approved The Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing development is hereby granted a development order for a site specific development plan as described in the Shaw/Poss/DHM Phase I Final PUD/Subdivision Development Plans, dated 2/14/05 and granted all necessary land use approvals including Final PUD, Rezoning of the subject property to the Affordable Housing PUD (AH/PUD) Zone District, Subdivision, Subdivision Exemption for Condominiumization, Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemption for Affordable Housing, -GMQS Exemption for Accessory Uses in Mixed Use Development, Special Review for AH Parking, Conditional Use, and Vested Rights, subject to conditions of approval as described herein. Section 4: Rezoning The Official Zone District Map of the City of Aspen shall be, upon filing of the Subdivision plats and Final PUD Plans associated with the Project, amended by the Community Development Director to reflect the following property as included in the Affordable Housing/PUD (AH/PUD) Zone District on all portions of said land: Lot 2A of the Exemption Plat, Burlingame Village Lot 2 of the Final Subdivision Plat of Parcel 2, Park Trust Exemption Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. _, Series of 2005, Page 4 Section 5: Phase I Approved Final Proiect Dimensions Phase I dimensional standards are identified below: Standard PUp Ai roval via his trdinattce - 97 Deed-Restricted Units Maximum Allowable Unit Density 14 1-bedroom 3 12-bedroom 52 3-bedroom Miuimum Open Space 56% for total subject area ~ 55 /o for individual lots 32:1 (169,957 SF) .35:1 (I 87,669 SF w/ possible expansions) 144,738 for multi-family buildings Allowable FAR 5,570 SF for commons building 3,061 SF for transit stops 24,200 SF for single family homes on lots (numbers show maximum with ex andabilit ) 34 feet for multi-family and community Allowable Heighk '' buildings 25 feet for sin le famil lot buildin s Minimum front, side, rear yards far Multi-family ', As represented on the Final PUD Plans Minimum front, side, rear yartls for Singlefamily 10 feet front, 5 feet side 10 feet rear lots , Minimum lot width,and size 32 foot width and 3,000 sq. ft. size for lots 10 feet for single family lots buildings Minimum distance between structures 21 feet for multi-family buildings 20 feet between multi-family and transit buildin s Minimum Off-Street Parkin b S cial Review 1.67:1 Parkin S aces er Unit, 162 total Section 6: Phasine Phase I of the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing development shall consist of 97 deed-restricted residential units, the commons building, parks, trash/recycling facilities, three transit stops, trails, and basic utility infrastructure including access roads to serve Phase I. Phase I will be developed as a whole in terms of infrastructure and the readiness of lots for development as multi-family structures and lots for single-family development. Phase II and Phase III may be developed in the future in accordance with Section 2, above. Section 7: Parkins Phase 1 parking ratio is 1.67:1. Three (3) spaces shall be reserved and designated for car- share program uses. All parking spaces shall meet the minimum dimensional requirements as stipulated within the City of Aspen Land Use Code. Section 8: Affordable Housing and Accessory Dwellin¢ Units (ADUs) The 97 housing units in Phase I shall be 100% affordable housing units. The affordable housing units within the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing development in its relationship with the Stage Road PUD meet the 70% to 30% ratio requirement for affordable housing bedrooms to free market housing bedrooms as required in the Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. ,Series of 2005, Page 5 AH/PUD Zone District. The bedroom count for the Stage Road PUD is sixty (60) bedrooms. The Phase I bedroom count for the Burlingame Ranch AH project is 232, exceeding the one hundred forty (140) bedrooms required to meet the minimum threshold of the 70% to 30% ratio. Such provision of affordable housing is in conformance with the 4°i Amended and Restated Pre-Annexation Agreement between the City of Aspen and Bar/X Ranch, allowing for the development of the Stage Road Subdivision/PUD approved through Ordinance No. 6, 2005. The determination of the specific maximum income Categories of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines shall be finalized prior to Certificate of Occupancy by the City Council after recommendation from the Housing Board. Designation of categories shall take into consideration unit size, type, cost and other factors that establish value and affordability. The general goal for the categories of Phase I of the development is as shown below, but final designations of categories may deviate from this schedule at the discretion of the City Council. Cat. 1 & 2 Cat. 3 & 4 Cat. 5 & 6 Cat. 7 & R. O. Totals U 1Br 8 2 4 0 0 14 (1 bath) 2 Br 5 13 12 1 0 31 (1 bath) 3Br 0 15 19 7 0 41 (2 bath) Lots 0 0 2 3 6 11 (3.5 baths) Totals 13 30 37 I1 6 97 The eleven (11) single-family lots are designated as Resident Occupied with a maximum sales price to be established by the City Council. Accessory Dwelling Units are not allowed within the Project. Section 9: Expandability of Units Sixty-six (66) units of the eighty-six (86) multi-family units within Phase I are noted as being eligible for vertical expansion. Prior to second reading of the ordinance, the specific units designated for expansion shall be identified and show the maximum allowable floor area of expandability per unit. This information shall be included in the recorded PUD Plan and Homeowners Documents. The expansion of these units will be at the cost of the owner but will be considered as a capital improvement into the price of the unit for resale purposes. All expansions require building permits. The expansion of any unit shall not affect the unit's designation in the affordable housing inventory, such that if another bedroom has been added into atwo-bedroom unit, it remains in the inventory as a two- bedroom unit. Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. ,Series of 2005, Page 6 Section 10: Conditional Use The Park and Open Use Recreation Sites, Transit Facilities and Child Care Center are hereby approved uses in accordance with the approved PUD plan specifications for size, location and architecture. Conditional use approval is necessary for these uses in the AH/PUD Zone District. The Child Caze Center shall gain a final Conditional Use approval from the City Council prior to the occupancy of the commons building for this use. The operational characteristics and potential impacts of the use shall be evaluated and approved separately with conditions, if necessary, in accordance with the conditional use review criteria. The child care facility shall meet the State of Colorado licensing requirements and shall comply with Land use Code Section 26.575.080, Child care center. In addition Conditional Use Application plans shall address fencing, required outdoor play space and its grading, access (walkway and vehicular), adequate bathroom and kitchen facilities for childcare operations and after school programming. Section 11: Architectural Character and Residential Design Guidelines: Reliance is placed on the architectural illustrations contained within the Final PUD Plan submittal as establishing a cohesive architectural vemaculaz for the development. The Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Design Guidelines shall apply to and guide all residential development. The City of Aspen Residential Design Standards set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.410 shall not apply to this development. Such guidelines are a component of the application and are herein incorporated into this ordinance by reference and shall be recorded with the Final PUD plans. The Residential Design Guidelines shall not be amended without the approval of the City Council. Section 12: condominiumization condominiumization of the development is hereby approved by the City of Aspen subject to recordation of a condominiumization plat in compliance with the current plat requirements in place at the time of filing. Each plat for condominiumization shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for evaluation and approval by the Community Development Engineer prior to recordation. The cost of recordation shall be borne by the applicant. Recordation is required prior to the transfer of ownership of the condominium. Section 13: Homeowner's Responsibilities The Final Homeowner's documents shall ensure that the maintenance and operations of the following components of the development aze the responsibility of the HOA. • Storm water facilities, including drainage ponds, outside of the public right of way; • Irrigation system; • Parking courts and private and public sidewalks; • Landscape area maintenance and weed management; • Bluff Trail; • Agreement for common water line leading into multifamily; and • Common open space, play areas and park azeas. Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. ,Series of 2005, Page 7 Prior to second reading of this ordinance, other areas of homeowner responsibility maybe identified. A detailed plan specifying what duties, or additional duties for later phases, the Homeowner's Association will be responsible for and projected monthly Homeowner Association dues, or changes to the dues structure. The HOA documents for Phase I shall allow for the integration of future phases into the HOA, or an alternate process/structure that permits future phases to assimilate with existing development. Section 14: Roads The roads contained within the development shall be dedicated as public right of way and are approved as to general design and dimensions contained within the Final PUD Plan submittal and must meet with the technical standards of the City Engineering Department. The roads will be public and will be available for all public purposes including, but not limited to, those associated with the provision of utilities, maintenance, transportation, pedestrian, recreation and emergency services. The City of Aspen reserves the right, for itself and the utility districts and companies serving the development, to use the roadways and parking areas to provide services. In addition, Mining Stock Parkway may be used by the service providers in a dual directional way for official business when and if the road becomes aone-way road. Roads will be maintained by the City of Aspen. Section 15: Landscape Plan The Final PUD plan shall omit any grading, berming or stockpiling of soil outside of the limits of Phase I, including the proposed berm shown on Tract C of Filing No 1 of the Final Plat. Final Landscape plans shall include details and standards for seeding, mulching of seeded areas, soil replacement and depth, and soil type. As addressed on Page L-8 #15 of the PUD plans, protection of off-site vegetation shall be designed and installed to City of Aspen standards. A native vegetation protection fencing system shall be installed at the edge of the construction limits. This fencing shall consist of a type of barrier fencing. Beyond this barrier fencing shall be silt fencing installed to standards. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, and storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic is allowed outside of this protection fencing. The fence is required to be erected and inspected prior to any construction activity on the property. As addressed on Page L-8, #18 of the PUD plans, the seed detail shall include the covering of the seeded area with certified weed free straw and meet this standard as follows: City of Aspen Seeding Requirements 1. Soil Preparation, top soil 6" deep 2. Hand broadcast seed, this is the preferred method of seeding 3. Rake into area 4. Fertilize area (Boise is recommended) 5. Mulch with weed free straw Section 16: Irri¢ation The irrigation plans of the PUD plan shall be revised to show additional detail including head spacing, main line locations and secondary line locations. This plan shall include and show the temporary irrigation for the native restoration of the disturbed areas and Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. ,Series of 2005, Page 8 open space areas. The developer shall provide an as-built drawing to the Parks Department showing the irrigation system for the parks areas. Section 17: Water Deparlment Services The follow items shall be shown on final plans and where noted, provided prior to second reading. 1. Final fee schedule for the development must be submitted prior to second reading, 2. Grading plan for Forge Road, 3. Utility plans for sewer crossings must show depth of greater than seven feet so that there is no conflict with water, 4. Service line locations, 5. Trust blocks, 6. Additional in-line control valves with distances no further than 500 feet apart, 7. Reclaimed water line will need to be accommodated on the outside of Forge Road at a depth of approximately 6 feet deep, 8. Pressure reducer valve vault, 9. Water service line to ranch manager house, and 10. Service line locations on pages, K1, D1, C1, G2 & K2 need reevaluation by applicant and possible relocation. A separate water meter and billing account is required for each residential unit. The Final PUD submittal shall include a detail of proposed fire hydrant locations within the development. All requirements of the Water Department shall be complied with. The applicants shall work with the Water Department in planning for a water reclamation system that would utilize treated wastewater for the purposes of irrigation. Section 18: Sanitary Sewer and Asaen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSDI The follow items shall be shown on final plans and where noted, provided prior to second reading. 1. Final depths of sewer lines and width of easements shall be approved by the ACSD prior to plat and PUD plan recordation. 2. Other Sanitation District Requirements: • Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. • ACSD will review the approved drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. • On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. • Oil and sand separators are required for parking garages for multi-Family garages. • Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. • One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. • Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to ACSD. Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. _, Series of 2005, Page 9 • All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Section 19: Environmental Health New residential buildings are limited to two gas log fireplaces and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. The applicant must file a fireplace permit with the Building Department before a building permit will be issued. New homes may not have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device utilize coal as fuel. All outdoor trash and recycling storage enclosures shall meet with the City of Aspen's wildlife protection regulations that specify closures for dumpsters and other containers. Section 20: Transportation Options Plan (TOP) The Final PUD Plan submittal includes three (3) mobility plan options for the minimization of personal automobile trips that could be generated by the development. The City Council is evaluating the preferred alternative option for the development and will make a decision about what option will best achieve atransit-oriented development. Prior to the recordation of the PUD/SIA Agreement, the City Council shall determine a transportation plan for the project and include that plan as part of the this approval. Such plan shall be incorporated into the PUD/SIA Agreement. All bus capital, service and operations shall meet with the approval of the Transportation Options Program through the Assistant City Manager. Additionally, all transit stops proposed within the development must meet RFTA's construction specifications. Section 21: Snow Storage The snow storage areas are expected to accommodate 100% of the snow storage required by the development on the site. Snow-storage areas shall be designed to filter run-off prior to discharge into the storm drainage system and shall not be obstructed with any landscaping or built features that would impede plowing, storage or water flow. Section 22: Exterior Lighting The Final PUD plan shall include an outdoor lighting plan and exterior lighting fixture specifications for all of the multi-family buildings that demonstrate compliance with the City of Aspen Lighting ordinance at the time of Final PUD submission pursuant to and meeting the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. Prior to issuance of building permits for single family residences, compliance with the above- noted section shall be demonstrated. Section 23: Street Lighting Phase I street lighting is acceptable with lights located at key road intersections and at major community-oriented locations such as the commons building and transit stops. Conduit for future street lighting shall be set in place in conjunction with Phase I infrastructure. Section 24: Trails The Applicant shall install a public pedestrian trail that is three (3) feet in width and made of cnisher fine material that mns along the top of the Roaring Fork River bluff, connecting Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. _, Series of 2005, Page 10 with the pazking court at World Cup Court and the southernmost transit stop on Forge Road. The trail will be open to the public and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. This trail shall be installed in conjunction with Phase I of the development. A walkway will be installed by the developer in conjunction with Phase I that extends the length of the western boundary behind the multi-family buildings. The details of this walkway surface and dimensions shall be finalized prior to second reading of this ordinance. Section 25: "Efficient BuildinE" The building permit for each building within the development shall be substantially consistent with the "efficient building" performance itemization as specified in the Conceptual PUD application, dated September 7, 2004. Section 26: Impact Fees Park Impact Fees Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610.080, Impact Fees-Affordable Housing, City Council hereby waives the Park Development Impact Fees for the Burlingame Affordable Housing Development finding that approximately 275 acres of land are being preserved as open space in conjunction with the Bar/X and Burlingame Affordable Housing Developments. School Land Dedication in Lieu Fees The Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Development shall provide a cash in lieu fee to the Aspen School District based on the formula contained within the Section 26.630 of the Land Use Code. The Aspen School District has indicated their interest in having land dedicated to the district for the purpose of housing district employees, for other district purposes, or selling dedicated land within Burlingame Ranch for revenue. The intended purpose of the Burlingame Ranch development has been to provide affordable housing and not to create a public facility such as a school would encourage. Through discussions between the City Council and Aspen School District the provision of affordable housing for district employees shall be explored further and defined in the final approval. School Impact Fees are assessed based on one-third of the value of the unimproved land, divided by the proposed number of residential units on a per acre basis. The City Community Development Department, the Asset Management Department, and the Applicant are currently determining the unimproved land value in order to determine the tee that is due. The fee shall be provided to City Council at the second reading of this ordinance. Section 27: Fire Safetv Mitieation All buildings within the development shall include fire sprinkler and alarm systems meeting the requirements of the Aspen Fire District. Fire hydrant locations and spacing shall meet with the approval of the Aspen Fire Marshal. Section 28: Coordination with Bar/X The Applicant shall coordinate with the Bar/X developer to ensure utility coordination, compatible land use, pazking, storm water management between the two neighboring developments. Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. _, Series of 2005, Page I I Section 29: Vested 12i~hts The land use approvals contained within this ordinance shall vest for a period of three (3) years as provided by law. An extension may be applied for under the land use code provisions in place at the time of request. Section 30: Final Plat and PUD Plans Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.070(A) and Section 26.445.070(B), Recording a Final PUD Development Plan, the Applicant shall prepare and record a final PUD development plan and applicable subdivision plat at the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office within 180 days of adoption of this ordinance. The Applicant shall also prepare and record aSubdivision/PUD agreement at the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.070(0), PUD Agreement, within 180 days of adoption of this ordinance. No building permits shall be applied for or issued prior to recording the documents described herein. Section 31: Access/Infrastructure Permit Upon adoption of this ordinance, the Applicant may submit an application for an access/infrastructure permit with the City of Aspen Building Department in order to commence grading and construction of the roads and utilities within the development. An access/infrastructure permit may be applied for and issued, upon the ordinance becoming effective, prior to recording final PUD plans and agreement at the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office, provided that sufficient plans accompany the permit as shall be determined by the Chief Building Official. The access/infrastructure permit application shall include the following: a. Site Improvement Survey that contains topography at 5' contours, all existing structures and improvements, location of existing trees, and all easements and right-ol=ways. b. Detailed Grading Plans showing existing conditions and proposed improvements. c. Detailed Drainage Plans that include erosion control measures. d. State Storm Water Management Permit. e. Construction Management Plan. f. Road Profiles. g. Tree Removal Permit. h. Dust Suppression Plan. Section 32: Building Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A letter from the primary contractor stating that the approving ordinance has been read and understood. b. A signed copy of the final Ordinance granting land use approval. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. Copies of the executed PUD plans and agreement. e. A construction management plan meeting the Community Development Department's requirements. Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. _, Series of 2005, Page 12 £ A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department, which addresses watering of disturbed areas. Section 33: Annexation All approvals contained within this ordinance shall be subject to the successful annexation of the subject property into the City of Aspen. All approvals contained herein shall be null and void should annexation not occur. Section 34: All material representations and commitments made by the applicants pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, as presented in public hearing or documentation before the Aspen City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. Section 35: This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 36: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 37: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this resolution and exhibits in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 38: That the Community Development Director is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, tp cause the Official Zoning Map of the City of Aspen to be amended to reflect the rezoning of the subject property as herein described. Section 39: A duly-noticed public hearing on this ordinance was held on the 25th day of April, 2005, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 11°i day of April, 2005. Attest: Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. _, Series of 2005, Page 13 Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 25`h day of April, 2005. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: John Worcester, City Attorney Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. _, Series of 2005, Page 14 EXHIBIT A PHASE I, FINAL PUD: STAFF FINDINGS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. A development application for PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements (staff findings follow each requirement): A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed development is consistent with the AACP. The project directly addresses and takes action toward the affordable housing goals established in the AACP with development of affordable housing that is located within the Community Growth Boundary as designated by the Plan. This project was specifically identified in the AACP and the Future Land Use Map. Additionally, the development sensitively treats the environmental conditions of the site and Deer Hill. Moreover, the proposal offers auto disincentives and is a transit oriented development. Staff also feels that the development is proposed to achieve a high level of green construction, and is designed with architecture to maintain and enhance the character of the community and complement the immediate surroundings. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed development is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. The immediate area contains a variety of uses including single- family residences and agricultural/ranching uses. Also included in the immediate vicinity are several affordable housing projects that include the MAA Housing Development and the Annie Mitchell Homestead. Thus, Staff believes that the proposed affordable housing development is consistent with the character of the surrounding area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES In a larger context, and closely related to this development, is the Bar/X Ranch development which has received approval and land use entitlements for twelve (12) single family free-market residences (plus additional ADU units and housing associated with the ranch operations). The vacant land for the Burlingame Ranch AH development was provided to the City through an agreement with the owners of Bar/X Ranch. Numerous provisions exist between the City and Bar/X Ranch that were established through the pre-annexation agreement and allow for both developments to proceed in a complementary fashion by means of joint planning of utilities, open space, the installation of utilities, annexation and zoning. The Burlingame Ranch AH project neither adversely affects nor precludes good land use planning of the properties in the immediate vicinity. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, Tnal PUD development plan review. STAFF FINDING: DOE5 IT COMPLY? YES The proposed development is exempt from GMQS allocation as it is a 100% affordable housing development. The Applicant has concurrently applied for a GMQS exemption for the development of affordable housing. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. The proposed dimensional requirements are listed below: 2 Phase I Dimensional Requirements Chart Standard Pt7I3 x>F .ritual via this Urdinanee 97 Deed-Restricted Units Maximum Allawable lTnit Density 14 1-bedroom 3 ] 2-bedroom 52 3-bedroom Minimum Open Space 56% for total subject area ° 55 /o for individual lots .32:1 (169,957 SF) .35:1 (187,669 SF w/possible expansions) 144,738 SF for multi-family buildings Allowable FAR' 5,570 SF for commons building 3,061 SF for transit stops 24,200 SF for single family homes on lots (last four listed numbers show maximum SF with expandability) 34 feet for multi-family and Allowable height community buildings 25 feet for single family lot buildings Minimum front,: sidef rear yards for Multi- As represented on the Final PUD famil Plans Minimum front,! side, real" yards for 10 feet front, 5 feet side 10 feet rear Sin a-famil lots , Minimum lot width and size '! 32 foot width and 3,000 sq. ft. size for lots 10 feet for single family lots buildings Minimum distance between structures 21 feet For multi-family buildings 20 feet between multi-family and transit buildin s Minimam Off-Street Parking by Special 1.67:1 Parking Spaces per Unit, 162 Review. total 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. 3 d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. STAFF FINDING: ~ DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that the proposed height, floor area, layout and setbacks that are being established through the PUD are compatible with the existing land uses in the surrounding area and are suitable to the unique characteristics of the land. The dimensional requirements for height and setbacks proposed for the single-family lots are appropriately similar to the requirements that exist in the R-6 Zone District in which many of the smaller single-family residential lots in town are zoned. Staff also feels that the overall affordable housing development has been proposed in a manner that respects the natural features on the site such as Deer Hill. The design's treatment of the toe area of Deer Hill was a major factor in it being chosen over the other development proposals that were entered into the design competition conducted by the Asset Management Department. Additionally, the development has been sited in a manner so as not to adversely affect the native riparian area to the north of the land slated for the affordable housing development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that the type of development and density proposed is appropriate and favorable to the character of the area. The development complies with the underlying zoning of AH/PUD in terms of density. The residential development is attractive and provides significant private spaces for the residents and a significant amount of open space for both passive and active recreational uses. Moreover, as was previously discussed, the dimensional requirements for height and setbacks proposed for the single- family lots are appropriately similar to the requirements that exist in the R-6 Zone District and the dimensional requirements proposed for the multi-family buildings are appropriately similar to the dimensional requirements of the R/MF Zone District Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. 4 d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. STAFF FINDING: DOE5 IT COMPLY? YES The overall development including Phases 1-3, proposes 356 parking spaces, which complies with the parking requirements in the Land Use Code. This equates to two (2) parking spaces for each unit containing more than two (2) bedrooms and one parking space for each one bedroom unit. The Applicant has proposed 162 of those parking spaces to be developed in Phase I, equaling a parking ratio of 1.67 parking spaces for each dwelling unit in Phase I. Staff believes that the number ofoff-street parking spaces proposed is appropriate given the outlying location of the development and a parking plan has been submitted as part of the final development application as was required in the conceptual PUD approval. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The applicable utility agencies have been consulted and have indicated that sufficient infrastructure capabilities are proposed to accommodate the proposed density. Therefore, no density reductions are necessary. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. 5 STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES According to the referral agencies reviewing this project, no density reductions should be implemented based on natural conditions of the site. In fact, the original COWOP team recommendation identified that up to 330 units could be accommodated on the site. Given that the number of units proposed currently is far less than the number of units identified by the COWOP group as being the maximum number of units that the site could accommodate. Staff believes that there is no need for density reductions because the units have been carefully sited and the density reflects a livable neighborhood layout. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Review of the proposal demonstrates that the project will advance the affordable housing goals of the AACP; however, there is no request by the Applicant to increase the density over what was identified as appropriate by COWOP Task Force Team. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 6 STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The river corridor bluff is proposed to be preserved and enhanced with a new trail, but no structures are proposed within 100 feet of the mean high water line. Additionally, the proposed development is sensitive to Deer Hill and keeps structures from significantly encroaching upon it. As was mentioned in Staff's response to PUD Criterion B(1) above, Staff feels that a major reason that this design was chosen above the other designs in the design competition was its careful treatment and preservation of Deer Hill. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The development plan proposes to site multi-family buildings in a manner that preserves significant open areas within the development. Additionally, the Applicant's design keeps the largest multi-family buildings from encroaching near Deer Hill. The Applicant has worked closely with the City of Aspen Parks Department to appropriately program the proposed open spaces. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The design incorporates structures that orient towards the public streets in the development. Additionally, Staff feels that the design and architecture contribute to the rural character of the development site and that the design guidelines that are proposed provide a framework within which to ensure that the development remains ranch vernacular throughout the development of all phases. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The Applicant has fine-tuned the emergency access within the development between conceptual approval and the final development plan submittal. The streets are capable of handling emergency vehicles. The City of Aspen Fire Marshall has indicated that the development adequately addresses emergency access. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? ~ YES This project will be required to meet accessibility requirements throughout the development. A detailed exterior accessibility plan shall be submitted with the final development application. The development provides a high level of "visitability" due to the 5% or less road grades and building siting that favors accessibility. The building department has indicated that the proposed accessibility plans meet building code requirements for accessibility. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. STAFF FINDING: ~ DOES IT COMPLY? YES A detailed drainage plan has been submitted and reviewed by the City Engineer. The proposed grading a drainage plan accommodates all of the site drainage within the development. Staff fmds this criterion to be met. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that the space proposed between non-residential buildings allows sufficient space for the programmatic functions of the buildings. For example, adequate space has been provided next to the community center building to allow for a playground to be installed in the event that a childcare facility is ever included in the Commons Building. The spaces between buildings will be used as pocket parks and there will be a community garden roposed. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits awell-designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 8 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. STAFF FINDING: DOES tT COMPLY? YES The landscape plan provides preservation of significant existing vegetation and implements new complimentary species. The City of Aspen Parks Department has reviewed the proposed landscaping plan and has worked with the Applicant to refine it. The orchard that was originally proposed at conceptual has been removed at the recommendation of the Parks Department. The proposed final landscaping plan contains a variety of small pocket parks and a community garden. Staff recommends removal of the berm proposed for outside of Phase I so as to minimize disturbance. Staff finds this criterion to be met as conditioned within the ordinance. E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as paM of the final development plan an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that the design will be generally compatible with the visual rural character of the development site and represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended residential use. The proposed Design Guidelines have set up a process by which the new single-family residential dwelling units that are proposed within the development will maintain an architectural character consistent with the ranch vernacular that was originally envisioned for the site. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 9 F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed ordinance requiring that all exterior lighting will meet the City's outdoor lighting code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. Moreover, the Applicant has made representations that they will not install any more exterior lighting than is necessary for the safety. Staff finds this criterion to be met. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. to STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposal includes a significant amount of open, commons spaces that provides visual relief from the structures and amenity for the residents. The PUD plan will be recorded and will serve as a legal instrument in protecting the common areas. It is intended that the HOA will maintain the commons areas accept those directly adjacent to residences, on a case-by-case basis, for gardens, etc. The Applicant has submitted the draft HOA documents that define that the HOA will maintain the bluff trail along the eastern boundary of the site as well as the parks within the development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? YES The City's referral agencies have reported adequate infrastructure to serve this project. The appropriate utility agencies have reviewed the utility plans that have been formulated by the Applicant have indicated that the utility plans are appropriate. Staff finds this criterion to be met. i. Access and Circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed development has adequate access to each building. Emergency vehicle access has been fine-tuned since the conceptual approval was provided and the City of Aspen Fire Marshal has indicated that sufficient emergency access is proposed. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES A new trail along the river corridor bluff will facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access to the trail system. Additionally, a trail that ties into the beginning of a proposed trail to the AABC will be required to be constructed as part of the Phase 1 development plan. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that a trail that loops around the exterior of the development and connects into the existing trail system is consistent with the goals of the 2000 AACP. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed development contains internal access ways that permit emergency vehicles to circulate through the development. These access ways will be dedicated to the public and will be maintained by the City. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed development will not have a security gate or guard posts. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application. 12 J. Phasing of Development Plan. The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in- lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed phasing plan allows Phase I to stand alone regardless of whether Phase II and Phase III are ever developed. The Community Building was moved into Phase I and will be operational in conjunction with the development of Phase 1. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 13 ExxIBTT A SUBDIVISIONS: STAFF FINDINGS Subdivision. A development application for Subdivision shall comply with the following standards and requirements (staff findings follow each requirement): A. General requirements. a. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed development is located within an area that is identified on the Future Land Use Composite map of the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan. The map indicates that the area which intended to be divided from Burlingame Ranch Lot 1 is not only within the Aspen Community Growth Boundary, but is also identified as affordable housing/open space mix. 77% of the land mass that comes from AVLT, Bar/X, Burlingame Ranch (Paepcke Estate, east side of 82), and Burlingame Ranch AH. Staff finds this criterion to be met. h. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that the proposed development is consistent with the character of the existing land uses in the general surrounding area. The Annie Mitchell Homestead affordable housing development and the MAA affordable housing project are developed in the general vicinity of the subject development site. Moreover, the architecture proposed is that of a ranch vernacular which is somewhat characteristic of the existing ranch development in the area. The proposed development is also sensitive of Deer Hill and contains considerable open space that Staff feels will interact well with the rural nature of the development approved on the Bar/X Ranch parcel. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. 14 STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff does not believe that the proposed subdivisions will adversely affect the future development of the surrounding lands. As part of the proposed subdivisions, the remainder of the Burlingame Ranch Lot 1 property that is not subject to the affordable housing development will remain open space. Staff finds this criterion to be met. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that the proposed subdivisions to create a larger property intended to support the proposed Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing project and for the creation of individual lots within the proposed affordable housing project will comply with all applicable sections of the Aspen Land Use Code. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Suitability of land for subdivision. a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that the land subject to the proposed development application is suitable for subdivision. The property that is to be developed with the affordable housing is well outside of the 100 year floodplain, is comprised of several benches, and has not been designated or reported to be susceptible to mudflow, rockslide, or avalanche dangers. Moreover, the proposed design keeps development off of the toe of Deer Hill and the steep topography that exists on the site. Staff is further of the opinion that the proposed subdivisions associated with this development create an efficient spatial pattern that does not duplicate or provide a premature extension of public facilities that would create unnecessary public costs. Staff finds this criterion to be met. IS C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (see, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: I. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of the community. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. STAFF FINDING: DOE5 IT COMPLY? YES Many of the subdivision design standards set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.580 are satisfied by the design of the proposal. The subdivision design standards that are not satisfied by the application are proposed to be varied and the applicable City referral and utility agencies have worked closely with the Applicant to ensure that they are satisfied with the design of the proposed improvements. For evidence of the communication between the Applicant and the applicable referral agencies, please see the meeting matrix and letters from said agencies included in the appendix to the application. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470 Growth Management Quota System. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed development contains 100% affordable housing and the Applicant has coucurrently applied for a GMQS exemption for the development of affordable housing pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.070(J), Affordable Housing. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, IF DIFFERENT CALCULATION METHODOLOGY IS USED IN CALCULATING THE LAND VALUE. 16 The Applicant has proposed to pay cash-in-lieu of providing land for dedication to the school pursuant to Land use Code Section 26.630, School Lands Dedication. However, in reviewing the calculation methodology used by the Applicant in determining the land value, Staff feels that the methodology needs to be looked at more closely prior to 2"d reading of the proposed ordinance. Staff, the Asset Management Departrnent, and the Applicants are in the process of discussing the methodology used in coming up with the land value to determine if the methodology used in the application is valid. Staff finds this criterion to be met if a satisfactory methodology for determining the land value prior to subdivision is reached. F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH/PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The Applicant has concurrently applied for a GMQS exemption to develop affordable housing pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.070(J), Affordable Housing. Staff finds this criterion to be met if the associated GMQS exemption is approved. 17 EXHIBIT A REZONING: STAFF FINDINGS Rezoning. A development application for Rezoning shall comply with the following standards and requirements (staff findings follow each requirement): a. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed rezoning of this property to AH/PUD to support the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing PUD is in compliance with the Aspen Land Use Code. Variations to the allowed dimensional requirements from the requirements of the underlying zoning are proposed to be established through the PUD process that has been concurrently applied for. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445, Planned Unit Development, the dimensional requirements for a property may be established as being different from the requirements of the underlying zone district if a PUD is approved by City Council. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES As the application states, the proposed development is located within an area that is identified on the Future Land Use Composite map of the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan. The map indicates that the subject area, which includes land within the Deer Hill bowl as well as Bar/X Ranch, is not only within the Aspen Community Growth Boundary but is identified as affordable housing/open space mix. Staff feels that proposed rezoning is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. 18 ExxIBIT A SPECIAL REVIEW FOR PARKING: STAFF FINDINGS Special Review to Establish AH Parking. Parking for residential uses in the AH/PUD Zone District are established by special review in accordance with Chapter 26.430. The maximum number of parking spaces required shall not exceed two (2) spaces/dwelling unit for free market units. Parking spaces shall not exceed one (1) space/bedroom or two (2) spaces/dwelling unit, whichever is less for the affordable housing units. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The Burlingame Ranch COWOP Land Use and Development Plan has recommended a parking ratio of 1.65 spaces per dwelling unit. The conceptual PUD approved a 1.5:1 parking to dwelling unit ratio for a total of 356 parking spaces for residential purposes and guests. The parking ratio for Phase I is proposed at 1.67 spaces per unit. Staff believes that the proposed parking plan is sufficient given the other alternative transportation options that are being provided within the development, that include transit service, pedestrian bicycle trail connections to the core of town, and car-share provisions. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 22 Exx><s><T A GMQS EXEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING: STAFF FINDINGS Section 26.470.070(.n, Affordable Housing GMQS Exemption. Section 26.470.070(J) of the Regulations provides that, "All affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines of the City Council and its housing designee shall be exempt [from the GMQS scoring and competition procedures]." Review is by City Council. The section goes onto state that, The review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this Section shall include a determination of the City's need for such housing, considering the proposed development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of dwelling units proposed, specifrcally regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit, the size of the dwelling unit, the rental/sale mix of the proposed development, and the proposed price categories to which the dwelling units are to be deed restricted. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff feels that there is a need for the development of affordable housing in that we are still under the goal of 1300 additional affordable housing units that is set forth in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan's Housing Policies. Moreover, Staff believes that the proposed site is located in an appropriate location for the development of affordable housing in that it is in close proximity to town and well within the Urban Growth Boundary as is mandated by the AACP. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Staff also feels that the mix of units being provided will span the income categories and serve the housing needs of a wide variety of working residents. The Housing Board has also reviewed the proposed developed and supports the project. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 23 ExxIBTT A GMQS EXEMPTION FOR ACCESSORY USES: STAFF FINDINGS GMQS Exemption for Accessory Uses. Pursuant to Section 26.470.K accessory uses in mixed use development shall be exempt from the growth management competition and scoring procedures provided the following conditions are met: 1. The proposed development consists of a building or buildings designed as an integrated whole that contains uses requiring the submission of development applications for an allotment in more than one of the categories of Section 26.470.040. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES In Phase I, three transit stops and the commons building will be constructed in support of the 100% deed restricted residential dwelling units. Both uses buildings are part of the overall PUD plan and are included in subdivision review. The stops are an integral part of the overall auto disincentive program which supports the PM10 mitigation plan as well as the parking plan. The commons building is consistent with the goals and objectives of this project as outlined in the COWOP Land Use and Development Plan. The commons building will provide a community gathering spot that will add to the vitality and livability of the community. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. There is one use of the property that is the principal use and any other uses are accessory to, in support of and necessary for the principal use. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The Code definition of accessory structure/building and use is as follows: Accessory structure or building. A building or other structure that is supportive, secondary and subordinate in use and/or size to the principal building or structure on the same parcel or lot. Accessory use. A use that is supportive, secondary and subordinate to the principal use of a lot, parcel, building or structure. The transit stops and commons building are clearly accessory uses that support the principal use of the site which is the deed-restricted affordable housing units. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. In conjunction with the application for exemption, an application is submitted pursuant to Section 26.470.080 that receives a development allotment for the principal use. 24 STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The Applicant has concurrently applied for a GMQS exemption for the development of affordable housing, which is the primary use of the property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The impacts of the accessory use on public facilities and affordable housing are mitigated by an agreement to provide the necessary public facilities and affordable housing at a level that would meet the threshold required in Section 26.470.080(C) (5) for the accessory use. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES All infrastructure and public facilities necessary to support this project as a complete entity comply with standard requirements and procedures as dictated by the various service entities and city departments. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. The site design and architecture of the accessory use is evaluated in conjunction with the review of the development application for the principal use pursuant to Section 26.470.080. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Please refer to the submitted plan sheets in the appendix to the application for elevation and floor plans of the commons building and the transit stops. Design, materials and colors are consistent with the overall architectural character proposed for the entire site and approved via the conceptual PUD. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 25 Exxl<siT A CONDITIONAL USE: STAFF FINDINGS Conditional Use. The property is proposed to be rezoned to AH/PUD. Park and open use recreation sites, child care center, and transit facilities are conditional uses within an AH/PUD. Phase I proposes to construct three transit stops, eight acres of open park space. In subsequent phases a child care facility may be created in the commons building. It has been proposed that the child care facility not be built during Phase I as there is no demand at this point in time and perhaps a demand will exist as Phase I is built out and Phase II or III have begun. However, rather than make future residents seek a conditional use for a child care facility in the future this application has requested conditional use approval for a child care facility at this point. A development application for conditional use shall comply with the following standards and requirements (staff findings follow each requirement): 1. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Community Plan, with the intent of the zone district in which it is proposed to be located, and complies with all other applicable requirements of this title. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES As the application discusses, open space and parks are necessary community amenities. All park and open space is designed to be passive unless residents want to make improvements such as half-court basketball courts or soccer nets. The three transit stops are integral to the transit oriented goals of this project. A child care center is an amenity that has been an integral component of the vision Burlingame Ranch. All three conditional uses enhance the vitality of the community and support the overall goals of the community. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES As stated in Staff s response to Review Standard No. 2 above, these conditional uses support the community and are integral parts of the overall balance of the community. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties. 26 STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The open/park space varies in size, location and character. There are areas designed for active play and others for walking and garden activity. The location of the open space has been strategically placed throughout the community to provide not only private spaces but also encourage gathering of neighbors or greater numbers of community members. The transit stops have been located to facilitate walkability for every resident that wishes to use the service. The stops will also include trash/recycle collection and mail boxes. The HOA will be responsible for maintaining the stops. The stops are located to mitigate to the greatest extent possible noise disturbance from the busses and passengers. The design, colors and materials for the transit stops are consistent with the architectural character that is envisioned for the whole community. It is proposed that the child care facility is located in the commons building. Details of the building are included in the submitted Plan Sheets. It is recommended that when more details of the child care facility are known that those responsible, either the design/development team pursuing Phase II or III or local residents, submit details to amend this conditional use at that time. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES All facilities planning for Phase I have considered the transit stops, installation and maintenance of the open/park space, and the commons building. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The conditional uses are being provided as amenities to support a 100% affordable housing project within the Aspen Urban Growth Boundary as mandated in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 27 }; j ~.t March 30, 2005 Mr. James Lindt Aspen Community Development 130 S.Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Lindt I am responding to your a-mail of March 28, 2005 requesting the Aspen School District's comments concerning School Land Dedications for the Burlingame Ranch development. On March 16, 2005, the Aspen School District met with Mayor Klanderud, Randy Ready and Chris Bendon to discuss a number of issues including the District receiving land as opposed to "cash in-lieu" of land in relation to the Burlingame development. At that time, we all agreed to further explore this particular issue. Section 26.630 of the Land Use Code requires City Council to "consider the comments of the Aspen School District, to determine whether the lands proposed to be dedicated are of adequate size and can be suitably developed for school purposes or whether the lands have the capability of being sold, with the proceeds being used for school purposes." In your a-mail dated March 31, 2005, the amount of land that would have to be dedicated if Council required the dedication of land instead of providing a cash payment would be 1.24 Acres for Phase I and 3.106 Acres for the entire development. This is an extremely attractive option to the school district particularly if the land can be used to construct affordable housing for district employees. Furthermore, if these lands have the capability of being sold, the proceeds would in all probability exceed the amount required under the formula used to determine the amount of cash-in-lieu payment. The Aspen School District would also be interested in exploring an exchange of a parcel within Burlingame, for another parcel or development rights that might better suit the future land requirements of the District. It is the strong preference of the Aspen School District to pursue the option of receiving actual land in Burlingame. The final decision is predicated on having answers to the following questions; How may the land be used? Can the land be sold, if so what is the estimate of it's value? What is the actual cash-in-lieu payment required for each Phase of Burlingame. We appreciate the City's assistance in fully understanding these important issues. Please feel free to contact me if you questions or would like to discuss this issue. Sincerely, Dr. Diana Sirko Superintendent Cc: Bill Anuszewski, Finance Director 0235 High School Road Aspen, Colorado 81611 970.925.3760 Fax 970.925.5721 IJ1C~ ~ 1 T V -MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Committee From: Joyce A. Allgaier, Deputy Director of Community Development Date: March 9. 2005 Re: 3/2/05 DRC Minutes: Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Attendees: Desa Corwine, Carter Burgess Ryan Edwards, Carter Burgess Steve Holley, Poss Leslie Lamont, Lamont Planning Laura Kirk, DHM Jason Jaynes, DHM Steve Hunter, COA Engineering Cindy Christensen, Housing Department Ed Van Walraven, Aspen Fire District James Lindt, Community Development Nick Adeh, City Engineer Phil Overeynder, Water Department Brian Flynn, Park Department Jerry Nye, COA Streets Lynn Rumbaugh, COA Transportation/Parking Steve Bossart, COA Asset Ed Sadler, COA Asset Ben Ludlow, COA Asset Tom Bracewell, ACSD Richard Goulding, COA Engineering Clark Atkinson, Shaw Janette Murison (not in attendance-provided comments at the November, '04 DRC and met with Joyce to provide input) Shirley Ritter (not in attendance-spoke with Joyce by phone about concerns.) Joyce Allgaier, Com Dev At the March 2, 2005, DRC meeting, the Development Review Committee reviewed the following project: Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Proposal in a Nutshell: The 3-Phase project was given conceptual approval and can be summarized as follows: • Located on +/-31 acres (land from Burlingame Ranch, Bar/X and AVLT parent parcels) • Application includes Subdivision, PUD, Rezoning, Special Review for Parking, Growth Management Exemption • approximately 236 units of affordable housing at build-out with ranch vernacular architecture, green construction featured, trails, parks, transit, all utilities, and commons building Phase 1 is the subject of this DRC meeting and can be summarized as follows: • Application is for Final approval with the City Council • Total of 97 residential, deed restricted housing units Page 2 of 8 March 2, 2005 DRC for Burlingame Ranch AH • 86 units are multi-family units contained within 16 buildings • 11 single family lots • Projected bedroom count is 219 (assuming 3 bedrooms/sf unit) • 162 parking spaces (1.69 spaces per unit), 3 for carshare • 3 transit stops • Trash recycling facilities • Commons building • Trails, playfields and parks Planning: 1. School Land Dedication is not correctly calculated. Work with Com Dev to utilize the right formula and process to determine appropriate market value. 2. Floor area (house size) will be based on building envelopes and massing envelopes. The floor areas are not known until the categories are set by council nearer the sale dates. 3. Process for handling variations from the adopted setback and design guidelines of the development needs to be determined. Transportation Program 1. Consult with RFTA on the final design of bus stops including pull-outs, lighting and other operational issues. Contact John Hocker or Kent Blackmer at 920-1905, extension 17 or 18. 2. EH, Transportation, RFTA and applicant collaborated on the Mobility Plan which includes addressing PM10 issues. 3. Work session with Council is set for March 22. re. Mobility Plan options. Engineering: 1. Geometric design/traffic calming looks good. Some minor changes may be necessary to the plan and should be followed up with Nick Adeh. 2. Relax angle to 15% at parking pull-outs for easier maintenance, plowing. 3. The R-O-W width and roadway design is based on "functional design" of the development and is adequate. 45-50 ft. acceptable with open drainage swales. 4. Drainage-2 ouffall systems, use level spreaders for erosion control. Erosion control plan must meet State of Colorado requirements. Water flow to the river from storm water will be monitored by engineering to ensure water quality/pollution control on the project. 5. Drainage into ponds must be HOA responsibility for maintenance, operations, cleaning 6. Parking courts are private and must be maintained by HOA, streets are the responsibility of the city 7. Easement for drainage ponds may be necessary so that the future phase can utilize these facilities or can be addressed in master HOA docs 8. Construction Management Plan (CMP): A construction management plan must be submitted at the time of building permit. A checklist of items to be included in the CMP can be obtained from the City Engineering Department. Page 3 of 8 March 2, 2005 DRC for Burlingame Ranch AH Kids First: Kids First would like to see that the Commons Building be finished with plumbing and fixtures, meeting the required bathroom/kitchen stubs to meet the anticipated needs and the regulatory requirement of the city and state. The City Council has made a decision that the Commons Building would only be a "shell" without fixtures included by the minimum plumbing brought into the building. Environmental Health: FIREPLACENVOODSTOVE PERMITS The applicant must file a fireplace/woodstove permit with the Building Department before the building permit will be issued. In the City of Aspen, buildings may have two gas log fireplaces and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances der buildin .New homes may NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel. Due to the experience the Environmental Health Department has had with complaints of certified woodstove emissions in denser neighborhoods, staff recommends that any approval not allow the installation of certified wood stoves in existing multi-family and single family units. TRASH STORAGE AREA: The applicant should make sure that trash storage areas have adequate wildlife protection. The Environmental Health Department recommends that the applicant increase the number of recycling and trash enclosures to increase capture rate of recyclables. (Note: The inclusion of residential recycling storage may eliminate the need for more recycling enclosures around the development. (This has been accomplished since conceptual approval.) Summary of EH Recommendations: In order to comply with the provisions of the land use code, and ensure that the development does not have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City of Aspen, the Environmental Health Department recommends the following mitigation measures: (1) Units are sold with only one parking space; (2) Home Owners Association and/or Commercial tenant join the Transportation Options Program; and (4) Provide covered and secured bike storage. Housing Department: The Housing staff reviewed the Burlingame Ranch Draft PUD and recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. The exact category mix shall be decided upon prior to Certificate of Occupancy with a recommendation from the Housing Board to City Council, taking into consideration the square footages of the units. 2. The sizes of the units in conjunction with the categories stipulated in the PUD are acceptable to the Housing staff as stated in the Employee Housing Guidelines. Page 4 of 8 March 2, 2005 DRC for Burlingame Ranch AH 3. According to City Council, accessory dwelling units (ADU's) will not be included in the PUD. 4. City Council has decided to keep the lots proposed, including the RO lots, with the stipulation that a maximum sales price will be placed on the RO homes. Category 6 and 7 already contain a maximum sales price. The details are currently being worked out with City Council. 5. There are currently 66 units that allow for a vertical expansion. The expansion of these units will be at the cost of the owner but will be able to be included as a capital improvement into the price of the unit as long as the owner has gone through the building permit process. The expansion of the unit shall not affect the unit in the inventory. In other words, if another bedroom has been added into atwo-bedroom unit, it remains in the inventory as atwo-bedroom unit. Water and Electric Dept: 1. Taps fees shown in proposal do not match the required fees contained within the current ordinance. 2. Requests grading plan for Forge Road 3. Utility plans for sewer crossings show only 7 feet and should be deeper so that there is no conflict with water 4. Wants agreement for common water line leading into multifamily noted in the HOA documents. 5. Show service line locations on plans 6. Need trust blocks 7. Water line connection is being prepared by Ben, working with Bar/X. Ben to coordinate with Phil 8. Wants more in-line control valves with distances no further than 500 feet apart. 9. Reclaimed water-Phil is working with council and would like to see this line built with the Burlingame project, on the outside of Forge Rd, 6 feet deep. He anticipates that the system could yield around 2000 gallons/min. The project costs would be borne by the city. 10. Tap fees-Estimate in proposal did not seem correct. Applicant is asking for waiver of fees. 11. Want pressure reduce valve vault. 12. Show water service line to ranch manager house. 13. Check service line locations on pages, K1, D1, C1, G2 & K2 14.Electrical-Exponential Engineer will get together with applicant on connection issues. Ben and Phil to coordinate meeting with Shaw team re. electrical supply. Parks Dept: Grading: Page 20 #6 the notes refer to limiting grading to phase one, however the grading plans show grading outside of the limits. GRD-01 &GRD-02 plans show significant grading outside of the limits of phase one. These areas need to have a management plan for re-seeding and temp irrigation, weed management and erosion control. Is this grading necessary? Page 5 of 8 March 2, 2005 DRC for Burlingame Ranch AH The Parks and Recreation Department is very concerned about the significant impact the proposed drainage berm and over grading could occur (outside of Phase one limits) of the Burlingame Project. The drainage berm has a significant profile and the installation of this berm will, in effect, cause significant resource damage to the areas outside of Phase I. The intent of City Council was to preserve areas outside of Phase I in case future phases of the project did not materialize. The actions of transporting significant material to the site of the proposed berm, constructing the berm at the grades indicated, topsoiling the berm, seeding, mulching and irrigating this berm, and then trying to maintain this berm basically will have a similar effect to the area as grading the area. The costs associated with this action will also have a significant short and long term cost that will need to be absorbed. Noxious vegetation control, irrigation maintenance, and native seed maintenance will be significant on a berm of this size. The Parks and Recreation Department also questions the aesthetics of this significant introduced landform to the area, especially if future phases of Burlingame do not proceed. It appears through drainage studies that surface drainage from Deer Hill is not significant enough to merit a drainage structure of this size or configuration. The Parks and Recreation Department feels that other alternatives need to be explored rather than construction of this structure. Drainage: Drainage Plan DRN - 01 Diversion Berm detail shows a 2:1 slope. What are the plans for successful re-vegetation of this slope? These are very difficult slopes to successfully re-vegetate, include in the plans temp irrigation. This info should be included in the final set. Drainage Plan DRN - 02 concerned about the multiple areas where water is being sent down the hillside. Use existing drainage areas, per City Engineer the riprap system should be designed with alevel/spreader to slow the flow of water and continue the rip rap a little ways down the slope. Landscape: Final landscape plans should include details and standards for seeding, mulching of seeded areas, soil placement and depth, soil type (Parks would like to know the make up of the top soil) Page L-8 #1 Parks prefers that the project remove the use of any posts, staking or guying wires from the landscape specs. Page L-8 #15 Protection of off-site vegetation shall be designed and installed to city standards. A native vegetation protection fencing system shall be installed at the edge of the construction limits. This fencing shall consist of a type of barrier fencing. Beyond this barrier fencing shall be silt fencing installed to the City of Aspen standards. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed outside of this protection fencing. The fence is required to be erected and inspected prior to any construction activity on the property. Page 6 of 8 March 2, 2005 DRC for Burlingame Ranch AH Page L-8 # 18 the seed detail should include the covering of the seeded area with certified weed free straw. (see below) Page L-8 #19 Root Barriers this detail should be shown in the drawings on L-9 and L-10 City of Aspen Seeding Standard: 1) Soil Preparation, top soil 6" deep 2) Hand broadcast seed, this is the preferred method of seeding 3) Rake into area 4) Fertilize area (Biosol is recommended) 5) Mulch with straw Concern for the HOA budget for landscaping, the amount is low. The first couple of ears will require a lot of upkeep. This dollar amount should be re-calculated. Modify the drainage swale shrubs and tree-planting list to reflect the list provided by the Parks Department via email on February 23`d, 2005 Irrigation: Irrigation plan I-2, #9 Drip emitters are a concern for future maintenance. Should be replaced with an alternate method. DHM to spec a different system. The conceptual irrigation plan does not show enough detail. Parks requests that a final plan be drafted and reviewed prior to final submittal. The new plan should detail, head spacing, main line locations and secondary line locations. This plan should include the temporary irrigation for the native restoration of the disturbed areas and open space areas. Parks would like to receive irrigation as built plan specific to the active parks. City understands that these parks are part of the neighborhood system and not on a separate zone. General: Page 42, introduction #7 HOA is listed as responsible for maintenance of parks and trails. Draft HOA Budget #1.06 Park Maintenance - it lists the city as maintaining the cost. The City of Aspen Parks Department will not be maintaining the common open spaces located within the neighborhood. If the request for a programmable field is approved and accepted then the Parks Department will accept maintenance of this field. Project notes (pg 43 #7) identifies a total of 8 acres of park and open space. Please provide the parks department with a breakout of the total acreage for the open space pieces and the park pieces. Are there any amenities in these spaces? Page 7 of 8 March 2, 2005 DRC for Burlingame Ranch AH HOA Budget is missing a line item for weed management and Parks feels that the weed issue will need to be addressed and handled to comply with city regs after so much soil disturbance has taken place. The HOA packet or information should include a detailed guideline for landscape. The landscape plan as proposed is a very intricate plan with very specific reason for plantings and locations and will require specific care and maintenance. Erosion Control: Parks suggests that the erosion control be reviewed prior to the final submittal. This will allow for changes to be made and not hold up final approval. Fire Department: 1. Needs to see specific fire hydrant locations with spacing noted. 2. Sprinklers and Alarms: There must be sprinklers and fire alarms throughout all of the buildings-multi and single-family. SF-NFPA-13D, Mulit-NFPA-13R. Size the water taps for sprinklers. 3. Addressing needs to be confirmed with Fire and Dispatch. (James Lindt is heading up the addressing.) Issue with the one way street at Phase II in terms of the number order from the entry direction. Ed would like to see addressing be as it would in the final development. Watt Place could be in conflict with street name of Water Place and others. Building Department: 1. Exit Separation Issues. The building department is concerned if the separation between the exits complies with the code. This issue will be discussed with the architect. Sanitation District: 1. Depth of sewer line and width of easement is a deal breaker at the tie-in . 2. District engineers need plans, profiles, contours, water lines & storm sewer. 3. We will need two way access on one way roads. 4. Other Sanitation District Requirements: • Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. • ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. • On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. • Oil and Grease interceptors (NOT traps) are required for all food processing establishment. Locations of food processing shall be identified prior to building permit. • Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance establishments. • Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. Page 8 of 8 March 2, 2005 DRC for Burlingame Ranch AH • Elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor • Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. • Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. • One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. • Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. • All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. • Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. • Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line). • The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. ~ b. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Cppommunity Development Director FROM: Joyce Allgaier,I~eputy Community Development Director RE: Initial Aspen City Zoning of Lot 1, Parcel 2, Park Trust Exemption First Reading of Ordinance Nob?, Series of 2005. Second Reading and Public Hearing Scheduled for April 25, 2005. DATE: April 11, 2005 APPLICANT /OWNERS: CITY OF ASPEN LOCATION: Northwest of the Bar/X Ranch (Exhibit B) LoT SIZE: 23.731+ acres (1,033,706 square feet PARCEL ID NUMBER: 273502200$02 CURRENT COUNTY ZONING: Agricultural/Forestry/Residential 2 (AFR2) and Agricultural/Forestry/Residential 10 (AFR10) PROPOSED ZONING: Conservation (C) CURRENT LAND USE: Lot 1, Parcel 2, Park Trust Exemption is currently undeveloped land that was purchased by the City of Aspen from the Aspen Valley Land Trust. PROPOSED LAND USE: Staff proposes that Lot 1, Parcel 2, Park Trust Exemption be zoned Conservation (C) and maintained as undeveloped land. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval SUMMARY: Pursuant to Ordinance No. 40, Series of 2004, the City of Aspen recently annexed Parcel 2, Park Trust Exemption to provide sufficient land for the development of all three planned phases of the planned Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing project. Now that it has been annexed, it is necessary to provide city zoning. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Rezoning (or Initial City Zoning. The City Council shall consider the application at a public hearing and recommend approval or denial of the proposed zoning. BACKGROUND: Parcel 2, Park Trust Exemption was annexed into the City of Aspen pursuant to Ordinance No. 40, Series of 2004, on February 14, 2005. State statute requires the City to assign the property to the appropriate zone district(s) within 90 days of the final annexation. PREVIOUS ACTION: The Council has not previously considered this zoning request. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff has examined all options to make a recommendation about appropriate initial zoning of Lot 1, Parcel 2, Park Trust Exemption. Lot 2 of this parcel will accommodate structures of the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing project. Based on examinations of the current Pitkin County zoning and current and intended land use and zoning of the surrounding areas, Staff believes that the Conservation (C) Zone District, as described in Land Use Code Section 26.710.220, is the appropriate designation for the subject property. The property is located in an area where other conservation zoning exists and areas where conservation easements are in place. It is anticipated that this property will also have conservation easements placed on it in conjunction with a previous agreement with AVLT. The Conservation section of the Aspen City Code has been included as Exhibit E. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed initial zoning application meets or exceeds the requirements set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.310.040, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, to approve an amendment to the official zone district map. Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibi[ A. Staff recommends that the City Council designate Lot 1, Parcel 2, Park Trust Exemption to he zoned Conservation (C), as described in the included ordinance. Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No.~3, Series of 2005, upon first reading. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No.~, Series of 2005, upon first reading." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -Site Map Exhibit C - Pitkin County AFR-2 and AFR-10 Zone Descriptions Exhibit D - City of Aspen Conservation (C) Zone Description 2 ORDINANCE N0. ~~ (SERIES OF 2005) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ASSIGNING THE ZONING OF CONSERVATION (C) TO LOT 1, PARCEL 2, PARK TRUST EXEMPTION. PARCEL ID NUMBER: 273502200802 WHEREAS, the subject parcel of land situated in Section 2 Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6°' P.M. City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, described as "Lot 1, Parce] 2, Park Trust Exemption"; and, WHEREAS, said parcel was annexed into the City of Aspen on February 14, 2005 pursuant to Ordinance No. 40, series of 2004; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen must designate a zone district for the property within 90 days of the annexation; and, WHEREAS, the property is approximately 23.731 acres +, legally described herein; and, WHEREAS, the subject property was part of the Burlingame Ranch COWOP process, the land use approvals for which are granted by the City Council; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Land Use Code, Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department analyzed the parcel of land and recommended that it be designated as Conservation (C) Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the development review standards for an Amendment to the Official City Zoning Map have been met, and that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED: SECTION 1: That the Aspen City Council approves an amendment to the Official Zoning Map and directs the Community Development Director to effectuate such changes to the map, so that the land described as "Lot 1 of the Final Subdivision Plat of Parcel 2, Park Trust Exemption" be designated with Conservation (C) zoning. SECTION 2: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. SECTION 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. SECTION 4: A public hearing on the Ordinance will be held on the 25"' day of April, 2005, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifreen days prior to which heazing a public notice of the same will be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. SECTION 5: This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final adoption. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided bylaw, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on this 11 `h day of April, 2005. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor FINALLY, ADOPTED, PASSED, AND APPROVED this day of , 2005. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney EXHIBIT A REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF LOT I, PARCEL 2, PARK TRUST EXEMPTION Section 26.310.040, Standards Applicable to Rezoning In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed zoning is consistent with the Land Use Code and does not represent any potential conflicts. This zoning provides the most appropriate zoning given the location, topography, access atld expected future uses of the land. In addition, the proposed rezoning application will not create any zoning non-conformities with respect to the existing properties. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES lT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that the proposed zoning is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. The future land use map in the AACP envisions this area as a locale for affordable housing development with Conservation lands also designated. By zoning this as (C) it will become land that supports this AACP designation and is consistent with the surrounding lands that are already zoned (C). Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. .Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Yes, it is compatible with both the surrounding districts and land uses. This zoning designation will fit in well with the overall vision for the Burlingame Ranch with affordable housing surrounded by large tracts of land that is zoned (C). Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Lot 1, Parcel 2, Park Trust Exemption is planned to remain as open space and this zoning designation will have no impact on the traffic levels. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES There will not be an increase in the demand for public facilities as a result of the proposed zoning request. Staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed zoning application would provide a positive environmental impact due to the Conservation designation. Staff finds this criterion to be met. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community chatacter in the City of Aspen. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that the proposed zoning application is consistent with the community and neighborhood character of the area, in that the new zoning is similar to zoning in the vicinity and does not, in and of itself, change the character of the area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The City has a statutory obligation to provide this property with zoning within ninety (90) days of the final annexation. The property was annexed into the City on February 14, 2005. Therefore, the annexation itself produced the changed conditions (land transferred from County to City) that warrant the proposed amendment. Staff finds this criterion to be met. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. STAFF FINDING: ~ DOES IT COMPLY? ~ YES It is in the public interest to zone this parcel within ninety. (90) days. as required by statutory obligations. This zoning does not pose any conflicts to the public interest and actually furthers it, by contributing to the timely designation of conservation land as anticipated in the AACP. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2 ~~ ~ o H F L~ U O ~~q ~O ~z0.~ W WHO /~tij W W ~_ Ex. O F fn ~,,F E-+qO¢ ~zE"~ s~(~w~~ a F+y O ~ F o~ "'k~a N ww =~azo A 6 ~(~°"~F ~~~F] a00U 0 C~2 ~ ~ a q 0., 6 ~~~w 0 UF.oF ~,aE'c~ ~~ a~ ~~ ,'_-~ I ~~~ I ~ i i ~ ~/ i r. ~~~ ~ J } . ~~ / i g /--- i ~' /, ~o ~ <,..~.,,~ m ~ / ~ ~ ~~ ~~yy{9 . N i' ~ygi u b 9999 v u rs @ ~~ ~pBe6_ i / E~~~ ' ~~~ ;~g6 F ~~Y~ ~~ @~ ~ a~n i -~ ~~' ~ ~e~ i ~Pyb a44 5agi ~~~~ ~~ z 6€~~~@ ~gQkR;R ~ ~~ ppgg ~ki3•pp~r¢ ~ie6g~.X .~ ®A @C°h6 @~p@cgcg@ ~~ ; ~b~~E ~§pp@b ~~ ~~ @~Xk9 XY~3ib ~~ ~' fig( ~i @ b ~b,~~t9 ~ y F z i ~~~~ ~'"~®pgL~b~~#~ g~~°~~~~ ~~~~p~g~ ~~Qg ~a•bXk~ye~ Xt5y5 i~~ ~ ~ ~bpe ~g ikM~@~•@. F~~99Qyb'k~:~ ~~~~YX ~~R• G~ h X p 8 @G y 3R3kXX~X ~gR ~ 55 i 1@j§ ~~~~~ I X6~'3~ Xk~X::sA1k1 X~~~@~X~ a 3@~ Y ~....... ~~.. ~aysassasa v a~~ U a ~ se ~m z ~~~ a~ o ~~ ~ wy~ioe f zo~~~ s .~ „~ i ~ O i 7 r y~~ ~~e 5 c• @~a s 8'a~ S s57: Exhibit C FORMER PITKIN COUNTY ZONING 3-40-080 AFR-2 AgriculturaUForestry/Residential A. Intent: The AFR-2, Agricultural/Forestry/Residential district, is intended to provide for a moderate density, residential/agricultural transition zone for lands along the valley floor located between the County's development centers and its rural, open land area. The district also contains existing housing concentrations with densities exceeding those in surrounding areas. B. Allowed Uses: The following uses are allowed as of right in the Agricultural/Forestry/Residential (AFR-2) Zone District: 1. Accessory buildings and uses. 2. Animal production and husbandry services, other farm and agricultural uses (not including commercial feed lots). 3. Bus stop. 4. Crop production. 5. Farm buildings. 6. Home occupations. 7. Parks, playground, playing fields. 8. Manufactured home. 9. Single-family dwelling units. I0. Single-family dwelling unit with a potential of up to, but not exceeding, fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of floor area. I I. Solar energy collectors (private use). 12. Trails. C. Special Review Uses: The following uses are subject to special review: I. Agriculture stands. 2. Caretaker dwelling units. 3. Cemeteries. 4. Churches. 5. Club houses or recreational buildings used in connection with and accessory to a permitted outdoor recreational use. 6. Commercial firewood splitting, storage and sales. 7. Commercial kennels and veterinary clinics. 8. Commercial riding stables. 9. Community health facilities. 10. Day care centers. 11. Duplex dwelling units. 12. Employee dwelling units. 13. Golf courses. l4. Mineral exploration mining, concrete batch plants. I5. Nordic ski areas and support facilities. 16. Nursing, convalescent, rest, and retirement homes. 17. Outdoor recreational uses. 18. Radio transmitting station. 19. Resort cabins. 20. Satellite reception devices. 21. Single-family dwelling unit with more than fifeen thousand (15,000) square feet of floor area (transferable development rights are required to exceed fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet). 22. Schools/universities. 23. Sewage disposal areas/landfills/water plants. 24. Transferable development rights (TDRs). 25. Uses, activities and facilities permitted by special use permit issued by Federal Agencies. 26. Water crossing and diversion. D. Prohibited Uses: The following uses are prohibited in the Agricultural/Forestry/Residential (AFR-2) Zone District: I. Airport. 2. Alpine ski areas and support. 3. Amusement and entertainment establishments. 4. Commercial automobile parking lots. 5. Commercial camping areas. 6. Dormitory housing. 7. Equipment supplies and contraction or subcontraction. 8. Essential government and public utility uses, facilities and services. 9. Financial institutions. 10. General services. I I. Guest ranches. 12. Hospitals. 13. Junk yards. 14. Logging. I5. Medical/dental clinics. 16. Mobile homes. 17. Motels, hotels, lodges. 18. Multi-family dwelling units. 19. Offices 20. Personal service outlets: food stores, drug stores, post office substation, self-service laundries, dry cleaning outlets and liquor stores; the total space shall be limited to eighty (80) square feet of gross leasable space per dwelling unit in the district. 21. Places for retailing of goods. 22. Professional offices. 23. Research facilities, indoors. '24. Research facilities, other. 25. Restaurants and bars. 26. Timesharing/fractional fees. 27. Uses not listed. 28. Vehicle and aircraft sales and service. E. Dimensional Requirements: The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and special review uses in the Agricultural/Forestry/ Residential (AFR-2) Zone District: L Minimum lot area: two (2) acres. 2. Minimum lot area principal use: two (2) acres. 3. Minimum front yard Setback: See Figure 3-1. 4. Minimum side yard setback: See Figure 3-l. 5. Minimum rear yard setback: See Figure 3-1. 6. Minimum lot width: two hundred feet (200'). 7. Maximum height principal structures: twenty-eight feet (28'). 8. Maximum height accessory structures: twenty feet (20'). 9. Maximum Floor Area Ratio: Lot Size Allowable Square Feet Square Feet FAR of Floor Area 0--25,000 .13 .13:1 floor to lot area ratio up to a maximum of 3,250 sq. ft. of floor area. 25,001--50,000 .09 3,250 sq. ft. of floor area, plus 9 sq. fr. of floor area for each additional 100 sq. ft. in lot area up to a maximum of 5,500 sq. ft. of floor area. 50,001-- 100,000 .OS 5,500 sq. ft. of floor area plus 5 sq. ft. of floor area for each additional 100 sq. ft. in lot area up to a maximum of 8,000 sq. ft. of floor area. 100,000 + .0l 8,000 sq. ft. of floor area plus 1 sq. ft. of floor area for each additional 100 sq. ft. in lot,area. (Ord. 23-2 002 Att. A, I (part); Ord. 99-36 Att. B (part)) 3-40-090 AFR-10 Agricultural/Forestry/Residential A. Intent: The AFR-10, Agricultural/Forestry/Residential district, is intended to maintain the rural character of lands proximate to development centers and State highways by preserving agricultural operations, wildlife habitat and scenic quality while permitting low density, single family dwelling units and customary accessory uses. B. Allowed Uses: The following uses are allowed as of right in the Agricultural/Forestry/Residential (AFR-10) Zone District: I. Accessory buildings and uses. 2. Animal production and husbandry services, other farm and agricultural uses (not including commercial feed lots). 3. Bus stop. 4. Commercial riding stables. 5. Crop production. 6. Farm buildings. 7. Home occupations. 8. Parks, playground, playing fields. 9. Manufactured home. 10. Single-family dwelling units. 1 L Single-family dwelling units with a potential of up to, but not exceeding, fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of floor area. 12. Solar energy collectors (private use). 13. Trails. C. Special Review Uses: The following uses are subject to special review: 1. Agriculture stands. 2. Alpine ski areas and support. 3. Caretaker dwelling units. 4. Cemeteries. 5. Churches. 6. Club houses or recreational buildings used in connection with and accessory to a permitted outdoor recreational use. 7. Commercial camping areas. 8. Commercial firewood splitting, storage and sales. 9. Commercial kennels and veterinary clinics. 10. Community health facilities. 11. Day care centers. 12. Duplex dwelling units. 13. Employee dwelling units. 14. Equipment supplies and contraction or subcontraction. I5. Golf courses. 16. Guest ranch. 17. Logging. 18. Mineral exploration/mining, concrete batch plants. 19. Nordic ski areas and support facilities. 20. Nursing, convalescent, rest, and retirement homes. 21. Outdoor recreational uses. 22. Radio transmitting station. 23. Reception halls and meeting facilities. 24. Resort cabins. 25. Satellite reception devices. 26. Schools/universities. 27. Sewage disposal areas/landfills/water plants. 28. Single-family dwelling with more than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of floor area (transferable development rights are required to exceed fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet). 29. Uses, activities and facilities permitted by special use permit issued by Federal agencies. 30. Water crossing and diversion. D. Prohibited Uses: The following uses are prohibited in the Agricultural/Forestry/Residential (AFR-10) Zone District I. Airport. 2. Amusement and entertainment establishments. 3. Commercial automobile parking lots. 4. Dormitory housing. 5. Essential government and public utility uses, facilities and services. 6. Financial institutions. 7. General services. 8. Hospitals. 9. Junk yards. 10. Medical/dental clinics. 11. Mobile homes. 12. Motels, hotels, lodges. 13. Multi-family dwelling units. 14. Offices. I5. Personal service outlets: food stores, drug stores, post office substation, self-service laundries, dry cleaning outlets and liquor stores; the total space shall be limited to eighty (80) square feet of gross leasable space per dwelling unit in the district. 16. Places for retailing of goods. 17. Professional offices. l8. Research facilities, indoors. 19. Research facilities, other. 20. Restaurants and bars. 21. Timesharing/fractional fees. 22. Uses not listed. 23. Vehicle and aircraft sales and service. E. Dimensional Requirements: The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and special review uses in the Agricultural/Forestry/Residential (AFR-10) Zone District: I. Minimum lot area: ten (10) acres. 2. Minimum lot area principal use: ten (10) acres. 3. Minimum front yard setback: See Figure 3-1. 4. Minimum side yard setback: See Figure 3-I . 5. Minimum rear yard setback: See Figure 3-I. 6. Minimum lot width: four hundred feet (400'). 7. Maximum height principal structures: twenty-eight feet (28'). 8. Maximum height accessory structures: twenty feet (20'). (Ord. 23-2002 Att. A, I (part); Ord. 44-2001 Att. A (part); Ord. 99-36 Att. B (part)) EXHIBIT D PROPOSED CITY OF ASPEN ZONING 26.710.220 Conservation (C). A. Purpose. 'The purpose of the Conservation (C) zone district is to provide azeas of low density development to enhance public recreation, conserve natural resources, encourage the production of crops and animals, and to contain urban development. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Conservation (C) zone district: 1. Detached residential dwelling; 2. Pazk, playfield, playground and golf course; 3. Riding stable; 4. Cemetery; 5. Crop production, orchards, nurseries, flower production and forest land; 6. Pasture and grazing land; 7. Dairy; 8. Fishery; 9. Animal production; 10. Husbandry services (not including commercial feed lots) and other farm and agricultural uses; 11. Railroad right-of--way but not a railroad yard; 12. Home occupations; 13. Accessory buildings and uses; and 14. Accessory dwelling units meeting the provisions of Section 26.520.040. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Conservation (C) district, subject to the standazds and procedures established in Chapter 26.425. 1. Guest ranches; 2. Recreational uses including a riding academy, stable, club, country club and golf course; 3. Ski lift and other ski facilities; 4. Sewage disposal area; 5. Water treatment plant and storage reservoir; and 6. Electric substations and gas regulator stations (not including business or administration offices). D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Conservation (C) zone district. 1. Minimum lot size (acres): 10. 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (acres): 10. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): 400. 4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): 100. 5. Minimum side yard setback (feet): 30. 6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet): 30. 7. Maximum height (feet): 25. 8. Minimum distance between principal and accessory buildings (feet): No requirement. 9. Percent of open space required for building site: No requirement. l 0. External floor area ratio: (applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of record): same as R-15 zone district. (Ord. No. 32-1999, § 2; Ord. No. 56-2000, §§ 4, 7 (part), 14; Ord. No. 25-2001, §§ 3, 5 (part)) MEMORANDUM ~C • TO: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: James Lindt, Planner RE: Mother Lode Subdivision, GMQS Exemption, and Condominiumization - First Reading of Ordinance No.z,~ Series of 2005; Public Hearing is scheduled for May 9th DATE: April 11, 2005 APPLICANT /OWNER: Regent Properties, Inc. REPRESENTATIVE: Vann Associates, LLC LOCATION: Mother Lode Restaurant Property, 314 E. Hyman Avenue CURRENT ZONING: Commercial Core (CC) Zone District PROPOSED LAND USE REQUEST: Subdivision and associated land use requests to expand Mother Lode Restaurant Building. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions. ~'1 PHOTO ABOVE: Existing Mother Lode Restaurant Building SUMMARY: The Applicant requests subdivision and associated land use approvals to expand the Mother Lode Restaurant building to contain 3,804 square feet of commercial space, two (2) free market residential units and two (2) deed- restricted affordable housing units. LAND USE REQUESTS: The Applicant has requested the following land use requests to expand the Mother Lode Restaurant Building: • Subdivision for the construction of multi-family residential units in a mixed used development pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480 (Gifu Council is final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). • Special Review to reduce open space requirements pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.030(B) (Planning and Zonin¢ Commission approved pursuant to Resolution No. 12, Series of 2005). • Special Review for reduction in required trash and utility services area pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.070(B) (Planning and Zoning Commission approved pursuant to Resolution No. 12, Series of 2005). • Special Review to establish affordable housing parking requirements pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.515.040. (Plannine and Zoning Commission approved pursuant to Resolution No. 12, Series of 2005). • GMQS Exemption for addition of more than one residential unit on a property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.070(D)(2)(b) (Planning and Zoning Commission approved pursuant to Resolution No. 12, Series of 2005). • GMQS Exemption for enlargement of a property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.070(D)(3)(a) (Community Development Director has approved contingent upon obtaining final subdivision approval). • GMQS Exemption for addition of one residential dwelling unit on a property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.070(D)(2)(a) (Community Development Director has approved contingent upon obtaining final subdivision approval). • GMQS Exemption for the development of affordable housing pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.070(J) (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). • Condominiumization (Condominium plat to be reviewed by the Community Development Director upon substantial completion of construction). • Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development and HPC Parking Waiver (Conceptual design and Parking Waiver approved by HPC pursuant to Resolution No. 31, Series of 2004). REVIEW PROCEDURE: A development application for subdivision shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by City Council after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Community Development Director pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480.040, Subdivision. The Applicant has also requested various GMQS exemptions, two of which were reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director, one of which was reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and one of which requires review by City Council after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission (the previous paragraph describes these in more detail). The two (2) GMQS exemptions that required review by the Community Development Director have been approved contingent upon obtaining subdivision approval. Finally, the Applicant requested and was granted special review approval to pay cash-in-lieu of the open space requirements, special review to establish the affordable housing parking requirements, and special review to reduce the size required for trash and utility services. The land use code established that the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority on all of the special review requests and the GMQS exemption to add more than one residential unit to a historic structure. 2 PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant, Regent Properties, Inc, has requested approval to construct an addition to the existing Mother Lode Restaurant building located at 314 E. Hyman Avenue. Specifically, the Applicant would like to demolish the non-historic portion of the building and replace it with athree-story addition. The restored first floor is proposed to contain commercial space in the amount of approximately 3,259 square feet. The second floor to be added to the building is to contain aone-bedroom free market residential unit of about 2,060 square feet and two 1-bedroom deed-restricted affordable housing units of more than 600 square feet each. The third floor is slated for the development of a 3-bedroom free market residential unit that is to contain approximately 3,839 square feet. Abasement is also proposed that would contain approximately 545 square feet of commercial space and tenant storage. In conjunction with the proposed development, the Applicant has proposed a total of four (4) parking spaces to be provided on the site, which are to be accessed from the alley. Three (3) of the four (4) parking spaces to be provided are proposed to be used by the free market units, leaving one parking space for the two (2) affordable housing units to share. The Historic Preservation Commission waived the remainder of the off-street parking requirements in association with their review and approval of the Conceptual HPC application. The Applicant is also proposing to provide atrash/utility service area adjacent to the alley measuring sixteen (16) feet by sixteen (16) feet. The following chart compares the proposed dimensional requirements with the dimensional requirements of the Commercial Core Zone District in which the property is located: Dimensional Proposed: Underlying Commercial Requirement. Dimensional ' Core Zone District Requirements- Requirements Minimum Lot Size 6,031 SF Existin 3,000 SF Minimum Lot Width A rox. 60 Feet No Re uirement Minimum Lo[ Area/Dwelling 1,507 SF No Re uirement Minimum Front Yard 0 Feet No Requirement Setback Minimum Side Yard Setback 0 Feet No Re uirement Minimum Rear Yard Setback 0 Feet No Re uirement Maximum Hei ht 42 Feet 42 Feet Minimum Percent Open None 25% S ace Allowable External FAR 2.3:1 3:1 Commercial Uses 6:1 (3,434 SF) L5:1 (9,046 SF) Free Market Residential I . I (6,031 SF) I a (6,031 SF) Affordable Honsin 22 (1,376 SF) No Limitation Minimum Off-Street Parking 4 Spaces (3 for 8 Spaces for Commercial Free Market 3 for Free Market Residential Units Units, I for AH Special Review for AH (Zoning Units), normally requires one parking space Remaining per each one bedroom unit) Parking waived by HPC 3 STAFF COMMENTS: SUBDIVISION: The Applicant has requested subdivision approval because the development of multi-family dwelling units in a mixed use building requires approval of subdivision pursuant to the definition of subdivision in the City's land use code. In reviewing the subdivision portion of the application, Staff believes that the proposal meets the applicable subdivision review standards established in Land Use Code Section 26.480.050, Subdivision review standards. Staff feels that the proposal is consistent with the infill development goals established in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan. Additionally, the Applicant has applied for sufficient GMQS exemptions for the development rights needed to construct the proposed project (See Staff s explanation of GMQS implications below). GMQS IMPLICATIONS: The Applicant has applied for four (4) separate GMQS exemptions to obtain sufficient development rights to construct the proposed project when the exemptions are used in concert with each other. The Community Development Director has issued a written interpretation of the land use code establishing that the separate exemptions may be used together (please see interpretation included in the application attached as Exhibit `B"). A listing of the requested GMQS exemptions and discussion of the project's compliance with each exemption requirement is detailed below: • Enlargement of property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures intended for commercial or oj~ce purposes. The Applicant has requested this exemption in order to increase the floor area of the building without increasing the net leasable square footage on the site. This provision for development is exempt from GMQS scoring and employee housing mitigation requirements pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.070(D)(3). The only requirements for obtaining this exemption are that the property must be on the historic inventory and that the development proposal will not increase both the FAR and the net leasable square footage on the site. Staff Finds that the proposal satisfies the above stated requirements and the Community Development Director has approved an administrative GMQS exemption contingent upon obtaining final subdivision approval. • Enlargement of property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark ,Sites and Structures,for the addition of one dwelling unit. The Applicant has requested this exemption in order to construct the three-bedroom free market dwelling unit exempt from employee housing mitigation requirements pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.070(D)(2)(a). The only requirements for obtaining this exemption are that the property must be on the historic inventory and that sufficient development allotments are available within the Aspen Metro Area. Staff believes that there are available allotments and that the property is designated historic. Given these findings, the Community Development Director has approved an administrative GMQS exemption contingent upon obtaining final subdivision approval. 4 • Enlargement of property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures ,for the addition of more than one dwelling unit. The Applicant has requested this exemption in order to construct the one-bedroom tree market dwelling unit proposed on the second floor, which is the second free market dwelling unit proposed to be constructed on the property pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.070(D)(2)(b). This GMQS exemption requires that affordable housing mitigation be provided for the development of the one free market dwelling unit at a rate of sixty percent of the bedrooms in the residential subdivision. The Applicant has proposed two 1-bedroom affordable housing units which comprise sixty-seven percent (67%) of the total bedrooms, surpassing the sixty percent (60%) required by the code, considering that the three-bedroom free market unit is exempt by means of the exemption detailed above. The Planning and Zoning Commission has already granted approval of this GMQS exemption request. • GMQS Exemption for the development of Affordable Housing. The final GMQS exemption requested by the Applicant is the exemption to allow for the Applicant to construct the two (2) affordable housing units pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.070(J). The requirements for granting this exemption are that there is an established need for additional affordable housing and that the proposed units meet the requirements of the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines. Staff finds that there continues to be a need for the development of additional affordable units in that the AACP's goal for the development of 1300 additional affordable housing units has not been met. The Housing Authority has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed affordable housing units meet the Affordable Housing Guideline requirements. City Council is the final review authority on this exemption request and shall consider a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission and Housing Authority. In reviewing the proposed affordable housing units, the Housing Board recommended that certain controls be placed on the affordable housing units that would convert them from rental to "for sale" units if the Housing Authority Staff if ever deems the units to be out of compliance with the rental occupancy requirements for a time period of over a year. The Housing Board felt that a condition of this nature would help them ensure that these affordable housing units remain occupied. SCHOOL LANDS DEDICATION FEE: Given that the proposed development constitutes a full subdivision review, Land Use Code Section 26.630, School lands dedication, requires that the Applicant either dedicate lands for school function or pay acash-in-lieu payment. The Applicant has proposed to pay acash-in- lieu payment pursuant to the fee schedule established in Land Use Code Section 26.630. Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed resolution requiring that the Applicant pay the School Lands Dedication Fee prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed development. 5 PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE: The Applicant is required to pay a Park Development Impact Fee for additional bedrooms and additional net leasable square footage added to the site pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park development impact fee. The Park Development Impact Fee for this project shall be assessed based on the following calculation: Proposed Commercial: 3,804 SF minus 3,804 SF of existing net leasable = 0 new net leasable square feet Proposed Development: Proposed Residential 1 (three-bedroom) Free Market Residential Unit multiplied by $3,634 per unit = $3,634 3 (one-bedroom) Units multiplied by $2,120 per unit = $6,360 Total: $9,994 Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed resolution requiring that a Park Development Impact Fee of $9,994 be paid at prior to building permit issuance. PAYMENT- IN- LIEU OF OPEN SPACE: The Applicant has requested approval of special review to pay cash-in-lieu of providing the required twenty-five percent (25%) open space on the site. As is indicated in the application, the Applicant originally proposed to maintain the property's existing patio area to meet the Commercial Core Zone District's open space requirement for the site. However, during the HPC's initial review of the Conceptual HPC application, the Commission required that any addition to the Mother Lode building abut the street at ground level, thereby eliminating the Applicant's opportunity to provide the required open space on the site. At the previous City Council meeting, Council approved amendments to the Open Space/Pedestrian Amenity section of the land use code that now allow for applicants to pay a cash-in-lieu fee based on the rate of the lesser of $50 per square foot or the appraised value of the unimproved property per square foot. Even though this application was submitted prior to adoption of the proposed code language on open space, the Applicant has the ability to choose which of the open space ordinances they would like applied to their application. That being said, the Applicant would like to use the new open space/pedestrian amenity requirements, which would require apayment-in-lieu of $50 per square foot. The pedestrian amenity requirement of twenty-five percent (25%) of the lot would equate to 1,508 square feet and thus the Applicant would be required to pay $75,400 ($50 multiplied by 1,508 SF) under the new regulations. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the requested special review to provide cash-in-lieu of providing the required open space in this specific case. Staff has included a condition of approval in the attached ordinance requiring that the Applicant make apayment-in-lieu of providing open space/pedestrian amenity at the time of the building permit issuance. The condition included in the proposed ordinance also requires the Applicant to pay cash-in-lieu based on the methodology and fee schedule in place at the time of building permit issuance. 6 ON-SITE PARKING: The Applicant has proposed four (4) off-street parking spaces for the entire development. Three (3) of these spaces are proposed to be allocated for the use of the two (2) free market residential units. During HPC's review of the conceptual HPC application, HPC waived the remainder of the parking requirements. Staff recommended that two (2) of the parking spaces be allocated for sole use by the two (2) affordable housing units rather than the one space that is proposed since the affordable housing units are required to have year-round occupancy and it is not likely that the free market units will be occupied on a year-round basis. The Housing Board concurred with the Planning Staffls opinion that one of the parking spaces shotiild be allocated and dedicated for the use of each of the affordable housing units. However, after considerable discussion, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the special review request and allocated only one parking space for the use of the two (2) affordable housing units. The attached ordinance contains a condition of approval representing the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision on this matter. TRASH/ UTILITY SERVICE AREA SIZE: The Applicant proposed to provide atrash/utility service area of sixteen (16) feet by sixteen (16) feet adjacent to the alleyway. Traditionally, the land use code has required trash and utility service areas to be a minimum length of twenty (20) feet and a depth often (10) feet, which can be reduced through special review. Therefore, the application requested special review approval Co establish the proposed trash utility service area dimensions. In reviewing the request, Staff felt that the proposed trash and utility area is of sufficient size in that the total area proposed is fifty-six (56) square feet larger than the size required by the code. Staff also felt that the added depth of the trash and utilities service area make it easily accessible to trash trucks. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the requested special review establishing the trash and utility area dimensions as proposed. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: The City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Water Department, Aspen Sanitation District, Streets Department, and the Parks Department have all reviewed the proposed application and there requirements have been included as conditions of approval when appropriate. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the application complies with the review standards for granting approval of Subdivision and a GMQS exemption for the development of affordable housing. That being the case, Staff recommends that City Council approve the attached ordinance, approving with conditions, the requested Mother Lode Subdivision and a GMQS exemption to develop affordable housing. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve the subdivision and GMQS exemption request to construct affordable housing by a vote of four to two. The two. (l) members of the Commission that cast dissenting votes expressed that they did so because they were in agreement with Staff that two (2) of the parking spaces should be allocated for the use of the affordable housing units. The Planning and Zoning Commission's resolution is attached as Exhibit "D" and Staff will include the minutes from 7 the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting in the packet for second reading of this ordinance. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve upon first reading, Ordinance No.2 S Series of 2005, approving with conditions, the Mother Lode Subdivision and a GMQS exemption to construct affordable housing for athree-story addition to the building at 314 E. Hyman Avenue, consisting of two (2) free market residential units, two (2) affordable housing units, and a basement containing tenant storage." ATTACHMENTS: ExHieiT A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings EXHIBIT B -- Application ExHisrr C -- Referral Comments EXHIBIT D--Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 8 ORDINANCE NO.~`.> (SERIES OF 2005) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, THE MOTHER LODE SUBDIVISION AND A GMQS EXEMPTION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO CONSTRUCT A THREE STORY EXPANSION TO THE MOTHER LODE BUILDING ON THF. PROPERTY LOCATED AT 314 E. HYMAN AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-073-38-007 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Regent Properties, Inc, represented by Vann Associates, requesting approval of Subdivision, various GMQS Exemptions, Special Review to pay cash-in-lieu of providing the required pedestrian amenity, Special Review to establish the trash and utility service area size, Special Review to establish affordable housing parking requirements, and condominiumization to construct athree-story addition to the Mother Lode Restaurant Building located at 314 E. Hyman Avenue; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned CC (Commercial Core); and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed and approved the Conceptual HPC design and off-street parking waiver for the proposed development pursuant to HPC Resolution No. 31, Series of 2004; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval, with conditions, of the proposed subdivision and associated land use requests; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a special review request to pay cash-in- lieu of providing the required open space/pedestrian amenity, special review to establish the affordable housing parking requirements, special review to establish the dimensional requirements for the trash utility/recycling area, and a GMQS exemption for the construction of more than one free market dwelling unit on a historically designated property pursuant to Resolution No. 12, Series of 2005; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards, the Planning and Zoning Commission also recommended that City Council approve with conditions, the Mother Lode subdivision and a GMQS exemption for the development of affordable housing pursuant to Resolution No. 12, Series of 2005; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noted public hearing on May 9, 2005, the Aspen City Coiuicil reviewed the proposed Mother Lode Subdivision and GMQS Exemption for the development of affordable housing and approved Ordinance No. Series of 2005, approving with conditions, the Mother Lode Subdivision and associated land use requests to construct athree-story addition to the Mother Lode building at 314 E. Hyman Avenue; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council hereby approves the Mother Lode Subdivision and GMQS Exemption to provide on-site affordable housing in order to construct athree-story addition to the Mother Lode Restaurant Building located at 314 E. Hyman Avenue, with the conditions contained herein. Section 2: Plat and Agreement The Applicant shall record a subdivision plat and agreement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of approval. Section 3: Building Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final Ordinance and recorded P&Z Resolution. a. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. b. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. a A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 5-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. d. A construction management plan pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. The construction management plan shall include an identification of construction hauling routes for review and approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. e. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department. £ A detailed excavation plan that utilizes vertical soil stabilization techniques for review and approval by the City Engineer. Section 4: Dimensional Requirements The redevelopment of the Mother Lode building shall be in compliance with the dimensional requirements of the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District, with the exception of off-street parking, trash/utility service area, and open space/pedestrian amenity requirements. Off-street parking requirements shall be provided as represented in Section 5 below. The dimensions of the trash utility service area shall be established by special review as sixteen (16) feet wide by sixteen (16) feet in depth as discussed in Section 6 below. The Applicant shall pay cash-in-lieu of providing open space/pedestrian amenity as represented in Section 13 below. Section 5: Off-street ParkinE The project shall provide four (4) off-street parking spaces, one of which shall be designated for the use of the occupants of the two (2) affordable housing units pursuant to Planning and 'Zoning Commission Resolution No. 12, Series of 2005. The Historic Preservation Commission waived the remainder of the parking requirements pursuant to HPC Resolution No. 31, Series of 2004. Section 6: Trash/Utility Service Area A trash/utility service area of sixteen (16) feet wide by sixteen (16) feet long, accessed from the alley, was approved by special review pursuant to Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 12, Series of 2005. The trash container shall be wildlife proof. Section 7: Affordable Housinff The Applicant shall record a deed restriction on each of the affordable housing units prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy on the building classifying the units as Category 2 units. If the Applicant chooses to deed restrict the affordable housing units as rental units, the Applicant shall convey a 1/10 of a percent, undivided interest in the units to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy on any portion of the building. The units may be deed-restricted as rental units, but the units shall become ownership units at such time as the owners would request a change to "for-sale" units or at such time as the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority deems the units to be out of compliance with the rental occupancy requirements in the Affordable Housing Guidelines for a period of more than year. Section 8: Fire Mitieation The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system and alarm system that meets the requirements of the Fire Marshal. Section 9: Water Department Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Each of the units within the building shall have individual water meters. Section 10: Sanitation District Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations. No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter drains) to ACSD lines shall be allowed. All improvements below grade shall require the use of a pumping station. If more than one unit is to be served by a single service line, the Applicant shall enter into a shared service line agreement. Section 11: Electrical Department Requirements The Applicant shall have an electric connect load summary conducted by a licensed electrician in order to determine if the existing transformer on the neighboring property has sufficient capacity for the Mother Lode Redevelopment. If a new supplemental transformer is required to be installed on the Mother Lode property, the Applicant shall provide for a new transformer and its location shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to installation. The Applicant shall dedicate an easement to allow for City Utility Personnel to access the supplemental transformer for maintenance purposes, if a supplemental transformer is installed. Section 12: Exterior Lighting All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 13: Payment-in-lieu of Open Space/Pedestrian Amenity Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.030, Open Space, the Applicant shall pay a cash in-lieu fee of providing the required open space/pedestrian amenity at the time of building permit issuance. The amount due shall be calculated by the City Zoning Officer at the time of building permit issuance using the methodology and fee schedule in place at the time of building permit issuance. Section 14: School Lands Dedication Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School lands dedication, the Applicant shall pay afee-in-lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen Zoning Officer shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in affect at the time of building permit submittal. The Applicant shall provide the market value of the land including site improvements, but excluding the value of structures on the site. Section 15: Park Development Impact Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee, the Applicant shall pay a park development impact fee in the amount of $9,994 prior to building permit issuance. The fee is assessed based on the following calculation: Proposed Commercial: 3,804 SF minus 3,804 SF of existing net leasable = 0 new net leasable square feet $0 due on commercial space Proposed Residential 1 (three-bedroom) Free Market Residential Unit multiplied by $3,634 per unit= $3,634 3 (one-bedroom) Residential Units multiplied by $2,120 per unit= $6,360 Total: $9,994 Section 16: PM-10 Mitigation The Applicant shall mitigate for the air quality impacts expected for the generation of 25 vehicle trips per day by enacting the following measures: 1. Providing only one parking space for the use of each residential unit. 2. Providing covered and secured bicycle storage. 3. The Homeowner's Association and the Commercial Tenant shall join the Transportation Options Program Section 17: 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 construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 18: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 19: A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 9th day of May, 2005, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (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 of the City of Aspen on the 11 `~' day of April, 2005. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 9th day of May, 2005. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: John P. Worcester, City Attorney Subdivision REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS Section 26.480 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements. 1. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed subdivision is consistent with many aspects of the infill goals and objectives established in the 2000 AACP. Additionally, Staff feels that the proposal upgrades a commercial space that is in need of improvements, which is consistent with the City's goals of stimulating commercial redevelopment as the application points out. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing [and uses in the area. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed mixed use development is consistent with the land uses in the immediate vicinity. Mixed use buildings that aze comprised of ground floor commercial and residential development on the upper floors are common and encouraged throughout the commercial core of town. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Staff Finding As the application indicates, the surrounding properties aze close to fully developed. Therefore, Staff does not believe that the proposal will adversely affect the future development of the surrounding properties. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. Staff Finding The proposed development is in compliance with the Commercial Core Zone District's allowable dimensional requirements with the exception of open space/pedestrian amenity and trash/ utility service area requirements. However, the Applicant requested and received approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission to pay cash-in-lieu of providing the required open space/pedestrian amenity and for a reduction in the size of the trash/utility service area. Additionally, the HPC has waived the parking requirements to allow for a reduction in required off-street parking to four (4) parking spaces. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Suitability of Land for Subdivision a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, 9 mudJlow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. b. Spatial pattern effcient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spntial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public fi~cilities and unnecessary public costs. Staff Findink Staff believes that the property is suitable for subdivision. The site contains no steep topography and no known geologic hazards that may harm the health of any of the inhabitants of the proposed development In addition, Staff believes that there will not be a duplication or premature extension of public facilities because the property to be subdivided is already served by adequate public facilities. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of the community. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide just~ation for each variation request, providing design reconmzendations by professional engineers as necessary. Staff Finding Additionally, the Applicant has consented in the application to meet the applicable improvements pursuant to Section 26.580. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. Staff Finding The Applicant has concurrently applied for the required GMQS exemptions. In conjunction with the GMQS exemption requests, the Applicant has proposed to mitigate for the one- bedroom free market residential unit by providing two 1-bderoom affordable housing. The remainder of the proposed development is exempt from affordable housing mitigation. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. 10 Staff Finding The proposed subdivision is required to meet the School Land Dedication Standards pursuant to Land LJse Code Section 26.630. The Applicant has proposed to pay cash-in-lieu of providing land, which will be paid prior to building permit issuance. Thus, staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Growth Management Approval Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH-PDD) without fast obtaining growth management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44-2001, § 2) Staff Finding The Applicant has concurrently applied for GMQS exemptions. Please see Staff s response to Review Standard "D" for Staff s response to this criterion. 11 GMQS ExemrT~ons Section 26.470.070(.n, Affordable Housing GMQS Exemption Section 26.470.070(J) of the Regulations provides that, "All affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines of the City Council and its housing designee shall be exempt [from the GMQS scoring and competition procedures]." Review is by City Council The section goes on to state that, The review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this Section shall include a determination of the City's need for such housing, considering the proposed development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of dwelling units proposed, specifically regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit, the size of the dwelling unit, the rentaUsale mix of the proposed development, and the proposed price categories to which the dwelling units are to be deed restricted. Staff Finding The Applicant has proposed two deed-restricted 1-bedroom affordable housing units to mitigate for the one-bedroom free market unit that is proposed on the second floor. These affordable housing units are to be rental units that are proposed to be deed restricted at a Category 2 rental rate. Staff feels that there certainly still is a need for the development of affordable housing in that we are still under the projected need of 800 to 1300 additional affordable housing units that is set forth in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan's Housing Policies. Moreover, Staff believes that the proposed site is located in an appropriate location for the development of affordable housing in that it is in the commercial core and well within the Urban Growth Boundary as is mandated by the AACP. Moreover, the Housing Authority has found that the proposed development complies with the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Mousing Guidelines. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 12 MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Committee From: John Niewoehner, Community Development Engineer, DRC Caseload Coordinator Date: February 10, 2005 Re: 2/9105 DRC Minutes: Mother Lode Redevelopment Attendees: James Lindt, Case Planner -Community Development Department Nick Adeh, City Engineer Phil Overeynder, Water Department John Niewoehner, Community Development Department Ed VanWalraven, Fire Department Denis Murray, Building Department Cindy Christensen, Housing Department Brian Flynn, Park Department Sunny Vann, Planner for Applicant Jay Hammond, SGM Engineers FXGI ~ 10,'x- ~~C `~~ At the February 9, 2005 DRC meeting, the Development Review Committee reviewed the following project: Mother Lode Redevelopment -The project plans to construct a 3-story addition to the Mother Lode Restaurant located at 314 E. Hyman. • Ground floor: The front of the existing building will remain. The rear, non-historic part of the existing building will be demolished and reconstructed. • Basement: A basement will be constructed under the new, back half of the building. • 2nd Floor: The second floor will have three units - - 2one-bedroom affordable housing units and a ohe-bedroom free market unit. • 3rd Floor: The third floor will have a 3-bedroom free market unit. DRC COMMENTS Engineering~ 1. Construction Management Plan (CMP): A construction management plan must be submitted at the time of building permit. A checklist of items to be included in the CMP can be obtained from the City Engineering Department. 2. Construction Impacts on Hvman St. The CMP must identify how pedestrians will be protected and the dates that the Hyman St ROW will be impacted. 3. Haul Routes: The CMP must describe the haul routes. The primary haul route will be the alley behind the Mother Lode. 4. No structures in ROW: No portion of the building can extend into the ROW including footers, eaves, and utility meters. The building must be designed such that doors do not swing open into the Hyman Street ROW. 5. Excavation Stabilization Plan: An excavation stabilization plan must be submitted as part of the building permit application. The plan is to be prepared by a qualified professional engineer. 6. ROW Restoration: The sidewalk and curbs must be restored to their existing condition. 7. Drainage: To prevent ice formation in the alley, drainage from the building cannot be discharged in the alley. Environmental Health: Summary of EH Recommendations: In order to comply with the provisions of the land use code, and ensure that the development does not have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City of Aspen, the Environmental Health Department recommends the following mitigation measures: (1) Units are sold with only one space; (2) Only one parking space per unit is provided; (3) Home Owners Association and/or Commercial tenant join the Transportation Options Program; and (4) Provide covered and secured bike storage. Page 2 of 4 February 10; 2005 Mother Lode Redevelopment AIR QUALITY: "It is the purpose of [the air quality section of the Municipal Code 13.08] to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity possible by requiring the use of all available practical methods and techniques to control, prevent and reduce air pollution throughout the city..."The Land Use Regulations (Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code) seek to "lessen congestion" and "avoid transportation demands that cannot be met" as well as to "provide clean air by protecting the natural air sheds and reducing pollutants". Subdivision applications need to provide information on projected traffic generation and air pollution. The major air quality impact is the emissions resulting from the traffic generated by this project. PM-10 (83% of which comes from traffic driving on paved roads) is a significant health concern in Aspen. The traffic generated will also produce carbon monoxide and other emissions that are health concerns. The municipal code requires developments to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity by using all available practical methods to reduce pollution. Standards used for trips generated by new development are the trip generation rates and reductions from the 'Pitkin County Road Standards', which are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Report Fifth Edition. Using the ITE figures, this proposed development would generate 25 trips/day and 3.5 pounds of PM10/day without any mitigation measures. Thus this development will have a pernicious (negative) effect on the air quality. FIREPLACE/WOODSTOVE PERMITS: The applicant must file afireplace/woodstove permit with the Building Department before the building permit will be issued. In the City of Aspen, buildings may have two gas log fireplaces or two certified woodstoves (or 1 of each) and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. New homes may NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel. FUGITIVE DUST: Any development must implement adequate dust control measures. A fugitive dust control plan is required which includes, but is not limited to fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. A fugitive dust control plan must be submitted to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Quality Control Division if this project is over 1 acre in size. ASBESTOS: Prior to remodel, expansion or demolition of any public or commercial building, including removal of drywall, carpet, tile, etc., the state must be notified and a person licensed by the state to do asbestos inspections must do an inspection. The Building Department cannot sign any building permits until they get this report. If there is no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it. TRASH STORAGE AREA: The applicant should make sure that the trash storage area has adequate wildlife protection. We recommend recycling containers be present wherever trash compactors or dumpsters are located. The trash area will need to accommodate grease storage if a restaurant continues to occupy the commercial space. NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 16-1 "The city council finds and declares that noise is a significant source of environmental pollution that represents a present and increasing threat to the public peace and to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen and it its visitors....Accordingly, it is the policy of Council to provide standards for permissible noise levels in various areas and manners and at various times and to prohibit noise in excess of those levels." During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 am and 7 pm, Monday thru Saturday. Construction is not allowed on Sundays. It is very likely that noise generated during the construction phase of this project will have some negative impact on the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of this and take measures to minimize the predicted high noise levels. FOOD SERVICE FACILITIES: Section 10-401 of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Sanitation of Food Service Establishments in the State of Colorado requires a review of plans and specifications by this Department. The Department shall be consulted before Page 3 of 4 February 10, 2005 Mother Lode Redevelopment preparation of plans and specifications. The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District must be contacted for their recommendation on the proper size of the grease trap. Restaurant grills are regulated by the City of Aspen and the applicant should contact this Department to be it is in compliance with City code. The applicant should be aware that approval of both plans and specifications is required before the building permit is approved. A minimum of two weeks is necessary far the Environmental Health Department to review and approve plans. Also, final approval from this Department is necessary before opening for business and prior to issuance of a Colorado Food Service License. Housing Department: 1. 'For Sale' AH Units: The Housing Dept may recommend that the AH units be 'for sale' and not rental units. 2. AH Parkinc: Each AH unit needs to have a designated on-site parking spot. Water and Electric Deat: 1. Water and Electric Meters: Each unit needs to have its own water and electric meter. 2. Transformer: Electric loads have yet to be calculated, but there is a possibility that the transformer that serves the property will need to be upgraded by the developer. If a larger transformer is necessary, a larger easement may also be Necessary. Parks Deot: no comments at this time Fire Department: 1. Sprinklers and Alarms: There must be sprinklers and fire alarms throughout the building. 2. Water Tap: Anew water tap and service will be needed to provide adequate fire flows. Building Department: 1. Exit Separation Issues. The building department is concerned if the separation between the exits complies with the code. This issue will be discussed with the architect. Sanitation District: 1. Allev Sewer. This project will need to replace the sewer in the alley behind the building. The Sanitation District and SGM Engineers are working out the details. 2. Other Sanitation District Reauirements~ • Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. • ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. • On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. • Oil and Grease interceptors (NOT traps) are required for all food processing establishment. Locations of food processing shall be identified prior to building permit. • Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance establishments. • Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. • Elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor • Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements: • Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. • One tap is allowed. for each building. Shared service line agreements may be__ _ required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. • Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. Page 4 of 4 February 10, 2005 Mother Lode Redevelopment • All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. • Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. • Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line). • The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. /D RC/Moth erlode2-9-OS MEMORANDUM To: James Lindt, Community Development Department From: Jannette Murison, City Environmental Health Department Date: 2/7/2005 Re: Motherlode Subdivision ParcellD #2737-073-38-007 The City of Aspen Environmental Health Department has reviewed the land use submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has the following comments. AIR QUALITY: "It is the purpose of [the air quality section of the Municipal Code 13.08] to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity possible by requiring the use of all available practical methods and techniques to control, prevent and reduce air pollution throughout the city..."The Land Use Regulations (Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code) seek to "lessen congestion" and "avoid transportation demands that cannot be met" as well as to "provide clean air by protecting the natural air sheds and reducing pollutants". Subdivision applications need to provide information on projected traffic generation and air pollution. The major air quality impact is the emissions resulting from the traffic generated by this project. PM-10 (83% of which comes from traffic driving on paved roads) is a significant health concern in Aspen. The traffic generated will also produce carbon monoxide and other emissions that are health concerns. The municipal code requires developments to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity by using all available practical methods to reduce pollution. Standards used for trips generated by new development are the trip generation rates and reductions from the 'Pitkin County Road Standards', which are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Report Fifth Edition. Using the ITE figures, this proposed development would generate 25 trips/day and 3.5 pounds of PM10/day without any mitigation measures. Thus this development will have a pernicious (negative) effect on the air quality. In order to comply with the provisions of the land use code, and ensure that the development does not have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City of Aspen, the Environmental Health Department recommends the following mitigation measures: 1. Units are sold with only one space. 2. Only one parking space per unit is provided. 3. Home Owners Association and/or Commercial tenant join the Transportation Options Program. 4. Provide covered and secured bike storage. Reminders for other Environmental Health concerns FIREPLACE/WOODSTOVE PERMITS: The applicant must file afireplace/woodstove permit with the Building Department before the building permit will be issued. In the City of Aspen, buildings may have two gas log fireplaces or two certified woodstoves (or 1 of each) and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. New homes may NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel. FUGITIVE DUST: Any development must implement adequate dust control measures. A fugitive dust control plan is required which includes, but is not limited to fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. A fugitive dust control plan must be submitted to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Quality Control Division if this project is over 1 acre in size. ASBESTOS: Prior to remodel, expansion or demolition of any public or commercial building, including removal of drywall, carpet, tile, etc., the state must be notified and a person licensed by the state to do asbestos inspections must do an inspection. The Building Department cannot sign any building permits until they get this report. If there is no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it. TRASH STORAGE AREA: The applicant should make sure that the trash storage area has adequate wildlife. protection. We recommend recycling containers be present wherever trash compactors or dumpsters are located. The trash area will need to accommodate grease storage if a restaurant continues to occupy the commercial space. NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 16-1 "The city council finds and declares that noise is a significant source of environmental pollution that represents a present and increasing threat to the public peace and to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen and it its visitors....Accordingly, it is the policy of Council to provide standards for permissible noise levels in various areas and manners and at various times and to prohibit noise in excess of those levels." During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 am and 7 pm, Monday thru Saturday. Construction is not allowed on Sundays. It is very likely that noise generated during the construction phase of this project will have some negative impact on the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of this and take measures to minimize the predicted high noise levels. FOOD SERVICE FACILITIES: Section 10-401 of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Sanitation of Food Service Establishments in the State of Colorado requires a review of plans and specifications by this Department. The Department shall be consulted before preparation of plans and specifications. The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District must be contacted for their recommendation on the proper size of the grease trap. Restaurant grills are regulated by the City of Aspen and the applicant should contact this Department to be it is in compliance with City code. The applicant should be aware that approval of both plans and specifications is required before the building permit is approved: A minimum of two weeks is necessary for the Environmental Health Department to review and approve plans. Also, final approval from this Department is necessary before opening for business and prior to issuance of a Colorado Food Service License. MEMORANDUM TO: James Lindt FROM: Cindy Christensen DATE: Mazch 3, 2005 RE: MOTHER LODESUBDIVISIONLAND USE REVIEW Parcel ID No. 2737-073-38-007 ISSUE: The applicant is requesting approval to construct athree-story addition on the Mother Lode Restaurant site located at 314 East Hyman. BACKGROUND: The following is being proposed: • Ground Floor: The front of the existing building will remain; the back portion of the existing building will be demolished and reconstructed. • Basement: Abasement will be constructed under the back half of the building for storage. • 2"a Floor: The second floor is to contain three units -two one-bedroom affordable housing units and aone-bedroom free-market unit. • 3`a Floor: The third floor is to contain athree-bedroom free market unit. The structure currently exists of a total 3,804 net leasable squaze feet. The applicant is proposing to preserve the historic portion of the existing Mother Lode and to incorporate a larger mixed-use commercial/residential structure. According to Secfion 26.470.070D3 of the City Land Use Code, the existing net leasable commercial area located within a designated historic structure may be demolished and reconstructed exempt from growth management and affordable housing mitigation. This section of the Code also permits the floor area of the replacement structure to exceed that of the demolished structure provided that there is no increase in commercial net leasable area and the replacement structure complies with the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. Approximately 3,259 square feet of the Mother Lode building's 3,804 squaze feet will be located on the expanded ground floor. Any portion of the project's net leasable area not utilized on the ground floor will be located in the basement. The remainder of the basement will be utilized for tenant storage. Pursuant to Section 26.470.070D2a of the City Land Use Code, the expanded structure may contain one free-market residential unit that is also exempt from growth management and affordable housing mitigation. Section 26.470.070D5(a)(1) requires that affordable housing be provided commensurate with that which would otherwise be required if an additional free market unit were competing for a GMQS allocation. This requirement falls under Part VII, Section 3 of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's 2004 AspenlPitkin County Employee Housing Guidelines. The Guidelines require that 60% of the bedrooms in any residential subdivision be restricted as affordable housing. The free-market one-bedroom unit is subject to the affordable housing mitigation and the three-bedroom unit is exempt. Based on this regulation, one and one- half bedrooms are required to mitigate the proposed one-bedroom free mazket unit. Two one- bedroom units are planned on-site, mitigating this requirement. The two units will each contain 600 net livable areas. This meets the minimum requirement as stated in the Guidelines. The applicant is requesting that these units remain rental units. If approved, 1/10"' of 1% undivided interest will be conveyed to APCHA. The units aze further described below: 1-Bedroom, Category 2 Units 1 Bath 600 sq. ft. 1-Bedroom, Free Market lyz Bath 2,060 sq. ft. Kitchen/Dining/Living Small Den Two exterior decks 3-Bedroom, Free Market 3'/z Baths 3,839 sq. ft. Kitchen/Dining/Living Den, Laundry/Storage Smaller Deck and a Rooftop deck A total of 11 off-street parking spaces are required to accommodate the proposed development. What is being proposed is that three of the proposed spaces will be allocated to the project's two free-market residences while one space will be allocated to the two affordable housing units. Staff would prefer the units as ownership units, but the applicant is proposing the deed-restricted units as rental units. RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Office has reviewed the application and under the current Land Use Regulations the two one-bedroom proposed employee housing units satisfy the mitigation requirements for the development and recommends the Board approve the application and refer to City Council for approval with the following conditions: 1. Two parking spaces shall be allocated and reserved for the two affordable housing units. 2. The two employee housing units shall be classified as Category 2 units. 3. The units will be deed-restricted as rental units but will allow for the miits to become ownership units at such time the owners would request this change and/or at such time the APCHA deems the units out of compliance over a period of more than one yeaz. At such 2 time, the units will be listed for sale with the Housing Office as specified in the deed restriction at the Category 2 maximum sales price. 4. The deed-restriction shall be recorded at the time of recordation of the Condo Plat and prior to Certificate of Occupancy. 5. APCHA or the applicant shall structure a deed restriction for the units such that 1/lOt~' of 1 percent of the property is deed restricted in perpetuity to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority; or until such time the units become ownership units; or the applicant may propose any other means that the Housing Authority determines acceptable. 3 ~x1~~ b~~~- '`D~ RESOLUTION N0. 12 (SERIES OF 2005) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, SPECIAL REVIEW TO 1)PAY CASH-IN-LIEU OF PROVIDING REQUIRED OPEN SPACE/PEDESTRIAN AMENITY, 2)TO ESTABLISH THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PARKING REQUIREMENTS, AND 3) TO VARY DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF TRASH/UTILITY SERVICES AREA, A GMQS EXEMPTION FOR EXPANSION OF A HISTORIC STRUCTURE THAT ADDS MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT, AND RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS, THE MOTHER LODE SUBDIVISION, AND A GMQS EXEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO CONSTRUCT A THREE STORY EXPANSION TO THE MOTHER LODE BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 314 E. HYMAN AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. ParcellD: 2737-073-38-007 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Regent Properties, Inc, represented by Vann Associates, requesting approval of Subdivision, various GMQS Exemptions, Special Review to pay cash-in-lieu of providing the required pedestrian amenity, Special Review to establish the trash and utility service area size, Special Review to establish affordable housing parking requirements, and condominiumization to construct athree-story addition to the Mother Lode Restaurant Building located at 314 E. Hyman Avenue; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned CC (Commercial Core); and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed and approved the Conceptual HPC design for the proposed development pursuant to HPC Resolution No. 31, Series of 2004; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval, with conditions, of the proposed subdivision and associated land use requests; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 15, 2005, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No.12, Series of 2005, by a four to two (4-2) vote, approving special review to pay cash-in-lieu of providing the required open space, special review to establish the affordable housing parking special review to vary the dimensional requirements for the trash/utility services area, a GMQS exemption for expansion of a historic structure that adds more than one residential dwelling unit, and recommending that City Council approve with conditions, the proposed Subdivision and GMQS exemptions to construct athree-story addition to the Mother Lode building at 3l4 E. Hyman Avenue; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standazds and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plvr; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set Forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the Plaiming and Zoning Commission hereby approves with conditions, special review to pay cash-in-lieu of providing the required open space, special review to establish the affordable housing parking requirements, special review to vary the dimensional requirements for the trash/utility services area, a GMQS exemption for the expansion of a historic structure that adds more than one residential dwelling unit, and recommending that City Council approve the Mother Lode Subdivision and GMQS Exemption to provide on-site affordable housing in order to construct athree-story addition to the Mother Lode Restaurant Building located at 314 E. Hyman Avenue, with the conditions contained herein. Section 2: Plat and Agreement The Applicant shall record a subdivision plat and agreement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of approval. Section 3: Building Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final Ordinance and recorded P&Z Resolution. a. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. b. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. a A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 5-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. d. A construction management plan pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. The construction management plan shall include an identification of construction hauling routes for review and approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. e. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department. £ A detailed excavation plan that utilizes vertical soil stabilization techniques for review and approval by the City Engineer. Section 4: Dimensional Requirements The redevelopment of the Mother Lode building shall be in compliance with the dimensional requirements of the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District, with the exception of off=street parking, trash utility service area, and open space/pedestrian amenity requirements. Off=street parking requirements shall be provided as represented in Section 5 below. The dimensions of the trash/utility service area shall be established by special review as sixteen (16) feet wide by sixteen (16) feet in depth as discussed in Section 6 below. The Applicant shall pay cash-in-lieu of providing open space/pedestrian amenity as represented in Section 13 below. Section 5: Off-street Parkins The project shall provide four (4) off-street parking spaces, one of which shall be designated for the use of the occupants of the two (2) affordable housing units. The Historic Preservation Commission waived the remainder of the parking requirements pursuant to HPC Resolution No. 31, Series of 2004. Section 6: Trash/Utility Service Area A trash/utility service area of sixteen (16) feet wide by sixteen (16) feet long, accessed from the alley, is approved by special review pursuant to the procedures established in Land Use Code Section 26.430, Special Review. The trash container shall be wildlife proof. Section 7: Affordable Housine The Applicant shall record a deed restriction on each of the affordable housing units prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy on the building classifying the units as Category 2 units. If the Applicant chooses to deed restrict the affordable housing units as rental units, the Applicant shall convey a 1/10 of a percent, undivided interest in the units to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy on any portion of the building. The units may be deed-restricted as rental units, but the units shall become ownership units at such time as the owners would request a change to "for-sale" units or at such time as the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority deems the units to be out of compliance with the rental occupancy requirements in the Affordable Housing Guidelines for a period of more than year. Section 8: Fire Mitieation The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system and alarm system that meets the requirements of the Fire Marshal. Section 9: Water Department Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standazds, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Each of the units within the building shall have individual water meters. Section 10: Sanitation District Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations. No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter drains) to ACSD lines shall be allowed. All improvements below grade shall require the use of a pumping station. If more than one unit is to be served by a single service line, the Applicant shall enter into a shared service line agreement. Section 11: Electrical Department Requirements The Applicant shall have an electric connect load summary conducted by a licensed electrician in order to determine if the existing transformer on the neighboring property has sufficient capacity for the Mother Lode Redevelopment. If a new supplemental transformer is required to be installed on the Mother Lode property, the Applicant shall provide for a new transformer and its location shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to installation. The Applicant shall dedicate an easement to allow for City Utility Personnel to access the supplemental transformer for maintenance purposes„ if a supplemental transformer is installed. Section 12: Exterior Li¢htin¢ All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 13: Payment-in-lieu of Open Space/Pedestrian Amenity Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.030, Open Space, the Applicant shall pay a cash in-lieu fee of providing the required open space/pedestrian amenity at the time of building pernrit issuance. The amount due shall be calculated by the City Zoning Officer at the time of building permit issuance using the methodology and fee schedule in place at the time of building permit issuance. Section 14: School Lands Dedication Fee Fursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School lands dedication, the Applicant shall pay afee-in-lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen Zoning Officer shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in affect at the time of building permit submittal. The Applicant shall provide the market value of the land including site improvements, but excluding the value of structures on the site. Section 15: Park Development Impact Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Lmpact Fee, the Applicant shall pay a park development impact fee in the amount of $9,994 prior to building permit issuance. The fee is assessed based on the following calculation: Proposed Commercial: 3,804 SF minus 3,804 SF of existing net leasable = 0 new net leasable square feet $0 due on commercial space Proposed Residential 1 (three-bedroom) Free Market Residential Unit multiplied by $3,634 per unit= $3,634 3 (one-bedroom) Residential Units multiplied by $2,120 per unit= $6,360 Total: $9,994 Section 16: PM-10 Mitigation The Applicant shall mitigate for the air quality impacts expected for the generation of 25 vehicle trips per day by enacting the following measures: 1. Providing only one parking space for the use of each residential unit. 2. Providing covered and secured bicycle storage. 3. The Homeowner's Association and the Commercial Tenant shall join the Transportation Options Program. Section 17• All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 18: This resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 19: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 15th day of March, 2005. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council THRU: John Worcester, City Attorney n L,, ,, FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director' ' I~~/~/I RE: Aspen Institute Temporary Use Permit -Public Heari""ng Resolution No.~ Series of 2005. DATE: Apri] 11, 2005 ~!La. Applicant: The Aspen Institute. Representative: Amy Margerum (Executive Vice President -The Aspen Institute). Location: The Aspen Institute Campus - 1000 North Third Street. Zone District: Academic/Specially Planned Area (A-SPA). Land Use Request: Temporary Use Permit to place a tent on the property east of Anderson Park and north of the Koch Building during the summer months of 2005 and 2006 to serve various conferences. SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting a temporary use permit to place a tent on the Aspen Institute property located at 1000 North Third Street during the summer months of 2005 and 2006. The application states that it will be a pole-type design composed of two distinct sections and an entrance canopy. The main section will measure 60' x 90' with an adjacent 30' x 40' catering section and a 20' x 20' entrance canopy. The tent would be located north of the Koch Seminar Building just east of Anderson Park. Exhibit B contains a map of the proposed site. The Applicant seeks a temporary use permit for the entire one hundred eighty (180) days that Council can approve in order to be able to leave the tent in place for ninety (90) consecutive days during each of the two summer seasons. There is a long history of the Institute using tents for special events in order to integrate the natural beauty of the campus into their activities as much as possible. The current proposal is unique in that the Institute wishes to erect this tent on asemi-permanent basis in an undisturbed area. The site has not been landscaped and would require the removal of native sage and other species along with blade grading to facilitate the installation of temporary wood flooring. The Institute wishes to erect this tent as a trial for a possible permanent event tent facility. There are needs for the 2005 and 2006 seasons and the Institute may proceed with a formal SPA Amendment if this temporary tent proves to be a permanent need. Staff referred this application to the Parks Department, Environmental Health Department and Historic Preservation Commission. Feedback from all three entities is included within this memorandum and the proposed resolution. The Parks Department initially did not support the application. (See Exhibit D.) Parks is concerned about the removal of native vegetation (primarily sage) for a temporary facility. Parks would have less of a concern if the facility were permanent. With additional discussion with the applicant about restoration of the landscape and hearing the issues of other locations, the Parks Department now feels the location is acceptable. The Parks Department has provided recommended conditions of approval if the project proceeds and these have been incorporated into the Resolution. Staff is recommending the Temporary Use Permit be approved. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: There have been no previous short-term use applications to allow for tents at the Aspen Institute. The use of tents on a temporary basis (for a few days at a time) has occurred commonly in recent years. Technically, Temporary Use permits should have been sought. Staff would have approved these other tents as they were erected on sod or other hardscape areas. BACKGROUND: The Applicant has long-term plans to potentially apply for an SPA Amendment that would establish a permanent location for a summer event tent. However, in the short term, they wish to obtain this temporary use permit as a "trial run." The applicant needs this tent to fulfill the needs of the various conferences and events during the summers of 2005 and 2006, but is not yet sure how the new auditorium building planned for the campus will impact the need to use tents in future years. The auditorium building will likely be completed in the fall of 2006. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff believes that the applicant's temporary use request to maintain the tents during the summer months of 2005 and 2006 follows in the tradition of temporary summer structures that have been used by the Aspen Institute for many years. It is apparent that such temporary structures are critical for the continuing success of their summer programs. The applicant has proven to be willing to work with Staff and was amenable to receiving HPC input on their proposal. Staff believes that the tent will fit with existing architecture on site and won't create a negative visual impact. HPC indicated more of an interest in the sensitive placement of the tent so that the landscape is not overly impacted, than in interest in the tent design. The institute has stated that if they go forward with an application to install a tent after the temporary use period, it will likely be architect designed, as has been the case with the Music Tent. Staff does feel that the application meets all of the temporary use review standards. Based on the feedback received from the Parks Department (exhibit D) and follow-up conversations, staff believes that the site location selected by the applicant represents the least amount of impact considering a wide range if issues. Given the short time frame of the application (two summer seasons) and the stated purpose as being primarily a trial run for a permanent location that may, or may not happen, Staff is comfortable recommending approval. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval with a series of conditions for reclaiming the land after the temporary use permit expires. These proposed conditions have been incorporated into the proposed Resolution. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve resolution No. ~ Series of 2005, approving with conditions, a temporary use permit to allow for a tent at the Aspen Institute for a total of 180 days during the summer months of 2005 and 2006." CITY MANAGER ~~ ~i ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -Application Exhibit C -Illustrations of the Tent Design and Site Map Exhibit D -Parks Department Feedback and Recommendation RESOLUTION NO. (Series of 2005) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A TEMPORARY USE APPROVAL TO ALLOW FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A TENT AT THE ASPEN INSTITUTE, 1000 NORTH THIRD STREET, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel /D: 2735-121-29-809 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.450 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Applicant, The Aspen Institute, has submitted an application for a Temporary Use Permit to place a tent on the Aspen Institute campus north of the Koch Seminar Building just east of Anderson Park, 1000 North Third Street, City and Townsite of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requests to utilize the tent for 180 days divided evenly among the summer months of 2005 and 2006; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has reviewed the temporary use application and referral comments from the City Parks Department, the City Environmental Health Department, and the Historic Preservation Commission and recommends that the City Council approve the temporary use permit with conditions; and, WHEREAS, City Council finds that the proposed temporary use is consistent with the character and existing land uses of the surrounding parcels and neighborhood and that granting the temporary use permit will not adversely impact the neighborhood; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the temporary use request under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the temporary use request meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO,THAT: Section 1: In accordance with Section 26.450.020 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, does hereby grant the Aspen Institute a temporary use permit to erect a tent on a temporary basis during the 2005 and 2006 summer seasons, subject to the following conditions: 1. The temporary use permit shall be valid during the summer of 2005 between the dates of July 1st and September 28th, and removal of the tent must be completed by September 29th, 2005. 2. The temporary use permit shall be valid during the summer of 2006 between the dates of July 1st and September 28th, and removal of the tent must be completed by September 29th, 2006. 3. Before erecting the tent on July 1" during the summers of both 2005 and 2006, the applicant shall obtain a building permit. 4. The applicant shall obtain all necessary approvals from the Environmental Health Department for the food service operations. 5. The food section of the tent shall be limited to 90 days of operation during the summer months. 6. Prior to installation for the first season, the applicant shall meet with the Parks Department on site to determine the best possible placement of the tent to minimize environmental impacts. In conjunction with Parks, HPC has assigned one of their members (a landscape architect) to review the site plan, grading plan and any pathways to be altered or installed. 7. Prior to any grading work to be done, the applicant shall place construction fencing around the extent of the disturbance area in order to delineate the native zones to not be impacted. 8. Develop a native vegetation restoration plan that receives approval from the Parks Department with a copy is recorded with the Community Development Department. Said plan will contain the following elements: a. Noxious Weeds: The Aspen Institute will be responsible for the control of noxious weeds during the entire time period of the temporary use, up until the area is restored as outlined below. This will require a plan and contract with a local vegetation management company or provide, for city review, a detailed plan on how the in-house staff will manage any weed issues. The City of Aspen will perform inspections of the area. b. Restoration: All areas disturbed to accommodate the installation of the tent, events and or other activities shall be restored to the following standards. i. Seeding Procedure: Hand broadcast seed in areas of disturbance. Rake seed into soil. Cover area with certified weed free straw. ii. Seed Mix: Indian Rice Grass `Nez Par' - Achnatherum hymenoides "Nez Par' 3.0 Ibs/acre, Sideoats Grama Bouteloua curtipedula `Pierre' 4.0 Ibs/acre, Sandberg Bluegrass Poa secunda `Sherman' .5 lbs/acre, Thickspike Wheat Grass Elymus lanceolatus 2 lbs/acre, `San Luis' Slender Wheatgrass Elymus trachycalulus 3 lbs/acre, Arizona Fescue Festuca ovina `Arriba' 2.5 Ibs/acre, `Arriba'Western Wheatgrass Pascopyrum smithii `Arriba' 2.5 lbs/acre, Hairy Golden Aster Chrsopsis villosa .25 lbs/acre, Silver Lupine - Lupinus argenteus 1.0 lbs/acre, Rocky Mountain Penstemon Penstemon strictus 2.0 lbs/acre, Arrowleaf Balsam Root Balsamorhiza sagittata .5 ]bs/acre, Mules Ear Wyethia amplexicaulis .Sibs/acre. Seed mix can be purchased at: Arkansas Valley Seed-303.320.7500, Pawnee Butte Seed-800.782.5947, or Granite Seed-801.768.4422. iii. Top Soil: All disturbed areas shall be restored with a minimum of six (6) inches of good organic topsoil. iv. Irrigation: The irrigation system shall be designed for temporary use and installed at the time of restoration. The system should be designed to properly provide coverage to all disturbed areas. Section 2• This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. FINALLY, Adopted, Passed, and Approved on this public hearing before City Council. day of , 2005, at a duly noticed APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Helen Klanderud, Mayor C:\home\Current Planning\CASES\Instimte Tent\CC Reso.doc ExxiBIT A Institute Tent REVIEW CRITERIA c~c STAFF FINDINGS: 26.450.030 Temporary Use When considering a development application for a temporary use, City Council shall consider, among other pertinent factors, the following criteria: The location, sizt?, design, operating characteristics, and visual impacts of the proposed use. Staff Finding: Staff believes that the size and design of the temporary tent structure is functional for the needs of the applicant. The design has been selected carefully to not detract from the unique architecture at the Aspen Institute. The tents will likely be either clear, or a neutral color, such as white or beige. The visual impacts should not be that significant due to selection of a tent with the best possible design for the site. The applicant has expressed interest in receiving input from the HPC to help determine the best design possible. The operating characteristics should also help to reduce the visual impact of the tent, by having the sides of the tent open except for during periods of inclement weather. Based on feedback from the Parks Department, including follow-up conversations and discussions with HPC, Staff believes the site selection to be the best considering a range of environmental, aesthetic, functional, and historic considerations. Staff finds this criteria to be met. The compatibility of the proposed temporary use with the character, density and use of structures and uses in the immediate vicinity. Staff Finding: Temporary summer tents are compatible with existing architecture on the site such as the Music Tent and the modernist designs of Herbert Bayer. They would also serve as an excellent compliment to the summer programs that will take place on the campus. The tents will provide crucial space for various programs and events and allow a greater interaction between the participants and the natural surroundings. Staff finds this criterion to be met. The impacts of the proposed use on pedestrian and vehicular traffic and traffic patterns, municipal services, noise levels, and neighborhood character. Staff Finding: Staff does not believe that the tent structure will have any negative impacts on vehicular traffic, traffic patterns, municipal services or noise levels because the temporary tents will not draw any more people to the site than are already scheduled to be there. These tents will serve ongoing, previously scheduled events at the Aspen Institute. The Institute Tent Staff Comments. Page 1 neighborhood character could be slightly altered because it will be visible to neighbors across the river. However, the applicant states that the sides of the tents will be open the majority of the time which should reduce visual impacts. Staff finds this criterion to be met. The duration of the proposed temporary use and whether a temporary use has previously been approved for the structure, parcel, property or location as proposed in the application. Staff Finding: The applicant has requested to keep the tent up for the full duration of the one hundred eighty (180) day time period that City Council has the authority to approve for a temporary use. Those days will be allocated during the peak summer months of 2005 and 2006. Staff finds this criterion to be met. The purposes antl intent of the zone district in which the temporary use is proposed. Staff Finding: The Aspen Institute is zoned Academic (A). The use of the tent to accommodate participants at Aspen Institute events would be in keeping with the purposes and intent of the zone district. Staff finds this criterion to be met. The relation of the temporary use to conditions and character changes which may have occurred in the area and zone district in which the use is proposed. Staff Finding: The Aspen Institute has a long history of using temporary summer structures to accommodate guests. Such outdoor venues have become rather characteristic of the campus during the summer and this temporary use is in keeping with that tradition. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Haw the proposed temporary use will enhance or diminish the general public health, safety, or welfare. Staff Finding: These tents will help the Aspen Institute to continue to operate here in Aspen and host events, lectures and programs that are beneficial to the entire community. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Institute Tent Staff Comments. Page 2 Ex~~b'~~- ~5 THE ASPEN INSTITUTE Amy Margerum Executive l ice President Administration and Finance Februazy 14, 2005 James Lindt Community Development City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen CO 81611 ~~tVD 1=E3 1 4 2005 A$~tiV EUILQING ©~gRTNIENT RE: Temporary Use Permit: Aspen Institute Dear James: Thank you for your advice and assistance with our application for a temporazy summer tent structure at the Aspen Institute. Enclosed is our application for a Temporary Use Permit for a summer event tent. I understand this is a one step process before City Council. I will be here most of March, although I am out of town the week of March 14`s and again March 24a' -April 7m. Although our long term plan is to process an SPA Amendment for a petrrranent location for an event tent (still for summer events only however), we would like to try out the site on a temporary basis this summer in time for our 6 day Aspen Ideas Festival running from July 5 - l0a'. Therefore, we are proposing to purchase or rent a tent for about 400 people, grade the tent site to install a temporary floor and use it for the next two summers. This temporary use will supplant the need to erect tents in other locations on the property as we have done over the past 10 years or so for special events (Summer Celebration dinners, 45a' and 50`n anniversary celebrations, Fortune Brainstorm conference and the Einstein conference). Since we will need to do some grading on the iooo Nara, Tnira street site, we want to ensure we go through a permitting and public review process. Aspen, CO 81611 _ I have attached digital photographs of the site. Since it is covered in snow, it is PH 970.544.7905 a bit hard to visualize. We are committed to replacing any sage removed one- for-one and have located the site in an area which has the least impact on the ex s>o.544.~soa sage and on the views from Anderson Park. amym~aspeninsatute.org This site is critical to us for several reasons: www.aspeninadmte.nrg • It is not part of the landscape azchitecture designed by Herbert Bayer. We often erect tents right in Anderson Park over the summer for memorials, weddings and events...this would move this type of activity away from an area we view as "a piece of art." • It is further away from the Music Tent. Both the Fortune event and the Einstein event created small conflicts with the Aspen Music Festival. We would like to avoid any noise conflicts to the extent possible. • It is close to an existing trail and can be serviced easily by golf carts from the trail running behind the property. • It is accessible to services provided already in the Koch Seminar Building and Paepcke Auditorium. • It is relatively flat and will require minimal grading to install a temporary flooring surface. Criteria: Location, size, design, operating characteristics and visual impacts of the proposed use• The proposed site is tucked away behind the Koch Seminaz building, adjacent to the rear trail and emergency access connecting the two sides of the property. It is set back from Anderson Park and the Paepcke Wildflower Gazden with spectacular views from Independence Pass to Sopris. We have located a "bubble" on the enclosed map as we want to locate the tent within this area, avoiding as much sage and all trees on the property during actual siting. The tent will be a 60' by 90' pole-type tent with an adjacent 30' by 40' catering or kitchen tent and a 20' by 20' entrance canopy for greeting and cocktails if necessary. Although it is our intention to keep the sides open as much as possible, we will be purchasing/renting drop down sides to be prepazed for inclement weather and windy conditions. The height of the tallest pole is approximately 20'. The tent will either be of clear (see-through material) or of a neutral color (white or beige) with a rented temporazy flooring surface. The tent will be visible from across the river, but will only be up during our busy summer months. Lighting will be minimal and downcast. It will be used for receptions, lectures, gatherings and discussions during the Aspen Ideas Festival, and for other large events which typically already put up tents on a case by case basis (i.e. our summer benefit dinner). Food will be delivered to the site, as is done now, via golf carts from our kitchen at the Meadows Reception Center. Temporary utilities will be connected to the site from the Koch building. Participants will use bathrooms in the Koch and Paepcke buildings unless portable toilets aze brought in for specific events. Compatibility of the use with the character density and use of structures and uses in the immediate vicinity. The Aspen Institute, the Aspen Music Festival and the International Design Conference have been utilizing temporary summer tents for activities for over 50 years on the Aspen Meadows property. It adds to the casual feel of an Aspen summer program and takes advantage of the beautiful views and climate we all enjoy. A tent fits right in with the vernacular of the Music Tent, Hams Hall and the Bayer designed buildings on the Meadows campus. Because of the large open space surrounding the campus, a tent does not feel overwhelming or imposing. The impacts of the proposed use on pedestrian and vehicular traffic and traffic patterns, municipal services, noise levels and neighborhood character. The temporazy use is for events already ongoing at the Aspen Institute and will not increase traffic or pedestrian use. It will cause some pedestrians to use the reaz trail on the property when attending events at the tent instead of the trail going through Anderson Pazk. Golf carts typically already use this reaz trail. Noise levels overall on the property will not change; however, we will be able to move possible conflicting events further away from the Music Tent. The neighbors across the river will be able to see the tent during the summer months. Additional trees can be planted to reduce the mass of the tent structure. All lights will be downcast and subtle. Duration of the proposed temporary use and weather a temporary use has previously-been approved for the structure, parcel, property or location as proposed I the application. We are requesting temporary use for the full 180 days allowed to be allocated in the peak summer months of 2005 and 2006. The purposes and intent of the zone district in which the temporary use is proposed. The zone district is Academic and the use would be in keeping with Aspen Institute related events. proposed. The tent would be compatible with other changes being proposed on the property and is in keeping with mass and scale of existing buildings and homes across the river. How the proposed temporarv use will enhance or diminish the eeneral public health, safety or welfare. The addition of this tent will ensure that the Aspen Institute can continue to operate in a break even fashion and continue to host community events, memorials, lectures and programs which benefit the entire community. I thank you in advance for your consideration of this project. All tie best, L. President 4 77 .\ '~2 . ar /,~, yt=lN ~r~ _ ,~ .~~ for,. ~rdfiased<~t~rRetenttonlCre~` ~ ~ a a~ ~ ~~ ~ I u \\\' ~ l / . r; ~ V _- ~ ~ ~~ ~ .,. . v . ~ - ,~~ 4,. ~ ~~ ,I ~ ~: .A'~ a~v t l .~ , . ~ ~ , v ~ l / /' I ~_ ` T'' ; , ~ ~nder,~oi~-} -~;f ~ •~t`~ ~`, vv, vv a;vl I ; ;..ti ~'~`°" ..f I"' jil a "w i 3.. V ~ A I i ~. ~~~ ~ ~ VQ~~~~f j~~Y k`1 III ~, , ' ' t"!+'~ I / ~ ~u C A ~-k ~ ~,~ ~ ~y, , ~, ~, , ~ti , , ,, , , .. ' ...~ 41y v~ ._ ~.fM1.~} K~ ~ v ~ (} yy~gl 'LU~1 ~ I, A vv `v ~~_, 5 ' I vv .. t ~ 4 / ~ ~ A - / ~.~ ~ \ • ~ ;v l A i ~ / / / / l 01 t? ~ ~ III I ~vIIV /%% i~ ~ ~~ \~\ ~~ ^ _,. `, I' I ~ II v / ~/ / ~~ I 1 ~ ~ / ~~ ~'~' ~ ~ ~~~~ l ~ I II ~~ / // / / IvI Q ~, ~ y Z `h~ I ,1~` / I _ /i ,', I i i i~~ / ~I(~V~~\\ \ I \~~ -'-~~~ ),'X151 .F t i~. i ~ % ///fit /,Yi ~ I f~ ,n ~ ~I ~..% ~ , ~~/yam ~ 1 ~ •~ .. 14-; ~ rv ~ ~. ~, ~ , 'i ,~ !'.-~~;, ~ ~~~ ~~ _ ~. ~ . ~ Bern i ~,` IV / Ike 1, .. \\\C~~~. ,~~ :I. ~/i ~F ~ 11 , t~V~11 A\~~~ .~~~' / / y ~ .\ \ ~` Y "err fl~ ~ ~ .I ~ ... '..:.. 1 / , ~,. ~ tl~ ~ I „'r r ,III ..New r/ I ~~ ~ ~ . ~ I~pi ~ V ~ ~ (,'irdSS p ' ~4`ei e ~! .~ I yX / / / ~~ ~ ~~ ~ I ~/ P sics Center ;,_ ~ /'~ ~p \ ~X_ _-~ -~ 1 -- ~ \ ~/ I~ ~ 1 ~.__~ ~__~, I I 1~~;q'4 r"~, ; t\~ ;!` r f ; / New p I1?Gq-/zy r \I,/, ~~-\\ //r ~~. ~. ~ ~n ~~ t' C~('ll~(~~. ~-BikeR ' ~Pedest rL --~ L ~ ~/ / P, l x \ /~ ~ ~ 1 I , ~ _ 5, ~ ~ ~_ ~ I ~~~ `I ("~ ~ ~ - ` \~~ ,0 `~ 160 Parkin S I ' "~ IL JIu t I t I g paces ~ ,,114 Spaces ` ~., i~r -~~` ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ t~, ~~ ,~ ~~;~,~ ,. ,"' ,~ i ~~ .; ~ ~ A *. >, .~~,"" i ~a ." - . ~ ~. ~., j ~ R 11/,' ~~ ~,~ ,~/~~-, --~_- 'e, wss_ WARNER SHELTER SYSTEMS LIMITED ~~~:~~~ ~~. ,: ~~G ~:.. _~ ~__ -~ ~ak Pole Tenu ~: featilres: 111~.~ Computer-designed smooth curves for elegance and pretensioned stability. 111~~ Opaque Fabric For summer comfort; skylite for natural lighting. 111~~ Double braid polyester lace lines; grommet and lacing on each lace line for easy layout and assembly. I t ~~y Long life, easy to maintain and repair. I I1~~ Side poles and walls are interchangeable with Peak Marquee tents. ~ ~`~ Y ~ ~ MODEL PT60X 3- `31 ~ ? , OPAQUE FABRIC PE K POLE TENT A ~" SKYLITE .. ~ TRANSLUCENT ( '~ ,5; FABRIC , I , L --~ 7 - ' `~ . ,WEBBING AND RATCHET ~ L J I -. ~ y ~ FOR ACCURATE - FABRIC PRESTRESS _ „' 10 /h ;~( `~° a: IDEPOLE 25 6 6 S CiOION SECTOION ~~ ~. DEPOLE 27 10 7.5 ~ r SEC-ON 5 COi ON / 1 'p~ tr - / ~ ~ a ~ A ~ ~11~ro isoag 1~0> ~ 1 e` v o l B, s o ~ •C y. C' 20~+1 4~-70~~I 60' 1~20~+1 I.-20 9 ^ n •'e M airy ~~ .~,•.F `v arv vi 20007 20008 20009 20010 20011 20012 20013 20004 20005 20014 20015 60X40 60X60 60X70 60X60 60X90 60X100 60X100 60X120 60X120 ADD'L 20'MID ADD'L 30'MID 2 z 2 2 z z ._.._.2.__.._- 2 2 - - 1 2 1 ~~ 3 1 4 1 - - - 1 1 2 - 2 - - 1 2 4 4 6 6 6 8 8 10 2 2 2 4 4 6 6 ~~_._. _- 6 - 8 6 10 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 - - 20 24 26 28 30 32 32 36 36 4 6 30 36 38 42 44 46 48 52 54 6 8 28 32 34 36 30 40 40 44 44 4 6 84 96 102 108 114 120 120 132 132 12 18 2123 (963) 2818 (1278) 2926 (1327) 3514 (1594) 3622 (1643) 3730 (1692) 4211 (1910) 4425 (2007) 4900 (2226) 697 (316) 805 (365) Exl~~~o~~.J X-Sender: brianf@commons X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Wed, 09 Maz 2005 10:25:06 -0700 To: Christopher I,ee <chrisl@ci.aspen.co.us> ~ From: Brian Flynn <brianf@ci.aspen.co.us> Chris, I appreciate the time you provided staff to review this request. Staff gathered information about the project in a brief meeting with you and performed a site visit and analysis of the property. It is fair to say that on a natural resource level the proposed work is a major concern for the Pazks Department. There is significant and viable native plants in this area. We witnessed numerous sage, oak, volunteered aspens, native grasses and multiple berry producing shrubs like seriviceberry. All of this makes for a healthy example of a mountain ecotype and wildlife habitat. Both of which aze disappearing in the upper valley. The azea is bisected with a walking trail providing users with views of the three ski mountains, glimpses of the roaring fork river. Finally, the area sits at the top of slope to the corridor down into the Roaring Fork River. We would encourage the project team to seriously consider an alternate location fora semi- permanent structure. The project proposes a lazge amount of earth work that will remove much of the intact native area. If the project does not result in a permanent structure the Pazks Department would require the azea to be restored back to native vegetation. No restoration can ever replace the lost value of the embodied energy of the original undisturbed natives. However the option is available and will require a lazge financial commitment from the project. Proper soil make up, weed management, proper seed specifications, temporary irrigation and three to four yeaz management plan, estimated at $30,000. Pazks understands that we have no regulations that will prevent or require them to move the proposed location. Pazks does not support the project as proposed and would request that the project team consider an altemate location that minimizes impact or has no impact to the native azeas surrounding the property. If an alternate location is not available we would request the project plan for restoration of the area and weed management. The pazks department staff is available for consultation and guidance for a restoration project. We would also recommend that the project place construction fence azound the extent of the disturbance in order to delineate the native zones that are not intended to be impacted. ~.b~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director f `A/III/I/I FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer \..//vV `a~„v {~ RE: 701 W. Main Street- Subdivision Exemption/Historic Landmark Lot Split, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2005, PUBLIC HEARING continued from March 28, 2005 DATE: April 11, 2005 SUMMARY: The subject property is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures and contains a cabin and an outbuilding. The year of the cabin's construction on record with the Assessor's office is 1935. The applicant has received HPC approval to relocate the historic cabin on the site and to demolish the non-historic outbuilding along the alley. HPC has recommended in favor of a Historic Landmark Lot Split, including a variance from the minimum required lot size because 701 W. Main Street is anon-conforming parcel. The variance was granted subject to Council's final approval of the lot split. Since first reading, the applicant has approached HPC in a public hearing to make an adjustment to the location of the new lot line. The board is in support of this amendment, which has been incorporated into the final ordinance. The City Attorney advised that there was no need to repeat first reading. Staff and HPC recommend that a Historic Landmark Lot Split be supported. The review criteria are met and the Lot Split is a good tool for removing development pressure from a small building. APPLICANT: Marshall and Susan Olsen, owners. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-46-004. ADDRESS: 701 W. Main Street, Lots H and I, less the west 2.35 feet of Lot H, Block 19, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: O, Office. (Soon to be "MU, Mixed Use.") PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council continued the hearing on March 28"' in order to allow a neighbor more opportunity to get information about the project. In addition, there were clarifications requested related to FAR, Parking, Conditional Use review, and the status of a large tree at the front of the site. FAR: Most of the Historic Landmark Lot Splits approved to date have occurred in residential neighborhoods. Establishment of maximum allowable FAR in these cases is straightforward because the amount of square footage that could be built on the fathering parcel is simply allocated between the new lots in a manner that is deemed to be an appropriate historic preservation solution (ideally more FAR is allotted to the new house than is added onto the old house.) The process is not as simple in the Mixed Use Zone District because maximum allowable floor area is affected by whether an owner chooses to develop property as residential or commercial. Section 26.480.030(A)(4) of the Municipal Code (listed below) allows the FAR for each new lot to be established based on its use. As illustrated in the chart on the next page, the fact that residential FAR is calculated on a sliding scale, while commercial is based on a flat percentage, results in a number of possible development scenarios, most of the which have a slightly larger total square footage than was possible on the fathering lot. The existing Historic Landmark Lot Split regulations do not prohibit this. With regard to the application before Council for 701 W. Main, Lot A is to be a mixed-use property, with the historic cabin converted into an art studio/gallery, and a new carriage house style residence built along the alley. The maximum floor area at this time is .75:1, or 1,924 square feet. The applicant has active land use applications in process that vest this square footage. Lot B is planned to be developed with a new single family residence. Current code would allow the new house to be up to 2,456 square feet. The total for the entire property would be 4,380 square feet, which is 56 square feet more than one could have built as mixed-use on the fathering parcel. Because HPC has granted a variance based on hardship to allow this non- conforming lot to be split, a condition has been added to the Ordinance to state that the total FAR developed on Lots A and B cannot exceed the 4,324 square feet that would have been allowed on the fathering parcel. We are taking this position only because the hardship criteria include a requirement that "granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings, or structures, in the same zone district." The recent adoption of Ordinance #7, Series of 2005, Mixed Use Zone District, would decrease the allowable floor area for a single family home on Lot B by 20%. The applicant can protect their rights by submitting and pursuing an application for Major Development before the Ordinance goes into effect on April 27, 2005, however they are not readily prepared to do so. In the alternative, the City Attorney has advised that a condition can be included in this approval that the current floor area ratios remain in place on Lot B for a period of three years because the application has been in process for some time and HPC staff, unaware of the upcoming floor area amendment, did not advise the property owner. Said condition is included in the attached Ordinance. 2 701 W. MAIN FAR SCENARIOS SCENARIO 1 No lot split, fathering parcel developed as one single family residence, total FAR= 3,142 square feet SCENARIO 3 3,000 square foot lot 2,765 square foot lot Lot split (new lot sizes as first reviewed by HPC). A. Both sides developed as residential, total FAR= 4,612 square feet B. Both sides developed as commercial, total FAR= 4,324 square feet. C. West lot developed as residential, east lot developed as commercial, total FAR= 4,473 square feet. D. West lot developed as commercial, east lot developed as residential, total FAR= 4,462 square feet. SCENARIO 2 No lot split, fathering parcel developed as mixed use, total FAR= 4,324 square feet SCENARIO 4 3,200 2,565 square sq. foot lot foot lot Lot split (new lot sizes as amended at HPC and currently under review by Council.) A. Both sides developed as residential, total FAR= 4,508 square feet B. Both sides developed as commercial, total FAR= 4,324 square feet. C. West lot developed as residential, east lot developed as commercial, total FAR= 4,380 square feet. D. West lot developed as commercial, east lot developed as residential, total FAR= 4,452 square feet. PARKING: HPC has granted Conceptual approval for amixed-use development on Lot A. The historic cottage will be freestanding and converted into an art studio/gallery. It generates a parking requirement of 0.68 spaces. HPC is scheduled to consider a variance or requirement of a cash-in-lieu payment at an upcoming hearing. The new residential unit on Lot A is required to provide one on-site parking space, which is being fulfilled. The future residence on Lot B will need two on-site spaces. CONDITIONAL USE: Under the new Mixed-Use Zone District, the proposal for the historic cabin is a permitted use, so Conditional Use review is no longer required. TREE: The Parks Department is not willing to grant a tree removal permit for the large tree at the front of this property. A condition has been added to the Ordinance to prohibit the issuance of such a permit in the future unless Parks determines that the tree is unhealthy or a hazard. HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT In order to complete a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the applicant shall meet the following requirements of Aspen Land Use Code: Section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section 26.470.070(C), and Section 26.415. ] 10(A.) The first two citations are discussed below. Section 26.470.070(C) establishes the Historic Landmark Lot Split as exempt from Growth Management through a separate Community Development Director approval, and Section 26.415.110(A) lays out the review procedure, which has been complied with. 26.480.030(A)(2), SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, LOT SPLIT The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the following conditions are met: a) The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the [and is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969. This restriction shall not apply to properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures; and Staff Finding: The property is part of the original townsite and has not been previously subdivided. Most of the Historic Landmark Lot Splits that have been approved occur in neighborhoods where residential development is the only option. Although this property is in the Office (soon to be Mixed Use) Zone District, a condition of approval will be required to make it clear that the development occurring on the vacant parcel at 701 W. Main Street must be a single family residence per the introductory statement to these criteria, unless a future code amendment lifts this restriction. The lot that contains the cabin can be developed as either residential or mixed-use. 4 b) No mare than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.040(A)(1)(c). Staff Finding: The property is anon-conforming 5,765 square foot lot as a result of an adverse possession by the adjacent neighbor. This proposal will create one 3,200 square foot lot and one 2,565 square foot lot. The minimum size required for a Historic Landmark Lot Split is 3,000 square feet but, as stated above, HPC has granted a variance pending final approval of the lot split by Council. With regard to the requirements for affordable housing mitigation, Council has recently adopted new benefits for historic properties, pursuant to Section 26.420 of the Municipal Code, which states that mitigation will not be required for properties created through a historic landmark lot split. c) The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26100.040(C)(1)(a); and Staff Finding: The land has not received a subdivision exemption or lot split exemption. d) A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100. Staff Finding: The subdivision plat shall be a condition of approval. It must be reviewed by the Community Development Department for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land use action. e) Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of tfae plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. Staff Finding: The subdivision exemption agreement shall be a condition of approval. f) In the case where an existing single family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split 5 Staff Finding: No dwelling will be demolished as part of this lot split. The outbuilding along the alley is proposed to be demolished. It is currently being occupied as a residence illegally, which must be corrected. g) Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single family home. Staff Finding: The parcel currently contains a single family home. The proposal will add one new homesite. No more than two units in total can be created as part of this redevelopment based on the size of the lots. 26.480.030(A)(4), SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT The split of a lot that is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures for the development of one new single-family dwelling may receive a subdivision exemption if it meets the following standards: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand (6,000) square feet in size and be located in the R-6, R-15, R-15A, RMF, or O zone district. Staff Finding: The subject parcel is 5,765 square feet and is located in the Office Zone District. A variance was requested and approved in order to meet the minimum lot size stated above. b. The total FAR for both residences shall be established by the size of the parcel and the zone district where the property is located. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. In the Office zone district, the following shall apply to the calculation of maximum floor area for lots created through the historic landmark lot split. Note that the total FAR shall not be stated on the Subdivision Exemption Plat because the floor area will be affected by the use established on the property: If all buildings on what was the fathering parcel remain wholly residential in use, the maximum floor area will be as stated in the R-6 zone district. If any portion of a building on a lot created by the historic landmark lot split is in commercial/office use, then the allowed floor area for that lot shall be the floor area allowed for all uses other than residential in the zone district. If the adjacent parcel created by the lot split remains wholly in residential use, then the floor area on that parcel shall be limited to the maximum allowed on a lot of its size for residential use according to the R-6 standards. 6 If there is commercial/office use on both newly created lots, the maximum floor area for all uses other than residential in the zone district will be applied. Staff Finding: The maximum floor area for the original parcel, containing a historic landmark in the Office zone, is 3,174 square feet for residential development, or 4,324 square feet for mixed use. The applicant intends to develop the corner, smaller lot as mixed use. This lot will contain the historic building and may have an FAR of up to 1,924 square feet under current zoning. The new lot must be developed as a residence, and at this time the allowable residential floor area for a 3,200 square foot lot in the Office Zone District is 2,456 square feet. As discussed above, this cumber will be reduced by 56 square feet so as not to exceed the maximum that could have been permitted on the fathering parcel. c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. The variances provided in Section 26.415.120(B)(1)(a),(b), and (c) are only permitted on the parcels that will contain a historic structure. The FAR bonus will be added to the maximum FAR allowed on the original parcel. Staff Finding: No variances can be granted for the vacant new lot under the HPC review criteria, however the applicant may request setback variances under hardship criteria as a result of the large tree on this lot. RECOMMENDATION: Staff and HPC recommend that Council approve the request for a Historic Landmark Lot Split at 701 W. Main Street on Second Reading. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance #4, Series of 2005, granting a Historic Landmark Lot Split for 701 W. Main Street." CITY MANAGER Exhibits: Ordinance No.~, Series of 2005 A. Application 7 ORDINANCE NO. 4 (SERIES OF 2005) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR A HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT AT 701 W. MAIN STREET, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel ID #:2735-124-46-004 WHEREAS, the applicants, Marshall and Susan Olsen, have requested a Historic Landmark Lot Split for the property located at 701 W. Main Street, Lots H and I, less the west 2.35 feet of Lot H, Block 19, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, in order to complete a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the applicant shall meet the following requirements of Aspen Municipal Code: Section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section 26.470.070(C), and Section 26.415.010(D.), which are as follows: 26.480.030(A)(2), Subdivision Exemptions, Lot Split The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the following conditions are met: a) The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969; and b) No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.040(A)(1)(c). c) The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split' exemption pursuant to Section 26.100.040(C)(1)(a); and d) A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100. e) Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. f) In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. g) Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home; and 26.480.030(A)(4), Subdivision Exemptions, Historic Landmark Lot Split The split of a lot that is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures for the development of one new single-family dwelling may receive a subdivision exemption if it meets the following standards: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand (6,000) square feet in size and be located in the R-6, R-I5, R-15A, RMF, or O zone district. b. The total FAR for both residences shall be established by the size of the parcel and the zone district where the property is located. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. [n the Office zone district, the following shall apply to the calculation of maximum floor area for lots created through the historic landmark lot split. Note that the total FAR shall not be stated on the Subdivision Exemption Plat because the floor area will be affected by the use established on the property: If all buildings on what was the fathering parcel remain wholly residential in use, the maximum floor area will be as stated in the R-6 zone district. If any portion of a building on a lot created by the historic landmark lot split is in commerciaUoffice use, then the allowed floor area for that lot shall be the floor area allowed for all uses other than residential in the zone district. If the adjacent parcel created by the lot split remains wholly in residential use, then the floor area on that parcel shall be limited to the maximum allowed on a lot of its size far residential use according to the R-6 standards. If there is commerciaUoffice use on both newly created lots, the maximum floor area for all uses other than residential in the zone district will be applied. c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. The variances provided in Section 26.415.120(B)(1)(a),(b), and (c) are only permitted on the parcels that will contains a historic structure. The FAR bonus will be applied to the maximum FAR allowed on the original parcel; and 26.470.070(C), GMOS Exemption, Historic Landmark Lot Split The construction of each new single-family dwelling on a lot created through review and approval of an Historic Landmark Lot Split shall be exempt from the scoring and competition procedures. The exemption is to be approved by the Community Development Director, but is not to be deducted from the respective annual development allotments or from the development ceilings; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director reviewed and recommended approval of the application, finding that the applicable review standards have been met; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 8, 2004, the Historic Preservation Commission recommended, by a five to zero (5-0) vote, that City Council approve a Historic Landmark Lot Split at 701 W. Main Street; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 23, 2005, the Historic Preservation Commission recommended, by a six to zero (6-0) vote, that City Council approve an amended version of the Historic Landmark Lot Split at 701 W. Main Street; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.415.110 of the Municipal Code, the City Council may approve a Historic Landmark Lot Split Subdivision Exemption during a duly noticed public hearing after taking and considering comments from the general public and recommendations from the Historic Preservation Commission (hereinafter HPC) and Community Development Director; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1 Pursuant to Sections 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section 26.470.070(C), and Section 26.415.110(A) of the Municipal Code, and subject to those conditions of approval as specified herein, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the subdivision exemption: 1. The applicant's submission is complete and sufficient to afford review and evaluation for approval; and 2. The subdivision exemption is consistent with the purposes of subdivision as outlined in Section 26.480 of the Municipal Code, which purposes include: assist in the orderly and efficient development of the City; ensure the proper distribution of development; encourage the well-planned subdivision of land by establishing standards for the design of a subdivision; improve land records and survey monuments by establishing standards for surveys and plats; coordinate the construction of public facilities with the need for public facilities; safeguard the interests of the public and the subdivider and provide consumer protection for the purchaser; acquire and ensure the maintenance of public open spaces and parks, provide procedures so that development encourages the preservation of important and unique natural or scenic features, including but not limited to mature trees or indigenous vegetation, bluff, hillsides, or similar geologic features, or edges of rivers and other bodies of water, and, promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen. Section 2 Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section 1, above, the City Council does hereby grant a Historic Landmark Lot Split Subdivision Exemption for 701 W. Main Street, Lots H and 1, less the west 2.35 feet of Lot H, Block 19, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado with the following conditions: 1. A subdivision exemption plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall: a. Meet the requirements of Section 26.480 of the Aspen Municipal Code; b. Contain a plat note stating that the lots contained therein shall be prohibited from further subdivision and any development of the lots will comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; a Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the Office zone district, except the variances approved by the HPC. d. Contain a plat note stating that the lot that does not contain the historic structure must be developed as a single family residence. e. Contain a plat note stating that the FAR on the two lots created by this lot split shall be based on the use of the buildings. The maximum FAR for each lot may be affected by applicable lot area reductions (i.e., slopes, access easements, etc.). The applicant shall verify with the City Zoning Officer the total allowable FAR on each lot, taking into account any and all applicable lot area reductions. The property shall be subdivided into two parcels, corner Lot A, which is 2,565 square feet in size, and interior Lot B, which is 3,200 square feet in size. f The total FAR developed on Lots A and B cannot exceed the 4,324 square feet that would have been allowed on the fathering parcel. Lot A has vested rights to 1,924 square feet of development based on the Conceptual approval granted by HPC on March 23, 2005. Lot B shall be subject to the residential floor area allowances in place at the time the application was submitted (May 27, 2004) for a period of three years from the date of adoption of this ordinance. Lot B's floor area shall not exceed 2,400 square feet. g. A tree removal permit shall not be issued for the large spruce tree at the front of the lot unless Parks determines that the tree is unhealthy or a hazard. 2. Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter -The site is located on Main Street, where pedestrian improvements are an important goal. The applicant must refer to the City Engineering Department for required Sidewalk, Curb, and Gutter requirements appropriate to this site. Section 3: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5: A public hearing on the ordinance was held on the 28`h day of March, 2005 and the 11`x' day of April, 2005, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. Section 7: This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final passage. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the IOth day of January, 2005. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 11th day of April, 2005. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: John P. Worcester, City Attorney Land Use Application THE CITY OF ASPEN Name: (~/ C~( Location: ~ (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and boun s descripti n of property) Pa~~cel ID # (REQUIRED) ,~ ~ ~ UO r rrnnrr• Name ~ ' ~ ~ ~ - Address: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Phone #: ~- - (~ Fax#: ('j ~- E-mail: ,~d ~'c 'RESENTATIVE: me: dress: one #: Fax#: E-mail: r re>; ~r arrr.icArwN: ~piease cnecx aii tnat apply) ^ Historic Designation Relocation (temporary, on or off-site) ^ Certificate of No Negative Effect ~ Demolition (total demolition) ^ Certificate of Appropriateness ^ Historic Landmark Lot Split ^ -Minor Historic Development ^ -Major Historic Development ' ^ -Conceptual Historic Development ^ -Final Historic Development ^ -Substantial .Amendment tsTmc CONDITIONS: (descri tion of existin buildings, ses, evious a vals, etc. ~c ~ RETAIN FOR PERMANENT RECORD Main Street -- O ~ ~ BASIS OF BEARING S 75°09'11" E 270.02' DITCH - -----------------------------.. 1510 _ , 57.65' ___ ~ ~ , i ' I i i i i 57 7i3s , i x s ~ i i i 37 0" i 25'-T~s' I i '. I i i i i i i i i i I I I ~ ~ o v ~,~ ~ ~Z m A' LOT'B' HISTORIC 'A ~ a ~ 3,200 s.f. i ~ LOT 'A' ~ o 2,565 s.f. ~ ° i i o l ALLOWABLE I ALLOWABLE i o o' FAR SINGLE i FAR MIXED ' FAMILY LOT I USE LOT ' = 2,456 sq.ft. ~ 2,565 x .75 ' = 1,923.75 sq.ft. I H i ,~ I , i ' ,_ , a i i m i BLOCK 19 ', City of Aspen --~---------------I-~--------------~ S 75°09'11" E 57.65' 15X10 Public Alley ~~~~ ' 701 WEST MAIN STREET HISTORIC LOT SPLIT PLAN A NagleHatlrey0ankerKaganMCKayPanney I """""`"° ASPEN, COLORADO 1 MARCH 2005 o,.«.g ~ a. Main Street C) ~ BASIS OF BEARING S 75°09'11" E 270.02' _________________ DITCH - 57.65' _ 1510 ~~ ~ - ~_-___.____ __ ExISTING FENCE ~ I TO BE REMOVED ~ ~~., i o ~ ii I ~ ~ l I , I i I ro AI I " I ml I I EXI STING TREE I 1'-6 I 57~_71~fi1 1 I i " ~ ~ ' ' , 37 0 ~ 25 7"~y I ~ I '. I ..., II , _ d~-_ --~- ' I I I ~, ~ I ~ I ~, ' ~ --~_ BiR P~2TION ~ i~ I I ~ I o 'I i BE RE4DCATED I I ~ I 2 i i I I i °'i _____ i___-____i ~ ~ Q ' ~ ~ i ~ ~ I I ~' i I I I l i O~E STOR ~ I ' H i I ~ ~ ~ ~ HOUSE , ~ I '701' ~ I I ~~ I i [n I i - N F,. iDIN ~ Aj IZ i _ pl _ i rT.i 1 N_i IA ~ ^I I I ~ i MIDDLE PDR710N ~ I o I ~i A m l I I i i0 (~E RELO"~A1ED I ~ ~ gal a I ~I ~ ~I ~ O ~ col i o I ' I , I ' , i' I I I I O i < I , a o - I I (- ~_.i _______1____- __i z I ~ I I t I ' I I ~ SOUtH POR ON I I ' - -I--, ~ r0 BE RELO ATED i ___-~-- ' __ __ ___ - WgLK I _F.._______ _J i I ~ I I ~ ~ I I 6.2' ~ I ~ ~________ I I , _________. ~ ' I ' 4 I - ___ y______ I ~ 2Q5 ~ ' L. ~ I I ~ ( ~ H~ ~ I ~ ~ I ~_- I _ ~ ~ , ` I ~ o ~ ExISrINC FENCE ~ I~~EXISTING FENC~_ ~ p1 \ TO BE REMOVED \ TO BE REMOVEO ~',, I - ' ~ I /~ EXISTING TREE i I ' ~ ~ ~ '° I I ~ / TO BE ftEMOVEO t i ~<' I I i I 14.0' ~ II I J I ~__ _ _ _ r- ~ ~----.- _.-_-_ i ____________ / WALK iN J I i ~ BLOC~{C ~9 i II _ ____________ ___ ]I `T ~ 2~.0' J i ~~ NI I City of Asper} V I 1 ;~ ~ - ~~ , f I I I ly ~ EXISTING AHED TO BE DEMOLISHED , ~ ~ I I I ' I --t,-_l ii __ __.~__ _ - ~__ _ _ __ _ 387 I ~, i, ______~__~____~____ _____ __ _____~--- I ... _... I K7--~_ _ _.. - S 75°09'11' E 57.65' 1i~ 15T °•• Public Alley eu,E,~ .,-0 NagleHanr EyDankerKaganMCKayPenney ' 701 WEST MAIN STREET HISTORIC DEM08 ^ "°`"" ""° ASPEN, COLORADO RELOCATION PLAN L 1 MARCH 2005 0."..,~azaz rn -~ rn fTT ~_ Z O N rn @rn Ax nN F= nc ~N T Ai Zp r A O N D Am x ON Ati ~m 4 Y O z N m Y 3 m D r U C z R r C Z U~ rn JAKG VIGKGRY ARLHITGGTS 30] CAST MAIN ST. MEMORANDUM ~ ~~ TO: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director I IIVIn/~ RE: Lodging Zone District Amendments VVV~~' • Y J • Lodge Zone District (currently LTR District) • Commercial Lodge District • Lodge Overlay District • Lodge Preservation Overlay District ^ DeSnition of "Lodge" Second Reading of Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2005 (cont. from 3.14.05) DATE: April 11, 2005 SUMMARY: At the previous hearing on this item, proceeding back into public heazings. booked until the new Council is seated. April 19 -are available if Council v additional work session. Council requested a work session prior to The work session schedule is essentially Two dates -Monday April 18 and Tuesday ants to schedule one of these dates for an Staff would like direction on whether this item should be scheduled for a work session on either the 18"' or 19"' or if it should be postponed to a later date in mid- summer. If one of the earlier dates work, then staff suggests this item be continued to April 25"'. Otherwise, staff recommends continuing the item to July 25`h CITY l~' RECOMMENDED MOTION: "1 move to continue Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2005, to [date]." 1 ~-I.d. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer~~ RE: Code Amendments Section 26.510, Signs, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2005. DATE: April 11, 2005-Continued from March 14, 2005 and March 28, 2005 SUMMARY: During the March 28, 2005 hearing on Code Amendments to Section 26.510, City Council directed staff to modify the code based on some outstanding issues that came out the Planning and Zoning Commission. These issues included: • Number of special events signs • The policy on banners and flags on the Main St. light posts • The policy on sale signs • Sandwich board regulations • Window displays in vacant storefronts Staff has made modifications to the ordinance per Council's direction and included the following languages in the sandwich board regulations to increase staff enforcement capabilities: a. The Zoning Officer shall take into consideration safety issues with regards to the placement of the sign. b. The sign shall have a professional finish and be consistent with the community character. c. Permits for sandwich board signs shall be revocable by the Zoning Officer if the above criteria are not met or, in the opinion of the Zoning Officer, the sign creates a visual nuisance. Staff believes the above criteria will enable the Zoning Officer to effectively enforce unsafe and unsightly signs. Staff has also added a sunset provision in one (1) year specifically for the sandwich board signs. APPLICANT: City of Aspen Community Development Department. PROCEDURE: Pursuant to Section 26.310.020, Procedure for Amendment, a development application for an amendment to the text of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval by the Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing, STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approved the proposed amendments. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Section 26.510, Signs, as proposed in the Community Development Department memorandum." CITY MANAGER'S Attachments: Exhibit A: Review Standards ORDINANCE N0. 10 (SERIES OF 2005) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING CODE AMENDMENTS TO THE FOLLOWING SECTION: 26.510, SIGNS, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department initiated code amendment changes to the above cited sections; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.310.040, the City Council, in accordance with the procedures, standards, and limitations of this Chapter, shall by ordinance approve, approve with conditions, or deny a Code Amendment application for Amendment to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, after recommendation by the Community Development Department pursuant to Section 26.430.020; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the Code Amendments to the above cited sections pursuant to Section 26.310.040 and recommended approval; and, WHEREAS, during a public hearing on January 18, 2005, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended, by a four to zero (4-0) vote, the City Council approve the amendments to Section 26.510; and, WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing, considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director and took public testimony for code amendments to Section 26.510; and, WHEREAS, City Council finds that the code amendments meet or exceed all applicable amendment standards and that the approval of the code amendments, are consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Code Amendment sections initiated by the Community Development Department are approved as noted below: CHAPTER 26.510 SIGNS Sections: 26.510.010 Purpose. 26.510.020 Applicability and scope. 26.510.030 Procedure for sign permit approval. 26.510.040 Prohibited signs. 26.510.050 Sign measurement. 26.510.060 Sign setback. 26.510.070 Sign illumination. 26.510.080 Sign lettering, logos and graphic designs. 26.510.090 Structural characteristics. 26.510.100 Nonconforming signs. 26.510.110 Signs on public right-of--way. 26.510.120 Temporary signs. 26.510.130 Zone district sign restrictions. 26.510.140 Window displays. 26.510.010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to promote the public health, safety and welfare through a comprehensive system of reasonable, effective, consistent, content-neutral, and nondiscriminatory sign standards and requirements. Toward this end, the City Council finds that the City of Aspen is an historic mountain resort community that has traditionally depended on a tourist economy. Tourists, in part, are attracted to the visual quality and character of the city. Signage has a significant impact on the visual character and quality of the city. The proliferation of signs in the city would result in visual blight and unattractiveness and would convey an image that is inconsistent with a high quality resort environment. Effective sign control has preserved and enhanced the visual character of other resort communities in Colorado and other states. The City of Aspen must compete with many other Colorado, national and international resort communities for tourism opportunities. In order to preserve the City of Aspen as a desirable community in which to live, vacation and conduct business, a pleasing, visually attractive environment is of foremost importance. These sign regulations are intended to: A. Preserve and maintain the City of Aspen as a pleasing, visually attractive environment. B. Promote and accomplish the goals, policies and objectives of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. C. Enhance the attractiveness and economic well-being of the City of Aspen as a place to live, vacation and conduct business. D. Address community needs relating to upgrading the quality of the tourist experience, preserving the unique natural environment, preserving and enhancing the high quality human existence, retaining the city's premier status in an increasingly competitive resort market, preserving the historically and architecturally unique character of the city, fostering the "village style" quality of the city, and preserving and enhancing scenic views. E. Enable the identification of places of residence and business. F. Allow for the communication of information necessary for the conduct of commerce. G. Encourage signs that are appropriate to the zone district in which they are located and consistent with the category of use to which they pertain. H. Permit signs that are compatible with their surroundings and aid orientation, and preclude placement in a manner that conceals or obstructs adjacent land uses or signs. L Preclude signs from conflicting with the principal permitted use of the site or adjoining sites. J. Curtail the size and number of signs and sign messages to the minimum reasonably necessary to identify a residential or business location and the nature of any such business. K. Establish sign size in relationship to the scale of the lot's street frontage and building's street frontage along which the sign is to be placed. L. Protect the public from the dangers of unsafe signs, and require signs to be constructed, installed and maintained in a safe and satisfactory manner. M. Lessen hazardous situations, confusion and visual clutter caused by proliferation, improper placement, illumination, animation and excessive height, area and bulk of signs which compete for the attention of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. N. Regulate signs in a manner so as to not interfere with, obstruct vision of, or distract motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians. 26.510.020 Applicability and scope. This Chapter shall apply to all signs of whatever nature and wherever located within the City of Aspen except for the Aspen Highlands Village PUD. Sign regulations for Aspen Mountain PUD were approved as City Council Ordinance 43, Series of 2003. No sign shall be allowed except as permitted by this Chapter. 26.510.030 Procedure for sign permit approval. A. Permit required. It shall be unlawful to erect, place, construct, reconstruct, or relocate any sign without first obtaining a sign permit from the Chief Building Official. B. Exempt signs. The following signs or sign activities shall be exempt from obtaining a sign permit. Exemptions shall not be construed as relieving the applicant and owner of the sign from the responsibility of complying with all applicable provisions of this Title. The exemption shall apply to the requirement for a sign permit under this Section. 1. Preventive maintenance. The ordinary preventative maintenance of a lawfully existing sign which does not involve a change of placement, size, lighting, color or height. 2. Repainting. The repainting of a lawfully existing sign exactly as it was prior to such activity. 3. Banners, pennants, streamers, and balloons and other gas-filled figures. Temporary banners, pennants, streamers, balloons and inflatables shall be permitted per Section 26.510.110(B), Policies Regarding Signage on Public Property. Streamers and balloons shall be permitted in association with a retail special event or sale of limited duration. 4. Construction signs. One freestanding or wall sign along each lot line frontage on a street for a site under construction not to exceed a total of two (2) signs per site, which do not exceed six (6) square feet in area per sign, which are not illuminated, and which identify individuals or companies involved in designing, constructing, financing or developing a site under construction. Such signs may be erected and maintained only for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days prior to commencement of construction and shall be removed within fourteen (14) days of termination of construction. A graphic design painted on a construction barricade shall be permitted in addition to such signs, provided it does not identify or advertise a person, product, service or business. 5. Directional or instructional signs. Signs, not exceeding six (6) inches by thirty (30) inches in area, which provide direction or instruction to guide persons to 4 facilities intended to serve the public. Such signs include those identifying restrooms, public telephones, public walkways, public entrances, freight entrances, affiliation with motor clubs, acceptance of designated credit cards, and other similar signs providing direction or instruction to persons using a facility but not including those signs accessory to parking areas. Advertising material of any kind is strictly prohibited on directional and instructional signs. 6. Fine art. Works of fine art which in no way identify or advertise a person, product, service or business. 7. Flags. Flags, emblems and insignia of political or religious organizations providing such flags, emblems and insignia are displayed for noncommercial purposes. 8. Government signs. Signs placed or erected by governmental agencies or nonprofit civic associations for a public purpose in the public interest, for control of traffic and for other regulatory purposes, street signs, warning signs, railroad crossing signs, signs of public service companies indicating danger, and aids to service and safety which are erected by, or for the order of government. 9. Historic designation. Signs placed on a historic building identifying the structure as a property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, which sign shall be a wall sign not to exceed six (6) square feet in area. 10. Holiday decorations. Noncommercial signs or other materials temporarily displayed on traditionally accepted civic, patriotic, and/or religious holidays, provided that such decorations are maintained in safe condition and do not constitute a fire hazard. 11. Incidental signs on vehicles. Signs placed on or affixed to vehicles or trailers where the sign is incidental to the primary use of the vehicle or trailer. This is in no way intended to permit signs placed on or affixed to vehicles or trailers which are parked on a public right-of--way, public property, or private property so as to be visible from a public right-of-way where the apparent purpose is to advertise a product, service or activity, or direct people to a business or activity located on the same or nearby property. 12. Interior signs. Signs which are fully located within the interior of any building, or within an enclosed lobby or court of any building, which are not visible from the public right-of--way, adjacent lots or areas outside the building, and signs not to exceed 30" x 42", located within the inner or outer lobby, court, or entrance of any theatre which are intended solely for information relating to the interior operation of the building in which they are located. 13. Mail boxes, including street address. 14. Memorial signs. Memorial plaques or tablets, grave mazkers, statutory declaring names of buildings and date of erection when cut into any masonry surface or when constructed of bronze or other incombustible materials, or other remembrances of persons or events that are noncommercial in nature. i 5. Menu signs and real estate picture boxes. One sign per use, with an area not to exceed four (4) square feet, with a height not to exceed the eave lines or parapet wall of that portion of the principal building in which the use to which the sign applies is located, and which advertises and/or identifies a restaurant menu, drinks, or foods offered, or special activities incidental to drink and food service, or real estate offering. 16. Public notices. Official government notices and legal notices. 17. Residential name and address signs. One freestanding or wall sign per detached dwelling unit or duplex unit, with an area not exceeding two (2) square feet, which identifies the name of the occupant and the street address of the dwelling unit. 18. Shielded light in architectural design that complies with Section 26.575.150. 19. Vending machine signs. Permanent, nonflashing signs on vending machines, gasoline pumps, ice or milk containers, or other similar machines indicating only the contents of such devices, the pricing of the contents contained within, directional or instructional information as to use, and other similar information. 20. Residential name and address signs. Every detached residential dwelling unit or duplex unit may have mailbox or wall signs with an area not to exceed two (2) square feet to identify the street address and the name(s) of the occupants. 21. Security signs. Every parcel may display security signs not to exceed an area of six inches wide by six inches long (6" x 6"). Security signs may contain a message, logo, or symbol alerting the public to the presence of a security system on the premises. Security signs shall be of a neutral color. Security signs may not be placed in the City right-of--way. 22. Timeshare identification signs. A building that is approved for exempt timesharing, pursuant to Section 26.590.030, shall have awall-mounted sign with an area not exceeding two (2) square feet, stating that it has been approved for timesharing and identifying the name and phone number of a contact person or management entity for the property. C. Application. A development application for a sign permit shall include the following information: 1. That information required on the form provided by the Community Development Director; 2. A letter of consent from the owner of the building; 3. Proposed location of the sign on the building or parcel; 4. A blueprint or ink drawing of the plans, specifications, and method of construction of the sign and its supports, showing proposed dimensions, materials, and colors and the type, intensity, and design of the sign's illumination, if any; and 5. The dimensions, measurements, and calculations of building frontages and line frontages on streets and alleys; the dimensions of any other sign located on the property; and any other information needed to calculate permitted sign area, height, type, placement or other requirements of these regulations. D. Determination of completeness. Afer a development application for a sign permit has been received, the Community Development Director shall determine whether the application is complete. If the Community Development Director determines that the application is not complete, written notice shall be served on the applicant specifying the deficiencies. The Community Development Director shall take no further action on the application unless the deficiencies are remedied. If the application is determined complete, the Community Development Director shall notify the applicant of its completeness. A determination of completeness shall not constitute a determination of compliance with the substantive requirements of this Chapter. E. Determination of compliance. After reviewing the application and determining its compliance and consistency with the purposes, requirements and standards in this Chapter, the Community Development Director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the development application for a sign permit. 26.510.040 Prohibited signs. The following signs are expressly prohibited for erection, construction, repair, alteration, relocation or placement in the City of Aspen. A. "A" frame, sandwich board and sidewalk or curb signs except as allowed per Section 26.510.130(D)(1)(e). B. Billboards and other off-premise signs. Billboards and other off-premise signs, including security company signs which do not comply with the regulations set forth in Section 26.510.040(B)(20), and signs on benches, are prohibited, except as a temporary sign as provided for in Section 26.510.120. C. Flashing signs. Signs with lights or illuminations which flash, move, rotate, scintillate, blink, flicker, vary in intensity, vary in color, or use intermittent electrical pulsations. D. Moving signs. Signs with visible moving, revolving, rotating parts, or visible mechanical movement of any description or other apparent visible movement achieved 7 by electrical, electronic or mechanical means, including automatic electronically controlled copy changes. E. Ncon and other gas-filled light tubes. Neon lights, televisions used for advertising or information and other gas-filled light tubes, except when used for indirect illumination and in such a manner as to not be directly exposed to public view. F. Obsolete signs. A sign which identifies or advertises an activity, business, product, service or special event no longer produced, conducted, performed or sold on the premises upon which such sign is located. Such obsolete signs are hereby declared a nuisance and shall be taken down by the owner, agent or person having the beneficial use of such sign within ten (10) days after written notification from the Community Development Director, and upon failure to comply with such notice within the time specified in such order, the Community Development Director is hereby authorized to cause removal of such sign, and any expense incident thereto shall be paid by the owner of the property on which the sign was located. That an obsolete sign is nonconforming shall not modify any of the requirements of this paragraph. Signs of historical character shall not be subject to the provisions of this section: For the purpose of this section, historical signs are defined to be those signs at least fifty (50) years in age or older. G. Portable and wheeled signs except as allowed per Section 26.510.130(D)(1)(e). H. Roof signs. Search lights or beacons. J. Signs causing direct glare. A sign or illumination that causes any direct glare into or upon any public right-of--way, adjacent lot, or building other than the building to which the sign may be accessory. K. Signs containing untruthful or misleading information. L. Signs creating optical illusion. Signs with optical illusion of movement by means of a design which presents a pattern capable of reversible perspective, giving the illusion of motion or changing of copy. M. Signs obstructing egress. A sign which obstructs any window or door opening used as a means of egress, prevents free passage from one part of a roof to any other part, interferes with an opening required for legal ventilation, or is attached to or obstructs any standpipe, fire escape or fire hydrant. N. Signs on parked vehicles. Signs placed on or affixed to vehicles and/or trailers which are parked on a public right-of--way, public property, or private property so as to be visible from a public right-of--way where the apparent purpose is to advertise a product, service or activity or direct people to a business or activity located on the same or nearby property. However, this is not in any way intended to prohibit signs placed on or affixed to vehicles and trailers, such as lettering on motor vehicles, where the sign is incidental to the primary use of the vehicle or trailer. O. Signs in public right-of way. A sign in, on, over or above a public right-of-way that in any way interferes with normal or emergency use of that right-of-way. Any sign allowed in a public right-of--way may be ordered removed by the Community Development Director upon notice if the normal or emergency use of that right-of-way is changed to require its removal. P. Strings of light and strip lighting. Strip lighting outlining commercial structures and used to attract attention for commercial purposes, and strings of light bulbs used in any connection with commercial premises unless the lights shall be shielded. Q. Unsafe signs. Any sign which: 1. Is structurally unsafe; 2. Constitutes a hazard to safety or health by reason of inadequate maintenance or dilapidation; 3. Is not kept in good repair; Is capable of causing electrical shocks to persons likely to come into contact with it; 5. In any other way obstructs the view of, may be confused with, or purports to be an official traffic sign, signal or device or any other official government regulatory or informational sign; (. Uses any words, phrases, symbols or characters implying the existence of danger or the need for stopping or maneuvering of a motor vehicle, or creates, in any other way, an unsafe distraction for vehicle operators or pedestrians; 7. Obstructs the view of vehicle operators or pedestrians entering a public roadway from any parking area, service drive, public driveway, alley or other thoroughfare; 8. Is located on trees, rocks, light poles, or utility poles, except where required by law; or 9. Is located so as to conflict with the clear and open view of devices placed by a public agency for controlling traffic or which obstructs a motorist's clear view of an intersecting road, alley or major driveway. R. Street blimps. Parked or traveling cars used primarily for advertising, sometimes referred to as "street blimps," are prohibited. Vehicle signage incidental to the vehicle's primary use is exempt. (Ord. No. 55-2000, § 13; Ord. No. 11-2001, § 1) S. Banners and pennants used for commercial purposes not associated with a special event approved by the Special Events Committee approval per Section 26.510.110(B). 26.510.050 Sign measurement. A. General. In calculating the area allowance for signs in all zone districts, there shall be taken into account all signs allowed therein including window decals and signs identifying distinctive features and regional or national indications of approval of facilities. B. Sign area. Sign area shall be the area of the smallest geometric figure which encompasses the facing of a sign including copy, insignia, background and borders, provided that cut-out letter signs shall be considered wall signs and their aggregate area shall be credited toward allowable sign area at one-half (1/2) the measured area. C. Two or more faces. Where a sign has two (2) or more faces, the area of all faces shall be included in determining the area of the sign, except where two (2) such faces are placed back to back and are at no point more than two (2) feet from one another. The area of the sign shall betaken as the area of the face if the two (2) faces are of equal area, or as the area of the larger face if the two (2) faces are of unequal area. 26.510.060 Sign setback. Signs are not subject to the setback requirements of the zone district where they are located. 26.510.070 Sign illumination. A. Prohibited illumination. No sign shall be illuminated through the use of internal illumination, rear illumination, fluorescent illumination or neon or other gas tube illumination, except when used for indirect illumination and in such a manner as to not be directly exposed to public view. B. Shielding illumination. Illumination of signs shall be designed, located, shielded and directed in such a manner that the light source is fixed and is not directly visible from, and does not cast glare or direct light from artificial illumination upon, any adjacent public right-of--way, surrounding property, residential property or motorist's vision. Illumination shall comply with Section 26.575.150. 26.510.080 Sign lettering, logos and graphic designs. 10 A. Lettering. No lettering on any sign, including cut-out letter signs, shall exceed twelve (12) inches in height, except that the initial letter in each word shall not exceed eighteen (18) inches in height. B. Logos. No logo on any sign, including cut-out letter signs, shall exceed eighteen (18) inches in height and eighteen (18) inches in length. 26.510.090 Structural characteristics. The following limitations shall apply to all freestanding, projecting and wall signs A. Freestanding signs. Freestanding signs shall not be higher than the principal building or fifteen (] 5) feet, whichever is less, and shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet above grade when located adjacent to a pedestrian way. B. Projecting signs. Projecting signs shall not be higher than the eave line or parapet wall of the top of the principal building, shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet above grade when located adjacent to or projecting over a pedestrian way and shall not extend more than four (4) feet from the building wall to which they are attached, except where such sign is an integral part of an approved canopy or awning. C. Wall signs. Wall signs shall not be higher than the eave line or parapet wall of the top of the principal building, and no sign part, including cut-out letters, shall project more than six (6) inches from the building wall. 26.510.100 Nonconforming signs. Nonconforming signs which were in existence on or before May 25, 1988, shall be discontinued on or before November 25, 1988. 26.510.11.0 Signs`on public right-of--way. A.It shall be unlawful to erect or maintain any sign in, on, over or above any land or right-of--way or on any property, including lightposts, belonging to the City of Aspen without the permission of the City Councilor in compliance with Section 26.510.110(6), Policies Regarding Signage on Public Property. However, this section shall not be deemed to apply to signs posted by any duly constituted public authorities in the performance of their public duties, or to specific circumstances otherwise provided for in this Chapter. B. Policies Regarding Signage on Public Property 1. Furpose of Regulations. The purpose of these regulations is to establish reasonable regulations for the posting of temporary signs, displays, and banners on certain public property. The regulations herein include (a) Signage on public rights-of- way, (b) banners and flags on light posts on Main Street, (c) signs in City Parks, (d) displays in City Parks, (e) signs hung across Main Street at Third Street and (f) signs on public buildings. These regulations shall be read in conjunction with Chapter 26.510 of 11 the Aspen Municipal Land Use Code and are not intended to supercede the regulations of signs as set forth therein. Temporary signs and displays provide an important medium through which individuals may convey a variety of noncommercial and commercial messages. However, left completely unregulated, temporary signs and displays can become a threat to public safety as a traffic hazard and detrimental to property values and the City's overall public welfare as an aesthetic nuisance. These regulations are intended to supplement Chapter 26.510 of the Aspen Municipal Land Use Code and to assist City staff to implement the regulations adopted by the Aspen City Council. These regulations are adopted to: a. balance the rights of individuals to convey their messages through temporary signs or displays and the right of the public to be protected against unrestricted proliferation of signs and displays; b. further the objectives of Chapter 26.510 of the Aspen Municipal Land Use Code; and, c. ensure the fair and consistent enforcement of the sign and display regulations specified below. Section 26.510.110 of the Aspen Municipal Land Use Code states, "it shall be unlawful to erect or maintain any sign in, on, over or above any land or right-of--way or on any property, including light posts, belonging to the City of Aspen without the permission of the City Council." Sign permits issued by the City Manager, or his designee, that are in conformance with these regulations shall constitute City Council permission within the meaning of Section 26.510.110 of the Aspen Municipal Code. Applications for sign permits that do not comply with these regulations shall be forwarded to the City Council for consideration if requested by the applicant. 2. Definitions. Unless otherwise indicated, the definitions of words used in these regulations shall be the same as the definitions used in Chapter 26.510 of the Aspen Municipal Land Use Code. In addition, the following definitions shall apply: Banner means any sign of lightweight fabric, plastic, or similar material that is attached to any structure, pole, line or vehicle and possessing characters, letters, illustrations or ornamentations. Banner, Light post means any sign of lightweight fabric, plastic, or similar material that is attached to a light post and possessing characters, letters, illustrations or ornamentations which meets the dimensional requirements for and is intended to be installed on municipal light posts. Display means any symbol or object that does not meet the definition of a sign as defined in the Aspen Municipal Code> but like a sign is intended to convey a message to the public. 12 Flag means any fabric or bunting containing distinctive colors, patterns or symbols, used as a symbol of a government, political subdivision or other entity which meets the dimensional requirements and is intended to be installed on municipal light posts. Public right-of-way means the entire area between property boundaries which is owned by a government, dedicated to the public use, or impressed with an easement for public use; which is primarily used for pedestrian or vehicular travel; and which is publicly maintained, in whole or in part, for such use; and includes without limitation the street, gutter, curb, shoulder, sidewalk, sidewalk area, parking or parking strip, pedestrian malls, and any public way. Sign means and includes the definition for sign as contained in Section 26.104.100 of the Aspen Municipal Code. The term shall also include "displays" as that term is defined above. Sign, Inflatable means any inflatable shape or figure designed or used to attract attention to a business event or location. Inflatable promotional devices shall be considered to be temporary signs under the terms of this Chapter and, where applicable, subject to the regulations thereof. Signs on Public Rights of Way a. Purpose: The purpose of this policy is to regulate signs permitted to be located temporarily in the public right-of--way. Temporary signs shall be permitted in public rights-of--way to advertise noncommercial special events open to the general public provided the following policies and procedures are followed. These regulations do not apply to banners on the Main Street light posts or hanging across Main Street that are subject to different regulations and criteria. b. Size/Number/Material: Only two (2) signs per event/organization shall be permitted. Signs shall not exceed ten (10) square feet each and banners shall not exceed fifty (50) square feet. Banners must be made of nylon, plastic, or similar type material. Paper signs and banners are prohibited. 13 c. Content: Signs authorized pursuant to this policy shall be limited to signs that advertise the name, date, time and location of a special event for noncommercial purposes. The City recognizes the success of special events often depends on commercial sponsorship. Therefore, the City shall allow signs that contain the name of the applicant and/or event, date, time, names and location of the event, as well as sponsorship names and logos; provided, however, that the total sponsorship information shall not be the most prominent information conveyed by the signs, and shall take up no more the 30% of the total area of the individual signs. d. Cost/Fees/Procedures:Applicants shall be required to pay the necessary fees for approval from the Special Events Committee. Any event not requiring review by the Special Events Committee shall submit a signs plan to the Community Development Department for review and approval for a fee as outlined in Chapter 2.12 of the Aspen Municipal Code. Applications must be received a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to the event. The applicant shall also submit a refundable security deposit as outlined in the current fee schedule to be applied to any damages, repairs or the cost of removal if not corrected/removed by the applicant within three (3) days. e. Eligibility: Signs authorized pursuant to this policy shall be limited to a special campaign, drive, activity or event of a civic, philanthropic, educational or religious organization for noncommercial purposes. f Duration: Temporary signs authorized pursuant to this section shall be erected and maintained for a period not to exceed fourteen (14) days prior to the date of which the campaign, drive or activity, or event advertised is scheduled to occur and shall be removed within three (3) days of the termination of such campaign, drive, activity or event. Small directional signs are permitted the day of the event only and must be removed immediately following said event. g. Maintenance: All signs and banners shall be maintained in an attractive manner, shall not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and shall not pose a safety risk to the public. h Exceptions: Any exceptions from the above requirements shall require City Council review and approval. 4. Banners and Flags on Main St. Light Posts 14 a. Purpose: Banners and flags hung from light posts on Main Street have Traditionally been permitted to celebrate very special events of community interest. The purpose of these policies and regulations is to clarify which events maybe celebrated and advertised through the use of banners or flags hung from the City-owned light posts on Main Street. Banners hung from the Main Street light posts shall be permitted for significant anniversaries beginning at the organization's tenth (10"') year and shall be allowed in five (5) year increments thereafter (15t , 20th, 25th etc.) of local non- profit organizations and for prominent local, regional, state or national events. Prominent local, regional, state or national events shall not include recurring annual events or events that are not considered significant to a large segment of the community. The United States, Colorado, Aspen, and foreign country flags shall be permitted at the discretion of the City Manager, Mayor or City Council. b Size/Number/Material: All proposed banners or flags should meet the City's specifications for size, mounting and material. Banners shall be 2' in width by 4' in height to be compatible with mounting system on the light posts. Banners and flags must be made of nylon, plastic or similar material. Paper is not allowed. c. Content: Banners shall only contain information identifying the event, the date and time or a simple graphic/logo related to the event. Any commercial advertising shall be minimized so that any commercial content is not the most prominent information conveyed on the banner or flag and shall be limited to no more than 30% of the area of the sign. The City reserves the right to request changes to the design, color or content in order to assist the applicant to comply with this requirement. d Cost/Fees/Procedures:The cost of installation is outlined in the current fee schedule set forth at Chapter 2.12 of the Aspen Municipal Code. A refundable security deposit as outlined in the current fee schedule shall be required to assure replacement of damaged banners and retrieval of the banners from the City (see Section H for maintenance requirements). The applicant shall be required to submit an application to the City Manager's office showing the dimensions, design and colors of the proposed banners or flags at least three (3) months prior to the event. Flags are required to be delivered to the City Parks Department one week prior to the event. Banners shall be delivered to the Utility Department on Fridays at least two (2) weeks prior to their installation. e. Eligibility: Only applications for significant anniversaries (25tH 50°i, 75"', and 100th) of local non-profit organizations shall be eligible for consideration pursuant to this policy. All other requests from other organizations or for other types of events shall be forwarded to City Council. f Duration: The display of banners and flags on the Main St. light posts shall not exceed fourteen (14) days or the duration of the event, whichever is less. IS g. Maintenance: Prior to the placement of banners or flags on City street light posts, the applicant shall provide to the City a number of replacement flags or banners to be determined by the City. These replacement flags or banners shall be used by the City to replace banners or flags that are stolen or damaged. The cost of replacing banners or flags shall be deducted from the security deposit. Once banners have been removed, the applicant shall be required to pick up the banners from the City within three (3) days. h. Priority: Banner and flag applications shall be handled on a first come, first serve basis. Applicants may be asked to alternate light posts with other organizations. The City reserves the right to prioritize City sponsored events over other applications. i. Exceptions: Any exceptions from the above requirements shall require City Council review and approval. 5. Signs in City of Aspen Parks Related to Special Events in the City Park. a. Purpose: Unattended signs are generally prohibited in City parks. Separate regulations apply to temporary unattended signs placed in Paepcke Park (See below for those regulations.) The purpose of this policy is to regulate unattended temporary signs that are permitted in limited circumstances in City parks. The City recognizes that unattended temporary signs may be a necessary element to many special events that are permitted in City parks in order to communicate general information to the public and advertise services, products and offerings as well as sponsorship of the special event. Accordingly, temporary unattended signs are permitted, subject to these policies, when the signs are connected to a special event at a City park for which a permit has been obtained from the City. Signs in City parks are typically temporary in nature, and review occurs through the Special Event Committee. b. Size/Number/Material: Unattended temporary signs located in City parks shall be limited in size to three (3) feet by six (6) feet. The number of signs oriented towards the event venue shall be limited to two signs per sponsor and the number of signs oriented towards the rights-of--way shall be limited to five (5) which shall not extent more than ten (10) feet above grade. Banners must be made of nylon, plastic or similar material. Paper banners and flags are prohibited. The Special Events Committee may approve one inflatable per event of no more than twenty (20) feet in height if a suitable on-site location can be provided and if there is a demonstrable community benefit. c. Content/Location: The sign's content may include general information (i.e. dates, times, locations of activities) as well as advertisement of services, products, offerings and sponsorship up to 30% of the area of the sign. Unattended temporary signs conveying a commercial message shall be set back at least ten (] 0) feet from the public right-of--way. 16 d. Cost/Fees/Procedures:Applicants shall be required to pay the necessary fees for approval from the Special Events Committee. Any event not requiring review by the Special Events Committee shall submit a sign plan to the Community Development Department for review and approval for a fee as outlined in the current fee schedule. The applicant shall also submit a refundable security deposit as outlined in the current fee ordinance to be applied to any damages, repairs or the cost of removal if not corrected/removed by the applicant within three (3) days. The applicant shall receive the necessary approval prior to the installation of any signs. Applications must be received no later than thirty (30) days prior to the event. e. Eligibility: Unattended temporary signs may be located in City parks only for the following reasons: a special campaign, drive, activity or event for a civic, philanthropic, educational or religious organization for noncommercial purposes for which a special event permit has been obtained from the City. An exception to this regulation is 6x30" directional signs for commercial organizations using City Parks. f. Duration: Unattended temporary signs may be erected and maintained only for the duration of the event, or forty-eight (48) hours, which ever is less. All signs must be removed immediately following the event. g. Maintenance: All signs must be maintained in an attractive manner, shall not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and shall not pose a safety risk to the public. A $50.00 refundable security deposit will be required to insure compliance. h. Exceptions: The Special Events Committee may grant exceptions to the size and number regulations if deemed an appropriate location and/or event. Included in its evaluation, the Special Events Committee shall consider if there is a demonstrable community benefit to the event. The Special Events Committee, at this discretion may send any requests for exceptions to Section 26.510.110(B)(5) to City Council for review and approval. 6. Unattended Temporary Signs in Paepcke Park a. Purpose: Unattended signs in public parks are prohibited with the exception to Paepcke Park. The purpose of this policy is to regulate the placement of unattended temporary signs in Paepcke Park that are civic, philanthropic, educational or religious in nature. b. Size/Number/Material: Applicants are limited to one sign that shall comply with the City of Aspen lighting and sign codes. The sign shall not to exceed fifty (50) square feet in size. A total of 4 signs shall be permitted in Paepcke Park at any single period of time and applications will be handled on a first come, first serve basis. c. Content/Location: The content of the display and any signs may not be commercial in nature. The applicant shall work with the City Parks Department to find an appropriate location so that there is minimal impact on the park. 17 Displays may not be affixed on or near the gazebo, and shall not obstruct the view of the gazebo from Main Street. d. Cost/Fees/Procedures:The applicant shall pay an application fee and a refundable security deposit as outlined in the current fee schedule to cover any damages caused by the installation, maintenance or removal of the sign. The applicant shall reimburse the Parks Department for any electric fees. An application shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review by the City Manager or his/her designee. Applications shall be received no later than thirty (30) days prior to the proposed installation of the object. e. Eligibility: Civic, philanthropic, education or religious non- profit organizations shall be eligible. The City reserves the right to deny any application for a sign that would interfere in City-sponsored activities in the park. f. Duration: Applicants are permitted to maintain their signs for no more then fourteen (14) days. g. Maintenance: All signs shall be maintained in an attractive manner, shall not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and shall not pose a safety risk to the public. The applicant must work with the City Parks Department regarding all maintenance issues. h. Exceptions: Any exceptions from the above requirements shall require City Council review and approval. 6. Signs Across Main Street at Third Street a. Purpose: The purpose of this policy is to regulate signs permitted to be located temporarily across the Main Street right-of--way at Third Street. Temporary signs shall be permitted in this location to advertise noncommercial special events open to the general public provided the following policies and procedures are followed. These regulations do not apply to banners on the Main Street light posts or signs other than those hanging across Main Street at Third Street. b. Size/Number/Material: Banners must consist of the following specifications: (1) any type of durable material; (2) semi-circular wind holes in banner (3) metal rivets at all corners, and every 24 inches along the top and bottom of the banner; (4) size will be twelve (12) feet in length and three (3) feet in width. 18 c. Content/Location: No commercial advertising will be allowed, except in cases where a sponsoring entity's name is part of the name of the event. In such cases the organization promoting the event may not construct the banner such that sponsoring entity's commercial name is the most overwhelming aspect of the banner and the sponsor's name and logo shall be limited to no more than 30% of area of the sign. Political advertising on or located in the public right-of-way on public property (even by a non-profit organization) is prohibited per Aspen Municipal Code 26.510.120 ~C)~2)~b)~2)~ d. Cost/Fees/Procedures: (1) A Main Street Banner Application and Banner Policy and Procedure form must be obtained from the City Manager's Office and completed by the party making the request and returned to the City Manager's Office no less than thirty (30) days prior to the date requested to hang the banner. (2) The exact legend of the banner must be indicated in writing (see specific area on application form). For your benefit, it is found that banners are most visually effective when kept simple: i.e.: event, date, organization and logo. (3) A fee of $50 per one-sided banner or $100 per double-sided banner, per week, must accompany the application form and be reviewed in the City Manager's Office 30 days prior to the date the banner will be hung. All organizations will be charged the same rate, accordingly. (4) All banners should be delivered directly to the City Electric Department, which is located in back of the post office at 219 Puppy Smith Road, by noon the Friday prior to the Monday hang date. Any banner not delivered by noon the prior Friday is subject to an additional $50 charge. (5)Please pick up the banner from the Electric Department within 30 days after the display week(s). The City of Aspen assumes no responsibility for banners and any banners left more than 30 days may be discarded. e Eligibility: The City of Aspen provides space to hang four (4) single-sided banners and two (2) double-sided banners across Main Street with the intent of advertising community events, be it for Arts Organizations or Non-Profits and/or Not- For-Profit Organizations. These six spaces are reserved on a first come, first serve basis. Reservations will be taken each year on November 1S` for the following year. The first organization to have their contract negotiated, signed and paid will be offered the banner space on a first come, first serve basis. f Duration: One banner, per event, may be hung for a maximum of 14 days, as per Municipal Code 26.510.030 (B)(3)(b). Banner approvals are not guaranteed and will only be hung upon availability of the Electric Department staff. The length of time that a banner is to be hung is not guaranteed, and may be shortened at the 19 discretion of the City. Based on his/her judgment as to the best interest of the City, the City Manager may determine which banners are to be given priority when there are multiple requests for the same time period. g. Maintenance: All banners shall be maintained in an attractive manner. h. Exceptions: Any exceptions from the above requirements shall require City Council review and approval. 7. Signs on Public Buildings a. Signs on public buildings shall be prohibited. 26.510.120 Temporary signs. A. General. No temporary sign is permitted within the city unless all other signs on the property upon which the temporary sign is to be erected, placed or affixed and the temporary sign itself conform to this Chapter. B. Residential uses and residential zone districts. For all residential uses and residential zone districts, only the following temporary signs are permitted, in addition to the signs permitted under Section 26.510.130, and then only if accessory and incidental to a permitted or conditional use: 1. Real estate for sale or rent sign. Temporary real estate signs advertising the sale or rental of the property upon which the sign is located, subject to the following: a. Type. The temporary real estate for sale or rent sign shall be a freestanding or wall sign. b. Number. There shall be not more than one temporary real estate for sale or rent sign per unit. a Area. The area of the temporary sign shall not exceed three (3) square feet. d. Height. The height of the temporary sign shall not exceed five (5) feet as measured from the grade at the base of the sign. e. Special conditions. The temporary sign shall be removed within seven (7) days of the sale or rental of the real estate upon which the sign is located. 2. Temporary political signs. Temporary political signs announcing political candidates seeking public office, political parties, or political and public issues shall be permitted. 20 C. Nonresidential uses and nonresidential zone districts. For all nonresidential uses and nonresidential zone districts, only the following temporary signs are permitted, in addition to the signs permitted under Section 26.510.130, and then only if accessory and incidental to a permitted or conditional use: 1. Temporary sandwich board signs carried by a person. Temporary sandwich board signs which are carried by a person and are advertising or identifying a special, unique or limited activity, service, product or sale of a limited duration, or identifying a restaurant menu, subject to the following: a. person. b. use at any one time. c. square feet per side. Type. The temporary sandwich board shall be a sign carried by a Number. There shall be not more than one such temporary sign per Area. The area of the temporary sign shall not exceed six (6) 2. Temporary political signs. Temporary political signs announcing political candidates seeking public office, political parties, or political and public issues shall be permitted. There shall be no temporary political signs permitted on or located in the public right-of--way or on public property except as permitted per Section 26.510.110(B) Policies Regarding Signage on Public Property. 3. Temporary sale signs. Temporary sale signs, announcing special sales of products and services, shall be subject to the following: a. 'type. The temporary sale sign shall be placed in the window or windows of the business holding the sale. b. Number. There shall be permitted not more than one (1) temporary sale sign in any window, and a total of not more than three (3) temporary sale signs for each use. Area. Each temporary sale sign shall not exceed three (3) square feet. d. Duration. Temporary sale signs maybe maintained for a period not to exceed fourteen (] 4) days, and shall be removed at the end of the fourteen (14) days or on the day following the end of the sale, whichever shall occur first, and shall not be replaced for at least two (2) months following the removal of the sign(s). 4. Real estate for sale or rent sign. Temporary real estate signs advertising the sale or rental of the property upon which the sign is located, subject to the following: 21 a. Type. The temporary real estate for sale or rent sign shall be a freestanding or wall sign. b. Number. There shall be not more than one temporary real estate for sale or rent sign per unit. c. Area. The area of the temporary sign shall not exceed three (3) square feet. d. Height. The height of the temporary sign shall not exceed five (5) feet as measured from the grade at the base of the sign. e. Special conditions. The temporary sign shall be removed within seven (7) days of the sale or rental of the real estate upon which the sign is located. 26.510.130 Zone district sign restrictions. A. Residential uses. For all residential uses, only temporary signs permitted under Section 26.510.120 and the following signs are permitted and then only if accessory and incidental to a permitted or conditional use: 1. Home occupation, multiple-family dwelling complex, or mobile home park identification signs. a. Type. The home occupation, multiple family dwelling complex, or mobile home park identification signs shall be freestanding signs or wall signs. b. Number. There shall be not more than one freestanding or wall sign per home occupation, or per street entrance of amultiple-family dwelling complex or mobile home park. c. Area. The area of the sign shall not exceed two (2) square feet per dwelling unit, and shall not exceed a total of twenty (20) square feet. d. Illumination. A home occupation identification sign may be illuminated only when it is identifying a home occupation of an emergency service nature. Amultiple-family dwelling complex or mobile home park identification sign may be illuminated. B. Institutional uses. For all church, school and public administrative building uses, only temporary signs permitted under Section 26.510.120 and the following signs are permitted and then only if necessary and incidental to a permitted or conditional use: Church, school or public administrative building identification signs. a. Type. The church, school or public administrative building identification sign shall be a freestanding or wall sign. 22 b. Number. There shall be not more than two (2) signs permitted along the lot frontage on any one street, not to exceed a total of four (4) signs per lot, subject to the area requirements in Section 26.510.130 (B)(1)(c). c. Area. (1) Freestanding sign. The area of a freestanding sign shall not exceed ten (10) square feet. (2) Wall sign. The area of a wall sign shall not exceed ten (10) square feet. (3) Aggregate sign area. The aggregate sign area permitted along the lot frontage on any one street shall not exceed one square foot of aggregate sign area for each three (3) feet of lot line frontage occupied by or projected from the building within which the principal use is conducted. The aggregate sign area permitted along the lot frontage on any alley shall be computed as if the alley were a street. In no case shall the aggregate sign area for any one use on any one frontage exceed twenty (20) square feet. (4) Illumination. The sign maybe illuminated except when located in a residential zone district. C. Recreation club or open use recreation site uses. For all recreation club or open use recreation site uses, only temporary signs permitted under Section 26.510.120 and the following signs are permitted and then only if necessary and incidental to a permitted or conditional use: Recreation club or open use recreation site designation signs. a. Type. The recreation club or open use recreation site designation sign shall be a freestanding or wall sign. b. Number. There shall be not more than one sign per use permitted along the lot frontage on any one street, not to exceed a total of two (2) signs per lot, subject to the area requirements in Section 26.510.130 (C)(1)(c). c. Area. (1) Freestanding sign. The area of a freestanding sign shall not exceed ten (10) square feet. (2) Wall sign. The area of a wall sign shall not exceed ten (10) square feet. 23 (3) Aggregate sign area. The aggregate sign area permitted along the lot frontage on any one street shall not exceed one square foot of aggregate sign area for each three (3) feet of lot line frontage occupied by or projected from the area of the lot within which the principal use is conducted. The aggregate sign area permitted along the lot frontage on any alley shall be computed as if the alley were a street. In no case shall the aggregate sign area for any one frontage exceed twenty (20) square feet. (4) Illumination. The sign may be illuminated only during hours of normal operation. D. Commercial uses. For all Commercial Core (CC), Commercial (C-1), Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR), Lodge Preservation (LP), Commercial Lodge (CL), Neighborhood Commercial (NC), Mixed Use (MU) or Service/ Commercial/Industrial (SCI) zone district uses, only temporary signs permitted under Section 26.510.120 and the following signs are permitted and then only if accessory and incidental to a permitted or conditional use: Business or occupancy identification signs. a. Type. The business and occupancy identification signs shall be freestanding signs, projecting signs, wall signs, including cutout letter signs, or lettering on awnings. b. Number. There shall be not more than a combination of two (2) of the following three (3) types of signs: freestanding signs, projecting signs, or wall signs, including acut-out letter sign subject to the area requirements in Section 26.510.130(D)(1)(c). In addition, there shall be no limit on the number of business and occupancy identification signs which may be placed in the windows of the business; provided, that said signs shall count against the aggregate sign area permitted as if the window sign was acut-out letter sign. There shall also be no limit on the number of awnings which may be lettered; provided, that said signs shall count against the aggregate sign area permitted as if the window sign was acut-out letter sign. c. Area. (1) Freestanding sign. The area of a freestanding sign shall not exceed ten (10) square feet. (2) Projecting sign. The area of a projecting sign shall not exceed six (6) square feet. (3) Wall sign. The area of a wall sign shall not exceed ten (10) square feet. (4) Awning sign. The area of an awning sign shall not be limited, but the lettering on the awning shall not exceed six (6) inches in height. 24 (5) Aggregate sign area. The aggregate sign area permitted along the lot frontage on any one street shall not exceed one square foot of aggregate sign area for each three (3) feet of lot line frontage occupied by or projected from the building within which the principal use is conducted. The aggregate sign area permitted along the lot frontage on any alley shall be computed as if the alley were a street. If there is more than one use or tenant within the principal building, then the aggregate sign area permitted for each use or tenant within the building shall be that portion of the aggregate sign area as agreed upon by the owner(s) and occupant(s) of the building. The Community Development Director shall be notified of such agreement and the respective proportionate shares of signage. In no case shall the aggregate sign area for any one use on any one frontage exceed twenty (20) square feet. d. Location. The business and occupancy identification signs shall be located on the business being identified, unless the business does not have frontage at street grade. For such businesses, one sign may be located on the business being identified and the other sign maybe included in a business directory sign. e. Portable and sandwich board signs. Portable and sandwich board signs shall be permitted in the Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial (C-1) zone districts. Portable and sandwich board signs are limited to Retail and Restaurant uses. Portable and sandwich board signs are prohibited for Office Uses (1) Portable sandwich board signs are limited to nine (9) square feet in size and shall not count in the aggregate sign area. (2) Businesses are limited to one sandwich board or portable sign per business. (4) Portable sandwich board signs must be made primarily of wood or metal and must have a professional finish. (4) Insets must be chalkboard. Dry erase boards are prohibited. (5) A six (6) foot travel width must be maintained on sidewalks and a eight (8) foot travel width on the pedestrian malls. (6) Sandwich board and portable signs are not permitted on rights of way or pedestrian malls overnight. (7) A separate sandwich board sign permit must be approved by the Zoning Officer and shall meet the following requirements: a. The Zoning Officer shall take into consideration safety issues with regards to the placement of the sign. 25 b. The sign shall have a professional finish and be consistent with the community character. c. Permits for sandwich board signs shall be revocable by the Zoning Officer if the above criteria are not met or, in the opinion of the Zoning Officer, the sign creates a visual nuisance. (8) Unless readopted by City Council on or before April 11, 2005, the provisions of Section 26.510.130(D)(5)(3) and its subsections shall be null and void 2. Business directory signs. a. Type. The business directory signs shall be wall signs or freestanding signs. b. Number. There shall be not more than one business directory sign per lot. c. Area. The maximum permitted area of the business directory sign shall be as follows: For 1 to Sbusinesses--One square foot of sign area per business. For 6 to 10 businesses--Five square feet plus 1 /2 squaze foot for each business over five businesses. For more than 10 businesses--7 1/2 square feet, plus 1/4 square foot for each business over ten businesses, to a maximum sign area of 10 square feet. 26.510.140 Window displays. Window displays of merchandise, and representations thereof, are not subject to sign regulations, sign square footage, and do not require a sign permit, except the following are prohibited in window displays: Televisions, computer monitors, or other similar technological devices that create oscillating light. 2. Neon or other gas tube illumination, rope lighting or low-voltage strip- lighting. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the Code Amendment approval as herein awazded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such Code Amendment approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. 26 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. Crrtinn d~ if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on this 14°i day of February 2005. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 11~' Day of Apri12005. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Approved as to form: John Worcester, City Attorney 27 EXHIBIT A: REVIEW STANDARDS FOR CODE AMENDMENTS REVIEW STANDARDS: Chapter 26.92, Amendments To The Land Use Regulations And Official Zone District Map, at Section 26.92.020 provides nine (A-I) standards for City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission's review of proposed amendments to the text of the Land Use Code. These standards and Staffs evaluation of the potential amendments relative to them are provided below, with the standard in italics followed by the Staff "response." A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions ofthis title. RESPONSE: The proposed amendments would not be in conflict with any applicable portions of the Aspen Municipal Code. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. RESPONSE: None of the proposed amendments would be in conflict with any elements of the AACP. C Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land uses and neighborhood characteristics. RESPONSE: The code amendments proposed will not affect compatibility of existing land uses and neighborhood characteristics. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. RESPONSE: The proposed code amendments are not anticipated to have any effect on traffic generation or road safety. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result it demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. RESPONSE: The proposed code amendments are not anticipated to have an impact on infrastructure or infrastructure capacities. F. Whether and [he extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. RESPONSE: The proposed code amendments are not anticipated to have an effect on the natural environment except to preserve and enhance. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. RESPONSE: These code amendments will be consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. K Whether there have fieen changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. RESPONSE: No specific parcels or neighborhoods are impacted by these amendments. 1. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public in[erest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. RESPONSE: Staff believes the proposed amendments will not be in conflict with the public interest, and are in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Helen Klanderud and Aspen City Council ~G• THRU: John Worcester, City Attorney /1 ~~~~ FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director) . JvV" ' RE: Main & Galena Building -Subdivision and GMQS Allocations - 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2005 DATE: April 11, 2005 PROJECT: Main and Galena Building REQUEST: The Applicant is requesting the appropriate -and use approvals to demolish the existing two-level commercial building and develop a new, four-level mixed-use building at the northwest corner of Galena and Main Streets. The proposed building contains commercial space, affordable housing and free-market housing. ZONING: Commercial Core (CC) Zone District LAND USE REQUESTS: GMQS Allocation for one free-market residence. • GMQS Exemption for three affordable residences. • Subdivision necessa due to multi-unit buildin P&Z RECOMMENDATION: Approval. with conditions. (6-0) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ftpprOVal. with conditions. SUMMARY: Millennium Plaza, LLC ("Applicant"), represented by Davis Horn, Incorporated, is requesting the appropriate land use approvals to demolish the existing two-level commercial building (one level is sub-grade) and develop a new, four-level mixed-use building (one level being sub-grade). The property is known as Galena Plaza Unit lA and is on the northwest corner of Main and Galena Streets. The property was the proposed site for the visitor center, which was turned-down by the voters last November. The existing building is entirely commercial and contains roughly 2,600 square feet of net leasable space. The lowest level of the building opens to a sub-grade courtyard while the upper level opens Main Street. The building currently contains offices on both levels. 1 The proposal relocates the basement-level commercial space to the Main Street level. This additional space will be prevented from being used as office space according to recently adopted requirements from the Commercial Core. The existing ground-floor offices can continue to be used for offices. There is slightly less commercial space in the proposed building. The basement becomes storage accessory to the residential uses. Anew second floor provides three affordable housing units (Category 2) and a new t}rird floor provides one free-market residence. The site currently has two parking spaces to serve the commercial uses located along the alleyway. (A third space exists, but is on the neighboring property to the west.) There does not appear to be a feasible way to add parking to the site. Curb cuts along Main Street or Galena Street would reduce on-street parking and possibly interfere with the intersection. Sub-grade options are not feasible due to the size of the lot and could affect the neighboring properties' access to natural light. The P&Z approved the commercial parking mitigation through cash-in-lieu, the conversion of the two existing spaces along the alley to be accessory to the free-market residence, and a waiver of the affordable residential parking requirement in consideration of a series of factors and cash-in-lieu contributions. Two properties abut this site. A commercial building to the west currently occupied by a bank (primarily) and assorted office businesses. A residential property to the north, Galena Lofts, lies on Unit 1B, Galena Plaza Condominiums. According to the condominium plats for the Galena Plaza Condominiums, the units (of land) are to be treated as individual properties. The project requires a series of land use actions, including growth management allocation and subdivision. The Planning and Zoning Commission "scored" this project for Growth Management Allocations and awarded the project passing scores. A summary of the P&Z sores is attached to the proposed Ordinance. The P&Z also recommended approval of the subdivision request and the allocation of three affordable housing development rights. Staff believes the application meets or exceeds the standards of review and is recommending approval of the project. FIRST READING QUESTIONS: Demolition: During first reading, Council asked if the existing building was just merely being replaced. The existing two-level building (one level is below grade) is being added onto with an addition to the east for commercial space and two additional floors above the existing building and addition for residential units. The existing building does not need to be technically demolished to accommodate these additional floors, but will be "re-skinned" and new fenestration will be added. 2 Review Process and Council's Discretional Authority: During first reading, Council asked what latitude was available in approving the GMQS allotments and subdivision. There are three reviews that Council is being asked to approve. Staff has provided a review of each process, the criteria involved, and an opinion on Council's discretion. 1. GMOS Non-Exempt -The one free-market unit is considered "non-exempt" development. The review process for non-exempt development requires "scoring" by the P&Z against a set of review criteria. If the application receives passing scores in each category of review, the scores are then forwarded to City Council and the allotments are awarded. This second step by Council does not include a substantive review of the project; it is merely an administrative function. The process reads as follows: 26.470.080.0.3. Procedures for review. An application for non-exempt development requires atwo-step process: Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and final review by the City Council. (1) Step One - A public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. After the Community Development Director has determined that the application is complete, the application shall be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review and scoring at a public hearing. (a) Notice of the hearing shall be by publication, posting and mailing (See Section 26.304.060(E)). (b) The Planning and Zoning Commission shall proceed as set forth at sub- section 4, below (Ranking procedures and standards) and by resolution recommend to the City Council the award of development allotments in accordance with said ranking procedures and standards. (2) Step two - A public hearing before City Council. Notice of the hearing shall be by publication, posting and mailing. (See Section 26.304.060(E)). The City Council, following a public hearing, shall by ordinance allocate GMQS allotments among eligible applicants. There is a section addressing appeals with City Council procedures addressing the process for hearing such appeals. Appeals can be submitted by "persons aggrieved by the scoring of the Planning and Zoning Commission." There is a timeframe for submission of appeals and no appeals were filed within this time period. The last section of the non-exempt section reiterates the above-stated process for City Council awarding allotments to eligible applications. The section reads as follows: 26.470.080.E. Allocation. Following the conclusion of all appeals, the City Council shall, by ordinance, allocate development allotments among eligible applicants who meet the minimum threshold established in section 26.470.090(B) or 26.470.100(B), as applicable, in the order of priority established by their rank. Those applicants 3 having received allotments may proceed to apply for any further development approvals required by this chapter or any other regulations of the city. Those development applications that have not met the minimum threshold established in section 26.470.090(B) or 26.470.100(B), as applicable, shall be denied. Staff Opinion: Staff believes Council has no discretion in the awarding of development allotments to non-exempt development that has received passing scores. After handling any appeals, this step appears to be merely an administrative function to finalize the allotments. 2. GMOS Exempt -The three affordable housing units are considered "exempt" development. This requires City Council exempt the units from the scoring process and includes criteria for evaluating proposals. The process section for this review reads as follows: Step One -After the Community Development Director has determined that the application for exemption is complete; the application shall be forwarded to the Board/Commission specified above (in the preceding paragraph). Review by the Housing Authority shall be administered by the Executive Director of the Authority and shall be referred to the Executive Board as necessary. Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission requires a public hearing for which notice has been published, posted and mailed (See section 26.304.060(E)). The Commission shall by resolution recommend to the City Council approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval of the application. Step two - A public hearing before City Council. Notice of the hearing shall be by publication (See section 26.304.060(E)). The City Council, following a public hearing, shall by ordinance approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the application. In the event that there are insufficient allotments available to accommodate all applications for exempt development, a random drawing shall be held in accordance with the standards of section 26.470.080(B)(4). The Council is given criteria for this exemption review. The text reads as follows: 26.470.070.J. Affordable housing. All affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines of the City Council and its housing designee shall be exempt from the competition and scoring procedures. The review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this section shall include: 1. A determination of the city's need for affordable housing. 2. The proposed development's compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan, housing sections, and addendum of said plan. 3. The proposed location, number, type, size, rental/sale mix, and price/income restrictions of the affordable housing units. 4 4. The phasing of affordable housing unit production in relation to impacts being mitigated through such provision. Staff Opinion: Staff believes Council's discretion is limited to a determination of the four criteria. These four criteria require findings be made by the Council upon a recommendation by staff and the P&Z. Staff believes the proposed affordable housing meets these standards and has provided findings in Exhibit B. P&Z recommended approval of the project including the affordable housing component, based on these criteria. If Council disagrees with these findings, it should specifically state its reasons for the record. 3. Subdivision -The project contains residential units within amixed-use building and therefore requires a subdivision approval. This approval is required even when no lot lines are being created or altered, as is the situation for this project. The effective criteria ensure the installation of proper public infrastructure, which already exists for this site, affordable housing, and school land dedication. The review process for subdivision requires reviews by P&Z and then Council. 26.480.040.0. Subdivisions. Approval of a development order for a subdivision shall require review and recommendation for approval, approval with conditions or disapproval by the Planning and Zoning Commission followed by a review and approval, or approval with conditions by the City Council. This application may be consolidated with a development application for conditional use, special review, ESA review, GMQS allotment, code amendment and/or rezoning. 1. Step one -Public Hearing before Planning and Zoning Commission. a. Purpose: To determine if application meets standards for subdivision. b. Notice requirements: Publication, posting and mailing. (See section 26.52.060(E)(3)(a)(b)&(c)). c. Standards of review: Section 26.480.050. d. P&Z action: Resolution recommending approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval of subdivision. 2. Step two -Public Hearing before City Council. a. Purpose: To determine if application meets standards for subdivision. b. Notice requirements: Publication, mailing and posting in addition to the requisite notice requirements for adoption of an ordinance by City Council. a Standards of review: Section 26.480.050. d. City Council action: Ordinance approving, approving with conditions, or disapproving subdivision. 5 Staff Opinion: Subdivision approval requires review of five criteria, some with a subset of criteria. Staff believes Council's discretion is limited to a determination of the five review criteria. Many of the criteria, however, address the creation or alteration of lot lines, which is not occurring with this case. Final approval by Council requires findings be made by the Council upon a recommendation by staff and the P&Z. Staff believes the proposed affordable housing meets these standards and has provided findings in Exhibit B. P&Z recommended approval of the subdivision request, based on these criteria. If Council disagrees with these findings, it should specifically state its reasons for the record. LAND USE ACTIONS REQUIRED: The Application requires the following approvals: • Growth Management Allotment for one free-market residential unit -Recommended for City Council approval. • GMQS Exemptions for Affordable Housing -Recommended for City Council approval. • Special Review to Establish AH Parking Requirements -Approved by P&Z • Special Review to provide commercial parking via cash-in-lieu -Approved by P&Z • Residential Design Standards waivers -Approved by P&Z. • Subdivision -Recommended for City Council approval. • Final HPC Approval -Application pending. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Growth Management Allocation for Free-Market Housing (City Council): The P&Z shall score the project and forward those scores to the Council for allocation of development allotments. Growth Management Exemption for Affordable Housing (City Council): The P&Z shall recommend City Council approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. Subdivision (City Council): The P&Z shall recommend City Council approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. MAIN ISSUES: Affordable Housiug Uuits: The three affordable housing units within this project are proposed as Category 2 rental units. There is one studio unit and two two-bedroom units. This plan is supported by the Aspen/Piktin County Housing Authority Board. Because the units are proposed as privately-owned rental units, a partial interest in the property must be granted to the City, or another adequate legal mechanism, to ensure the units remain permanently affordable. This stipulation has been included in the proposed Ordinance. Subdivision: The development of multi-unit buildings requires subdivision approval, even if lot lines are not being altered. This requirement ensures proper infrastructure upgrades - 6 sidewalks, street trees, drainage, etc. A school land dedication is required for subdivisions and the property is not suitable for a donation of actual land. Staff recommends the cash-in- lieu option be approved and has calculated the fee. No property lines are being altered and staff and the referral agencies do not believe any substantive subdivision issues exist, only the procedural requirements. Staff supports the subdivision request. Residential Design Standards Waivers: The City's Residential Design Standards apply to any development containing a residential unit. These standards work well for traditional single-family and duplex development and are adequate for multi-family development. Some of the standards have little relevance to residential development within mixed-use buildings and the P&Z waived those standards for this project. Staff is proceeding with a code amendment (not part of this ordinance) to address the applicability of Residential Design Standards to mixed-use buildings. P&Z has forwarded a recommendation on this to City Council and an Ordinance is pending. Parking: The site has little or no opportunity for additional parking. The site is too small for any practical sub-grade parking and curb cuts along Main or Galena are not feasible. The commercial parking can be provided through acash-in-lieu. Currently two parking spaces along the alleyway serve the commercial use. Through Special Review the commercial parking requirement was approved by P&Z to be met through acash-in-lieu payment. Each space requires a payment of $15,000 - a total of $30,000 for this request. The proposed affordable housing requires a total of 5 parking spaces -two for each two- bedroom unit and one for the studio unit. Affordable housing parking for this project has been waived by the P&Z in light of: 1) The parcel being downtown not being an auto-dependant site; 2) A free shuttle is available at the doorstep and most common destinations are within walking distance; 3) A donation to the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority in the amount of $5,000. 4) The applicant is providing acash-in-lieu payment of $15,000 per space for these 5 spaces - a total of $75,000; 5) Each of the residential units is being provided with two town bicycles with fenders and baskets. The project has both indoor storage and a proposed outdoor bike rack to accommodate these bikes; and, 6) The applicant is providing a cash donation to the City's Car Share Program -Roaring Fork Vehicles - in the amount of $20,000. Staff believes these mitigation measures are more than adequate. Staff supports downtown housing and realizes most downtown residential opportunities will not come with on-site parking. Part of the appeal of downtown housing is the ability, as a community, to rely less on the automobile and more on transit, bicycle, and walking. The P&Z approved the parking plan for this project. The P&Z also requested that the City Council appropriate all the cash-in-lieu funds from this project - $105,000 - to Roaring Fork Vehicles. This is in addition to the $20,000 already offered by the Applicant to go to the car- share program. RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes the application meets or exceeds the standards of review for Subdivision, Growth Management Exemption for Affordable Housing, and Growth Management Allotment for the one free-market unit. Staff recommends approval of the project. CITY MANAGER COM RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2005." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -Development Application (distributed with 1 s` reading packet) Exhibit B -Staff Comments and Referral Comments ~ Cr '~*~ Mi.W~CS ORDINANCE NO. 18 (SERIES OF 2005) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, ALLOCATING ONE FREE-MARKET RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT RIGHT, AND ALLOCATING THREE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS TO THE MAIN AND GALENA BUILDING PROPOSAL, AS MIXED-USE BUILDING TO BE LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GALENA AND MAIN STREETS, 426 EAST MAIN STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS UN[T lA GALENA PLAZA CONDOMINIUMS, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY,COLORADO. Parcel No. 2737.073.22.015 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application (the Project) from Millennium Plaza, LLC, for the redevelopment of a commercial building into amixed-use building to contain commercial and residential units; WHEREAS, the Property is located at 426 East Main Street and is legally described as Unit lA of the Galena Plaza Condominiums as shown on the plat thereof recorded in Book 49 at Page 82 of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.304 and 26.470 of the City of Aspen Land LJse Code, land use applications requesting allotments from the Growth Management Quota. System are reviewed and scored by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director, and members of the general public. The scoring and recommendation is then forwarded to the Aspen City Council and development allotments may then be allocated by Ordinance by the Aspen City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director, and members of the general public; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.304, 26.710.140, 26.430, 26.515, 26.480, and 26.410 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, land use applications requesting subdivision, special reviews, and residential design standards waivers are reviewed by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director, and members of the general public. The Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the special review requests and the residential design standards waivers and may recommend to City Council approval, approval with conditions or denial of the subdivision request; and, WHEREAS, the Fire Marshal, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the City Water Department, City Engineering, the City Parking Department, the City Transportation Department, the City Zoning Officer, City Parks Department, the Aspen Building Department, the Environmental Health Department, and the Community Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2005. Page I Development Department reviewed the proposal and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 15, 2005, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission considered the noted recommendations and testimony offered by the general public, considered the project for initial and final scoring (score summary attached), found the proposal meeting or exceeding the necessary scoring, and approved, by a six to zero (6-0) vote, the Special Review for affordable housing parking, the provision of commercial parking via acash-in-lieu payment, the waiver of Residential Design Standards and recommended, by the same vote, City Council allocation of one free-market residential development right, three affordable housing development rights, and subdivision approval for amixed-use commercial and residential building to be developed on the northwest corner of Main and Galena Streets, 426 East Main Street, Unit lA of the Galena Plaza Condominiums, subject to the conditions of approval listed herein; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the application according to the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds the application meeting or exceeding all applicable standards of the land use code of the City of Aspen Municipal Code and that the approval of the proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Subdivision approval for the development amulti-family units, three affordable housing growth management allotments, and one free-mazket residential allotment are hereby granted for the redevelopment of the two-floor (one floor is subgrade) commercial building at the northwest corner of Galena and Main Streets into afour-floor (one floor is subgrade) building containing commercial and residential uses, subject to the following conditions and requirements: Section 1: Parkine MiHaation Payment The Project Developer shall make aone-time monetary mitigation payment to the City of Aspen in the amount of $105,000 for the mitigation of seven (7) parking spaces - 5 residential and 2 commercial. The contribution shall be payable prior to issuance of a Building Permit for the Project. The Planning and Zoning Commission encourages the Aspen City Council to allocate all of this payment to the Roaring Fork Vehicles car- sharing program. Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2005. Page 2 Section 2: Downtown Imurovement Contribution The Project Developer shall make aone-time monetary mitigation payment to the City of Aspen in the amount of $10,000 for pedestrian oriented improvements to the commercial core as recommended by the City's Downtown Catalyst or the City Manager. The contribution shall be payable prior to issuance of a Building Permit for the Project. Section 3: Asnen Recreation Center Contribution The Project Developer shall make aone-time monetary mitigation payment to the City of Aspen in the amount of $7,000 for recreation programs and facilities of the Aspen Recreation Center as recommended by the Manager of Parks and Recreation. The contribution shall be payable prior to issuance of a Building Permit for the Project. Section 4: RoarlnE Fork Transportation Authority Contribution The Project Developer shall make aone-time monetary mitigation payment to the City of Aspen in the amount of $5,000 to be transferred to the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority for transit improvements within the Roaring Fork Valley. The contribution shall be payable prior to issuance of a Building Permit for the Project. Section 5: Asnen Historical Society Contribution The Project Developer shall make aone-time monetary mitigation payment to the City of Aspen in the amount of $5,000 to be transferred to the Aspen Historical Society. The contribution shall be payable prior to issuance of a Building Permit for the Project. Section 6: Car Share Program Contribution The Project Developer shall make aone-time monetazy contribution to Roaring Fork Vehicles - acar-sharing business associated with the City of Aspen - in the amount of $20,000. The contribution shall be payable prior to issuance of a Building Permit for the Project. This contribution was voluntarily offered by the applicant, as a means of mitigating residential parking needs. Section 7: Construction Staying and Police/Sheriff Parkine The Project Developer shall work with the City of Aspen Police Chief and the Pitkin County Sheriff regarding temporary parking for emergency vehicles and the location of construction materials/equipment for the period of construction. An agreement between these parties shall be recorded as part of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. City Community Development staff can facilitate/moderate meetings and mediate any unresolved issues as necessary. Section 8: Residential Design Standards The following Residential Design Standards shall not apply to this Project: "Secondary Mass," "Covered Porch," and "First Story Element." The Project has been found in compliance with the remaining Residential Design Standards and the remaining standards shall be applicable to this Project. Section 9: Affordable Housine Units Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2005. Page 3 The Project shall include one (1) studio affordable housing unit and two (2) two-bedroom affordable housing units. The affordable housing units shall be deed-restricted as Category 2 rental units and a legal instrument permanently ensuring their affordable status acceptable to the City Attorney shall be provided. The City shall accept a nominal property interest (1/10 of 1 percent undivided interest) or other reasonable means of assurance. If this standard cannot be met, the units shall be transferred as "for-sale" units pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. Residents of the affordable housing units shall meet the minimum occupancy and all other qualification criteria in the APCHA Guidelines, as amended. The rental rates of the affordable units shall not exceed a maximum rental rate of Category 2 as such rates are defined in the APCHA Guidelines, as amended from time to time. Rental tenants shall be qualified by the APCHA. Section 10: Impact and Dedication in-Lieu Fees Park Impact Fees of $10,604 shall be assessed upon issuance of a Building Permit and allocated by the City for improvements to City Parks. Amendments to the project shall incorporate an amendment to this fee according to the following schedule. For each studio unit - $1,520 For each one-bedroom unit - $2,120 For each two-bedroom unit - $2,725 For each three- or four-bedroom unit - $3,634 School Land Dedication Fees are assessed based on one-third the value of the unimproved land divided by the proposed number of residential units on a per acre basis. The City of Aspen verifies the unimproved land value of the lands underlying the Project to be $224,675 from information from the Pitkin County Assessor. This represents $44.89 per square foot of land. One-third of this value divided by the proposed 4 new units results in a $3.74 per square foot standard for calculating the impact fee. The subject subdivision is not conducive to locating a school facility and acash-in-lieu payment shall be accepted. School Land Dedication Fees are required according to the following schedule, payable at building permit issuance: Unit size 1/3 land Land Per unit fee Units Total value per Dedication unit sq. ft. standard (sq. ft. Studio/One $3.74 52 $194.48 1 $194.48 bedroom Two Bedroom $3.74 416 $1,555.84 2 $3,111.68 Three $3.74 707 $2,644.18 1 $2,644.18 Bedroom Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2005. Page 4 Total: 5,950.34 Amendments to the project shall include an adjustment to this fee according to the above calculation methodology and schedule. Section 11: Trees and Right-of-Way Improvements The Project Developer shall either relocate the three existing on-site trees to a new location acceptable to the City of Aspen Parks Department or remove the trees and pay a tree removal mitigation fee according to the valuation schedule below. Relocating the trees can either be organized by the Project developer in coordination with the City Parks Department or performed by the City Parks Department and billed to the Project Developer. Tree removal mitigation shall be based on the valuation of existing trees to be removed. Following is a summary of the existing trees to be removed and their valuation. .- .- 12 1 $4,069.44 $4,069.44 13 2 $4,775.94 $9,551.88 Total: $13,621.32 The existing street trees within the Main Street right-of--way shall be protected during the entire construction process. No storage of materials shall occur within the drip lines of these trees. The Subdivision agreement shall include provisions to protect the Main Street trees. Section 12: Sidewalk Closures Proper signage and barriers shall be used during periods of construction necessitating the closure of sidewalks surrounding the Project. Section 13: Water Department Requirements A separate water meter will be needed for each residence. There shall be a shared water service agreement with each owner. An additional tap for landscaping is required. Section 14: Sanitation District Requirements 1. The total connection fees must be paid prior to building permit issuance. 2. The elevator shaft cannot drain to the sanitary sewer unless there is an oiUsand separator. 3. It is recommended that the Applicant install a grease trap for the commercial space to allow food service occupant. 4. The sewer service should connect to the sewer in the alley. Section 15: PM10 Mitigation and Transportation Options Program The City of Aspen considers the following elements of the project as mitigating the potential increases in pm10: the Project's proximity to downtown, proximity to transit services, existing pedestrian connections and trails, no additional on-site parking, and a monetary contribution to the car-share program. Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2005. Page 5 The owner(s) of the commercial units within the Project shall inform and encourage commercial tenants to join the City of Aspen Transportation Options Program. This program offers certain incentives to reduce automobile reliance. Section 16: Subdivision Plat Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for a Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision Plat. The Subdivision Plat shall comply with current requirements of the City Community Development Engineer. The following items shall also be depicted: 1. Any easements and signature blocks for utility mains not administered by the City of Aspen. 1. A utility plan meeting the standards of the City Engineer and City utility agencies. The City Water Department prefers one fire tap and one domestic service tap with subsequent branch lines to serve individual buildings and residences. 2. A drainage plan depicting roof and surface drainage and how it will be connected to the City's storm drainage system. 3. Aright-of--way improvement plan acceptable to the City Parks Department showing the design concept for the sidewalk pavers, bike rack including installation technique which protects the existing cottonwood trees, and protection and irrigation of the cottonwood trees. The applicant shall provide the final approved Subdivision line data or survey description data describing the revised street and parcel boundaries to the Geographic Information Systems Department prior to applying for a building permit. Section 17: Subdivision Agreement Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision Agreement binding this property to this development approval. The Agreement shall include the necessary items detailed in Section 26.445.070, in addition to the following: An agreement with the Police Chief and the Sheriff regarding parking of emergency vehicles during construction and a notification procedure for relocating parking as needed. Section 18: Building Permit Requirements The building permit application shall include/depict: A letter from the primary contractor stating that the approving Ordinance and Subdivision Improvement Agreement has been read and understood. The contractor shall specifically state an understanding of the Constnrction Staging and Police/Sheriff Parking agreement. 2. A signed copy of the final Ordinance and Subdivision Improvement Agreement granting land use approval. Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2005. Page 6 3. A construction management and parking plan meeting the specifications of the City Building Department. 4. Compliance with Accessibility requirements, including an accessible route to the trash area. 5. A construction staging plan showing areas for material storage, contractor parking, and showing how the Main Street trees will be fenced-off and protected during construction. 6. A fugitive dust control plan approved by the Environmental Health Department. "I'he applicant shall wash tracked mud and debris from the street as necessary, and as requested by the City, during construction. The applicant shall provide phone contact information for on-site project management to address construction impacts to: The City of Aspen, Pitkin County, the Building Manager of the US Bank Building, and the Galena Lofts Homeowners Association. 7. Afire suppression plan acceptable to the Fire Marshall, including the standpipe. R. Compliance with the specifications and requirements of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. 9. Prior to issuance of the Building Permit, all impact fees, cash-in-lieu fees, and monetary contributions, as specified herein, shall be paid. Section 19: Ground Floor Office Space The non-conforming office space on the ground level of the building shall not be considered "abandoned or discontinued," as such terms are used in Section 26.312.020 of the Land Use Code, during the time period between issuance of a Building Permit and the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building and this construction time period shall not be used in the computation of discontinued use when considering the ability to reestablish an office use within this space. Section 20: Historic Preservation Commission Auurovals Required Final Development Plan approval by the Historic Preservation Commission must be obtained prior to issuance of a Building Permit for the Project. Section 21: Vested Ri¢hts The development approvals granted herein shall constitute asite-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2005. Page 7 (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: Unit lA Galena Plaza Condominiums. Section 22: All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, or the Aspen City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. Section 23: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 24: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 25: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy of this Ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 26: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 11°i day of April, 2005, at 5:00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (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. Section 27: This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final adoption. [Signatures on following page] Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2005. Page 8 INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 14~' day of March, 2005. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of , Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: John Worcester, City Attorney Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Attachment A -Summary of GMQS Scoring Bendon C:\home\Current Planning\CASES\Galena-Main\Ordinance.doc Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2005. Page 9 N ~. M V LO V M M f~ O ~ w V/ M M ca a N NO V) M'V 7~ V V V ~} M ~: '~ .. a d ~.. ~~ ~ ~ O N . N ~O l0 t0 N ~ ~ N C 7 a ~, ~ N ~' ' ' ' N O ~' u ~: V d 1 V V V a ri cO ~ a i a $~ f6 N 'a M V l0 V M V M M (Q U a o ~ U M-. V V [Y V d' 7 < M ~ _ C C d (0 ' m '. n.~ o- C v N ~ a L: N ~ ~n v) ~n u) v) vj r'i ~ p O- ~ ~ a ~ ~, O C N ~ ~.. N > N C U > 'C LC ._ ~ +_' f0 O 6 •~: }' a. V V ~n V V 7 a M ~ o ~ w y c '_ ~ n. _ _ ~ ~, C Q 1. ~' d ~ ~ - N ~ C (0 (0 C y E LL O ~~ c0 ;,,, dC7 y E ~ r E a. c c y ._ N ~ ~ c C ~ d d O .~ ~ d d O f0 N.' C L O Y O Q N w C 01 C ran/ . ~~.~.1 ~ (4 ` ~ N~N c.S 2 c ~ ' vm~ `-°oinm ` ` ~ ~~a a ~ ~~~.-,-.-cc, v V1 ~ N M ~ Exhibit A to Ordinanc e No. 18, Series of 2005 N 7`MV~nvMM no U) MM R a N Mvv~nvvv No U1 ~ a ri t4 •~ a ., ~~ ~ ~~. N~ ~ to N ~ ~ N M © a ~ N ~' rvv~nvvv No V! C, v ri t3 i~ a ~: M 7~ V M d' 00 O M M (Q a M V V V~ V V O O (/~ {y ? M '~.:> a ,d °' = w C U ~L N ~ In In In In N N M ~ o- ~' N r: V V u7 V 7 V d' M ~' a ` - O 7 ,i V y ~ N y C ~ a ~ ~ ~' Y d ~ 'io: ~ m c t m ~ > ~ .-. f0 U ~ ~ (6 r C O. ~ ~ T .- •~ t)m~~~cnm U (0 (0 L U C U ~a ~, a~ o- d N D. o~ c w m o ~ ; C U ~ ' ~6 O ~ C N N U a`>(q= C Q ~` .T. ~ c ~ N ~ ~ N d a`~ ~ c o, ~ d QO'N O Y m c 0 a, o, F w m w C m C V N ~ C C m 'a o .m C ~ O O C m ~o~aa~ v v1~NMv Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2005 EXHIBIT B STAFF FINDINGS -GALENA AND MAIN BUILDING SUBDIVISION A. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan (AACP). STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The subject site is identified in the Future Land Use Map of the 2000 AACP as commercial. The mixed-use proposal is consistent with this element of the AACP. The ground floor expansion of the building will be prohibited from being used as an office, according to a recently adopted ordinance banning ground floor office uses in the Commercial Core. The proposal will increase the pedestrian orientation of the commercial uses on the property and add to the vitality of the area with the residential uses on upper floors. Staff believes the project is consistent with the AACP. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that the subdivision to create amixed-use building with multi-family units within this area of town is consistent with the neighborhood character. The immediately adjacent parcels contain commercial and multi-family housing. Other parcels surrounding this parcel contain a blend of commercial and multi-family development. No zone change is proposed. Staff believes this criterion is met. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Other surrounding lots maintain access to public rights-of--way. The developability of the adjacent lots will not be adversely affected by this development. The site has adequate infrastructure and access and is not expected to diminish the developability of these adjacent lots. Staff believes this criterion is met. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. Staff Findings -Main and Galena Page 1 STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I YES. The Project is subject to a variety of reviews in order to comply with the Land Use Code. Assuming these reviews are approved, staff finds this criterion met. Staff has recommended a series of conditions to be placed on the approval. B. Suitability of Land for Subdivision. a. Land Suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snow slide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff finds that the parcel is generally suitable for development considering all of the above dangers. No natural hazards are know to be present. Staff believes this criterion is met. b. Spatial Pattern Efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff finds that the proposed subdivision will not create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. This parcel is already served with the necessary infrastructure. Staff finds this criterion met. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of the community. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES No variations to the subdivision standards are proposed. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by processional engineers as necessary. Staff Findings -Main and Galena Page 2 STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES No variations to the subdivision standazds are requested. D. Affordable Housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? IVES The Project is prosing affordable housing in compliance with Section 26.470 - growth management. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Applicability. School land dedication standards shall be assessed upon all new subdivisions within the City of Aspen which contain residential units. An applicant may make a cash payment in-lieu of dedicating land to the City, or may make a cash payment in combination with a land dedication, to comply with the standards of this Section. This section of the subdivision regulations requires the dedication of land or the payment of an in-lieu fee for each new residential unit in a subdivision. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards will be required for the residential dwelling units proposed. The site is not considered suitable for locating a School facility and acash-in-lieu payment is recommended. The applicant shall pay cash in lieu of a land dedication, which will be required at time of building Staff Findings -Main and Galena Page 3 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXEMPTION FROM GMOS All affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines of the City Council and its housing designee shall be exempt. The review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this Section shall include: 1. A determination of the City's need for such housing. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The City has not met it goals for affordable housing, as stated in the 2000 AACP. The need for low-category rental housing, in particular, is in high demand and is one of the Aspen/Piktin County Housing Authority's priority types of units. Staff believes there is a need for this type of affordable housing. 2. The proposed development's compliance with The Aspen Area Community Plan, housing sections, and addendum to said plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The subject site is identified in the Future Land Use Map of the 2000 AACP as commercial The mixed-use proposal is consistent with this element of the AACP. The proposal will increase the pedestrian orientation of the commercial uses on the property and add to the vitality of the area with the residential uses on upper floors. The application is consistent with the Housing Section of the AACP by providing high-quality units within the existing developed area (good city form) and by mixing affordable units with free-market units (healthy social balance). The project is consistent with the neighborhood character by replicating other commercial, mixed-use, and multi-family developments. The project has gained Conceptual approval by the Historic Preservation Commission and is of high quality design. Staff believes this criterion is met. 3. The proposed location, number, type, size, rental/sale mix, and price/income restrictions of the affordable housing units. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposal includes three units -one studio and two two-bedroom units. All are Category 2 rental units. 4. The phasing of affordable housing unit production in relation to impacts being mitigated through such provision. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The units are to be developed at the same time as the remained of the project and will be concurrent with the associated impacts. Staff Findings -Main and Galena Page 4 FREE-MARKET GMQS ALLOCATION Actions required for approval of allotments. Since the Growth Management Quota System applies throughout the City of Aspen, no growth management allocation shall be awarded unless the City Council accepts the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The procedures governing challenges and appeals are set out in sections 26.470.070(D) and (E). STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES No challenges to the scoring have been submitted. Staff believes the scoring process was valid and that no procedural mistakes were made. Minimum scoring thresholds required for allocation. No growth management allocation shall be awarded to projects that do not receive a final average score of at least three points for each of the growth management scoring criteria of sections 26.470.080(C)(1), 26.470.080 (C)(2), 26.470.080(C)(3) and 26.470.080(C)(4). STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The project received scores which exceeded the minimum in each category. Allocation. Following the conclusion of all appeals, the City Council shall, by ordinance, allocate development allotments among eligible applicants who meet the minimum threshold established in section 26.470.090(B) or 26.470.100(B), as applicable, in the order of priority established by their rank. Those applicants having received allotments may proceed to apply for any further development approvals required by this chapter or any other regulations of the city. Those development applications that have not met the minimum threshold established in section 26.470.090(B) or 26.470.100(B), as applicable, shall be denied. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed ordinance accomplishes this procedural step. Staff Findings -Main and Galena Page 5 MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Committee From: John Niewoehner, Community Development Engineer, DRC Caseload Coordinator ~~_(~Nr, j_1~.~~^j_ Date: November 17, 2004 ~ `F't1~~A~ U~ bY~J Re: 11/17/04 DRC Minutes: Proposed Main and Galena Attendees: ~lM~~~ Chris Bendon, Case Planner -Community Development Department / John Niewoehner, Community Development Department Ed VanWalraven, Fire Department Denis Murray, Building Department Tim Ware, Parking Cindy Christensen, Housing Department Brian Flynn, Park Department Gideon Kaufman, Applicant Glenn Horn, Planner for Applicant At the November 17, 2004 DRC meeting, the Development Review Committee reviewed the following project: Main and Galena Building -The proposed building will consist of three stories excluding the basement. The basement will accommodate storage and mechanical. The ground floor will have two commercial units with access from Main Street. The second floor will have three rental employee housing apartments - - gone-bedroom unit and two two-bedroom units. The third floor will be a single three-bedroom free market unit. One obstacle is the lack of parking for the building. Two parking spaces have been provided for the free market unit although the owners will have to remove their cars so that the garage truck can empty the dumpsters. The Applicant has offered to pay cash-in-lieu of providing parking for the three employee units and the commercial space. The acceptability of cash-in-lieu will be decided by the Planning and Zoning Commission. DRC COMMENTS Engineering: 1. Construction Management Plan: A construction management plan must be submitted as part of the building permit application. The plan must include: (i) the haul and delivery routes, (ii) plans to accommodate courthouse noise constraints, (iii) coordination of events with the Police and Sheriff Depts, (iv) required encroachments including the location of construction trailer, equipment and materials, (v) parking, loading and unloading locations, and (vi) erosion control plan and dust control plan. 2. Excavation: The building permit will need to include an excavation plan, stamped by a Colorado Professional Engineer, demonstrating how the excavation be shored and will not affect the ROW or adjacent properties. 3. Pedestrian Protection: As part of the building permit application and ROW permit application, the Applicant must provide a plan to the Engineering Department showing how the pedestrians on the sidewalks will be protected during construction. 4. Building Drainage: The grading plan and drainage system must be designed by a Colorado professional engineer. Unless the Applicant can show an acceptable drainage alternative, the City Engineer recommends that drainage discharge into the City's storm sewer. To discharge to the City's storm sewer, the existing storm sewer on the south side of Main Street will need to be extended across Main Street and a new drainage inlet installed in the curb/gutter at the NW corner of Main and Galena. Environmental Health: no comments at this time Housing Department: The Housing Department is satisfied with the plans including the proposed dedicated storage closets and the mix of unit sizes. The Housing Department understands that they will be given the first right of refusal and that the employee units will be rental units. Water and Electric Degt: Page 2 of 2 November 17, 2004 Main and Galena Building 1. Fire Hydrant: The Applicant plans to abandon this hydrant and install a standpipe on the exterior of the building. 2. New Tap: A new tap is needed to serve the fire sprinkler system. 3. Meters: Separate water meters are recommended for each owner. 4. Electric: The developer needs to confirm that the loads generated by the building will not overload the transformer. In addition to verifying that the loads to the transformer will not exceed capacity, it should be noted that applicant will be responsible for provision of adequate space for a transformer if the existing capacity is exceeded. In lieu of this provision, applicant could obtain a suitable easement for a new or expanded transformer site if necessary. Parks Dept: 1. Main St Trees Protection: A vegetation protection fence shall be erected along the edge of the sidewalk out to the curb completely enclosing the cottonwoods located on Main Street. The city forester must inspect this fence. Call 920-5120 before any construction activities are to commence. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within this protection zone. 2. Removal of Australian Pines: A tree permit must be submitted and approved prior to the approval of the building permit. Removal of the three Austrian Pines will require full mitigation, most likely cash in lieu payment with regards to the lack of space for on-site mitigation. 3. Pavers Impact of Trees: Consultation on the vernacular for the parkway is required. Parks is concerned with the proposed pavers and impact to the cottonwood trees. At the end of the project the sod parkway (between the sidewalk and curb) will need to be improved and irrigated. 4. Bike Rack: Bike rack shall be installed by-hand; no excavation equipment allowed. Parks recommends a surface material other than sod in front of the bike rack. Grass in front of the bike rack will result in a maintenance challenge unless the strip is properly irrigated. 5. Irrigation: Improvements to the parkway should include new grass and irrigation if determined necessary. Fire Department: 1. Sprinklers and Alarms: Sprinklers (NFPA 13) and fire alarms are needed. 2. External Standpipe: The proposed external standpipe needs further review by the Fire Marshall and the Water Department. Building Department: 1. Accessible Site Route: At the time of final subdivision approval, the Applicant must provide a plan showing an accessible route around the site - -specifically from the units to the dumpster. 2. Exits: The basement and living units must have two exits. 3. Commercial Bathrooms: These bathrooms currently do not comply with ANSI standards. 4. Venting: Recommend that vents be installed from the commercial spaces to allow the space to be used for food service. Streets Department: no comments at this time Sanitation District: 1. Once detailed plans are available, get them to Peg in our office for the estimated fees. 2. The total connection fees must be paid prior to building permit. 3. The elevator shaft cannot drain to the sanitary sewer unless there is an oil/sand separator. 4. It is recommended that the Applicant install a grease trap for the commercial space to allow food service occupant. 5. The sewer service should connect to the sewer in the alley. /DRC/Main &Ga lena-N ov2004 MEMORANDUM TO: Chris Bendon FROM: Cindy Christensen DATE: December 2, 2004 RE: GALENA AND MAINPROPOSED BUILDING C~I~}/Muw ISSUE: The applicant is requesting approval to convert existing commercial space located on a lower level to storage space, relocate some of the existing commercial space to the first floor of a new building to be constructed on the comer of Galena and Main street, construct aone-bedroom and two two-bedroom employee housing units on the second floor, and athree-bedroom free market dwelling unit on a proposed third floor. BACKGROUND: The proposal does not increase commercial net leasable space; therefore, no mitigation would be required. However, mitigation would be required for the three-bedroom free market dwelling unit to be located on a proposed third floor. There are proposed a total of eight bedrooms. Five of the bedrooms, or 62% of the project, will be restricted as employee housing at the Category 2 rental rate. The applicant's mitigation requirement would be fully satisfied. The proposed one-bedroom unit contains 607 livable square feet and one of the two-bedroom units contains a minimum of 850 livable square feet and the other contains 799 square feet of liable square footage. Two meet the minimum square footages as specified in the Guidelines (600 for the one-bedroom and 850 for the two-bedroom). The second two-bedroom unit is about 6% under the minimum, but would meet the conditions under which reductions may be made at up to 20%. The proposal provides additional storage, is above grade, and is located within town. The applicant will also convey aone-tenth of one percent ownership interest in the rental units to the Housing Office. RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Board reviewed the application at their regular meeting on December 1, 2004 and recommended approval with the following conditions: Mitigation is fully satisfied by providing one one-bedroom unit at 1.75 FTE's and two two-bedroom units at 2.25 FTE's each for a total of 6.25 FTE's at Category 2. Should City Council approve these as rental units, the applicant shall structure a deed for the units such that 1/10`" of 1 percent ownership of the units are given to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority in perpetuity; or the applicant may propose any other means that the Housing Authority or the City Attorney determines acceptable. This document shall be recorded prior to building permit approval, along with the deed restriction obtained from the Housing Office. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION-Minutes-February 15, 2005 Ruth Kruger opened the regular Aspen Planning & Zoning Meeting at 4:30 in the Sister Cities Meeting Room. Commissioners Brian Speck, Brandon Marion, Steve Skadron, Dylan Johns, Jack Johnson and Ruth Kruger were present. Jasmine Tygre was excused. John Rowland was absent. Staff in attendance were Joyce Allgaier, 6. Chris Bendon, James Lindt, Chris Lee, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS I Brandon Marion gave a synopsis of the work session with City Council on the Timeshare issue. Marion said Council agreed with P&Z concerns for the size of projects and the issue of separating code amendments from projects. Jack Johnson asked if there were hard numbers on timeshares. Joyce Allgaier responded that Chris Lee was working on the impacts from the industry; that report would be ready soon. Allgaier said that community development would present P&Z with the history of fractional ownership information. Allgaier stated that Council passed the first reading of code amendments regarding ~' the Lodge Zone District, Sign Code,Amendment and the Aspen Highlands Villas '"l~ Zoning. "~`~j DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Jack Johnson and Ruth Kruger were conflicted on the Lodge. C PUBLIC HEARING:' ~J GALENA AND MAIN GMOS SCORING T~ Ruth Kruger opened the public hearing for Galena and Main GMQS Scoring. The proof of notice was provided by Gideon Kaufman. Chris Bendon stated Galena and Main was Growth Management Scoring plus Special Review for Affordable Housing Parking, Special Review for Commercial Parking via cash-in-lieu, Waivers to Residential Design Review Standards and Subdivision. Bendon said the building was a 2 story 2600 square foot building; the proposal was to maintain and expand to the east and on the 2°d level there would be affordable housing and the 3"~ level afree-market unit. The commercial parking for the project would be through cash-in-lieu along with 2 existing spaces off the alley. Bendon walked through the Growth Management Scoring explaining that 5 was the highest score and 3 was necessary for the project to proceed. The affordable housing threshold was met. The second category was transformational alternatives; the units having no parking was an incentive to reduce reliance on the automobile. Bendon noted the site was downtown allowing the residential occupants the ability 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION-Minutes-February 15, 2005 to walk. The project will exceed the model energy code with a series of proposals , specific to the technique with a significant amount of un-built FAR. Glenn Hom, land use planner for the project, introduced the planning team for the project as Lowell Meyer the owner, Bill Poss, Kim Weil and Steven Holly the architects. Gideon Kaufman was legal counsel for the project. Horn said there was a 60/40 ratio of affordable bedrooms and the project complies with all of the standards of the CC zone district. Steven Holly explained the existing floor plan of the building utilizing the site plans #18; Exhibits 3A and 3B show the lower levels of office space. Holly said the architecture of the new portion of the building was to mediate between contextual Main Street like the Jerome and Courthouse and the lower buildings, which provide scale and massing. Holly said the more contemporary materials of metal and glass wrap around the fagade having an equal weight with the brick. Holly said the building conforms dimensionally to all aspects of the code. Holly said there were 3 employee units (1 studio and 2 two bedrooms) on the second floor; the third level contained the free-market unit. Holly said the sustainable or green component of the building included Shaw Construction and DRW. Holly said the selection of building materials come together for a healthier lifestyle. Horn reiterated the scoring criteria and the affordable housing units; the transportation, bicycle storage, contributes to RFTA and car share; the green building and exceeding the model energy code. Horn said the design quality complimented both structures on Main Street (the bank and courthouse). Public comments: 1. Chuck Caldwell, public, stated concern for the width of the sidewalks with regards to the setbacks and the narrow access. 2. Toni Kronberg, public, noted an earlier application came forward to develop the Visitors Center, which was overturned in November through a referendum and questioned the public notice board being posted. Kronberg said this was not a good site for affordable housing. Kronberg said that the tree on that corner was one of Aspen's Landmarks and wanted to see it remain. Kronberg spoke about the Zupancis property, Conner Cabins, Burlingame and this project. 3. Jayleene Park, public, said that she was president of US Bank and was directly affected by this project since it was next door and has no personal financial ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION-Minutes-February 15, 2005 interest. Park said that this project enhanced the downtown core and agreed with Toni that it was Lowell's building. Jack Johnson asked about the six month waiting period. Chris Bendon replied that there was a delayed period when applying for a rezoning but there was not a six month waiting period for land use reviews. Bendon stated notice was adequate and the HPC approval was based upon massing and historical character of the project. Johnson asked if the heights were within the code requirement. Bendon responded that they were below the allowable 42 to 46 feet; the highest was on the corner at 40 feet for this project. Johnson asked if the affordable housing parking could be waived. Bendon replied that could be waived and the applicant was offering $15,000. per space toward the car share program. Johnson asked how this project has substantively changed without the Visitor Center component. Steven Holly replied the massing and exterior essentially have not changed; just some minor window adjustments to the interior; the lower level was previously commercial and now it was storage; the main level is just commercial and the upper levels have not changed. Steve Skadron asked why traffic generation was not commented on. Bendon replied that this project was not big enough to generate traffic. Skadron asked what materials were used on the building facing Galena and Main Street. Holly replied primarily brick; on the Galena side there was also the contemporary component of metal. Dylan Johns asked if the employee units were for rent and were they in the general housing pool. Holly said that was correct they were for rent through housing. Johns reiterated that there were no variances. Brandon Marion inquired about the ground floor being office and asked how that would be regulated with the new ordinance. Bendon answered that relies on the use and if that use is discontinued for a year or more then there was no ability to replace that use but construction time does not count. Marion asked about the setback issue from the side with respects to safety for parking. Bendon replied it was probably a matter of pulling the curb stops out a little further and if it became a bigger problem then it would have to be dealt with. Bendon stated on a site like this there was no easy way to accommodate more parking; the site was not big enough to do any sub- grade parking and the commercial parking spaces tend to be utilized by the tenants and don't offer the public any more spaces. Marion asked the number of parking space that would be required by the project. Bendon replied that there would be a total of 7 including the affordable housing spaces. Bendon said the philosophy that 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION-Minutes-February 15, 2005 he follows on parking is the closer to downtown the project is the less the need for the automobile. Ruth Kruger asked what structurally engineered wood was. Holly replied it was a mixture of wood and it was compacted, which allows for less wood in a project. Kruger asked where the Galena Loft parking was located. Bendon responded that there was no parking with the way the Galena Lofts were developed. The initial and final P&Z scoring for GMQS passed. Main/Galena Inifia~ Sccaring . Final Scaring; Criteria CNteria Commissioner 7 2 3 '4 1 2 3 4 T' Brandon Marion 4 5 4 3 4 5 4 3 1 Ruth Kruger 4 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 1 Jack Johnson 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 1!", Dylan Johns 4 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 1'' Steve Skadron 4 5 4 3 4 5 4 3 1, Brian Speck 4 5 4 4 4 5 4 3 6' ; Average Score 4.2 5.0 4.0 3.8 4.2 5.0 4.2 3.7 Threshold Minimum 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 PasslFail Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Subdivision Bendon noted that there were no lot line adjustments; subdivision reviewed projects to have the right amount of infrastructure, which this project has the right amount of infrastructure. Staff recommends approval of the subdivision. Residential Design Standards Waivers Bendon said the secondary mass doesn't fit this mixed use so staff is supporting the waiver. The covered porch was a waiver staff supported because that standard applied to a single family residence and does not work well with residential units on upper levels. Bendon noted the first story element again was not supported by staff because this was not just residential use but a mixed use project. Special Review Bendon stated there was not an issue with the commercial parking being provided through cash-in-lieu because that exchange would serve the general public through capital facilities. Bendon said that the affordable housing parking being waived was supported by staff because it fits with downtown and these units will have the ability to apply for a residential parking pass. 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION-Minutes-February 15, 2005 No public comments. The commission, staff and applicant discussed the parking alternatives including the monies provided by the applicant. The commissioners agreed with the auto disincentives regarding the location of the building. Johnson agreed that the design review standards were inappropriate for this project. Skadron agreed that it meets the standards and that the green elements were a plus. Johns applauded the applicant because this was one of the only new developments in the commercial core. Marion took issue with the parking decision placed on P&Z. Speck appreciated the project and initially was concerned about the sidewalk safety issue. Kruger applauded this project for not coming forward with maximum build out, no variances on dimensions, and agreed the affordable housing belonged in the commercial core. MOTION: Jack Johnson moved to approve P&Z Resolution #08, series 2005, recommending City Council approve the Affordable Housing Parking monies be dedicated to the car share program and the period from time the certificate of occupancy is issued up to a year remain for the same use; seconded by Dylan Johns. Roll call vote: Marion, yes; Skadron, yes; Speck, yes; Johns, yes; Johnson, yes; Kruger, yes. Motion carried, APPROVED 6-0. PUBLIC HEARING: Lodge at Aspen Mountain (Revised design) Conceptual PUD Joyce Allgaier stated that because of the timing the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Revised Design Conceptual PUD would not be a public hearing tonight. Doug Allen, public, stated that people had come in from out of town. Dylan Johns opened the public hearing for the Lodge. MOTION.• Brandon Marion moved to continue the Lodge at Aspen Mountain to March 22"d; seconded by Dylan Johns. All in favor, APPROVED. Meeting adjourned at 6:50 pm. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 6 .~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Directory '^^~n/1 FROM: Sarah Oates, Zoning OfficerSO ~J`~`~'~'~ 1 RE: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 20, Series of 2005, Code Amendments Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards. DATE: April 11, 2005 SUMMARY: Community Development Staff was directed by City Council to revise the Residential Design Standards to allow for a more streamlined review process for variance requests, and to recognize that different standards should apply to different neighborhoods and housing types. Staff has not done a wholesale revision of the code but has incorporated changes based on comments from the design community. Suggested changes include the following: • Incorporate an administrative variance process and/or allow one "freebie" from the standards • Differentiate between multi-family and single-family/duplex development • Differentiate between design in the West End and other neighborhoods in the City of Aspen • Eliminate the Secondary Mass requirement (i.e. provide a smaller, detached or linked component) • Recognize that some sites have no relationship to the street and pedestrian scale APPLICANT: City of Aspen Community Development Department. PROCEDURE: Pursuant to Section 26.310.020, Procedure for Amendment, a development application for an amendment to the text of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval by the Community Development Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing, and then approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved by the City Council at a public hearing. DISCUSSION: For clarity, Staff has outlined and summarized each of the proposed amendments, section by section, below. Staff comments, if there are any, are in italics: Applicability, Section 26.410.010(B)(1): This section has been revised to differentiate between different areas within the City of Aspen and different housing types. In this section, Staff is proposing specific requirements applicable to the Aspen Infill Area (i.e. traditional patted lots), lots with no street frontage, multi-family buildings and the outlying residential neighborhoods. Staff recognizes that several of the existing Residential Design Standards are best suited to Aspen's traditional 30'x 100' lots, while not being as appropriate for the more suburban lots on the edges of town. • Definitions, Section 26.410.010(E): Staff added a definition of "street" for the purposes of Section 26.410 to include both public streets and private streets accessing more than one parcel. • Determination of Applicability, Section 26.410.020(A): Staff amended this section to bring the procedure more in line with how Staff administers the standards currently. • Determination of Consistency, Section 26.410.020(B): Staff amended this section to bring the procedure more in line with how Staff administers the standards currently. • Variances, Section 26.410.020(D): One of the biggest complaints Staff has heard with regards to the Residential Design Standards is that the variance process is too cumbersome. Currently, an applicant seeking a variance from the standards may have to wait several months to be accommodated on a P&Z or HPC agenda. One suggestion that came up in a meeting with members of the design community was to have one "freebie" in which the applicant could automatically waive one of the requirements. Stafffeels amore appropriate way to administer the standards is to allow the Community Development Director to grant a variance for up to three (3) of the individual requirements given the specific context of the site. Staff currently handles minor PUD amendments, HPC approvals and plat changes in this manner. The standards the Community Development Director will use are [he same as those used by the Commissions. Staff also has the ability to send a request to one of the Commissions if~we feel the proposal does not meet the standards. Building Orientation, Section 25.410.040(A)(1): Parcels with no street frontage and parcels with front yard setbacks at least ten (10) feet vertically above street grade shall be exempt from this standard. Build-to lines, Section 26.410.040(A)(2): An issue that came up in Staff s meeting with the design community was that corner lots were subject to more standards and overall it was more difficult to meet the standards on corner lots. Staff has eliminated the requirement that build-to lines be met on both street facades. The proposal is to require build-to lines, only on the street fagade with the longest block length. • Secondary Mass, Section 26.410.040(B)(1): Secondary mass has been a difficult standard for Staff to administer, especially on non-traditional lots. Staff is proposing that secondary mass only apply to lots within the Aspen Infill Area. Staff has also added language that limits the width of the link in order to accomplish the intent of the standard. • Garage Setback, Section 26.410.040(C)(2)(b): An issue that came up in Staff s meeting with the design community was that the garage setback did not need to be as much as ten (10) feet, as currently required, to achieve a the goal of making the garage a secondary element. Staff feels that ten (l U) .feel is appropriate and Luis not proposed any change for lhls requirement. Garage Doors, Section 26.410.040(C)(2)(1): When Staff changed this Residential Design Standard criteria last year, the requirement to allow double stall doors that looked like single stall doors was applied to parcels not visible from a public street. Staff is proposing the requirement for garage doors on public streets be changed to also allow for double stall doors that look like single stall doors. Building Elements, Section 26.410.040(D)(1): Staff made changes to this section to clarify standards for multi-family buildings. The manner in which the section was split up was confusing and Staff rearranged it for better clarification. Windows, Section 26.410.040(D)(3)(a) and (b): Staff has eliminated the language regarding the 2:1 FAR penalty for windows that span between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet. The currently language is confusing and it is unclear if the penalty is applied even with a variance. As proposed, Staff has done away with the 2:1 FAR penalty and applicants must ask for a variance for windows to span between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet. With regards to non-orthogonal windows, currently, only one per facade is permitted. Staff is proposing this regulation not apply outside of the Aspen Infill Area. • Inflection, Section 26.410.040(E)(2): Staff is proposing that inflection, in which all new construction must step down to one story if an adjacent bui]ding is one story, be limited to the Aspen Infill Area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the amendments to Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards. P&Z RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the amendments the Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards with an addition that the Commission receive an annual report of the administrative approvals. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards, as proposed in the Exhibit A."/~ CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: ( ~j f.rt-w,rn.a~~ ~~~. Attachments: Exhibit A: Proposed Code Amendments Exhibit B: Review Standards Exhibit C: Memo to City Council from Joyce Allgaier dated July 19, 2004 Exhibit D: Planning & Zoning Commission minutes dated March 15, 2005 ORDINANCE N0. 20 (SERIES OF 2005) A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING CODE AMENDMENTS TO THE FOLLOWING SECTION: 26.410, RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department initiated code amendment changes to the above cited sections; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.310.040, the City Council, in accordance with the procedures, standards, and limitations of this Chapter, shall by resolution approve, approve with conditions, or deny a Code Amendment application for Amendment to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, after recommendation by the Community Development Department pursuant to Section 26.430.020; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the Code Amendments to the above cited sections pursuant to Section 26.310.040 and recommended approval; and, WHEREAS, during a public hearing on March 15, 2005, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended by a seven to zero (7-0) vote, the City Council approve the amendments to Section 26.410; and, WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing, considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director and took public testimony of code amendments to Section 26.410; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that Code Amendments meet or exceed all applicable amendment standards and that the approval of the Code Amendments, are consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL as follows: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Code Amendment sections initiated by the Community Development Department are approved as noted below: CHAPTER 26.410 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Sections: 26.410.010 General. 26.410.020 Procedures for Review. 26.410.030 Administrative checklist. 26.410.040 Residential design standards. 26.410.010 General. A. Purpose. The purpose of the following design standards is to preserve established neighborhood scale and character, and to ensure that Aspen's streets and neighborhoods are public places conducive to walking. The standards do not prescribe architectural style, but do require that each home, while serving the needs of its owner, contribute to the streetscape. Neighborhood character is largely established by the relationship between front facades of buildings and the streets they face. By orienting buildings parallel to the street and maintaining a certain consistency in front setback patterns there is interaction between residents and passersby and the built environment. The area between the street and the front door of the home is a transition between the public realm of the neighborhood and the private life of a dwelling. Low fences and hedges may be used to delineate the edge of a property, but it is important not to close off views of the front lawn and house. Certain elements of the front fagade of a house are particularly important components of neighborhood character. Front porches provide outdoor living space and animation to the streetscape, and one story entryways provide an appropriate domestic scale for a private residence. Street-facing windows can establish a hierarchy of spaces with larger, formal windows denoting public areas and smaller ones suggesting private rooms. Acknowledgement of the context that has been established by the existing built environment is important to protecting the uniqueness of the town. Avoiding building materials which have no relevance to Aspen's history or climate helps to meet this goal, as does avoiding a significant overshadowing of small homes by larger structures. Finally, along with creating homes which are architecturally interesting and lively, the pedestrian nature of a neighborhood can be further enhanced by reducing conflicts between people and automobiles, and by making alleys an attractive place to walk. Parking areas are to be concentrated to the rear or side of each residence. Secondary structures and accessory dwelling units, located along the alleys and inspired by the tradition of outbuildings in Aspen, are encouraged. B. Applicability. Except as outlined below this section applies to all residential development in the City of Aspen requiring a building permit, except for residential development within the R-15B zone district: 1. Only the following standards shall apply to multi-family housing: Section 26.410.040(A)(1), building orientation, Section 26.410.040(C)(1)(a), access or, if not applicable, Section 26.4 ] 0.040(C)(2)(b), garage setback and 26.410.040(D), building elements, as outlined in said section for multi-family buildings. 2. Parcels located within and partially within the Aspen Infill Area (see Section 25.104, Definitions) shall be required to comply with all of the standards. 3. Parcels not located in the Aspen Infill Area are required to comply with all the standards except the following: Section 26.410.040(B)(1), secondary mass, Section 26.410.040(D)(3)(b), non-orthogonal windows and Section 26.410.040(E)(2), inflection, in its entirety. 4. Parcels with no street frontage and parcels with front yard setbacks at least ten (10) feet vertical above street grade shall be exempt from the following requirements: Section 26.410.040(A)(1), building orientation and Section 26.410.040(D), building elements, in its entirety. 5. Residential units within mixed-use buildings shall be exempt from the requirement of this Chapter 26.410 in its entirety. C. Application. An application for residential development shall consist of an application for a Development Order as may be required by the Community Development Director, Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, or City Council, pursuant to Section 26.304.030, and an application for "Residential Design Standards" review, pursuant to Section 26.410.020. D. Exemptions. No application for a residential development order shall be exempt from the provisions of this section unless the Community Development Director determines that the proposed development: L Is an addition or remodel of an existing structure that does not change the exterior of the building; or 2. Is a remodel of a structure where alterations proposed change the exterior of the building but are not addressed by any of the Residential Design Standards; or 3. Is an application only for the erection of a fence, and the application meets Section 26.410.040.A.3. E. Definitions. Unless otherwise indicated, the definitions of words used in these regulations shall be the same as the definitions used in Chapter 26.150 of the Aspen Municipal Land Use Code. In addition, the following definitions shall apply: Street. A way or thoroughfare, other than an alley, containing a public access easement and used or intended for vehicular, bicycle or pedestrian traffic. The term "street" shall include the entire area within a right of way. For the purposed of Section 26.410 street shall also include private roads, streets and access easements serving more than one (1) parcel. 26.410.020 Procedures t'or Review. A. Determination of Applicability. Applicability shall be determined at the time of building permit submittal. The applicant may request apre-application conference to determine as to whether the proposed project is exempt from the requirements of this chapter. B. Determination of Consistency. Consistency with the Residential Design Standards shall be determined at the time of building permit review. The applicant may request apre-application conference to determine consistency with the requirements of this chapter. C. Appeal of Adverse Determination. If an application is found to be inconsistent with any item of the Residential Design Standards, the applicant may either amend the application or seek a variance as set forth below. D. Variances. 1. Administrative Variances. The applicant may seek an administrative variance for not more than three (3) of the individual requirements. An applicant who desires a variance from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate, and the Community Development Director shall find that the variances, if granted, would: a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the director may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity as the director feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or, b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. The Community Development Director shall provide the Planning and Zoning Commission an annual report of approved administrative variances. 2. Variances from the Residential Design Standards, Section 26.410.040, which do not meet Section 26.410.020(D) above may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, if the project is subject to the requirements of Section 26.415. An applicant who desires to consolidate other requisite land use reviews by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission may elect to have the variance application decided by the board or commission reviewing the other land use application. Au applicant who desires a variance from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate, and the deciding board shall find that the variance, if granted, would: a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or, b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. 26.410.030 Administrative checklist. The Director of Community Development shall create a checklist for use by applicants and community development staff in identifying the approvals and reviews necessary for issuance of a development order for an application that is consistent with the Residential Design Standards. 26.410.040 Residential design standards. A. SITE DESIGN. The intent of these design standards is to encourage residential buildings that address the street in a manner which creates a consistent "facade line" and defines the public and semi-public realms. In addition, where fences or dense landscaping exist, or are proposed, it is intended that they be used to define the boundaries of private property without eliminating the visibility of the house and front yard from the street. 1. Building orientation The front facades of all prin- cipal structures shall be par- allel to the street. On corner lots, both street facing facades must be parallel to the intersecting streets. On curvilinear streets, the front facade of all structures shall be parallel to the tangent of the midpoint of the arc of the street. Parcels as outlined in Section 26.410.010(B)(4) shall be exempt from this requirement. One element, such as a bay window or dormer, placed at a front corner of the building may be on a diagonal from the street if desired. 2. Build-to lines. On parcels or lots of less than 15,000 square feet, at least Yes. No. twlC,"ir i ~`' JJ,~ ~~ i ' ~ ,/ Yes. // Yes. I No. ~ Yes. ~I ~ 60% of the front facade shall be within 5 feet of the minimum front yard setback line. On corner lots, this standard shall be met on the frontage with the longest block length. Porches may be used meet the 60% standard. 3. Fences. Fences, hedgerows, and planter boxes shall not be more than forty-two inches (42") high, measured from natural grade, in all areas forward of the front facade of the house. Mau-made berms are prohib-. ited in the front yard set- back. B. BUILDING FORM. The Yes. intent of the following building form standards is to respect the scale of Aspen's historical homes by creating new homes which are more similar in their massing, by promoting the development of accessory units off of the City alleys, and by preserving solar access. 1. Secondary Mass. All new single family and duplex structures shall locate at least 10% of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal building, or liiilced to it by a subordinate connecting element. This standard shall only apply to parcels within the Aspen Infill Area pursuant to Section 26.410.010(B)(2). Accessory buildings such as garages, sheds, and Accessory Dwelling Units are examples of appropriate uses for the secondary mass. A subordinate linking element for the purposes of secondary mass shall be defined as an element not more than ten (10) feet in width and ten (10) feet in length with a plate height of not more than nine (9) feet. Linked pavilions six (6) feet in width and ten (10) feet in length shall be exempt from Section 26.575.020(A)(8). C. PARKING, GARAGES AND CARPORTS. The intent of the following parking, garages, and carport standards is to minimize the potential for conflicts between pedestrian and automobile traffic by placing parking, garages, and carports on alleys, or to minimize the presence of garages and carports as a lifeless part of the streetscape where alleys do not exist. 1. For all residential that have access from an alley or private road, the following standards shall apply: a. Parking, garages, and carports shall be accessed from an alley or private road. b. If the garage doors are visible trom a street or alley, then they shall be single-stall doors, or double-stall doors designed to appear like single-stall doors. c. If the garage doors are not visible from a street or alley, the garage doors may be either single stall or normal double stall garage doors. 2. For all residential uses that have access only from a public street, the following standards shall apply: a. On the street facing o H. a garage or carport. b. The front facade of facade(s), the width of the living area on the first floor shall be at least five (5) feet greater than the width of the the garage or the front most supporting column of a car- port shall be set back at least ten feet (10' 0") further from the street than the front most wall of the house. c. On lots of at 15,000 square feet in the garage or carport forward of the front of the house only if garage doors or are perpendicular to street (side-loaded). _/ ~.` ~ i_ .~ d. When the floor of a garage or carport is above or below the street level, the driveway cut within the front yard setback shall not exceed two (2) feet in depth, mea- sured from natural grade. e. The vehicular entrance width of a garage or carport shall not be greater than twenty-four feet (24'). least size, maybe facade the carport entry the ~~ f. If the garage doors are visible from a public street or alley, then they shall be single-stall doors, or double-stall doors designed to appear like single-stall doors. D. BUILDING ELEMENTS. The intent of the following building elements standards is to ensure that each residential building has street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions. 1. Street oriented entrance and principal window. All single-family homesand duplexes, except as outlined in Section 26.410.010(B)(4)shall have astreet-oriented entrance and a street facing principal window Multi-family units shall have at least one street-oriented entrance for every four (4) units, and front units must have astreet-facing principal window. On corner lots, entries and principal win- dows should face whichever street has a greater block length. j l i i i i ~ i i i i l i i l i Comer Lot I ~ I i ~ i i i ~ I ~ ~ i i /~'~ Block Length This standard shall besatisfied if all of the following conditions are met: a. The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten feet (10'0") back from the frontmost wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight b. A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six feet (6'), shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one story in height. c. Astreet-facing prin- cipal window requires that a significant window or group of windows face street. ~. I o' FPrincipal Window. 2. First story element. All residential buildings shall have afirst-story street-facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty (20) percent of the building's overall width and the depth of which is at least six (6) feet from the wall the first-story 9 element is projecting from. Assuming that the first story element includes interior living space, the height of the first story element shall not exceed ten (10) feet, as measured to the plate height. A first-story element may be a porch or living space. Accessible space (whether it is a deck, porch, or enclosed area) shall not be allowed over the first story element, however, accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front facade shall not be precluded. 3. Windows. a. Street facing windows shall not span through the area where a second floor level would typically exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve feet (12) above the finished first floor. For interior staircases, this measure- ment will be made from the first land- ing if one exists. A transom window above the main entry is exempt from this standard. b. No more than one non-orthogonal window shall be allowed on each facade of the building. A single non-orthogonal window in a gable end maybe divided with mullions and still be considered one non- orthogonal window. The requirement shall only apply to 26.410.010(B)(2). 4. Lightwells. All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the street facing facade(s) of a building shall be entirely recessed behind the fronhnost wall of the building. ]0 Section E. CONTEXT. The intent of the following standards is to reinforce the unique character of Aspen and the region by drawing upon Aspen's vernacular architecture and neighborhood characteristics in designing new structures. 1. Materials. The following standards must be met: a. The quality of the exterior materials and details and their application shall be consistent on all sides of the building. b. Materials shall be used in ways that are true to their characteristics. For instance stucco, which is a light or non-bearing materi- al, shall not be used below a heavy material, such as stone. ~. No. ~~, _._ _1 Yes. c. Highly reflective sur- faces shall not be used as exterior materials. No. 2. [nllection. The following standard must be met for parcels which are 6,000 square feet or over and as outlined in Section 26.410.010(B)(2): a. If a one (1) story building exists directly adja- cent to the subject site, then the new construction must step down to one story in height along their common lot line. If there are one story buildings on both sides of the subject site, the appli- cant may choose the side towards which to inflect. I1 i - ~ Ifi =_ ~,2 I ,~z A one story building shall be defined as follows: A one story building shall mean a structure, or portion of a structure, where there is only one floor of fully usable living space, at least 12 feet wide across the street frontage. This standard shall be met by providing a one story element which is also at least twelve (12) feet wide across the street frontage and one story tall as far back along the common lot line as the adjacent building is one story. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the Code Amendment approval as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such Code Amendment approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on this 28"' day of March 2005. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor 12 FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 11 °i Day of Apri12005. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Approved as to form: John Worcester, City Attorney 13 EXHIBIT A CHAPTER 26.410 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Sections: 26.410.010 General. 26.410.020 Procedures for Review. 26.410.030 Administrative checklist. 26.410.040 Residential design standards. 26.410.010 General. A. Purpose. The purpose of the following design standards is to preserve established neighborhood scale and character, and to ensure that Aspen's streets and neighborhoods are public places conducive to walking. The standards do not prescribe architectural style, but do require that each home, while serving the needs of its owner, contribute to the streetscape. Neighborhood character is largely established by the relationship between front facades of buildings and the streets they face. By orienting buildings parallel to the street and maintaining a certain consistency in front setback patterns.- there is interaction between residents and passersby and the built environment. The area between the street and the front door of the home is a transition between the public realm of the neighborhood and the private life of a dwelling. Low fences and hedges may be used to delineate the edge of a property, but it is important not to close off views of the front lawn and house. Certain elements of the front facade of a house are particularly important components of neighborhood character. Front porches provide outdoor living space and animation to the streetscape, and one story entryways provide an appropriate domestic scale for a private residence. Street-facing windows can establish a hierarchy of spaces with larger, formal windows denoting public areas and smaller ones suggesting private rooms. Acknowledgement of the context that has been established by the existing built environment is important to protecting the uniqueness of the town. Avoiding building materials which have no relevance to Aspen's history or climate helps to meet this goal, as does avoiding a significant overshadowing of small homes by larger structures. Finally, along with creating homes which are architecturally interesting and lively, the pedestrian nature of a neighborhood can be further enhanced by reducing conflicts between people and automobiles, and by making alleys an attractive place to walk. Parking areas are to be concentrated to the rear or side of each residence. Secondary structures and accessory dwelling units, located along the alleys and inspired by the tradition of outbuildings in Aspen, are encouraged. B. Applicability. Fsecpt as outlined below Flhis section applies to all residential development in the City of Aspen requiring a building permit, except for residential development within the R-15B zone district- ]_,-._.-.-_.____Only_lhe following standards shall apply to multi-family housing: Section 26 41Q040fA~11. building orientation Section_26_410.040(C)(1)(a), access or. if not applicable. Section 36.410.040(0 (3)(b) garage setbacl: and 26.410_040(D}, building cletnents. as outlined in said section for muhi-family buildings. 2, Parcels located within. an{ partially, y~ithin the Aspen Infill Area (sec Sc ctioi~ 3.104. Definitions) ~h ill be required to comply with all of the standards. 3. _Parechnot_located in the Aspen Infill Area required to comply_with a1] the it zncjaids except the folloyymg Section 2(i.410.(140(I3~ I ). secondary mass. Section 36.410.040(D)(31(b). non-orthogonal windows and Section 26.410.040(6)(2), inflection, m its_en_t~ret} ~..- _ Parcels with no stt~et frontage and parcels with front yard setback at (cast ten (10) icct vertical above street grade shall be exempt from the following requirements: Section 26.=110.040{A}(I). txtildin<> orientation and Section 26.410.040(D), building cl-ci}dents,-_n_ts_cntirety, Residential units within mixed-use buildings shall be exempt from the requirement of ibis Chapter 26.410 in its entirety. C. Application. An application for residential development shall consist of an application for a Development Order as may be required by the Community Development Director, Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, or City Council, pursuant to Section 26.304.030, and an application for "Residential Design Standards" review, pursuant to Section 26.410.020. D. Exemptions. No application for a residential development order shall be exempt from the provisions of this section unless the Rlusr}ing-Commumity Devclo~mcnt Director determines that the proposed development: 1. Is an addition or remodel of an existing structure that does not change the exterior of the building; or 2. Is a remodel of a structure where alterations proposed change the exterior of the building but are not addressed by any of the Residential Design Standards; or 3. Is an application only for the erection of a fence, and the application meets Section 26.410.040.A.3. G. Definitions. Unless otherw=ise indicated, the definitions of words used in then recut itrons sha(1 be the same as the definitions used in Chapter 26.150 of the Aspen Municipal Land Use Co<ic. In addition, the followinl* definitions shall apply: Street. A way or thoroughfarc^, oth¢r than an alley, containing a public access casement and used or intended for vehicular, bicycle or pedestrian traffic. The tcrin "street" shall include the entire area within a right of way. 1~'or the purposed. of Section 26.410 street shall also include private roads. streets and access ~a5c rn~nts scrcing more, than oi~c~l~parcel. 26.410.020 Procedures for Review. A. Determination of Applicability. lpplicability shall be determined at the time of building permit submittal. 'T'he applicant may request apre-application conference to determine ""~Fhe' ~ ^ , , n~.,,i ,~.,. ,... r~ ..,,. ,,. ,...r,..,,:~ + . ._._... 4 I I ...,, I .l.~f ~,. ~n=~mii3ati~-as to whether the proposed project is exempt from the requirements of this chapters r*n=i.n'''~~' «'~~ ~'°~°~ ~ ~a°~~'° °"•°" apt~#;~kr the-pre~ased-}>rojeet~ -theerpp#.iearrty;IraT#+eoei ve-rtH-rr}~plisat-ten-#i~rrrr-4jr lle~+E#onfia# [-)esiw~ ~,--:,;:n~a~d'rrevie~;-' '~;t+dcsritopy-e#~~kt+r-cirimir3istrati-ae B. Determination of Consistency. t3~^~° ° ~' ~~` °~~ °~r'r~•'~,'^^~~~ }?„ •:a:sit`c::ti==F-D~'-~'i~',=}-r~~i'iii;,~-i~r/~r~E~=iELk ;-Fl.,~ !" ............:.~. ~ r\~. ol.~...,, ~ . rl;~•,,-fr-cnrcoivr_idii b fjl4~ ' `~~ ~~;-;Tr04~Consistencv ~iith the Residential Desi~=n Standards shall be determined at the time of building permit review. "fho applicant may request a-pre- ipplicatic~n conference to dct~rmme_cgnststencv with the rcqu{remfnts of this chapter. C. Appeal of Adverse Determination. If an application is found to be inconsistent with any item of the Residential Design Standards, the applicant may either amend the application or seek a variance as set forth below. D. Variances. 1,.,__ Admmish~ativc Variance;;. The applicant may seek an administrative cariancc for not more than three 13j of the individual requirements. An applicant who desires a variance from the Residential Design Standards shall dcmonsUate, and the ( gmmthrt~ [~e~~el_opmurt Director shall hnd That the variances, if granted, would- a. Prop ids au anuronriate desis~n or naftern of development considerintz the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose oi' the p utiull~n st}ndard In e~~aluatiuU the context as it is used in the criteria. the dlrechrr ma}-consider the relationship of the proposed development with Tdjacent structures. the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity trs Che director feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted: or. 1~_Ije e l~rrl~_nc~e5sary_(i~i rc.asq_ ns of (a~rness rclatcd_t~ urmsual site-specific axlstrainis. (hc Cc~mnuuut~I)evclopmcnt Director shall provide the Planning and Zoning: omu>> sro~? an annual rex~rt ol'a~prl,~~~ed administrative variances. Z. Variances from the Residential Design Standards, Section 26.410.040, ~~ tlchdo not meet Section 21i.410.020(~snavabove maybe granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, th..- ac° ' ~~r ^ ~'; :' ~~~~' or the Historic Preservation Commission, if the project is subject to the requirements of Section 26.415. An applicant who desires to consolidate other requisite land use reviews by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission may elect to have the variance application decided by the board or commission reviewing the other land use application. An applicant who desires a variance from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate, and the deciding board shall find that the variance, if granted, would: l a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or, ?-b, Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. 26.410.030 Administrative checklist. The Director of Community Development shall create a checklist for use by applicants and community development staff in identifying the approvals and reviews necessary for issuance of a development order for an application that is consistent with the Residential Design Standards. 26.410.040 Residential design standards. A. SITE DESIGN. The intent of these design standards is to encourage residential buildings that address the street in a manner which creates a consistent "fagade line" and defines the public and semi-public realms. In addition, where fences or dense landscaping exist, or are proposed, it is intended that they be used to define the boundaries of private property without eliminating the visibility of the house and front yard from the street. 1. Building orientation The front facades of all prin- cipal structures shall be par- allel to the street. On corner lots, both street facing facades must be parallel to the intersecting streets. On curvilinear streets, the front facade of all structures shall be parallel to the tangent of Yes. No. ~ "~Ifl~,l I ~ '9 > ~j Yes. % 4 the midpoint of the arc of the street. Parcels as outlined in S~cuun~ti.flOOlO(13 -1 shall be c_s~n~pl Crorn this requiremen One element, such as a bay window or dormer, placed at a front corner of the building may be on a diagonal from the street if desired. 2. Build-to lines. On parcels or lots of less than 15,000 square feet, at least 60% of the front facade shall be within 5 feet of the minimum front yard setback line. <-1n -star,-a~katit-litl!'<n c, - f eet-c~F-the-tuirrimtfm-sc~tl~ek I-i~r~s On corner lots. this standard shall be mct_cm the frpnt_ivc with the ion<__*esl block length. Porches may be used meet the 60% standard. 3. Fences. Fences, hedgerows, and planter boxes shall not be more than forty-two inches (42") high, measured from natural grade, in all areas forward of the front facade of the house. Man-made berms are prohib-: ited in the front yard set- back. B. BUILDING FORM. The Yes. I No. ~ Yes. ®~ 1 Yes. intent of the following building 1 form standards is to respect the scale of Aspen's historical homes by creating new homes which are more similar in their massing, by promoting the development of accessory No: units off of the City alleys, and by preserving solar access. Secondary Mass. All i~ew_single_a'_imih_and duplex siructures+struettrres shall locate at least 10°.~0 of their total square footane above <~radc in a miss yyhich is --- - cgmpletely detached from the principal building. or linked to it by a subordinate connectiil<~ clcmexrt. a . This standard shall only apply to parcels within the Aspen 1u611 Arca pursuant to Section ?b.410.01(l~}3~(?)_ Accessory buildings such as garages, sheds, and Accessory Dwelling Units are examples of appropriate uses for the secondary mass. A subordinate linking element for the purposes of-secondarv mass shall be delined as an element not more than ten (] U) feet in ~yidth and ten (1.01 feet in length kith a plate height of not morethan nine ~9) feet. T,inl:ed pavilions six (6) feet in width and ten (10} feet in lcnath shall. be cxcmf~ trcml.5cc,tiop 2(i.~75_Q2QfA1(81. `~e~<rr{rlar~~rass-slarlf-bE d~4irred-as-an-rltmeat-nHt ~~ in~cwgtFi-wild,^ti;=-n~r~mHrt then--psi n~-{~)-1 et t C. PARKING, GARAGES AND CARPORTS. The intent of the following parking, garages, and carport standards is to minimize the potential For conflicts between pedestrian and automobile traffic by placing parking, garages, and carports on alleys, or to minimize the presence of garages and carports as a lifeless part of the streetscape where alleys do not exist. For all residential that have access from an alley or private road, the following standards shall apply: a. Parking, garages, and carports shall be accessed from an alley or private road. b. If the garage doors are visible from a pulilie-street or alley, then they shall be single-stall doors, or double-stall doors designed to appear like single-stall doors. a If the garage doors are not visible from a public-street or alley, the garage doors may he either single stall or normal double stall garage doors. 2. For all residential uses that have access only from a public street, the following standards shall apply: a. On the street facing facade(s), the width of the living area on the first floor shall be at least five (5) feet greater than the width of the garage or carport. 1 ~I ~y id I ~l .k- x -,~ a x,s'~ size, the garage or carport maybe forward of the front facade of the house only if the garage doors or carport entry are perpendicular to the street (side-loaded). 0 o H. H ~x -~' ~---~X~s'-y' b. The front facade of the garage or the front most supporting column of a car- port shall be set back at least ten feet (10' 0") further from the street than the front most wall of the house. c. On lots of at least 15,000 square feet in .` /.. 7 d. When the floor of a garage or carport is above or below the street level, the driveway cut within the front yard setback shall not exceed two (2) feet in depth, mea- sured from natural grade. e. The vehicular entrance width of a garage or carport shall not be greater than twenty-four feet (24'). ~u f Ifthe garage doors are visible from a public street or alley, then they shall be single-stall doors, or double-stall doors designed to appear like single-stall doors..- Flre-garage-d<~rx~s-Shall 1 he-~ ate-~l~s-ar'e-t~jt-~ is+ble rein-arr~fx-rl~lie-Serest-or-al:~~~t3 ~a :,~ga double-Stell-tlr~rs: D. BUILDING ELEMENTS. The intent of the following building elements standards is to ensure that each residential building has street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions. 1. Street oriented entrance and principal window. All single-family homes; #awar hcrus~s:-and duplexes. except as outlined in Section 26.410.010(B)(4}shall have astreet- oriented entrance and a street facing principal window:_Multi-itimiy.ua~its shgtll_haye. at bast one street-oriented ei2tTancc_fgr every four (& units. and front units must have a succt-facing principal window. T^ '"~ ~ ~~ ~+~~« ~"~~~ °°~ °~•'' acccsst~+-y -untts liisnrg-eet~rtyhtcl~ or-gardtrrs, ~ntrte~a~.,' ~ . ~ ",.,rk~4-laet those- liar#-nr~s: On corner lots, entries and principal win- dows should face whichever street has a j l i i i i j i i i i l i i i i Comer LOt i i i i i i ~ i ~ ~ ~ i V o~.... ~ e.....,. ~ greater block length. ^': '.-.,at-residential--brrilc~i.mss-sr",a;'~~at'~~n°,~onn, st=et c~rir ntetl , n. ,, ~.~,r ~~ r,., .4-,t~ ' ',-c~tT r t•...,, .., ,... ~ i„yv„~;n .,mot-R;c;;,- prrnE itxil--~Findow: This standard shall be satisfied if all of the following conditions are met: a. The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten feet (10'0") back from the frontmost wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight b. A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six feet (6'), shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one story in height. c. Astreet-facing prin- cipal window requires that a significant window or group of windows face street. 2. First story element. All residential buildings shall have afirst-story street-facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty (20) percent of the building's overall width and the depth of which is at least six (6) feet from the wall the first-story element is projecting from. Assuming that FPrinci al Window. i i "No window 12' ~ -zone" 9 the first story element includes interior living space, the height of the first story element shall not exceed ten (10) feet, as measured to the plate height. A first-story element may be a porch or living space. Accessible space (whether it is a deck, porch, or enclosed area) shall not be allowed over the first story element, however, accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front facade shall not be precluded. Windows. a. Street facing windows shall not span through the area where a second floor level would typically exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve feet (12) above the finished first floor. For interior staircases, this measure- ment will be made from the first land- ing if one exists. A transom window above the main entry is exempt from this standard. ,~ exl~res5iou-<rFpl<rt.',";~ 1"~t~tl3cts} ten-(-11}j-Sc ., .r..z,-~;;-c:~~ntted a4~we r.,,+ .r o, . srie shalt-L>t-de# r+~~ck as-{=aEac~-pF~t~ettrs amt hc-level-<~ 1=frz, i~r" ~.,'.~r b. No more than one non-orthogonal window shall be allowed on each facade of the building. A single non-orthogonal window in a gable end may be divided with mullions and still be considered one non-orthogonal window. The requirement shall only ap~~ly to Section 26.410.010(8)(2). 4. Lightwells. All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the street facing facade(s) of a building shall be entirely recessed behind the frontmost wall of the building. i __ I -_ -- I _ yes ,~ . .-. i Street ~ "° 10 E. CONTEXT. The intent of the following standards is to reinforce the unique character of Aspen and the region by drawing upon Aspen's vernacular architecture and neighborhood characteristics in designing new structures. Materials. The following standards must be met: a. The quality of the exterior materials and details and their application shall be consistent on all sides of the building. b. Materials shall be used in ways that are true to their characteristics. For instance stucco, which is a light or non-bearing materi- al, shall not be used below a heavy material, such as stone. c. Highly reflective sur- faces shall not be used as exterior materials. 2. Inflection. The following standard must be met for parcels which are 6,000 square feet or over_and as outlined in Section 36.4] 0.010(B~: a. If a one (1) story building exists directly adja- cent to the subject site, then the new construction must step down to one story in height along their common lot line. If there are one story buildings on both sides of the subject site, the appli- cantmay choose the side towards which to inflect. ~f... Then. ~'' t _= 1 A one story building shall be defined as follows: A one story building shall mean a structure, or portion of a structure, where there is only one floor of fully usable living space, at least 12 feet wide across the street frontage. This standard shall be met by providing a one story element which is also at least twelve (12) feet wide across the street frontage and one story tall as far back along the common lot line as the adjacent building is one story. 12 EXHIBIT B: REVIEW STANDARDS FOR CODE AMENDMENTS REVIEW STANDARDS: Chapter 26.92, Amendments To The Land Use Regulations And Official Zone District Map, at Section 26.92.020 provides nine (A-I) standards for City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission's review of proposed amendments to the text of the Land Use Code. These standards and Staff s evaluation of the potential amendments relative to them are provided below, with the standard in italics followed by the Staff "response." A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this lisle. RESPONSE: The proposed amendments would not be in conflict with any applicable portions of the Aspen Municipal Code. 6. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. RESPONSE: None of the proposed amendments would be in conflict with any elements of the AACP. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land uses and neighborhood characteristics. RESPONSE: The code amendments proposed will not affect compatibility of existing land uses. The proposed amendments take into account neighborhood characteristics of different neighborhoods. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. RESPONSE: The proposed code amendments are not anticipated to have any effect on traffic generation or road safety. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would resat[ in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public .facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. RESPONSE: The proposed code amendments are not anticipated to have an impact on infrastructure or infrastructure capacities. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. RESPONSE: The proposed code amendments are not anticipated to have an effect on the natural environment except to preserve and enhance. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. RESPONSE: These code amendments will be consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. K Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. RESPONSE: Staffs goal is that the proposed changes will create more compatibility within neighborhoods.. 1 Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. RESPONSE: Staff believes the proposed amendments will not be in conflict with the public interest, and are in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. 2 ~~ ~, ~ i~, ~' L MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Joyce A. Allgaier, Deputy Director of Community Development RE: Work Session on Residential Design Standards DATE: July 19, 2004 Background: Earlier this year the City Council asked that the Community Development Staff initiate an evaluation of the Residential Design Standards (RDS) contained within the Land Use Code. The RDS apply to all residential development within the city, both single family and multi-family housing and have been in place since 1995 (preceded by Ord.30) and have been revised through the yeazs. In the last seven (7) yeazs, the Community Development Department has handled seventy-two (72) RDS vaziance cases. The types of variances requested have largely been focused on secondary mass, garage location, single stall garage door, 9-12 foot "no window zone", non-orthogonal windows, and first story element. These cases require review by the Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission and ordinarily take up to 2 months to handle through a public hearing process. A typical cost for a RDS variance is around $1310.00 to the applicant and takes azound 5-7 Staff hours. Some cases, however, are wrapped into other land use cases and cost significantly less for just the variance. In initiating this project, Staff convened a group of "design practitioners" (architects and planners who actually use the city's code). We asked them to identify the benefits, issues, and problems they encounter in using the RDS and to recommend new ideas or changes to make the regulations better. One of the ground rules of the meeting was that "wholesale revisions" to the RDS was not what we were looking for. It is Staff's intention to propose minor amendments that make both the regulations and the r~ocess more effective and efficient, while still attaining a high level of design aesthetics that has proven to be a strong community value. Some of the overarching and more General observations of the group included the following bulleted items. Recommendations aze in bold italics. • The RDS should continue to allow for diversity in architecture. Therefore, do not make the design standards any more specific than they are such that they would dictate a certain style, creative expression, materials or color. • Some members of the group felt that the RDS have a tendency to bring architecture down to a "lowest common denominator", other group members felt that a good architect who understands streetscape and community planning can abide by the RDS and succeed with highly unique and creative projects, and still others felt that the RDS do help to prevent architectural "disasters". The RDS should continue to provide guidelines for design that have in mind the goal of enhancing neighborhoods, streetscapes and should consider the public nature of the setting of residences. The RDS should not force designers into a box such that all houses look the same. • The RDS tend to not apply well to multi-family residential buildings and certain neighborhoods within the city, such as the Cemetery Lane neighborhood and subdivisions in the east end. Amendments should include looking at special guidelines for multi family structures. Amendments should also look at the applicability. of all of the regulations to all parts of town. Possibly develop specifzc guidelines for specific areas that would not apply to all areas, or exempt some areas from some of the existing guidelines. In conjunction with this, utilize the neighborhood character guidelines, developed years ago, to assist. • The RDS standards can hold up projects for small reasons which sometimes truly aze the cause of the location or setting of the property. For example, a recent variance request was needed for the front door orientation standard at the Top of Mill. This standard was almost impossible to achieve this recently subdivided lot due to the unique layout and topography of the site. Ensure that the standards don't create an unnecessary need to seek variance. Evaluate where more simple solutions can be achieved versus a full variance process. Some specific recommendations that the group would like to see considered in this project include the following: • Evaluate the tree preservation regulations to ensure that they do not conflict with RDS goals. • Evaluate the first story element standard to make sure language more clearly describes the desired outcome. • Secondary mass is often a difficult standard to achieve and sometimes not applicable to the site. Specifically evaluate the secondary mass standard in that secondary mass is often only visible from the alley, secondary mass can "bulk up"the front of the lot in an undesirable way, and the required Link between the buildings creates unnecessary constraints and limits to developing the site. 2 • The requirement to step back a garage IO feet from the front facade is often too much and not needed to achieve a secondary feel to the garage. • The treatment and applicability of the standards to corner lots should be evaluated, especially with regard to front door and garage orientation, • Evaluate the RDS process (variances and administrative processes) so that a variance takes less time (investigate using an outside adjudicator or "peer review"process). Allow for staff flexibility or allow for administrative variances. Determine a set of "threshold guidelines" with a provision for same standards being optional and other mandatory. Or, allow for one free pass on any standard of the designer's choosing. Get creative! Discussion: Firstly, Staff would like to thank the members of Aspen's design community who took time to provide thoughtful input and suggestions in this project. Those who participated either in the group meeting or in an individual interview include the following people: Rod Dyer, Kim Wiel, Stan Clawson ,Gilbert Sanchez, David Brown, Dylan Johns, Mary Avjian, Suzannah Reid, John Galumbos, Sarah Broughton, Scott Lindenau, and Tim Semrau. Staff supports making amendments to the RSD and agrees that the items raised by the group should be evaluated. However,. writing specific design standards for specific zone districts or neighborhoods would be a major undertaking, requiring thorough analysis and inventory of the areas. Should the Council wish to pursue this, Staff recommends that this be taken on as a separate project(s) and allow the more minor amendments to proceed. We do believe that some changes could make the process more efficient and the standards more effective. Staff recommends that the issue of house size should not be addressed in conjunction with amendments to the RDS. If history is any indicator, mixing the highly volatile matter of house size and floor area ratio with this would only serve to bog down the process and impede progress to make some minor and needed amendments to the RDS. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council direct Staff to pursue minor code amendments affecting changes to the Residential Design Standards. 3 ~x ~.,~, b,1° ~ ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -Minutes-MARCH 15, 2005 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular Aspen Planning and Zoning meeting in the Sister Cities meeting room. Commissioners Steve Skadron, Dylan Johns, Jack Johnson, Ruth Kruger, Brian Speck, John Rowland and Jasmine Tygre were present. Brandon Marion was excused. Staff in attendance were Sarah Oates, James Lindt, Chris Lee, Joyce Allgaier, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS James Lindt noted the next meeting on the Lodge at Aspen Mountain was scheduled for March 29°i. Jasmine Tygre asked about the site visit. Lindt replied that the applicant could provide the superimposed drawings and if on-site visuals were still needed then staff would set up a site visit between the meeting on the 29°i and the next meeting. Tygre stated this was important to the commission for the decision making process. MINUTES Jack Johnson moved to table and continue the approval of the minutes from February 1'~` and 22"d to the next meeting; seconded by Ruth Kruger. All in favor, motion approved. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Ruth Kruger had a conflict on the Mother Lode. PUBLIC HEARING: RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS CODE AMENDMENTS Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on the Code Amendment. Sarah Oates provided the notice and said that staff was directed by constructive criticism from architects and other design practitioners. Oates stated the Residential Design Standards were originally adopted in 1994 in an attempt to reduce FAR; the idea was to create a set of standards that reduced massing of buildings. The standards were revised in 1999 after 5 years and have been tweaked periodically. Oates said there are now more changes addressing different parts of town and the community development director having the ability to grant variances. Oates said the traditional town site lots were eligible to ask for the three administrative variances but were required to meet all the standards. Several standards were eliminated for parcels not located in the infill area; the first was secondary mass, the second was non-orthogonal windows, and inflection, in its entirety. Lots with no street frontage were also eliminated and residential units within mixed use buildings were exempted. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -Minutes-MARCH 15, 2005 Oates said that Administrative Variances were new in section 26.410.020(D). Oates stated that secondary mass was eliminated except for non-traditional lots; the width of secondary mass had to be between 6 and 12 feet. Oates said the current code allows an applicant to go to the Board of Adjustment if there were just asking for Residential Design Standard Variance, which will change with this code amendment so that the applicant would consolidate the application instead of just the Residential Design Standards. No public comments. The commission questioned how the 3 variances were chosen and the number to be an administrative decision. The commission asked if these three variances would encourage more variance requests. The commission agreed with the neighborhood delineation, window placement and structure placement on the lot for administrative review. The commission voiced concern for the type of variances granted by the community development director. There would be obvious choices on some variance requests but not on all. Dylan Johns said that during the pre-app with community development on the lot configuration and the hardship for the variances would be determined. Johns said that the number of variances that could be granted by the community development director was the question. Oates stated that during the pre-app with community development if an applicant asks for increased development outside the development envelope the applicant is told that cannot be approved by staff and must go for further review to the appropriate review board. Jasmine Tygre said that if it turns out that it looks like its going to be bad the commission could request modification. Ruth Kruger stated concern for the way this works. The commissioners requested a report on the variances granted by the community development director. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #11, series 2005, section 26.410 Residential Design Standards as proposed adding an annual report of variances approved by the community development director and removing Board of Adjustment from the first sentence; seconded by Jack Johnson. Roll Call vote: Skadron, yes; Johns, yes; Rowland, yes; Speck, yes; Kruger, yes; Johnson, yes; Tygre, yes. Motion APPROVED 7-0. ~• MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council THRU: .Tohn Worcester, City Attorney ~~ ~~~ FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~1V~Y• ~ RE: Growth Management Code Amendments Second Reading of Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2005 DATE: April l 1, 2005 SUMMARY: This proposed ordinance updates the City's growth management code based on work sessions held with City Council. The changes maintain a 2% growth rate for all types of development and a 1% growth rate for free-market residential development. Nearly all types of development "count" in these growth rates, as opposed to the current system that exempts a significant amount of development from counting towards the growth rates. The allotments will not automatically "roll-over" from year to year as is currently the case. P&Z will be required to review each year's growth, at the end of the year, and decide if unused allotments should roll-over to the next year. The changes eliminate the former "exemption reviews" and implement reviews at either an administrative level, a P&Z level, or a City Council level. A first-come, first-served process is suggested as well as elimination of the current "scoring" process. Applications are required to meet certain criteria that are significantly more straightforward that the current system. The changes implement new employee generation rates based on a few studies that were done in 2002 and 2003. These don't significantly change the current generation rates, but are more current and defensible. The most significant change is for "incentive lodge" projects. This implements a lower mitigation rate and a process for allotting free-market residential development rights to lodge projects meeting the density and unit-size standards that have been discussed in various lodging work sessions and with the Lodge code amendments. Another significant change is for Historic Landmark properties. The proposal allows for small additions to be relieved of the mitigation standards. This will allow expansions to occur which create four or fewer employees. Expansions of up to eight employees would be required to mitigate, but at a lower rate. Significant expansions would not be relieved of the standard mitigation rules. (HPC will be reviewing these proposed policies and providing a recommendation to City Council.) 1 Staff suggests the public hearing on April ll~h be used to review the proposed changes, become familiar with how Council's direction during work sessions has been integrated into the ordinance, hear public comments and suggestions, and direct staff accordingly. Staff is not recommending Council review and approve the changes in one hearing. These proposed amendments have been distributed to local planners, to the lodging groups, and to other interested citizeris for review. Staff recommends Council discuss Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2005, and then continue to either April 25, 2005 or May 9, 2005, with direction to staff on amendments, clarifications, etc. SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS: Residential -Free-Market The growth rate for this type of development has been lowered to 1 % per year -down from 2%. This was a directive from various work sessions on GMQS with City Council. Staff supports this lowered growth rate. Based on the existing number of free-market residences in the city, roughly 3,770, a 2% growth rate would represent up to 75 new residences per year. Staff believes that 37 units per year is a more appropriate limit. These residences could be in the form of single-family, duplex, multi-family, or units within amixed-use buildings. Depending upon the project, various levels of affordable housing mitigation will be required for the development of these residences. All free-market residential development counts towards this number. The current system has separate "buckets" for scoring projects, conversions, AH associated, etc. The proposal has one bucket for free-market residential development. The new change-in-use section requires mitigation for residential conversions. The current system requires mitigation for an increase in employee generation and this favors conversion from commercial space to residential space. This new requirement requires affordable housing, regardless of employee generation. This will also apply to expansion of existing free-market development within mixed-use buildings. These provisions directly respond to an AACP goal - "stem the loss of commercial and office space." Residential -Affordable Housing The growth rate for affordable housing is based on the 2000 AACP which established a goal (and a limit) of between 800 and 1,300 new units. Since adoption of the AACP, 687 affordable housing units have either been approved or are in some stage of construction or occupancy. Using the 1,300 number as a limit, this leaves 613 additional units (from today) as the ceiling. There are a series of projects "in the pipeline" including Burlingame Phase One. When and if these projects proceed, the progress towards the ceiling will be reflected. 2 The proposed legislation creates a new program for projects with 60% of the total units and 30% of the total FAR as affordable housing. This was arrived-at with the aid of several developers and some financial modeling done by staff and discussed in work sessions. The proposal also extends the "70/30" Program beyond the AH-PUD Zone District. This program has proven to be successful in the past. In these projects, 70% of the total units must be affordable and up to 40% can be RO units -the highest level of affordable housing. Commercial Development Commercial development remains limited to a 2% growth rate. The city has experienced very little growth in this sector in the past decade -roughly .1 % to .2 per year (estimate). The unbuilt allotments have accumulated over the years and are currently over 200,000 square feet (estimate). The proposal does not allow for unused allotments to automatically "roll-over" from year to year and instead requires P&Z to decide how much unused potential growth should be carried forward. Council will need to decide how much of the current unused allotment should be carried forward with these amendments. This is an administrative decision for Council, but the ordinance should reflect the decision. The initial year and succeeding years will have 28,000 square feet of commercial allotment. If Council wants to bring forward any of the current allotment, staff suggests no more than one additional year's worth. The proposal maintains the employee mitigation requirement at 60% of employee generation. Reports reflecting actual employee generation have been accomplished by staff and substantiate the employee generation numbers contained within the ordinance. These two reports are available at the City Clerk's Office and the City Planning Office and are entitled City of Aspen Employee Generation Study - December, 2002; and, City of Aspen Fractional Fee Employment Analysis - September, 2003. The new employee generation numbers do not differ substantially from the current numbers. Staff is not recommending a range for the Commercial Core, as has been used in the past. This range is only useful if an end-user is known and the midpoint is typically used. Also, development approvals based on specific uses create significant administrative difficulty during lease renewals. Lodging The most-significant changes are in the lodging sector of the regulations. There has been significant degradation of the "pillow count" and a strong desire to encourage renewal of the bed base. Staff has been working with Council and the lodging community to create an incentive lodge program. This proposed program sets-forth 3 development incentives in zone districts (height, FAR, etc.) and in the GMQS code (mitigation, process, and afree-market residential bonus). The proposal uses a threshold of one or more lodge units per 500 square feet of lot area and an average lodge unit size of 500 square feet or less. This 500/500 standard could possibly be altered through a PUD or other process identified in the zoning code. (The process for amending the 500/500 standard is part of the zoning discussion and GMQS only references the zoning standard.) For projects meeting the 500/500 standard, mitigation is lowered from 60% of additional employees to 30% of additional employees. And, these projects may have up to a certain percentage, as defined in the zone district regulations, as free-market residential development or larger lodge units. Mitigation is required for the "bonus residential units" in the form of an ADU or cash-in-lieu for each unit. Review Process The current GMQS is very cumbersome, very process heavy. The current system requires applications be submitted only once per year on set dates according to the type of use (making mixed-use projects difficult). The proposed system allows for a first-come, first-served process. The "growth management year" starts on March lst of each year and projects meeting the criteria for approval can proceed. The current system is also very arbitrary and the criteria do not provide much guidance. For example, employee mitigation for residential projects is not stated in the criteria. The standard speaks to a critical mass of permanent residents, the degradation of the community when locals cannot live in the community, and a desire for workers to be part of the social fabric. Staff has used (interpreted) a 60% standard as a threshold for recommending a passing score in the category. Staff believes the policies should be clearly stated and not left for interpretation. The proposal sets forth actual criteria for projects to be judged against. In the residential example stated above, a mitigation rate of 60% of the total units is specified. Projects not meeting this standard are prevented from going forward. The proposal uses the same range of approving bodies for various types of development. Staff-level approvals are essentially the same as the current system except for the addition of "alley stores" to the list of administrative approvals. P&Z is responsible for the vast majority of reviews, as is the case today, while Council must approve non-traditional projects and projects with broader policy considerations such as housing mitigation outside the city limits. The process requires staff produce a report each year detailing the amount of growth entitled in the preceding year. This report will then be used by P&Z to determine the amount of unused allotments to be carried forward. This differs from the system now where unused allotments automatically roll-over to the next year. 4 Appeals are to be handled in essentially the same manner as today. Appeals of staff decisions are to P&Z. Appeals of P&Z decisions are to Council Council also has the responsibility of addressing a situation where a project is denied due to a lack of allotments and can take a range of actions. This last point is important to maintain the integrity of the entire system if demand exceeds the growth limit. "Exemption" This term is currently used to describe a vast array of processes for approving projects. These projects are not exempt from process, mitigation, public hearing, or critical scrutiny. The current system has been criticized as a series of exemptions - some "count" towards growth, some do not. Staff believes some types of development are truly exempt and should not be subject to growth controls. For example: remodeling, special events, public infrastructure, etc. These are the only things that are "exempt" in the proposal. Everything else "counts" and is subject to a review -either administrative review, review by P&Z, or review by City Council. Mitigation Ratios Staff completed two studies of employment generation by uses and by zone district. These reports have been used to substantiate the figures used in the proposed ordinance and will be applied to all new development. These reports determined employee generation not substantially different than today's figures. The two reports are entitled "City of Aspen Employee Generation Study -December, 2002" and "City of Aspen Fractional Fee Employment Analysis -September, 2003." Economic and Planning Systems, a consulting firm familiar with resort economies, provided the analyses. These reports are reference materials for this ordinance and can be found at the City Clerk's Office and the City Planning Office. Staff can also email the materials to interested persons. On-Site Employee Housing and Mixed-Use incentive The proposal provides an incentive for mixed-use projects and on-site employee housing. For mixed-use projects that require mitigation for more than one use, on-site housing will count as mitigation for the uses simultaneously. This encourages both a mix of uses and the development of employee housing on-site. Historic Development Incentives The proposed ordinance maintains the current incentives. Single-family and duplex development is not required to build and ADU or pay acash-in-lieu Fee. Changes-in- use can be approved administratively, as is the case today. And, projects expanding either FAR or net leasable space (not both) can proceed with no mitigation requirements. 5 The current code allows for minimal additional development exempt from mitigation. The most popular of these incentives has been the addition of one free-market unit and a sliding scale for commercial expansions. The sliding scale is very awkward is difficult to interpret and apply. Staff is proposing a system whereby commercial and lodging expansions generating four or fewer employees will not be required to provide housing mitigation. The next four employees will require mitigation at half the standard rate and significant expansions must mitigate at the full rate. Staff believes this is a fair "relaxation" for historic properties and believes it will be considered a benefit of landmark designation. This addresses the desire for historic properties to be used in a commercial fashion where the public has more opportunity to experience the buildings. This also addresses historic lodges, which could add up to eight lodge rooms without mitigation. The current code lacks a viable historic lodge incentive. Council discussed this historic incentive during various work sessions and wanted the advice of the Historic Preservation Commission on this specific point. Staff will be meeting with the HPC on April 18~~' and reviewing this proposal. CITY N RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to continue Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2005, to April 25, 2005, with the following direction to staff..." ALTERNATE MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2005." ATTACHMENTS: A -February 22"d work session summary. B -Employee Generation Study (on file with City Clerk and City Planning) C -Fractional Fee Employee Generation Analysis (on file with City Clerk and City Planning) ORDINANCE N0.21 (SERIES OF 2005) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 26.470 -GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen directed the Director of the Community Development Department to propose amendments to the Land Use Code, part of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, related to the Infill Report, a report developed by acity-commissioned advisory group, the Infill Advisory Group, pursuant to sections 26.208 and 26.212; and, WHEREAS, the purpose of the Infill Program is to implement action items identified in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan, Barriers to Infill Development (a report commissioned by the City of Aspen in 2000), recommendations of the Infill Report (a report produced by the Infill Advisory Group in January, 2002), and the Recommendations of the Economic Sustainability Committee (a joint project between the City of Aspen, the Aspen Chamber Resort Association, and the Aspen Institute Community Forum concluded in September, 2002) that call for: • intensification of land uses within the traditional townsite. • focusing of growth towards already developed areas and away from undeveloped areas surrounding the city. • retention of existing commercial and lodging uses. • increased vitality of the downtown retail environment. • rejuvenation of aging commercial properties. • development of mixed-use buildings with housing opportunities for locals. • development of affordable housing in locations supported by the "Interim Aspen Area Housing Plan Guidelines" (incorporated as part of the 2000 AACP). • revisions to, or elimination of, identified barriers to successful infill development such as the costs of development exactions, growth management penalties for redeveloping buildings, and the length and uncertainty of approval processes. • revisions to the strategy implementing growth management to emphasize quality of development as opposed to just the quantity of development. • elimination of development incentives for single-family and duplex development within commercial, mixed-use, and lodging zone districts. • balance between the community and the resort aspects of Aspen. • sustainability of the local social and economic conditions. • The creation of a development environment in which private sector motivation is leveraged to address community goals; and, Ordinance No. 21 Page 1 Series of 2005. WHEREAS, the amendments herein relate to the following Chapter of the Land Use Code, Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code: 26.470 -Growth Management Quota System; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Community Development Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director completed and provided two reports to substantiate the employee generation figures contained herein entitled City of Aspen Employee Generation Study -December 2002, and City of Aspen Fractional Fee Employment Analysis -September 2003; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended approval of the proposed amendments, as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened the public hearing to consider the proposed amendments to the above noted Chapters and Sections on September 3, 2002, continued to September 17, 2002, continued to September 24, 2002, continued to October 1, 2002, continued to October 8, 2002, continued to October 15, 2002, continued to October 22, 2002, continued to October 29, 2002, continued to November 5, 2002, continued to November 12, 2002, continued to November 19, 2002, continued to November 26, 2002, continued to December 10, 2002, and continued to December 17, 2002, took and considered public testimony at each of the aforementioned hearing dates and the recommendation of the Community Development Director and recommended, by a five to one (5-1) vote, City Council adopt the proposed amendments to the land use code by amending the text of the above noted Chapters and Sections of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the recommended changes to the Land Use Code under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed text amendments to the Land Use Code meet or exceed all applicable standards and that the approval of the proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Section 1: Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System, which section regulates the quality, quantity, rate, and impacts of all development within the City of Aspen, shall read as follows: Ordinance No. 21 Page 2 Series of 2005. Chapter 26.470 GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMQS) Sections: 26.470.010 Purpose. 26.470.020 Applicability. 26.470.030 Aspen Metro Area Development Ceilings and Annual Allotments 26.470.040 Types of Development and Associated Process 26.470.050 Calculations 26.470.060 Development Allotment and Application Review Procedures. 26.470.070 Reconstruction Limitations 26.470.080 Amendment of a Growth Management Development Order. 26.470.090 Appeals 26.470.010 Purpose. The purposes of this Chapter are as follows: (1) to implement the Aspen Area Community Plan's goals and policies, in conjunction with the background research and studies conducted in support of the Plan; (2) to ensure that new growth occurs in an orderly and efficient manner in the City of Aspen; (3) to ensure sufficient public facilities to accommodate new growth and development; (4) to ensure that new growth and development is designed and constructed to maintain the character and ambiance of the City of Aspen; (5) to ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing, businesses and events that serve the local, permanent community and the area's tourist base; and (6) to ensure that growth does not over-extend the community's ability to provide support services, including employee housing, traffic control and parking. 26.470.020 Applicability. This Chapter shall apply to all development in the City of Aspen -Residential, Lodging, Commercial, and Community Facilities. The "Growth Management Year," as the term is used in this Chapter, shall be from March 151 through February 28`h (or 29~h as applicable). Specific land uses and development activities are exempt from growth management. For the purposes of this Chapter, the following development categories have been established. A. Residential -Free Market Dwelling units intended exclusively for residential purposes, not subject to any residency requirements and not including hotels, lodging, or timeshare units. Units may be in the form of single-family, duplex, multi-family, or part of a mixed-use structure. (See definitions of Residential Use and Dwelling.) B. Residential -Affordable Housing Dwelling units intended to house only local working residents and deed restricted according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. Units may be in the form of single- Ordinance No. 21 Page 3 Series of 2005. family, duplex, multi-family, dormitory, or part of a mixed-use structure. (See definition of Affordable Housing.) C. Commercial. Buildings, or portions thereof, supporting office, retail, warehousing, manufacturing, commercial recreation, restaurant/bar, or service oriented businesses, including retail and office uses but not including hotel, lodging, or timeshare uses. (See definition of Commercial Use.) Commercial uses shall be allocated on a net leasable square foot basis. D. Lodging. Buildings, or portions thereof, used to house a transient tourist population on a short-term basis, including lodges, hotels, motels, bed and breakfasts, boarding houses, timeshare lodging, and exempt timesharing. (See definition of Hotel.) Lodging units shall be allocated on a unit basis. For lodging projects with flexible unit configurations, also known as "lock-off units", each separate "key", or potential rentable division, shall constitute a unit for the purposes of this Chapter. E. Essential Public Facilities. Facilities serving essential public purposes used by or for the benefit of the general public and serving the needs of the community. (See definition of Essential Public Facility.) 26.470.030 Aspen Metro Area Development Ceilings and Annual Allotments A. General. As the primary implementation tool for the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP), the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) is designed to promote many objectives. Despite its complexity, two overriding goals form its core: (1) to prohibit development in excess of the AACP objective of a thirty thousand (30,000) peak population (permanent and visitor); and (2) to ensure that the rate at which growth occurs does not exceed the community's ability to cope with associated public facility and service demands and accompanying changes to community character. Aspen area residents have determined that the maximum average growth rate that can be accommodated without long-term negative consequences is two (2) percent per year, with the exception of permanently affordable housing and lodging facilities. The AACP supports a "critical mass" of permanent residents to be housed and a growth rate of more than two (2) percent for affordable housing to ensure a balance of resort and community. The Economic Sustainability Committee, a joint effort undertaken in 2002 between the City of Aspen, the Aspen Institute Community Forum, and the Aspen Chamber Resort Association, supported, as their number one recommendation, the redevelopment of existing lodging facilities and the development of new lodging facilities to counteract the deteriorating and greatly decreased lodging base. Therefore, the GMQS does not limit the annual growth rate of affordable housing and lodging facilities, while all other types of development shall be limited to not exceed a two Ordinance No. 21 Page 4 Series of 2005. (2) percent annual growth rate. In order to address continued community growth concerns, a growth limit of 1% has been implemented for free-market residential development. For a variety of reasons, it is possible that the community's actual population growth might exceed the designated growth rate percentages in some years. Previous GMQS approvals and in/out-migration, for example, can result in periods of construction activity and population growth that exceed the planned average annual growth rate. B. Existing Development. The following tables describe the existing (as of March, 2005) amount of development in each sector used as a "baseline" in establishing annual allotments and development ceilings. s Commercial Devela meet within the Ci of As ° s are.l`eet Commercial'Use "Class" Leasable s uare feet for class Merehaudising 554,827 _._._______w__.__.w .. '' Lodgingb 19,950 Offices 315,360 Recreation 100,057 Special Purpose 197,974 WarehousefStorage _ 3,747 Multi-Use 216,889 Total Comm+ti`cial 1,408,804 2°/a Anneal Growth Rate fo CommercialDeveio men, 28,176 s uare feet esidential Develo meat within the Ci of As en -units iPro e T e Residences in class Single Family 1,201 Duplex or Triplex' 106 Multi-Units 4-8 ~ 39 -Multi-Units 9+ 362 .Condominiums _ 2,805 ______ 'Duplex Condos 353 Manufactured 39 Partial Exem t 1 s Source: Pitkin County Assessor, March 7, 2005. `' Lodge unit square footage removed from total. Commercial space within lodge developments estimated through City records. 'Single ownership duplex and triplex units. 2 units per property ownership estimated. ° Single ownership apartment buildings. Residence count reflects actual number of units recorded with Assessor. Ordinance No. 21 Page 5 Series of 2005. Total Residences: 4,906 Non-ExomptAffordable Housing Units ~ 1,132 Total Free-1Vlarke# Residences: 3,774 1 °l° Annual Growth Rate for Fre' Market Residential Deveir} menu 37.74 units C. Development Ceiling Levels. Based on the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan goal of limiting the ultimate population in order to preserve a quality of life for both residents and visitors, growth ceilings are hereby established for each type of land use. As part of the 2000 AACP, average monthly population was estimated based on daily influent slows of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. This data was used to estimate the actual number of people in town including residents, tourists, and the workforce. A total population of 23,050 was estimated for the busiest month in 1998 -July. Based on this month as the peak monthly population baseline, a total development ceiling to accommodate a total population of 30,000 represents a thirty (30) percent increase in development. Applied to each development sector, development ceilings are established as follows: The Community Development Director shall calculate the number of allotments remaining under established development ceilings as part of the year-end growth summary. Under no circumstances shall development be allowed in excess of the development ceilings unless City s A total of 1,815 residences within the City of Aspen are deed restricted affordable housing. Of these units, several are considered tax-exempt and are not included in [he Assessor's counts. These units are rental affordable housing owned by the City, APCHA, ortax-exempt non-profit organizations. Therefore, only the non-exempt units have keen subtracted from the Assessor's total residences to determine the number of free-market residences. The development ceiling for affordable housing is based on the 2000 AACP goal of providing an additional 800 to 1,300 affordable housing units. Five hundred and eighty-eight (588) affordable housing units have been completed and another ninety-nine (99) have been approved since adoption of the plan (as of January 2005). Although most of these units were either approved, under construction, or occupied at the time of the plan adoption, they were recognized in the plan as part of the overall housing need and represent progress towards the goal. Considering the completed units, the affordable housing development ceiling has been established at 2,428 units, an increase of 613 units. The development ceiling for lodging is based on the "pillow count" of Stay Aspen Snowmass. This number peaked in 1995, with 9,959 pillows in the Aspen inventory. The 1998 pillow count of 8,583 was used to establish the baseline. The pillow count, because it is more accurate than unit counts at the time of this ordinance, shall be used to determine progress towards the development ceiling. Allocations, impact fees, mitigation requirements, etc. shall be based on a per unit basis. Ordinance No. 21 Page 6 Series of 2005. Council, pursuant to Section 26.470.090 Appeals, permits development in excess of the ceilings. D. Annual Development Allotments. The growth management quota system establishes annual development allotments available for use by projects during each growth management year -March 15t to February 28`h (or 29`h as applicable). The number of development allotments available within a single growth management year varies based on the following factors: (1) The type of land use. (2) The annual allotment available for each land use. (3) The number of allotments granted the previous year and whether or not the Planning and Zoning Commission permits an accumulation from year to year. (4) The number of multi-year allotments granted by City Council from future years. (5) The number of allotments already granted in the current growth management year. The Community Development Director shall calculate the development allotments available for each type of land use as follows: Roll:C}v~r Available Development ~~ + Allotment from Allotments Allotment prior yeas. Where, the above terms are defined and established as follows: Annual Allotment. The Annual Allotment reflects each year's potential growth within the City of Aspen, applied to each type of land use. The Annual Allotment may be reduced if multi-year allotments are granted by City Council. The following annual standard allotments are hereby established: Development Tvoe Annual Standard Allotment Residential -Free Market 30 units Commercial 28,000 net leasable square feet Residential - Affordable Housing No annual limit Lodging No annual limit Ro[!-Over Allotment At the conclusion of each growth management year, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall determine the amount of unused allotments, for each type of development, to remain available in the next year and assign the unused allotment to become part of the Available Development Allotment for future projects. (See accounting procedure.) There is no limit, other than that implemented by the Planning and Zoning Commission, on the amount of potential growth that may be carried forward to the next year. Allotments awarded to a project which does not proceed and which are considered void shall constitute unused allotments and shall be considered for allotment roll-over by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Allotments shall be considered vacated by a property Ordinance No. 21 Page 7 Series of 2005. owner upon written notification from the property owner or upon expiration of the development right pursuant to section 26.470.060.B.4, Expiration of Growth Management Allotments. E. Accounting Procedure The Community Development Director shall maintain an ongoing account of available and used growth management allocations and progress towards each development ceiling. Allotments shall be considered allocated upon issuance of a Development Order for the project. Unless specifically not deducted from the Annual Development Allotment and Development Ceilings, all units of growth shall be included in the accounting. Affordable Housing units shall be deducted regardless of the unit being provided as growth mitigation or otherwise. After the conclusion of each growth management year, the Community Development Director shall prepare a summary of growth allocations for the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission, at their first regular meeting of the growth management year, shall review, during a public hearing, the prior year's growth summary, consider a recommendation from the Community Development Director, consider comments from the general public, and shall, via adoption of a resolution, establish the number of unused allotments to be carried forward and added to the Annual Allotment. The Planning and Zoning Commission may carry forward any portion of the previous year's unused allotment, including all or none. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall also consider the remaining development allotments within the Development Ceilings, established pursuant to Section 26.470.030.0, and shall reduce the Available Development Allotment by any amount that exceeds the Development Ceiling. The public hearing shall be noticed by publication, pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3.a. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the following criteria in determining the allotments to be carried forward: 1. The goals and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2. The community's growth rate over the preceding five-year period. 3. The ability of the community to absorb the growth that could result From a proposed development utilizing accumulated allotments, including issues of scale, infrastructure capacity and community character. 4. The expected impact from approved developments that have obtained allotments, but that have not yet been built. 26.470.040 Types of Development and Associated Process A. Exempt Development. The following types of development shall be exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. Development exempt from growth management shall not be considered exempt from other chapters of the Land Use Code and property owners should consult with the Community Development Department. Where applicable, exemptions are cumulative. Ordinance No. 21 Page 8 Series of 2005. Remodeling, restoration or expansion of existing single family and duplex residential development. The remodeling, restoration, or expansion of existing single-family and duplex residential dwellings shall be exempt from growth management. When Demolition occurs, see Section 26.470.040(B) Administrative Growth Management Review. Also see definition of Demolition, Section 26.104.100. 2. Remodeling, restoration or expansion of existing multi family residential development. The remodeling, restoration, or expansion of existing multi-family residential dwellings shall be exempt from growth management. When Demolition occurs, see Section 26.470.040.A.3 -Replacement of Demolished Multi-Family Residential Units. Also see definition of Demolition, Section 26.104.100. For the expansion of multi-family units within amixed-use building, see Section 26.470.040.0.6. 3. Replacement of demolished multi family residential units. The replacement of demolished multi-family residential units shall be exempt from the provisions of this Chapter if the requirements of the Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program are met. (See Chapter 26.530 -Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program.) Replacement units shall not be deducted from the respective Annual Development Allotments or Development Ceiling Levels established pursuant to Section 26.470.030. The development of additional residential units, beyond those merely being replaced, shall be subject to this Chapter. Also see Reconstruction Limitations, Section 26.470.070. 4. Single-Family and Duplex Development on Historic Landmark Properties. The development of one or multiple single-family residences or a duplex on a parcel of land designated as a Historic Landmark shall be exempt from growth management. This exemption applies to the rehabilitation of existing structures, reconstruction after demolition of existing structures, and the development of new structures on Historic Landmark properties, provided all necessary approvals are obtained, pursuant to Section 26.415, Development Involving the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. Additional units shall not be deducted from the respective Annual Development Allotments or Development Ceiling Levels established pursuant to Section 26.470.030. 5. Relocation of Historic Structures. The relocation of a structure listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, permanently or temporarily, shall be exempt from growth management, provided all necessary approvals are obtained, pursuant to Section 26.415, Development Involving the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. 6. Transferable Development Rights. The establishment and extinguishment of Transferable Development Right Certificates shall be exempt from growth management provided such certificates comply with Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights. 7. Remodeling, restoration, or reconstruction of existing commercial or lodge development Remodeling, restoration, and reconstruction after demolition of existing commercial or hotel/lodge buildings and portions thereof shall be exempt from the Ordinance No. 21 Page 9 Series of 2005. provisions of growth management, such that no additional net leasable square footage or lodge units are created and there is no change-in-use. If redevelopment involves an expansion of net leasable square footage or lodge units, only the replacement of existing development shall be exempt and the expansion shall be subject to Section 26.470.040.0.2 or 3. Existing, prior to demolition, net leasable square footage and lodge units shall be documented by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer prior to demolition. Also see Reconstruction Limitations, Section 26.470.070, and definition of Net Leasable Commercial and Office Space, Section 26.104.100. 8. Temporary Uses and Structures. The development of a temporary use or structure shall be exempt from growth management, subject to the provisions of Section 26.450, Temporary Uses. Temporary external airlocks shall only be exempt from the provisions of this Chapter if approved pursuant to Section 26.450. 9. Special Events. Special events permitted by the City of Aspen shall be exempt from this Chapter. 10. Accessory Dwelliug Quits and Carriage Houses. The development of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Carriage Houses shall be exempt from the provisions of this Chapter but subject to the provisions of Chapter 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses. 11. Retractable Canopies and Trellis Structures. Retractable Canopies and trellis structures appended to a commercial or lodging structure shall be exempt from growth management provided: a) there is no expansion of floor area; b) the Canopy or trellis structure is not enclosed by walls, screens, windows or other enclosures; and c) for a trellis structure, at least fifty (50) percent of the overhead structure is open to the sky. Awnings shall be exempt from this Chapter. 12. Public Infrastructure. The development of public infrastructure such as roads, bridges, waterways, utilities, and associated poles, wires, conduits, drains, hydrants, and items considered Essential Services (see definition) shall be exempt from growth management. Essential Public Facilities shall not be exempt and shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.470.040.D.3, Essential Public Facilities. B. Administrative Growth Management Review: The following types of development shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Community Development Director, pursuant to Section 26.470.060, Procedures for Review, and the criteria for each type of development described below. Except as noted, all administrative growth management approvals shall be deducted from the respective Annual Development Allotments and Development Ceiling Levels. Administrative approvals apply cumulatively. I. Detached single family or duplex dwelling units. The replacement after demolition of an existing single-family dwelling or multiple detached residential units or a duplex dwelling Ordinance No. 2 ] Page 10 Series of 2005. regardless of when the lot was subdivided or legally described; the redevelopment or conversion of an existing single-family dwelling into multiple detached residential units or a duplex dwelling (or vice-versa) regardless of when the lot was subdivided or legally described; or, the new development of asingle-family or multiple detached residential units or a duplex dwelling on a lot that was subdivided or was a legally described parcel prior to November 14, 1977, that complies with the provisions of Section 26.480.020(F), Aspen Townsite Lots, or on a lot created by a lot split, pursuant to Section 26.480.060(C), shall be approved if all the following standards are met. These units shall not be deducted from the respective Annual Development Allotments or Development Ceiling Levels established pursuant to Section 26.470.030. Single-family. In order to qualify for asingle-family approval, the applicant shall have five (5) options: a) Providing an above grade, detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) or a Carriage House pursuant to Section 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses; or, b) Providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit, or a Carriage House, authorized through Special Review to be attached and/or partially or fully subgrade, pursuant to Section 26.520; or, c) Providing and off-site Affordable Housing Unit within the Aspen Infill Area accepted by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and deed restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or, d) Paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or e) Recording aresident-occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single-family dwelling unit being constructed. Duplex• In order to qualify for a duplex approval, the applicant shall have six (6) options: a) Providing one free market dwelling unit and one deed restricted Resident- Occupied (RO) dwelling unit with a minimum floor area of one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet; or, b) Providing either two above grade, detached Accessory Dwelling Units or Carriage Houses (or one of each), or one above grade, detached ADU or Carriage House with a minimum floor area of six hundred (600) net livable square feet, pursuant to Section 26.520; or, c) Providing either two Accessory Dwelling Units or Carriage Houses (or one of each) or one ADU or Carriage House with a minimum of 600 net livable square feet authorized through Special Review to be attached and/or paztially or fully subgrade, pursuant to Section 26.520; or, d) Providing anoff-site Affordable Housing Unit within the Aspen Infill Area accepted by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and deed restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or, e) Providing two deed restricted Resident-Occupied (RO) dwelling units; or Ordinance No. 21 Page 11 Series of 2005. f) Paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. Note In zone districts permitting the development of asingle-family, a duplex, or two single- family residences, one development allotment may be expressed as asingle-family, a duplex, or two single-family residences. The parcel shall have only one development right regardless of the way in which it has been developed. The parcel may be condominiumized to separate ownership. In order to subdivide the parcel, additional development right(s) must be obtained. 2. Chauge-Ia-Use of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. The change of use, between the use categories identified in Section 26.470.020, of a property, structure, or portion of a structure designated as a Historic Landmark shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Community Development Director based on the following criteria: a) All necessary approvals are obtained, pursuant to Section 26.415, Development Involving the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. b) No more than one free-market residence is created. c) The development conforms to the requirements of the zone district. d) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services. 3. Minor enlargement of a Historic Landmark for commercial, lodge, or mixed-use development. The enlargement of a of a property, structure, or portion of a structure designated as a Historic Landmark for commercial, lodge, or mixed-use development shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Community Development Director based on the following criteria: a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the expansion pursuant to Section 26.470.030(D), Annual Development Allotments. b) If the development increases either Floor Area or Net Leasable space/lodge units, but not both, then no employee mitigation shall be required. c) If the development increases both Floor Area and Net Leasable space/lodge units, up to four (4) employees generated by the additional commercial/lodge shall not require the provision of affordable housing. An expansion generating more than four (4) employees shall not qualify for this administrative approval and shall be reviewed pursuant to 26.470.040.0.1. d) No more than one free-market residence is created. This shall be cumulative and shall include administrative GMQS approvals granted prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. ,Series of 2005. e) All necessary approvals are obtained, pursuant to Section 26.415, Development Involving the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. Ordinance No. 21 Page 12 Series of 2005. c) The space shall reduce the property's Utility/Trash/Recycle service area requirement or such reduction has been approved pursuant to Section 26.575.060. d) A space no greater than six-hundred (600) square feet shall not require the provision of affordable housing. Any affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.040.0.7, Affordable Housing. e) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services. 6. Temporary Outdoor Food Vending. A temporary use of outdoor food vending by a restaurant or retailer on private property, private open space, or public property that is subject to a mall lease for food vending or outdoor restaurant seating in the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District shall be shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Community Development Director based on the following criteria: a) The temporary operation shall expire on or before December 31, 2005. b) The area of outdoor food vending activities does not exceed fifty (50) square feet. The area of outdoor food vending activities shall be defined as a counter area, equipment needed for the food vending activities (e.g. cooler with drinks, snow cone machine, popcorn machine, etc.), and the space needed by employees to work the food vending activity. c) Temporary outdoor food vending may only occur by or in association with restaurant or retail uses and with the approval of the restaurant or retail establishment's owner in which the outdoor food vending is associated and located adjacent to. d) An application to the Community Development Director for temporary outdoor food vending shall only be submitted and approved subsequent to submitting and obtaining approval of a food service plan from the Environmental Health Department. The area of outdoor food vending activities shall include a waste disposal container that shall be emptied daily and stored inside at night and when the outdoor food vending activities are not in operation. Additionally, no outdoor, open-flame char-broiling shall be permitted pursuant to Municipal Code Section 13.08.100, Restaurant Grills. e) The Community Development Director shall waive affordable housing mitigation fees associated with the temporary new net leasable square footage being created by outdoor food vending activities. f) The outdoor food vending activities may occur year-round. An application for and an approval of temporary outdoor vending activities shall not constitute nor be interpreted by any property owner, developer, vendor, or court as a site specific development plan entitled to vesting under Article 68 of Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes or Chapter 26.308 of this Title. Approvals granted in this subsection are subject to revocation by the City Manager or Community Development Director without requiring prior notice. g) An application for temporary outdoor food vending activities shall not diminish the general public health, safety or welfare and shall abide by all applicable City Ordinance No. 21 Page 14 Series of 2005. regulations, including but not limited to building codes, health safety codes, fire codes, liquor laws, sign and lighting codes, and sales tax license regulations. h) Each vendor wishing to operate outdoor food vending activities shall apply For and be approved for a permit (no fee required) to do so prior to commencing operations. Applicable Environmental Health Plan Review fees shall apply. C. Planning and Zoning Commission Review The Following types of development shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.470.060, Procedures for Review, and the criteria for each type of development described below. Except as noted, all Planning and Zoning Commission growth management approvals shall be deducted from the respective Annual Development Allotments and Development Ceiling Levels. 1. Enlargement of a Historic Landmark for Commercial, Lodge, or Mixed-Use Development The enlargement of a historic landmark building for commercial, lodge, or mixed- use development shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the Following criteria: a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the expansion pursuant to Section 26.470.030(D), Annual Development Allotments. b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. c) Up to four (4) employees generated by the additional commercial/lodge development shall not require the provision of affordable housing. Thirty (30) percent of the employee generation above four (4) and up to eight (8) employees shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof. Sixty (60) percent of the employee generation above eight (8) employees shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof. For example: a project generating 15 employees shall require employee mitigation for a total of 5.4 employees, as follows: First 4 employees = 0 employee mitigation Second 4 employees mitigated at 30% = 1.2 employees Remaining 7 employees mitigated at 60% = 4.2 employees Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.040.0.7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4, or lower, rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. d) All necessary approvals are obtained, pursuant to Section 26.415, Development Involving the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. e) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services. Ordinance No. 21 Page 15 Series of 2005. 2. Expansion/New Commercial, Lodge, or Mized Use Development. The expansion of an existing commercial, lodge, or mixed-use building or the development of a new commercial, lodge, or mixed-use building shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the expansion, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.D, Annual Development Allotments. b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. c) Sixty (60) percent of the employees generated by the additional commercial/lodge development, according Section 26.470.OSO.A, Employee Generation Rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.040.0.7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4, or lower, rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. d) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services. 3. Incentive Lodge Development. The expansion of an existing lodge or the development of a new lodge shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the expansion, pursuant to Section 26.470.030(D), Annual Development Allotments. b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan c) The project contains a minimum of one lodge unit per five hundred (500) square feet of Lot Area and these lodge units average five hundred (500) square feet or less per unit. These two standards (the density standard and the unit-size standard) may be varied in some cases according to the limitations of the zone district in which the project is developed and still meet this criterion. Units developed in excess of those necessary to meet the Lot Area standard shall not be required to meet the average-size standard. For the expansion of a lodge which is not being demolished/redeveloped and which does not currently meet the Lot Area standard, only the average unit-size standard of the new units shall be required in order to meet this criterion. Projects not meeting the density or unit-size standard shall be reviewed pursuant to 26.470.040.0.2 - Expansion/New Commercial, Lodge, or Mixed Use Development. d) Associated free-market residential development, as permitted pursuant to the zone district in which the lodge is developed, shall require the provision of affordable housing mitigation by one of the following methods for each unit: i) Providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) or a Carriage House pursuant to Section 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses. The unit need not be detached or entirely above grade to meet this criterion. Ordinance No. 21 Page 16 Series of 2005. ii) Providing on-site or off-site Affordable Housing Units equal to 30% of the free-market residential units. Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.040.0.7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4, or lower, rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. Provision of affordable housing mitigation via units outside of the City of Aspen shall require approval from City Council, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.D.2. iii) Paying an affordable housing cash-in-lieu fee normally associated with exempt single-family and duplex development, pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. No[e: The City encourages the affordable housing units required for the free- market residential development to be associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge. e) Thirty (30) percent of the employees generated by the additional lodge, timeshare lodge, exempt timeshare units, and associated commercial development, according Section 26.470.OSO.A, Employee Generation Rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof. Employee mitigation shall only be required for additional development and shall not be required for replaced development. The Planning and Zoning Commission may consider unique characteristics or efficiencies of the proposed operation and lower the mitigation requirements pursuant to Section 26.470.OSO.A.1 - Employee Generation. Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.040.0.7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4, or lower, rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. Provision of affordable housing mitigation via units outside of the City of Aspen shall require approval from City Council, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.D.2. f) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services. 4. Conversion of Residential Reconstruction Credits to Lodging Units. The conversion of redevelopment credits derived from the demolition of residential dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.A.1 or 2 to lodge units shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the uses, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.D, Annual Development Allotments. b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. c) Residential dwelling unit construction credits shall be converted to lodge units at a rate of three (3) lodge units per each one residential unit; d) Development shall comply with Section 26.470.070, Reconstruction Limitations. Ordinance No. 21 Page 17 Series of 2005. e) Sixty (60) percent of the employees generated by the lodge units, according Section 26.470.OSO.A. Employee Generation Rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.040.0.7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4, or lower, rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. f) The proposed development is compatible with the character of the existing land uses in the surrounding area and the purpose of the underlying zone district. g) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such additional demand is mitigated through improvements proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services. 5. Change in use. A change in use, of an existing property, structure, or portions of an existing structure, between the use categories identified in Section 26.470.020, (irrespective of direction) for which a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for at least two (2) years and which is intended to be reused, shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Plaiming and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the change- in-use, pursuant to Section 26.470.030(D), Annual Development Allotments. b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. c) Sixty (60) percent of the additional employees generated by the change, according Section 26.470.OSO.A, Employee Generation Rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof. Any affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.040.0.7, Affordable Housing at a Category 4, or lower, rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. d) No more than one (I) free-market residential unit is created through the change-in- use. e) Affordable housing equal to thirty (30) percent of the additional free-market residential Floor Area is provided. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.040.0.7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4, or lower, rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. f) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services. Ordinance No. 21 Page 18 Series of 2005. 6. Free-Market Residential Units within a Mrxed-Dse Project The development of new or expansion of existing free-market residential units within amixed-use project shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the expansion, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.D, Annual Development Allotments. b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. c) Affordable housing equal to thirty (30) percent of the additional free-market Floor Area is provided in a in a manner acceptable to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.040.0.7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4, or lower, rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. d) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services. 7. Affordable Housing. The development of affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the new units, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.0, Development Ceiling Levels. b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan c) The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. d) Affordable Housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City of Aspen city limits. Units outside the city limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to 26.470.040.D.2. Provision of affordable housing through acash-in-lieu payment shall be at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. e) The proposed units shall be deed restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. In the alternative, rental units may be provided if a legal instrument, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, ensures permanent affordability of the units. Ordinance No. 21 Page 19 Series of 2005. 8. Residential Development - 60 Percent Affordable. The development of a residential project, or an addition of units to an existing residential project, in which a minimum of sixty (60) percent of the additional units and thirty (30) percent of the additional Floor Area is affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the uses, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.0, Development Ceiling Levels and Section 26.470.030.D, Annual Development Allotments. b) A minimum of sixty (60) percent of the total additional units and thirty (30) percent of the project's additional Floor Area shall be affordable housing. Multi-site projects are permitted. Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.040.0.7, Affordable Housing and shall average Category 4, or lower, rates as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. c) If the project consists of only one (1) free-market residence, then a minimum of one (1) affordable residence representing a minimum of thirty (30) percent of the project's total Floor Area and deed restricted as a Category 4 "for-sale" unit, according to the provisions of the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines, shall qualify. d) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services. 9. Residential Development - 70 Percent Affordable. The development of a residential project, or an addition to an existing residential project, in which seventy (70) percent of the project's additional units and seventy (70) percent of the project's additional bedrooms are affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the uses, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.0, Development Ceiling Levels and Section 26.470.030.D, Annual Development Allotments. b) Seventy (70) percent of the total additional units and total additional bedrooms shall be affordable housing. At least forty (40) percent of the units shall average Category 4, or lower, rates as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. The remaining thirty (30) percent affordable housing unit requirement may be provided as Resident Occupied (RO) units as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. Multi-site projects are permitted. Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.040.0.7, Affordable Housing. Ordinance No. 21 Page 20 Series of 2005. c) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services. Note: A project comprised of one free-market residence, one RO residence, and one Category residence shall be considered meeting the 70 percent unit standard. A project comprised of two free-market residences, two RO residences, and two Category residences shall be considered meeting the 70 percent unit standard. D. City Council Review The following types of development shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the City Council, pursuant to Section 26.470.060, Procedures For Review, and the criteria for each type of development described below. Except as noted, all City Council growth management approvals shall be deducted from the respective Annual Development Allotments and Development Ceiling Levels. 7. Multi-Year Development Allotment. The City Council, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny amulti-year development allotment request based on the following criteria: a) The proposed development is considered "exceptional" considering the following criteria: (Note - A project need not meet all of the following criteria, only enough to be sufficiently considered "exceptional.") 1. The proposed project advances the visions, goals or specific action items of the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2. The proposal exceeds the minimum affordable housing required for a standard project. 3. The proposed project represents an excellent historic preservation accomplishment. A recommendation from the Historic Preservation Officer shall be considered for this standard. 4. The proposal furthers affordable housing goals by providing units established as priority through the current Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, and provides a desirable mix of affordable unit types, economic levels, and lifestyles (e.g., singles, seniors and families). A recommendation from the Aspen/Piktin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard. 5. The proposal minimizes impacts on public infrastructure by incorporating innovative, energy-saving techniques. 6. The proposal minimizes construction impacts to the extent practicable both during and after construction. Ordinance No. 21 Page 21 Series of 2005. 7. The proposal maximizes potential public transit usage and minimizes reliance on the automobile. 8. The proposal exceeds minimum requirements of the Efficient Building Code or for LEEDS certification, as applicable. A recommendation from the Building Department shall be considered for this standard. 9. The proposal promotes sustainability of the local economy. 10. The proposal represents a desirable site plan and an architectural design solution. 11. The proposed development is compatible with the character of the existing land uses in the surrounding area and the purpose of the underlying zone district. b) The project complies with all other provisions of the Land Use Code and has obtained all necessary approvals from the Historic Preservation Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the City Council, as applicable. c) The Community Development Director shall be directed to reduce the applicable Annual Development Allotments, as provided in Section 26.470.030(D), in subsequent year(s) as determined appropriate by the City Council. 2. Provision of Required Affordable Housing Units Outside City Limits. The provision of affordable housing, as required by Chapter 26.470, Growth Management, with units to be located outside the City of Aspen boundary, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria: a) The proposal promotes the Goals and Objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan. b) The off-site housing is within the Aspen Urban Growth Boundary or within an acceptable proximity of the City of Aspen considering existing transportation infrastructure. c) The proposal furthers affordable housing goals by providing units established as priority through the current Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, and provides a desirable mix of affordable unit types, economic levels, and lifestyles (e.g., singles, seniors and families). A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard. d) The applicant has received all necessazy approvals from the governing body with jurisdiction of the off-site parcel. Note: City Council may accept any percentage of a project's total affordable housing mitigation to be provided through units outside the city's jurisdictional limits, including all or none. Ordinance No. 21 Page 22 Series of 2005. 3. Esseutial Public Facilities. The development of an Essential Public Facility, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria: a) The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and/or structure to be an Essential Public Facility. (See definition.) Accessory uses may also be part of an Essential Public Facility project. b) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the uses, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.0, Development Ceiling Levels and Section 26.470.030.D, Annual Development Allotments. c) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan d) A sufficient percentage of the employees expected to be generated by the project are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof in a manner acceptable to the City Council. The Employee Generation Rates may be used as a guideline but each operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee needs. The City Council may waive, or partially waive, affordable housing mitigation requirements as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. e) Free-Market residential floor area on the parcel is accompanied by affordable housing units or mitigation pursuant to 26.470.040.0.6, unless otherwise restricted in the zone district. The City Council may waive, partially waive, or establish a different limitation as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. f) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such additional demand is mitigated through improvements proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services. 4. Preservation of Significant Open Space Parcels. On a project specific basis and upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny development of one or more residences in exchange for the permanent preservation of one or more parcels considered significant for the preservation of open space. The preservation parcel may lie outside the City of Aspen jurisdiction. The exempted residential units shall be deducted from the respective Annual Development Allotment established pursuant to Section 26.470.030.D and the Development Ceiling Levels established pursuant to Section 26.470.030.0. The exempted residential units shall provide affordable housing mitigation, pursuant to the requirements of Section 26.470.040.B.1. This exemption shall only apply to the specific residences approved through this provision. Other residences within a project not specifically exempted through this provision shall require growth management approvals pursuant to this Chapter. The criteria for determining the significance of a preservation parcel and the associated development rights to be granted may include: Ordinance No. 21 Page 23 Series of 2005. 1. The strategic nature of the preservation parcel to facilitate pazk, trails, or open space objectives of the City of Aspen. This shall include a recommendation from the City of Aspen Open Space Acquisition Boazd. 2. Identification of the preservation parcel as "private land with preservation value" in the Aspen Area Community Plan or as a parcel desirable for preservation in any other adopted master plans of the City of Aspen. 3. Proximity and/or visibility of the preservation parcel to the City of Aspen. 4. The development rights of the preservation parcel, including the allowed uses and intensities and impacts associated with those uses if developed to the maximum. 5. The proposed location of the parcel(s) being granted growth management approvals and the compatibility of the resulting uses and intensities of development with the surrounding neighborhood, including the impacts from the specified method of providing affordable housing mitigation. The new residences shall be restricted to the underlying zoning restrictions of the property on which they lie unless additional restrictions are necessary in order to meet this criterion. 6. The preservation parcel shall be encumbered with a legal instrument, acceptable to the City Attorney, which sterilizes the pazcel from further development in perpetuity. 26.470.050 Calculations A. Employee Generation and Mitigation Whenever employee housing or cash-in-lieu is required to mitigate for employees generated by a commercial or lodging development, there shall be an analysis and credit for employee generation of the existing project, prior to redevelopment, and an employee generation analysis of the proposed development. The employee mitigation requirement shall be based upon the incremental employee generation difference between the existing development and the proposed development. 1. Employee Generation: The following employee generation rates are the result of the Employee Generation Study, an analysis sponsored by the City of Aspen during the Summer and Fall of 2002 considering the actual employment requirements of over one-hundred (100) Aspen businesses. This study is available at the Community Development Department. Employee generation is quantified as full time equivalents (FTEs) per one-thousand (1,000) square feet of net leasable space. Zahellistrict: ~ Employees generated per 1,000 square feet of net leasable s ace ComrnercialCore (CG) 4.1 Commercial (Cl) 4.1 Neighborhood Commercial (NC)' Ordinance No. 21 Page 24 Series of 2005. Three-bedroom ar lar er 3.00 Dormitory 1.00 employee per one hundred fifty (150) square feet of net livable space. 3. Employee Housiug Cash-Iu-Lieu Payment. Whenever a project provides employee housing via acash-in-lieu payment, in part or in total, the amount of the payment shall be in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. 4. Accessory Dwelling Units as Mitigation Units. Accessory Dwelling Units, approved pursuant to Chapter 26.520 and which are deed restricted as "for-sale" Category housing and transferred to a qualified purchaser according to the provisions of the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority, shall be considered mitigation units and attributed to a project's affordable housing provision. ADUs which are not deed restricted as Category units and are not transferred to qualified purchasers shall not be considered mitigation units and shall not be attributed to a project's affordable housing provision. 5. On-Site Housing Serves Multiple Affordable Housiug Requirements. Whenever affordable housing is provided on-site (with actual units) in order to satisfy one requirement, the same on-site affordable housing may also be used to satisfy any other affordable housing requirement concurrently. For example: Amixed-use project may require two affordable housing units to mitigate an increase in commercial employee generation, and two affordable housing units to mitigate free-market residential development. In this case, providing two on-site affordable housing units shall satisfy both requirements concurrently. Whenever required affordable housing is provided by means other than on-site provision, such housing, or payment-in-lieu thereof, shall accrue consecutively to individual requirements and shall not serve requirements concurrently. In the above example, provision of four units would be required. 26.470.060 Development Allotment and Application Review Procedures. A. General 1. Number of Development Applications. No more than one development application for growth management allotments on any one parcel shall be considered concurrently. To submit a new application, any active growth management application for the same property must be vacated. 2. Number of Growth Management Allocations. No more than one project shall be entitled to growth management allotments on any one parcel concurrently. In order to entitle a different project on the same parcel, existing growth allotments must be Ordinance No. 21 Page 26 Series of 2005. vacated. (Also see, amendment of a growth management approval, Section 26.470.080.) 3. No automatic "roll-over" of Growth Manaeement Applications. Applications shall only be eligible for growth allotments within the growth management year in which they are submitted and shall not automatically become eligible for future year allotments. Applications must be resubmitted or renewed in order to be eligible for the next year's allotments. 4. HPC Conceptual Approval Required. Whenever Historic Preservation Commission approval is needed for a proposed project, the Historic Preservation Commission's Conceptual approval must be secured prior to submitting an application for a growth management allotment. 5. Conceptual PUD Approval Required. Projects requiring approval of a Planned Unit Development Plan, pursuant to section 26.445, Planned Unit Development, must first obtain Conceptual PUD approval prior to submitting an application for a growth management allotment. Final PUD applications may be authorized for combined review pursuant to Section 26.304.060.B.1. 6. Design Review prior to Growth Mana e~ Commercial, Lodging, and mixed-use projects shall obtain Commercial Design Review approval, pursuant to Section 26.412, prior to submitting an application for growth management allotment. Residential projects shall obtain Residential Design Standards approval, pursuant to Section 26.410, prior to submitting an application for growth management allotment. The Community Development Director may waive this requirement and authorize a combined review, pursuant to 26.304.060.B.1. 7. Other Required Land Use Reviews. Subdivision approval and other land use review approvals, as applicable, shall be required and may be reviewed concurrently or combined with review for growth management, pursuant to Section 26.304.060.B.1. 8. Non-Assignability of Growth Allotments. Development allotments obtained, pursuant to this Chapter, shall not be assignable or transferable independent of the conveyance of the real property on which the development allotment has been approved. B. Application and Allocation Procedures 1. Application Submission. An application for growth management may be submitted to the Community Development Director at any time of the year. Applications shall only be submitted within the growth management yeaz in which allocations are requested, unless the application requests multi-year development allotments pursuant to Section 26.470.040.D.1. All applications submitted on the same day shall be construed to have been submitted at the same time and a random drawing shall be held to determine the order in which allocations shall be granted. Applications shall maintain their submission order and allocations shall be granted accordingly regardless of the various required processes to complete the growth management review. 2. Procedures for Review. The following procedures shall apply to all growth management applications: Ordinance No. 21 Page 27 Series of 2005. a. Community Development Director Review. Applications for Administrative Review shall be submitted to the Community Development Director who shall review the application for completeness, refer the application to all appropriate City staff and referral agencies, and thereafter determine, based on the appropriate standards, if the application shall be approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved. The Community Development Director may, at his/her own discretion, refer the application to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their input. Various referral agencies may hold their own public hearings. b. Planning and Zoning Commission Review. Applications for Planning and Zoning Commission Review shall be submitted to the Community Development Director who shall follow the same procedures noted above and forward a recommendation, based on the applicable standards, that the application be approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the application and the recommendation of the Community Development Director during a public hearing according to the applicable standards and, by resolution, approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the application. Notice of the hearing shall be by publication, posting, and mailing, pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E). c. City Council Review. Applications for City Council Review shall be submitted to the Community Development Director who shall follow the same procedures noted above and forward a recommendation, based on the applicable standards, to the Planning and Zoning Commission that the application be approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the application during a public hearing according to the applicable standards and, by resolution, recommend to City Council that the application be approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved. Notice of the hearing shall be by publication, posting, and mailing, pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E). City Council shall review the application, the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the recommendation of the Community Development Director during a public hearing according to the applicable standards and, by resolution, approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the application. Notice of the hearing shall be by publication, posting, and mailing, pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E). 3. Allocation. Development allotments shall be allocated on afirst-come-first-served basis, not to exceed the available development allotments. Projects requiring allotments in excess of the available development allotment shall be denied and the allotments shall become available to the next eligible application. Following approval or approval with conditions, pursuant to the above procedures for review, the Community Development Director shall issue a development order pursuant to Section 26.304.070, Development Orders, provided that any change required by the Ordinance No. 21 Page 28 Series of 2005. approving body shall be reflected. Those applicants having received allotments may proceed to apply for any further development approvals required by this Title or any other regulations of the City. 4. Expiration of Growth Management Allotments: Growth allotments granted pursuant to this section shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of the development order, pursuant to the terms and limitations of Section 26.304.070. Expired allotments shall not be considered valid and the applicant shall be required to apply for new allotments. Expired allotments shall be added to the next year's available allotments at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.E. C. Application Contents. Applications for growth management shall include the following: 1. The general application information required in Common Procedures, Section 26.304. 2. A Site Improvement Survey depicting: a) Existing natural and man-made site features. b) All legal easements and restrictions. c) All requirements for Improvement Surveys outlined in the current City Engineering Department regulations. 3. A description of the project and the number and type of requested growth management allotments. 4. A detailed description and site plan of the proposed development including proposed land uses, densities, natural features, traffic and pedestrian circulation, off-street parking, open space areas, infrastructure improvements, site drainage, and any associated off-site improvements. 5. A description of the proposed affordable housing and how it provides adequate mitigation for the project and conforms to the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. 6. A statement as to how the application should be considered "exceptional" if multi-year allotments are being requested. 7. A statement specifying the public facilities that will be needed to accommodate the proposed development, proposed infrastructure improvements, and the specific assurances will be made to ensure the public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed development. 8. A written response to each of the Review Criteria contained in Section 26.470.040 according to the specific type of review. 9. Copies of required approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission, Historic Preservation Commission, and the City Council, as necessary. 26.470.070 Reconstruction Limitations A. An applicant may propose to demolish and then delay the reconstruction of existing development for a period not to exceed one (1) year. To comply with this limitation, and Ordinance No. 21 Page 29 Series of 2005. maintain the reconstruction credit, an applicant must submit a complete building permit application for reconstruction on or before the anniversary of the issuance date of the demolition permit. City Council may extend this deadline by demonstration of good cause. This time limitation shall not apply to the reconstruction ofsingle-family and duplex development. B. Applicants shall verify existing conditions prior to demolition with the City of Aspen Zoning Officer in order to document reconstruction rights. An applicant's failure to accurately document existing conditions prior to demolition and verify reconstruction rights with the City of Aspen Zoning Officer may result in a loss of some or all of the reconstruction rights. C. Reconstructed buildings shall comply with applicable requirements of the Land Use Code, including but not limited to Section 26312, Nonconformities, and Section 26.710, Zone Districts. D. Any building that is demolished shall be limited to reconstruction on the same parcel, on a contiguous parcel owned by the applicant, or on anon-contiguous parcel within the same PUD when authorized pursuant to Section 26.445, Planned Unit Development. 26.470.080 Amendment of a Growth Management Development Order. A. Insubstantial Amendment. An insubstantial amendment to an approved growth management development order may be authorized by the Community Development Director i£ l . The change conforms to all other provisions of the Land Use Code and does not exceed approved variations to the Residential Design Standards or Commercial Design Review, as applicable. 2. The change does not alter the number, size, type or deed restriction of the proposed affordable housing units or those changes have been accepted by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. 3. The change is limited to technical or engineering considerations discovered prior to or during actual development that could not reasonably be anticipated during the review process, or any other minor change that the Community Development Director finds has no effect on the conditions and representations made during the original project review. B. Substantial Amendment. All other amendments to an approved growth management development order shall be reviewed pursuant to the terms and procedures of this Chapter. Allotments granted shall remain valid and applied to the amended application, provided the amendment application is submitted prior to the expiration of vested rights. Amendment applications requiring additional allotments, or allotments for different uses, shall obtain those allotments pursuant to the procedures of this Chapter. Ordinance No. 21 Page 30 Series of 2005. 26.470.090 Appeals. A. Appeal of adverse determination by the Community Development Director. An appeal made by an applicant aggrieved by a determination made by the Community Development Director on an application for administrative review shall be to the Planning and "Coning Commission. The appeal procedures set forth at Chapter 26.316 shall apply. The Planning and Zoning Commission may reverse, affirm, or modify the decision or determination of the Community Development Director based upon the application submitted to the Community Development Director and the record established by the Director's review. The decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission shall constitute the final administrative action on the matter. B. Appeal of adverse determination by the Planning and Zoning Commission. An appeal made by an applicant aggrieved by a determination made by the Planning and Zoning Commission on an application for Planning and Zoning Commission Review shall be to the City Council. The appeal procedures set forth at Chapter 26.316 shall apply. The City Council may reverse, affirm, or modify the decision or determination of the Planning and Zoning Commission based upon the application submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the record established by the Commission's review. The decision of the City Council shall constitute the final administrative action on the matter. C. Insufficient Development Allotments. Any property owner within the City of Aspen who is prevented from developing a property because that year's development allotments, both standard and reserve, have been entirely allocated may appeal to the City Council for development approval. An application requesting allotments must first be denied due to lack of necessary allotments. The appeal procedures set forth at Chapter 26.316 shall apply. City Council may take any such action determined necessary including, but not limited to, making a one-time increase of the Standard or Reserve allotment sufficient to accommodate the application. Section 2: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 4: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy of this Ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Ordinance No. 21 Page 31 Series of 2005. Section 5• A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 11th day of April, 2005, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (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. Section 6: This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final adoption. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 28th day of March, 2005. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor day of , 2004. Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor Ordinance No. 21 Page 32 Series of 2005. ASPEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING NOTES MEETING DATE: AGENDA TOPIC: PRESENTED BY: COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: February 22, 2005 ~i chi bi~- ~ ~~,(~,S GMQS & Parking -work session Chris Bendon Helen, Terry, Tim, & Torre Summary: This work session focused on amendments to the City's Growth Management and Parking regulations. Council reviewed each of the issues and directed staff to proceed into public hearings. GMQS Items Discussed: Residential Development: Question: Is City Council comfortable with continuing staff exemptions for single- family and duplex development? This is the ADU or cash-in-lieu policy that has been in effect for roughly 15 years. Staff does not see any reason to change this policy. Council directed staff to maintain this policy in the revisions. Question: Staff recommends continuing the exemption for Historic Landmark properties. Does City Council want to change this policy? Council directed staff to maintain this policy in the revisions. Question: Council earlier stated a preference fora 1 % growth rate for residential development. All other forms of development would continue to be restricted to a 2% growth rate. Staff supports this lowered rate for residential development. Is City Council still directing staff in the manner? Council directed staff to maintain this policy in the revisions. Question: Staff is recommending the affordable housing requirement be 60% units and 30% FAR for all new residential development. Is Council still directing staff in this manner? Council directed staff to maintain this policy in the revisions. Rachel raised the possibility of lowering the Category designation to Category 3. This was not endorsed by other Council members. This item can be further discussed during hearings. Question: Should ADUs which are fully deed restricted and sold according to the Housing Office policy be counted toward the 60/30 requirement? Staff supports this policy only for fully deed restricted ADUs. This would be applicable to any new single- family subdivision. Council directed staff to implement this policy in the revisions. Lodging Development: Question: Is Council interested in this lodging development incentive concept? Staff believes the dwindling bed base is a significant community issue and that rejuvenating the resort's offerings is an important goal. The incentive program would be based on developments having atleast one lodge unit per 500 squaze feet of lot are and an average unit size of 500 square feet. The incentive would be that additional lodge rooms would only require 50% of the affordable housing mitigation. Council directed staff to proceed with this incentive program after further meeting with the Gems of Aspen and other lodge operators. Question: If 20% of an Incentive Lodge project can be free-market residential what should the mitigation for these residential units be? Additional mitigation will reduce the value of the incentive. Council directed staff to include a mitigation level similar to exempt residential development - an ADU or cash-in-lieu. Question: Is Council interested in these (or other) lodging development options? Staff believes the complete exemption for projects with no free-market development should be offered. The option of offering a larger incentive through a review process could allow the City to incentivize lodging on aproject-by-project basis. This item will be explored by staff and brought forward with the code amendments. Commercial Development: Question: Does City Council want to redirect staff on these general points? Staff is recommending the same 60% affordable housing mitigation standazd be applied in the revisions, that redevelopment projects with no increase in impacts not be required to provide mitigation, and that the reviews for commercial and mixed-use developments occur with the P&Z. Council directed staff to maintain these policies in the revisions. Question: Is Council interested in this Alley Store Concept? An affordable housing mitigation waiver is likely the only way to encourage this concept. Council directed staff to include this provision in the revisions and raising the maximum size to 600 square feet. Question: Is Council comfortable with the proposed On-Site Affordable Housing Incentive? Staff believes the mix of uses and income groups will encourage very 2 interesting projects. Council directed staff to include this provision in the revisions. Torre wanted to meet with staff and go through a few pro formas before fully endorsing this concept. Question: Is Council comfortable with this Free-Market /Affordable Housing ratio for mixed-use buildings? Council previously directed staff to provide additional analysis of this FAR mix. This additional analysis suggests an affordable housing requirement equal to 30% of the free-market FAR. This would mimic the multi-family requirement and is similar to existing requirements. Staff is not recommending the 60% units requirement of the residential program but rather allowing the free-market space to be divided into as many units as the developer feels appropriate. Council directed staff to proceed with this policy. Historic Incentives. Question: Is Council interested in a lower mitigation rate as a historic landmark incentive? To what extent? Should a cap on the total waiver be used? Council directed staff to further explore a lesser mitigation standard for historic properties. The 4- employee cap was seen as a way to provide an incentive without exempting a significant impact. Tim wanted to have an opinion from the HPC. Previously Resolved GMOS Items: Redevelopment projects should be permitted a credit for their existing development The City's code permits the replacement of commercial square footage after demolition only if the project mitigates for affordable housing as if nothing existed there before - no credit. This replacement penalty is a significant barrier to redevelopment and removing it is a consistent theme of the infill discussions. This redevelopment credit idea. was implemented a few years ago in the Lodge Preservation Program and has produced some positive activity. Providing this credit is similar to the City's approach on Lodging development. Off-site affordable housing mitigation should be approved by P&Z while off-site, outside the city limits should only be approved by City Couucil. This outside the city issue also was raised by Council during lodging discussions with the preference being to permit such mitigation with approvals from City Council. The Historic TDR Program will not be expanded to the Commercial Zoues. A TDR program for Affordable Housing mitigation will not be pursued in infill code amendments. The idea will be forwarded to the Housing Authority and Board 3 G~ +awaw~w~16 w~•w~o . CITY OF ASPEN EMPLOYMENT GENERATION STUDY DECEMBER. 2002 PREPARED BY City of Aspen Community Development Department Julie Ann Woods, AICP, Planning Director Chris Bendon, AICP, Senior Long Range Planner 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 970.920.5090 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Andrew Knudtsen, AICP, Project Manager 730 17t" Street, Suite 630 Denver, CO 80202 ~ • . c~lw~-lWl ~~rMU~~4 -~~.`~ MEMORANDUM To: The City of Aspen City Council Chris Bendon, Senior Long Range Planner From: Andy Knudtsen and Dan Guimond, Economic & Planning Systems Subject: Employee Generation Rates Date: December 3, 2002 The City of Aspen has requested Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) provide direction regarding employee generation with the goal of updating land use regulations and employee housing mitigation standards with current data. After reviewing the initial findings in June of 2002, the City Council requested additional survey information from service employers. This analysis combines the results of the 76 businesses surveyed in the spring of 2002 and the S additional businesses surveyed in the fall of 2002. The analysis will be used to update development code standards with the current employee generation rates. These rates are used in calculating employee housing mitigation requirements and aze applied to development proposals. The survey sample is representative of the commercial uses most likely to be included in redevelopment proposals in the downtown area. The data have been evaluated against a number of criteria to determine which factors affect the numbers of employees likely to be hired. The report compares the local data to similar research from comparable resort communities to substantiate the research. The purpose of this memo is to: • Quantify the numbers of employees generated by different types of commercial and non-commercial uses. Provide accurate employee generation rates that can be incorporated into the Land Use Regulations. • Assess Asperi s employee generation rates relative to comparable resort communities. December 3, 2002 ' t Page 2 ~ , .- • Evaluate alternative methods the City can use to mitigate the housing need created by new development. • Document trends reported by local merchants relating to staffing, housing, and general commercial activity. Methodology In the spring and fall of 2002, EI'S and City staff surveyed 84 Aspen businesses and organizations. The businesses included generally reflect the mix shown in the City's business license records. Additional detail about the sample is shown below in Table 1. Approximately 45 percent of the respondents were retail operations, directed toward either guests or locals, and 20 percent were office uses, including four local nonprofit organizations. Another 15 percent represent bars and restaurants. Information about hotels has been provided through this survey and previous City efforts. With the additional survey responses from local service businesses, this category now makes up 14 percent of the total. The sample includes both newer and older businesses, with good representation of recently opened businesses as well as those that are well established. The consultant team and City staff interviewed the managers or owners of local businesses and organizations. Most interviews were conducted on-site while some were completed through follow-up telephone calls. The survey included 12 questions and requested information about the number of hours worked by each employee. A copy of the survey is provided as an exhibit to this memorandum. The data provided by employers represents full-time equivalents (FTE), not the number of employees. The additional detail is intended to make the data more specific and accurate. Business owners were asked about summer and winter staffing. The analysis is based on the winter staffing, as it represents the peak demand for employees and housing units. Table 1 Survey Sample Characteristics City of Aspen Employee Generation Study Type of Business <1 Years in Business 2to5 Sto10 10 to 20 >20 Total # °/ Retail -Guest Market 14% 10% 34% 34% 7% 100% 29 35% Retail -Loral Market 0% 13% 0% 25% 63% 100% 8 10% Office-General 0% 33% 22% 44% 0% 700% 9 11% Office -Real Estate 67% 0% 0% 33% 0% 100% 3 4% Office-Nonprofit 0% 0% 0% 25% 75% 100% 4 5% Restaurant and Bar 23% 15% 31% 15% 15% 100% 13 15% Hotel 0% 0% 25% 50% 25% 100% 4 5% Services 0% 0% 8% 50% 42% 100% 12 14% Government 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 2 2% Total 11% 11% 21% 33% 24% 100% 84 100% S°urc¢: Economic 8 Planning Systems Inc. antl RRC Associates December 3, 2002 Page 3 EMPLOYEE GENERATION Rates by Use Aspen businesses generate an average of 4.0 employees per thousand squaze feet, as shown in Table 2. The survey represents 10 different uses, which range from a low of 2.3 employees per 1,000 square feet for local retail, to 7.4 employees per 1,000 square feet for restaurants and bars. It should be noted that the employee generation rate for hotels is calculated by room, not square footage. Retail stores that are geared towards the guest require an average of 2.9 employees per 1,000 square feet, which is 0.6 employees more than the retail stores targeting the local market. The difference is likely due to the higher levels of service required and higher volume of sales conducted in these stores. The office category includes general and real estate business and nonprofit organizations. EPS separated the real estate use from the others, given that real estate businesses have disproportionately higher generation rates as most agents use the office area on a limited basis. Nonprofits were analyzed as a separate category because of local interest in impacts generated specifically by these types of organizations. The average number of employees working in these offices, 3.8 per 1,000 square feet, is less than general office uses, 4.5 per 1,000 square feet. Interviews with representatives from four local nonprofits indicate that there is some seasonal fluctuation in employment, although special events that require significant increase in staffing for limited durations are not reflected in these figures. Aspen s hotels span a large range in the number of employees per room, reflecting a significant difference in the level of service provided. Luxury hotels generate an average of 1.1 employees per room while the historic and economy hotels hire an average of 0.27 employees per room. The findings for the historic hotels have been determined based on two separate studies conducted by the City of Aspen Planning staff. In 1997 and 1998, these hotels were surveyed and found to average 0.26 and 0.27 employees per room, respectively. Because the results were consistent and relatively recent, these hotels were not resurveyed. The luxury hotels were included in the 2002 study since there was only one data point from previous work. In 1997, these hotels were found to generate 1.08 employees per room which is consistent with the 2002 findings of 1.10 employees per room. The previous survey analysis is provided as an exhibit to this memorandum. December 3, 2002 Page 4 Table 2 Employee Generationby Use City of Aspen Employee Generation Study Emp. Per 7,000 Sq. Type of Business Ft. Number of Cases Retail -Guest Market 2.9 30 Retail -Local Market 2.3 8 Office -General 4.5 9 Office -Real Estate 5.9 3 Office-Nonprofit 3.8 4 Restaurant and Bar 7.4 13 Hotel -Luxury (emp. per room) 1.1 4 Ho[el -Historic (emp. per room)' 0.3 18 Services (repair, personal, business) 3.4 12 Government 3.9 2 Average' 3.9 103 Source: Ciry watt surveys, 1999 antl 2000 ~ Includes 18 responses from previous staff surveys Source: Economic 8 Planning Systems Inc. and RRC Associates Rates by Zone District i The employee generation rates by zone district are shown below in Table 3. There is less variation in generation rates by zone district, as compared to uses, as business locations do not always align with zone district boundaries. This is pazticularly true of the lodging district. Because lodge employment is based on room count instead of square footage, it will be addressed in a later section. The information in Table 3 does not include lodge data. Table 3 Employee Generation by Zone District City of Aspen Employee Generation Study Type of Business Emp. Per 1,000 Sq. Ft. Number of Cases Office 3.7 8 Periphery Commercial 4.2 10 Commercial Core 4.1 45 Public 3.9 6 Service Comm. and Industrial 3.5 10 Average. 4.0 79 Source: Economic 8 Planning Systems Inc. and RRC Associates December 3, 2002 Page 5 Rates by Block Reference To better understand the differences due to location, the data was analyzed by block reference areas. The data aze shown in Table 4 and a map of these "blocks" is provided in the Appendix. The purpose of segmenting the core azea into these blocks is to better understand how location affects employment. The blocks were delineated to understand if certain streets outperform others within the downtown azea. The boundaries of these blocks were based on a general knowledge of the most frequently visited portions of downtown and are defined as follows: Block 1: Includes the lodge base, specifically properties on Durant and south to the town boundary. Block 2: Everything on or adjacent to the pedestrian malls. This area includes portions of Blocks 3 & 4. Block 3: Includes the prime Mill/Hyman addresses, specifically Mill from Main to Hyman and Hyman from Mill to Monarch. Block 4: Includes the prime Galena/Cooper addresses, specifically Galena from Main to Cooper and Cooper from Galena to Spring. Block 5: All other properties, including those on Main Street and surrounding the prime areas of downtown. As shown in Table 4, Blocks 1, 2, and 4 have a significantly higher employment rate than the community average of 4.1. Blocks 3 and 5 fall below the average. Because the data show s different n r e e anon rates b area the Cit could otentiall increa se or de r , cease g Y Y P Y the mitigation requirements for new development in these locations. Table 4 Employee Generation by Block Reference City of Aspen Employee Generation Study Reference Emp. Per 1,000 Sq. Ft. Number Block 1 4.9 8 Block 2 4.8 11 Block 3 3.4 15 Block 4 4.5 8 Block 5 3.7 38 Average 4.1 80 Source: Economic 8 Planning Systems Inc. and RRC Associates December 3, 2002 Page 6 ASPEN COMPARED TO OTHER RESORT COMMUNITIES In the following two tables, EPS provides research from comparable resort communities to provide a framework for the Aspen research completed in 2002. The supporting data grounds the local research with data from 439 other businesses in six mountain resorts comparable to Aspen. These include three survey efforts in Telluride, two previous efforts in Pitkin County, one in Eagle County, and one in Summit County. RRC Associates has compiled the database from its research since 1991. As shown in Table 5, Aspen businesses generally require more employees than those in other communities. The average rates for businesses in the seven other communities range from 1.3 to 4.0 employees per 1,000 square feet. The top of the spectrum includes Aspen, San Miguel and Snowmass at 3.9 and 4.0 employees per 1,000 square feet. Aspen's rates are substantially higher than those of Eagle and Summit Counties. The timing of the studies may affect total generation rates. Studies conducted more than five years ago in the same jurisdictions have lower rates, reflecting a general trend towards more intensive use of commercial space. The primary purpose of providing the relative rates of these communities is to document that Aspen s rates are within the recognized standards of comparable communities. Table 5 Comparable Resort Communities City of Aspen Employee Generation Study Type of Business Aspen 2002 San Miguel 2000 Snow- mass 1999 Telluride 1996 Telluride 1993 Pitkin County 1991 Eagle County 1999-01 Summit County 2001 All Retail 2.6 3.4 5.0 4.6 4.7 4.5 2.6 2.0 Office -General 4.4 2.1 - - - - 2.7 3.9 Office -- Real Est. 6.0 1.6 5.9 2.5 5.7 2.7 4.0 2.7 Restaurant and Bar 7.3 6.5 6.4 - 5.0 5.7 8.5 16.3 Hotel (emp. /room) 1.1 0.3 0.6 - -- 12 0.7 All Services 3.3 3.5 5.0 3.0 2.6 4.2 5.2 4.5 Banking -- 3.2 -- - 6.7 - 2.5 12.0 Government 3.9 4.3 -- - ~ 2.2 -- 1.2 1.6 Other 3.7 4.5 1.7 3.8 3.1 1.9 2.6 0.8 Average 3.9 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.3 3.2 3.1 1.3 Source: Economic 8 Planning Systems Inc. and RRC Associates December 3, 2002 Page 7 The survey results from the seven comparable communities have been averaged and are compared to Aspen in Table 6. In five of the eight business categories, Aspen rates are higher. In the case of hotels, the difference is likely attributed to the higher levels of service found in other communities. In the retail category, Asperi s rates are lower than the composite. This difference may be due to the number of shops in other communities with lower average sales and higher volumes, requiring more employees. The retail mix in Aspen is weighted towards stores with higher average sales. The local government offices have much higher generation rates than the average. In general, the comparison documents that the survey data is credible and can be used to accurately estimate the number of employees to be generated by different types of uses. Table 6 Employee Generation by Use City of Aspen Employee Generation Study Comparable Type of Business Aspen Communities 2002 1991 - 2002 All Retail 2.6 3.2 Office -General 4.4 2.8 Office -Real Estate 6.0 3.4 Restaurant and Bar 7.3 8.0 ~ Hotel (emp. per room) 1.1 0.7 All Services 3.3 4.2 Banking - 2.1 Government 3.9 1.6 Other 3.7 2.4 Average 3.9 2.7 Source: Economic & Planning Systems Inc. and RRC Associates ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION METHODS Currently, the City of Aspen uses employee generation rates as a basis for housing mitigation requirements. At the time of development approval and permitting, the developer provides mitigation which may include construction of housing on-site within the project, construction of housing off-site, or a cash-in-lieu payment. Alternatively, the City could impose an annual fee on employers through its business license program. Employers would have to document the number of full-time equivalent employees on staff each year and would then pay on a graduated scale for the housing need generated by the employment. This type of system is a distinct departure from the current method that mitigates housing impacts at time of development. Depending on how detailed the assessment would be, the system could be similar to a head tax which requires employers to pay an annual tax per employee. December 3, 2002 Page 8 Actual versus Estimated Impact -The benefit of an annual fee is that employers would pay for the number of employees, expressed as FTE's, which are placing a burden on the housing inventory for any given year. By assessing the requirements at time of development approval, the community is assuming that a future project will perform similarly with historic employment rates. Unusually high or low rates of employment are not anticipated and are razely accommodated. This becomes particularly noticeable over time, as uses change. Consistency -- A problem with the business license fee method involves the frequency of application and the degree of mitigation required. Under the current system, mitigation standazds are applied at a single point in time (at time of permit). For businesses located in developments that have already provided mitigation, applying an annual fee could be seen as doubling the requirement. The City could consider grandfathering businesses in existing development; however, the administrative challenges associated with applying a fee to some business and not others would be quite complex. Form of Mitigation -- If the City were to adopt an annual fee for its mitigation method, employers would meet the requirement by providing funds to the City. Under the current method, developers are discouraged from meeting the requirements through cash-in-lieu and aze directed towards constructing additional housing units that aze subsequently deed restricted. The staff at the Housing Office report that mitigation is typically negotiated and that the total requirement is often met through portions of on- and off-site housing and some cash-in-lieu. The housing guidelines prioritize the additional housing product and negotiations are directed towards that goal. The recently completed Affordable Housing Master Plan documents that existing dedicated housing revenues exceed the funding levels needed to achieve the housing goals listed in the AACP. Creating another funding source is not likely to help the City reach its housing goals, as the City's success with housing production in the recent past has been limited. Additionally, the City benefits from requiring the developer to construct units as the deed-restricted housing is dispersed throughout the community, rather than concentrated in City-sponsored housing developments. Finally, housing built by the developer as mitigation is required to be completed in conjunction with the development, thus the housing mitigation is available concurrent with the increase in need. Housing Requirements -- The mitigation standards for new development are easier to define at the time of development than on an annual basis. At the time of development, the aggregate number of employees likely generated can be estimated based on objective information, such as building plans and generation rates. This number can be translated into the number of units and/or squaze footage of housing needed to accommodate those employees, based on equivalencies already incorporated into the Aspen housing guidelines. To quantify requirements that would be met annually over an extended period of time is more complicated. Ease of administration should be a priority for the method selected. December 3, 2002 Page 9 Equity -- Finally, the last item considered involves the issue of who beazs the most responsibility for housing mitigation and who should bear the cost. Assumptions about how costs are directed "up" towards the landowner or "down" to the customer can vary and the analysis presented here is based on an overview of the local market conditions. In its simplest form, land value is determined by future cash flows, less development expenses. As mitigation rates are recognized as a development expense, it could be used to lower the sales price of the land. If, however, an annual fee were required of employers, they could attempt to pass on the costs through higher fees for services or prices on goods. This intent to pass costs down to an end user; however, may or may not be successful. Generally, the entities involved earlier in the development process tend to have greater resources and are more directly linked to increasing demand for housing with additional development. A mitigation method that can potentially involve these parties to a greater degree may be preferable. Recommendation -- Based on these considerations, it is preferable to continue with the current system of requiring mitigation at time of development approval, using the updated generation rate data. This recommendation is based on the following considerations: • The most advantageous mitigation method for the City is one in which it can require developers to provide constructed units. Because land availability is limited and due to the challenges the City will face in its own housing proposals, increasing the constructed inventory of deed restricted housing by efforts of the private sector will be much more effective in addressing the housing problem than adding revenue to the City's housing funds. The standards that could be used at time of development approval are reasonably accurate and are grounded in the range of current businesses operating in Aspen. Creating a new mitigation method based on annual contributions may have a higher accuracy related to the then-current level of employment; however, addressing past housing mitigation efforts and linking annual employment to housing need in the form of a cash contribution could be very challenging. It is recommended that the City continue to mitigate housing at time of development approval and permitting. The recent study provides mitigation rates that represent the employment rates for specific zone districts throughout the City, as shown in Table 7. Applying generation rates by zone district at time of development approval is efficient and objective. City staff will not have to track future tenant changes, as the rates are based on the zone district and not the specific use. December 3, 2002 Page 10 Table 7 Employee Generation by Zone District Clty of Aspen Employee Generation Study Type of Business Emp. Per 1,000 Sq. Ft. Number of Cases Office 3.7 8 Periphery Commercial 4.2 10 Commercial Core 4.1 45 Public 3.9 6 Service Comm. and Industrial 3.5 ~ 10 Lodge Use -General 0.5 per room 23 Lodge Use -Lodge Pres. ' 0.3 per room 10 Average 3.9 112 Number of cases also included in the larger lodge sample of 23 Source: Economic 8 Planning Systems Inc. and RRC Associates The standards in Table 7 include two rates for lodges. The lower rate for the Lodge Preservation zone district reflects the level of service provided in historic hotels. The rate for all other hotels, 0.5 employees per room, reflects the average employment rates of hotels among several resort communities. Because hotel employment rates cover a broad range, it is-recommended to apply a standard based on the center of the spectrum. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Margin for Unique Uses The primary purpose of this analysis has been to document reasonable, accurate mitigation rates and to discuss alternative methods the City can use for housing mitigation. Additional consideration is needed prior to adopting code language. It is assumed that the current rate of 60 percent will be applied to the figures provided above. The reduction from 100 percent is appropriate as the City must make allowances for multiple job holders. Moreover, there should be margins to accommodate uses that do not fall in-line with communitywide averages. The revisions to the code should also provide for sepazate reviews for certain uses that are significantly different from those considered in the study. Some uses, such as an athletic club, have generation rates far below the average. To ensure that these types of uses are accurately assessed, a sepazate review process is needed. Nonprofit Operations Due to an expanding presence of local nonprofit organizations, some members of the community have expressed concern that these groups shoulder their share of the housing mitigation burden. The data set includes responses of four nonprofits, with a December 3, 2002 Page 11 total year-round staff of 51. Three of the four nonprofits reported very little variation in seasonal employment, as most have permanent employees. One organization triples from five to 15 employees from the winter to summer seasons. More importantly, annual events such as JazzAspen's summer concert festival or Aspen Theater in the Park's performances, require staffing that far exceeds the year-round office employees. Due to the size of these events, the nonprofit organizations add numerous workers to handle the additional responsibilities. Because of the unique nature and annual frequency of the expanded employment, it is recommended that any housing mitigation requirements be addressed through special events permits and not through programs directed towards businesses with more consistent staffing levels. In determining appropriate mitigation requirements as part of special events licensing, research is needed to document the annualized FTE and the impact to demand for housing from these events. TRENDS REPORTED BY LOCAL MERCHANTS As part of the survey effort to document employee generation rates, other questions related to housing mitigation were included in the questionnaire. Table 8 shows the change in number of employees over the past five yeazs. For the community as a whole, 44 percent of the businesses have not changed the number of employees over the past five years. Approximately 26 percent have increased staff and 23 percent have decreased their staff. The largest growth areas include local retail, general office, l' ,' nonprofit, and government. The sectors that have reduced the number of employees include real estate and services. Table 6 Change in Number of Employees City of Aspen Employee Generation Study Type of Business Chance in Employment Over Past Flve Years More Fewer No Change Not in Bus. Total # Retail -Guest Market 15% 27% 50% 8% 100% 26 Retail -Local Markel 36% 13% 50% 0% 100% 8 Offce -General 42% 17% 42% 0% 100% 12 Office -Real Estate 0% 50% 0% 50% .100% 2 Office -Nonprofit 50% 25% 25% 0% 100% 4 Restaurant and Bar 23% 15% 38% 23% 100% 13 Hotel 33% 33% 33% 0% 100% 3 Services 20% 30% 50% 0% 100% 10 Government 50% 0% 50% 0% 100% 2 Total 26% 23% 44% 7% 100% 60 Source: Ewnomic 8 Planning Systems Inc. antl RRC Associates December 3, 2002 Page 12 When asked about the impact housing has on their ability to hire and retain staff, 54 percent report that housing plays a major factor, as shown in Table 9. Sectors that are impacted the most include guest retail, general office, nonprofits, restaurants and bars, and hotels. During interviews with business owners, many reported that housing has been less critical in 2002 than it was two to three years ago. Survey respondents described a general reduction in hiring, driven by a reduction in sales. Considering that current conditions may be better than in the recent past, the 54 percent of business that have cited housing as a major factor indicate that it continues to be a problem that most employers face. Table 9 Impact of Housing on Ability to Hire City of Aspen Employee Generation Study Type of Business Denree of Impact Total # Not an Issue Minor Factor Major Factor Retail -Guest Market 27% 27% 46% 100% 26 Retail -- Local Market 25% 25% 50% 100% 8 Office -General 15% 23% 62% 100% 13 Office -Real Estate 67% 33% 0% 100% 3 Office -Nonprofit 0% 25% 75% 100% 4 Restaurant and Bar 15% 8% 77% 100% 13 HOlel 0°/ 0% 100% 100% 3 Services 44% 22% 33% 100% 9 Government 0% 50% 50% 100% 2 Total 23% 22% 54% 100% 87 Source: Economic 8 Planning Systems Inc. antl RRC Associates i December 3, 2002 Page 13 SEASONAL VARIANCE As shown in Table 10, there is little seasonal variance by employment category. The average employment rates for the community are the same for both summer and winter seasons. The survey did not include questions about the spring and fall shoulder seasons. Table 10 Summer-Winter Comparison City of Aspen Employee Generation Study Type of Business Emo. per 1.000 Sg. Ft. Summer Winter # Retail -Guest Market 2.2 2.9 29 Retail -Local Market 2.4 2.3 8 Office -General 4.2 4.3 7 Office -Real Estate 5.9 5.9 3 Office -Nonprofit 4.7 3.8 4 Restaurant and Bar 7.2 7.4 13 Services 3.5 3.4 12 Government 3.9 3.9 2 Average 3.9 3.9 78 Source: Economic 8 Planning Systems Inc. and RRC Associates December 3, 2002 Page 14 Aspen Employee Generation Survey o/Employers March 2002 Retum to: Chris Bendoq City of Aspen Community Development Fax: 92o-5439 1. Name of buslness 2. Type of business a) Retail --General b) Retail -Neighborhood c) Office-BusinesslProfessional d) Real Estate e) Restaumnt/Bar f) Hotel g) Services (repair, personal, business) h) Banking i) Other: 3. Floor Level a) Basement/Lower Level b) Street level c) Second Floor or higher 4. How long has this buslness been operating In Aspen? a) Less than 2 years b) 2 to 5 years c) 5 to 10 years d) 10 to 20 years e) More than 20 years 5. Size of commercial space occupied: Number of stores/locations in Aspen directly related to the number of employees listed below. -What is the square footage o(the space accessible by customers? -What is the square footage of all space within the building(s) your business occupies, including storage? If your business is hotel/lodging or property management, identify the numher of rooms you operate or manage. 6. For a typical week during the ski season, how many employees do you have in Aspen? Hours per week Number of Em to ees Full-time E uivalent Total FTE' Cit to COm fete 15 - 25 0.50 35 - 45 1.00 55 + 1.50 Total Full-time equivalent, 6asetl on 40-hour work week December 3, 2002 Page IS 7. For a typical week during the summer season, how many employees do you have in Aspen? Hours per week Number of Em to ees Full-time E uivalent Total FTE' Cit to Com lete 15 - 25 0.50 35 - 45 1.00 55+ 1.50 Total Full-time equivalent, basetl on 40-hour work week 8. To what degree does housing availability affect your ability to hire a qualified staff? a) Not an issue b) A minor factor c) A major factor 9. How does the number of employees you have today compare to the number of employees you had 5 years ago? a) More employees today than 5 years ago (approx. # _) b) Fewer employees today than 5 years ago (approx. # _) c) No change d) N/A -not in business 5 years 10. Over the past five years, how many employees have been needed to operate this business? a) Maximum number b) Minimum number ~.: c) Average number 11. If you have changed the number of employees, please choose the ONE main reason why there has been a change: a) Fewer customers. Reduction in sales activity. Less business. b) Reduced the size of space in which you do business c) Increased the size of space in which you do business d) More employees in the same space e) Other: 12. During the next year, will the number of persons you employ: a) Stay the same b) Decrease (approx. #_) c) Increase (approx.#_) Contact Information Contact Person Phone # Physical Address Zone District Location Kev Appendix Employee Generation Rates Study City of Aspen m r m (~ _~ ~ L - c O °c~L ~ ~ ~ O ow ~ ~ o Qo . - ... - C N O N~ L d~ ~« V c °~ ~ •~ d O ~ O Q y d ~ ~ ~ R ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~M G) p +. Q~ y d C ~_~ O ~~ o O Q~ L W O a j O R3 a~ a °~ D. ~ ~ d. .O O Jap d~aa = ~=T Cog dt~w' O O ~M; ~_ ~ ~~ ~~,, e. _~ ~, ~ ONpj3 ~ ~ . ~31J ~F M i x ~ ~ < 3 a \~~ ~ A is °ry3;53,a W ' i ~ ~ ~ ~~~ :; ~ I~j ; ! ~ ~~s~N~, ~" ~s ~ ~ Q ~ M ~ - As~~N ts~~ _~ o /~/~~ ~1 ~ ~ o • tics s w ¢ tg ~Nbt ... '~ ~ i E. .I l6-Nly~S l ~ Y w' t9 / bltNNNS _. ~I / + ;' '~ ' .'r/ ~~, F ,m w ts~s~ ~'' ~ i ~~N Y „' ~` 3' m - a L # - tsts,N, + /~ ~ ~~ A vJ e ' ~' / ~~®' ~/~ ~, .~• ~\ ~, (, ;''` ^~ 5W ~ ~ o ~ O ~ ~' ~ 3-°o~s Q m ~ ? N .~ ~ ~ ._ L 6 C U ~ U C 0 .~ N C N N N O a E w O O J_ N O 2 0 N ~ o o N Y ~o N ~ ~ U O Q ~ N U Qj O O i- U ~ ii p C Q Yl a O U N s_ C 0 O C N N N O Q W N O x O J c 0 U a O C m O C ~ a~ ~ Q C j Q ~ N C N ~ ~+ N O ~ O C L ~ .~ ~ N U a ~ •~ ~~~ o~~ - o U ~ ~` 3 w ~ a~ O ~+ "' .O ` ~ N N c o a ~~E o~Q O U Q ~ C ~ O ,= O T~ O U O ~~~ v o a >'c•"= ~ O C a '~ U ~ Q O O ~ N ~ ~ Q O ~ ~ o~~ w~~ c O O) O U 6 'D N N O O ~ 6 ~ ~~a aoo c Nw Q~i ~ ~Q ~ N ~ O ~ O 0 0 O W C N 3 3 ~ TL N U N O p_t O O.a 6`c ~ ~ d)SO~ U N O ~~ ~ ~ N ~ N a O p ~ .~ O ~~ a-° a `^ N ~ o ~ o E ~ ~ o - c ~ ~ .0 000 Z>~,on`, a~U o ~ E ~ o o~m ~ 6 U .C ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ L ~ 0 6U ~ O `O O'er ac•~ Q.~Q ~~ Qp'^ fl. ~O OQ.Q ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~U O ~~ Q 'D T 'O Q ~ N ~ O ~ N ~y c a~ ~~' ~•° a~ ~ o ao 3 ~ ~ ~ O O ~°°-'ca ~ p ~U ~ .n -p C O ~ H O ~ N ~ p U N T U N ~ ~ O 9 w N ,n Q- -O~ N ~w oa3 a ~ ~ ~ o > ~ °' °o a O ~ ~ N ~ ~ c ~ O N N _ ~ 3>a~~U v~ 'C ~ ~ ~ OHO O-O~ O ~ O'6~~ ~3`~oa~ C ` ~ - C ~ ~ C a '~n .n Q p ~ ~ ~ Urn N 2 C ~ n ~ N O c ~a O O A N N O O a o 3 Q~ ~ a~ O ~Z.O a ~`c~ N o ~~-a'oo~ o~~aa -c°OO ~ m `°'-'a~ ai ma o _ U O _ O ~ c ~~~~ O N N ~ a o~._~~ a~._~ ~c N N~ N ~ Noa O ~~vi'vC-i m C O ~ ~ w »t-~^`~N 'O O~ ~ N Q Q N ] 7 O C h o °-'r - d,~ ,,, ~ ~ N= ~ ~a ~ O ~ E~ o`o oo~.C>~ o00 ~°' .v ~°'ou ~ m `~O)o~~ Uo)p ~~ ~ a.o3mo .~ -6 a 0 C p X N ~, 0 3~~ ~~ O_ U O N N ~ O ~ t a o w d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N > a ~ ~ ~ O ] ~ C N ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ L '~ N d' j ~ ~ N O 3 as m o p~ ~._ ~ 0~~3 ~p0°= Ewa o3 3 o~a'u L N p O T -~ t v~ ~ ~ 'Q O N ~~ 0 0 ~n 6~~ ~ N Q 6 U p M ~~ N F L m Z' ~-pv~.OC Q W w O~~ ~ N O O`a~'~ c~ ~~ ~ 3 p •~ ~ O Q ~~ .~ N ~ o~ L a o~~-oo o~0 30 '3° `oa~~-o ~•N' p moo. ii m `o E Tc oa~„m ~ p .Q o~~ x ~ O~~ ~ 'X a N w o ~~ c O ~ w~ ~ N C 0-~ ~ ~ ~~m~a~ ~~ N O N~ 7 O_ ~ Q ~ a N N a E> Z' C a O p Q ~ O d~ O C O I... N Q ~~ p aj Q O p U ~ O ~_ ~ ~ a a+ ~ .. ~ Q ~ ~`=' ~ 6 Q '~ p N C~ p~ 0 0 a~i N "'"TC j~ M T._ ~+ N O NO ~ ~ 000. Na ~ o E m ~->. a~~~E >cO•omc ~~~~~~ °~~~ a~ ~~ ~E~~m p N~ ..- N ~ o Z Q ~ N ~ ~ C N 'O" ~ ~ N ~ j ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ E Nvj~ U~ Q ~aQ ~ ~ p O.O t Qmoo C~ N N O E .-a T ~~ •O O. V OL E 0 ~ O ~., .~ ~ p ~ ~ U~ •p ~ E O Q o o~ a Q Q ~ Op ~ Q ~~~ ,.-~ U L C O O U Oi 0 9 O'O O 'O Q N 6 c~ N~ ~~p_oE` ~'~ .p a 6 c :" "+ N N~~ N N O ~ U o~ u N o ~>p~~Q Q oo Qp`p~ ~Z oa ocoo of LL ~n ~~ J w ~ Q O L -O O O Q C ~~ O~ O~ ~' N C ~ O O. N~ '> O ~ w O O ~ ~~~ c ~ Q ~ N ~ u ~r~~ a Q O C O~ `O >. N~~ C -O ~ O O~ O Z E 3 N~ ~' N m C L 6 a ~ Q C O O C C~ .- O U 7 O T C O .~ a ~. ~ cN T N O Q- ~ O ~ y = 0 ~ U 'C U = "' a ~ p j ~ ~ -Op N O O ~ ~~` > ~- N U N ~ N C E~ o m Z' ~ 5 ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ N c ~ p ~ ~~~ •~ o ~ ~ U ~ E m ~ o o m° O .~ 3= N O- ~ x~ w w ~ iL ~ ~~ m Q ii ~ a m t ° `o> a0i Q m rn L 7 CI LL woof{ red saaRo~dw3 ~ C D) >' C ~ N w O C O Q N p m ~ N X~ O O~ Q U o `o ~ ~ O ~ ~ 7 .~ ~ o U _m ~ ~ ~ j p ~ ~ ~ c ~ c _O N c U -p .~ ~- ~ ~6 ~ ~ m - O O '~' c >~ ~ o ~~~ ~~ O~ Q N t o E a ° a~-a ~ a ~~ E ~ a* ~~ N c p ~~ N O o p p m `~ O ..- O U N ~^ ~ ~ L w U aTi ~~ S N ~ X N- U c ~ 3 d 4 c N O. N o m N -c o a ~ ~ >, O ~ ,n O O) ~ ~ 3 .0 0 ~~ Q~ C N C 6 N U E N N a a 7 ~ N 6 L •~ ~ a~ a v 4 ~ ~ - ~ ~ d ~ 6O ~~ O O O•~ a'oo `cam ~'mm c m ~-O` U o p °c E° U m N O .~ a 0 V O O ~~ o -o o f ~ o .... a o~~ c o v ~~ 3~ ~ m ~~ a~ ^a`• v te'a` ~ ~ ~~ a o >~ 1%1 W a a L _v ~ X O y' l0 "O > N~ p '~ N N ~' C N C C C ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ O L L C D I" ~~ O c ~ +- ~ ~ .~ d L U O m -~ O~ N N~ a 0 = 0 T 'o O O ~ ~ 3 ~ O O a N N j m '^ aci O om ~~a~o_Q3~ ~Q oY Eo 3 o co p N c~~ 0 -p N a> ~~ U -- C '~ ~ m p N N 0~ O Y C > 3 a. P d X C a •a ~ N~ L ~, a h >' C S N P Qv ~djp~0~ 3= mo' a$a 'a ~ a p O ~ - c UJ ~ ~ - ~. O N N x ~., O N~ U C~ -p 3 0~ N >`` ~~ p N L N a o ~~ `m ~ ~ c~ ~ Q~~~~ Z .c > T_ u o a ` ~ T ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •N O ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O. 6 Q~ N~ c a 0 9 0~ -o T o Q p ~ c -Q a ~ ~ j ~ O pO ~ U>1 C~ a N ~^ ~~ a~ C E -O .n N O N~ O w ~ C~ Y C C ~~ R C N ~ - O a ~ C ~ O Oco~ TO ~.~ ~ ~ o - ~ O ~ o ~ U N ~~~~ O~ 'O O O o o ~m~ -a ,O a Q~ '^ C a1 O -O O ~ O O C O N ~~ a d1 ~ - m c 'O p N - ~ ~ a O U N~'^ ~ N•~•~ o O•~ O o 0 o aTi m.a p vUi U N 'D -O -O Q O N E c ]~ j 'Q r Q) f+D r O~~ M N ~ O O O O O O O O O O December 20, 1999 Mary Roberts Executive Director Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority • AsPeN • Prrxw - COMMUNIPY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Re: Small Lodge Employment Survey ', Deaz Mary: As part of the code amendment process for the Lodge Preservation (LP) Zone District, I surveyed 10 small lodge owners/operators to better understand their employment patterns. Attached is a copy of my findings. The lodges are not identified by name, by request of the lodge owners, but the raw data is provided with an explanation of the services provided for each lodge. The data set is small'and the range of employment is lazge, resulting in a wide range of figures within the first deviation. The employee generation seems to depend.upon specific operating characteristics of each individual lodge. As such, we will continue to encourage potential LP applicants to submit actual and expected employee generation figures to better facilitate your analysis and recommendations on these projects. I hope this may shed some light on employment chazacteristics in the small lodge market, especially with respect to LP development. Please contact me if you have any questions- about the survey, etc. 920.5072. Sincerely, \J~ ~ " " V Chris Bendon, AICP Senior Planner, City of Aspen ISO SOUTH GALENA STREET ~ ASPEN, COLORADO 8161I$97S ~ PHONE 970.92O.SO9O ~ FA% 970.92O.S439 Punted on RecyclM Paper e z d 7 w C d _~ QI W U bA 7 O R ~' w % o o o o o o o ¢ ¢ ¢ ° o ° ° ° o o w H w 0 ~ o o o z z o o o o o w .. a p 00 ~--~ M ~O M N 00 Q d M ~ M N V M ~--~ ~--~ O V ~ O O O O O O O z z o w H w m H ~ vl 0 0 ~ 00 00 ~ Q' °O w `~ N O O M M ~ ' ~ M 41 N N N z z N w ^ 0 F ~n o 0 0 0 0 0 ~ Q % ~ l~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 O~ ~ ~ 7 n N V z y ^ V 'ct C' v i O H u: N n O ~ O O O O M Q~ O i oo O ~ ~n ° vi ~o ~o z .~ ~n •--~ N ^' N N N N N m O ~ O ~ ~ ~ M 7 W 7 M a +~' • ~Y 4'1 ~ vi lD O ° ° O1 7 p M N N N M N -~ ~n ~ .~ N M V vt ~O t~ W Q\ O ^O a ~ U ~ U C W W O O U U ti . b . °o ~ ~ ~ ~ C T >, « ~ ti ~ '~ ~~ ~"' E E E -o v >' >' >' O O W 'C 'O '~O •O 'D p ~ ~ a ai ~ ai ~ ai ~ .y E "U' E U E ~ ~ ~ • ~_ ~ b ~y ~n y v. N ~ ~ ~ c b b 'b .V ~ U ~ U U ~ ~ W W W d V] U [~ 'O . . . eC 'O U 'D U •D ~ ,~ L N N ~ ~ E +•" E O O V O O ~ ~. ~. ai CC ~" ~ ~ w w ~ ~ ~ ~ oo bo on on on U N U N U N U U G C ~ F .? .-7 U U U U U U ~ --~ N M d' ~n ~D r oo D\ O 'O O a ..~c4-~ b~~- G ~ ~. tt• os ~~"IQS Cody. awrehatww~.{S vr~~o . tSCnSEQkSSt C. lY F'.BT?ZStP'! ;w i'FLt'Yi1F Re¢! Es<¢te Erommice Reyi¢nal Erowmim' Public Flnanm Land Use P¢!ky MEMORANDUM To: The City of Aspen City Council Chris Bendon, Senior Long Range Planner From: Dan Guimond and Andy Knudtsen Economic & Planning Systems Subject: City of Aspen Fractional Fee Employment Analysis; EPS 7113817 Date: September 29, 2003 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE The City of Aspen requested Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) provide an analysis of employment generation rates in fractional fee club projects. The fractional fee development concept was recently introduced to the resort market and has an increasing presence in many summer and winter resorts. The key component differentiating this product from other developments (such as time-shares or hotels) is the quality and level of services and the corresponding staff requirements to provide these services. The analysis is intended to provide a basis for development standards and review related to employee housing mitigation through the following steps: Quantify the numbers of employees by type of use within fractional fee clubs Provide accurate employee generation rates that can be incorporated into the Land Use Regulations or used in negotiations with developers of proposed clubs. Document the range of services offered by fractional fee clubs to enable the staff to evaluate new proposals that have different combinations of amenities. BACKGROUND Fractional fee clubs are based on the concept of shared ownership of common amenities. Owners join the club for a fee and reserve time for use based on availability and the owner's schedule. Usage floats and some members use the facility more frequently than DENVER BERKELEY SAG RAME NTO 730 1]"'Street, Suite 630 Phone: 303-623-3557 Phone: 510-841-9190 Phone: 916-649-8010 Denver, CO 80202-3511 Fax: 303-623-9049 Fax: 510-841-9208 Fax 916-649-20]0 www.epsys.cum ~ J ~ e~ ~.~ ~ ~~~ ~~ r~~~r 29, 2003 ., Page 2 others. Each of the clubs surveyed emphasized exceptional level of service, high quality construction and finishes, premier locations within a resort, and availability of amenities associated with luxury hotels. Fractional fee clubs are similar to time-share properties in that both are based on fractional ownership. Historically, time-share developments sell each unit to approximately 50 owners, each having a fixed week of the year. While the market profile of time-share purchasers is changing, historically buyers have been attracted to time-share based on cost and value as well as the ability to trade or use time-shares in other locations. Fractional fee clubs differ from time-share developments in the following ways: There are fewer owners at a fractional fee development, typically seven to ten owners per unit, allowing for more frequent use. • All new fractional fee club developments provide floating weeks rather than fixed weeks to facilitate greater use by owners. Sales prices and annual homeowners association dues are dramatically higher to pay for the higher quality real estate product and higher level of amenities. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY In the summer and fall of 2003, EPS surveyed eight fractional fee clubs located in ski resorts in Colorado, Utah, and California, as shown in Table 1. Table 1 Overview of Comparable Properkies City of Aspen Fractional Fee Study Property Community Total Units Deer Valley Club Deer Valley, UT 30 Franz Klammer Telluride, CO 63 Northstar Club Lake Tahoe, CA 18 Park Plaza Beaver Creek, CO 36 Ritz Carlton Beaver Creek, CO 55 Ritz Carlton Aspen Highlands, CO 75 Snowmass Club Snowmass, CO 51 Timbers Club Snowmass, CO 36 Total 364 Source: Economic 8 Planning Systems ~ Scrytember 29, 2003 Page 3 `', The properties surveyed include a total of 364 units and approximately 3,800 buyers. Because of their unique nature, price point, and the large number of buyers there are only one or two properties in each resort. However, with greater acceptance of the concept there are a greater number of projects under development. For example, in Snowmass the Snowmass Club has recently expanded, the Timbers was built, and the Snowmass Center project (53 units) is under review. The increasing demand for shares can also be seen as newer clubs build significantly more units. The original clubs (as well as original phases of the successful clubs) had between 18 and 30 units. Newer clubs are in the range of 50 to 75 units. EPS interviewed human resource directors at each of the clubs listed to determine the number of part-time and full-time employees for the summer and winter seasons. EPS also interviewed sales staff to document the ownership structure, price, size, and range of amenities. Of the eight clubs surveyed, four are particularly relevant to the Aspen market. These include the Ritz Carlton Clubs in Beaver Creek and Aspen Highlands, the Snowmass Club, and the Timbers. These newer clubs reflect the latest trends in this industry. All four have a clientele comparable to Aspen and reflect levels of service that buyers would seek for any proposed fractional fee club in the City. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS An overview of the characteristics of the clubs is provided below. Attributes such as number of owners, sales price, unit mix, unit size, and price per square foot and price per week are provided. Following a review of these factors, the employment generation rates are listed for each club, as well as averages for the total and the most representative clubs. DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS The development characteristics for the clubs surveyed are shown on the following page in Table 2. Most clubs have between seven and ten owners per unit, with an average of 10.5. The exceptions include the two Ritz Carlton properties which have 12 owners per unit and the Franz Klammer Lodge in Telluride, where a portion of the development has 20 owners per unit. Most clubs offer a minimum of four to five weeks of use per year. The unit mix for the sample averages 55 percent three-bedroom units, 37 percent two- bedroom units, and the balance in larger units. There have been two significant shifts in the industry over time, including the provision of larger units with more bedrooms and a shift to a "floating" rather than a "fixed" system of use. The original unit-mix concentrated on two- and three-bedroom units. Recent developments, such as the Timbers, have dropped the two-bedroom unit altogether, and the Snowmass Club has concentrated on four- and five-bedroom units. September 29, 2003 Page 4 There are two types of reservation systems. In the form used by some of the original clubs, owners purchase certain "fixed" weeks, with the balance made available on a "floating" basis. Over time, the success of the "floating' system has eliminated the need to guarantee certain weeks. Newer resorts have established a rotating hierarchy, in which owners select the weeks they intend to use the club approximately six months prior to the season. One key to the success of this system is to limit the number of owners per unit. While this process is staff intensive as it requires organizing hundreds of owners, owners enjoy the flexibility and the market has responded accordingly. With the "floating' system, each owner is typically guaranteed a certain number of winter and summer weeks, with additional use possible on a space available basis. Because owners can be assigned to a number of different units from year to year, developers attempt to make units similar in size, finishes, and views, to ensure similar quality. Additional time booked on a space available basis can enable owners to enjoy the club with very low nightly fees. While the actual nightly billing rate is low, the initial purchase price combined with annual homeowner association fees ranging from $3,000 to $10,000 must be factored in to the true cost of use. Table 2 Overview of Fractional Fee Clubs City of Aspen Fractional Fee Study Property Number of Units Number of Minimum Shares 2-bed 3-bed 4-bed Other Total Owners # of weeks Per Unit Deer Valley Club 14 12 4 0 30 195 4 Franz Klammer 24 39 0 0 63 970 3-5 1/10 ownership 0 0 0 0 0 290 5 1/20 ownership 0 0 0 0 0 680 3 Northstar Club 0 12 6 0 18 ~ 126 4 Park Plaza 24 12 0 0 36 360 5 Ritz Carlton -- BC 34 21 0 0 55 660 3 Winter Focus 17 11 0 0 28 336 3 Summer Focus 17 10 0 0 27 324 3 Ritz Carlton --High. 26 49 0 0 75 860 4 Snowmass Club 378 5 1I7 ownership 14 16 0 0 30 210 5 1/B ownership 0 2 13 6 21 168 5 Timbers Club 0 36 0 0 36 288 6 Total 136 199 23 6 364 3,837 Average 37% 55% 6% 2% 100% 10.5 6.5 owners 10 owenrs 20 owners 7 owners 10 owners 12 owners 12 owners 12 owners 7 owners B owners 8 owners Source: Economic 8 Planning Systems The current sales prices and sizes for the units are shown below in Table 3. For the older clubs in which the developer has sold all units, the prices reflect the current resale value. On the lower end of the spectrum, prices for three-bedroom units include $155,000 for afour-week package at the Deer Valley Club and $102,000 for athree-week package at the Franz Klammer Lodge. The higher end three-bedroom units include a three-week interval at the Ritz Carlton Beaver Creek at $290,000 and five-week packages at the Snowmass Club ($369,000) and Timbers Club ($379,000). The average three- bedroom unit, regardless of length of stay, is $252,000. September 29, 2003 Page 5 Our research indicates that most clubs have a reasonable secondary market for resale. This is a significant difference from time-share projects, as the secondary market for that type of interval ownership has not materialized. For some fractional fee clubs, there have been significant appreciation rates, but they appear to be the exception. Most enable owners to sell at similar or slightly higher prices to the original cost. Recent trends in the industry reflect not only larger units, but also higher prices. As shown in Table 3, the newer resorts have priced three-bedroom units $100,000 to $200,000 more than the prices of the older resorts. The five-bedroom unit in the second phase of the Snowmass Club is priced at $589,000 for five weeks of usage. Sales staff from a variety of clubs indicates that the higher priced packages reflect a growing trend in the fraction fee club industry to offer more amenities and larger units. Table 3 Sales Prices and Unit Sizes City of Aspen Fractional Fee Study Property Price Square Footage 2-bed ~ 3-bed 4-bed Other 2-bed 3-bed 4-bed Other Deer Valley Club $75,000 $155,000 Franz Klammer -- -- 1/10 ownership $130,000 $161,000 1/20 ownership $85,000 $102,000 Northstar Club -- $219,000 Park Plaza $160,000 $260,000 Ritz Carlton - BC -- -- WinterFocus $280,000 $290,000 Summer Facus $195,000 $240,000 Ritz Carlton -High. $200,000 $260,000 Snowmass Club -- -- 1/7 ownership $239,000 $369,000 1/8 ownership $D $339,000 Timbers Club -- $379,000 $235,000 -- 1,000 -- -- 1,200 -- - 1,200- $299,000 - -- -- -- 1,425 -- -- 1,560 -- 1,560 -- 1,300 -- 1,700 $369,000 $569,000 -- Average I $151,556 $252,182 E307,667 5589,0001 1,368 Source: Economic 8 Planning Systems 1,500 2,000 -- 1,750 -- -- 1,750 -- -- 2,000 2,400 -- 1,900 -- -- 1,950 1,950 1,900 2,000 -- -- 2,100 2,400 3,400 2,000 -- -- 1,891 2,267 3,400 Given the wide range of offerings that reflect different unit types, unit sizes, duration, and age, the sales prices have been summarized in Tabte 4 below and are shown by week and by square foot. For three-bedroom units, the most common throughout all the clubs, the price per week ranges from $32,000 at the Franz Klammer Lodge to $97,000 at the Ritz Carlton in Beaver Creek. The average price per week for athree-bedroom unit is almost $60,000. The four products available in the Aspen vicinity exceed the average by $3,000 to $14,000. The average price per square foot ranges from $121 for two-bedroom units to $173 for units larger than four-bedrooms. This correlation between size and cost is unusual in real estate valuation. Typically, lower price per square foot costs are available with larger economies of scale; however, the interval ownership market is not typical and the higher prices reflect finishes and amenity packages that owners are willing to pay for. September 29, 2003 Page 6 Table 4 Evaluation of Price per Week and Square Foot City of Aspen Fractional Fee Study Property 2-bed Price oer Week 3-bed 4-bed Other Price 2-bed oar Sq 3-bed uare Foot 4-bed Other Deer Valley Club $18,750 $38,750 $58,750 $75 $103 $118 -- Franz Klammer -- -- - -- -- -- -- 1/10 ownership $26,000 $32,200 - $108 $92 -- -- 1/20 ownership $28,333 $34,000 - -- $71 $58 -- -- Northstar Club -- $54,750 $74,750 -- $110 $125 -- Park Plaza $32,000 $52,000 -- -- $112 $137 -- -- Ritz Carlton -- BC -- -- -- -- -- WinterFocus $93,333 $96,667 -- $179 $149 -- -- Summer Focus $65,000 $80,000 -- -- $125 $123 -- -- RltzCarlton-Nlgh. $50,000 $65,000 -- $154 $137 -- -- Snowmass Club -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1/7 ownership $47,800 $73,800 -- $141 $185 -- -- 1lBownership -- $67,800 $77,800 $117,800 -- $161 $162 $173 Timbers Club -- $63,167 -- -- -- $190 -- -- Average 545,152 559,830 570,433 5117,1100 5121 $131 5135 5173 EMPLOYMENT LEVELS The employment level for each resort is provided below in Table 5 and Table 6. The ~'! first set of figures summarizes employment levels associated with the core functions of fractional fee clubs. The second accounts for all employees and all services, including unique amenities. The data covers summer and winter employment, as well as part-time and full-time positions. The differential in these categories is less pronounced in this type of development than compared to other types of resort commercial operations. One of the selling points of fractional fee clubs is to enhance the guest experience by establishing relationships with the staff; therefore, a majority of positions are full-time, year-round. In categories such as housekeeping, some resorts rely on part-time positions; however this is the exception rather than the rule. For higher profile positions with greater client contact, such as bell staff and concierge, nearly all positions are full-time, year-round. The part-time positions identified in the research were valued at 0.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) and were added to the club's FTE total. The data was evaluated in aggregate as well for projects in the Aspen vicinity. Each of the following tables and charts provides an average for the eight properties surveyed as well as an average for the properties that are considered most representative of an Aspen development. These include The Timbers and the Snowmass Club, in Snowmass, and the two Ritz Carlton projects (Aspen Highlands and Beaver Creek). Other properties were not included as they were generally older, did not represent the latest trends, and were geographically removed. September 29, 2003 Page 7 Based on the interviews, all eight clubs has a set of core functions. The names vary by resort, but generally include the following services: • Front Desk/Concierge • Club Assistants/ Bell Staff • Housekeeping/Laundry • Maintenance/Engineering • Administration/Accounting • Reservations • Loss Prevention/Security When only these core functions are considered, there is a high level of consistency among employment levels, as shown in Table 5. The-eight properties generate 1.26 employees per unit during the winter season. The four most representative properties generate 1.25 employees per unit. The analysis also provides the employment by room, accounting for the range of unit types. The employment per room is approximately one-third of the employment per unit, reflecting a majority of three-bedroom units. in the unit mix. Table 5 Employment Ratios for Core Functions City of Aspen Fractional Fee Study Property Summer Winter Units Rooms Winter FTE Winter FTE FTE FTE Per Unit Per Room Deer Valley Club 27 55 30 80 1.8 0.7 Franz Klammer 67 72 63 165 1.1 0.4 Northstar Club 15 17 18 60 0.9 0.3 Park Plaza 32 38 36 84 1.1 0.5 Ritz Carlton -- Beaver Creek 75 76 55 131 1.4 0.6 Ritz Carlton -- Aspen Highlands 107 107 75 199 1.4 0.5 Snowmass Club 64 64 51 164 1.3 0.4 Timbers Club 33 38 36 108 1.1 0.4 Averages All cases 52 58 46 124 1.3 0.4 Most Representative 70 71 54 - 151 1.3 0.5 Source: Ewnomic 8 Planning Systems In addition to core functions, many developments have a variety of additional amenities. Examples include spas, full-service fitness centers, restaurants, and room service. The total employment levels for these additional amenities are shown in Table 6. The average for all eight properties is 1.9 FTE per unit for the winter season, an increase of 0.6 FTE per unit, which is nearly 50 percent. September 29, 2003 Page 8 The increase is much more pronounced in the most comparable properties. For these clubs, the entire staff equates to 2.4 FTE per unit, an increase of 1.1 FTE which translates to an increase of 85 percent. The data support the information conveyed through the interviews that the latest developments reflect guests' desire for higher levels of service and more amenities. One of the challenges associated with the evaluation of all services is the use by non- guests. In the case of restaurants, the clubs open them to the public to generate greater use. As described by most staff, however, few people from the larger community visit the restaurants and they have become financially challenging to operate. In the case of the Snowmass Club athletic club, the reverse is true. A high percentage of the users are local residents with memberships or other non-guest users. In this case, the employment is based in the club, but serves a larger population. This is an example of a specific amenity the City would have to evaluate separately, if one is proposed as part of a future development. Table 6 Employment Ratios for All Functions City of Aspen Fractional Fee Study Pro e I Summer Winter Units Rooms Winter FTE Winter FTE FTE FTE Per Unit Per Room Deer Valley Club --- Franz Klammer Northstar Club Park Plaza Ritz Carlton -- Beaver Creek Ritz Carlton -- Aspen Highlands Snowmass Club Timbers Club Average All cases Most Representative 27 55 30 80 1.8 0.7 78 84 63 165 1.3 0.5 15 17 18 60 0.9 0.3 32 38 36 84 1.1 0.5 152 153 55 131 2.8 1.2 149 149 75 199 2.0 0.7 199 199 51 164 3.9 1.2 33 38 36 108 1.1 0.4 85 92 46 124 1.9 0.7 133 135 54 151 2.4 0.9 Source: Economic 8 Planning Systems It should be noted that three employment categories were not included in the analysis. The golf course at the Snowmass Club has not opened and could not be quantified. No other club included a golf course, although many offered guests preferred reservation status through agreements with nearby courses. One club has the capacity for banquets, but uses on-call employees to staff that function. Finally, real estate sales staff was not counted. Some of the resorts have been sold out for years while others are continuing to sell with on-site staff. In theory, the employment categories included will be required in perpetuity, while the need for real estate agents will diminish dramatically upon completion of the initial sales. September 29, 2003 Page 9 FACTORS AFFECTING EMPLOYMENT While the findings regarding FTE per unit were generally consistent among similar properties, the following analysis compares these findings to three dependent variables to determine how the ratios should be modified for a future proposal in the City of Aspen. The three variables evaluated include price per square foot, price per week, and size of complex. The employment data is based on core functions. PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT In Table 7 below, the price per square foot is listed for all properties with the corresponding employment level. The hypothesis is that developments with higher sales per square foot would correlate to higher employment levels. The chart shown in Figure 1 provides a visual representation of the relationship between these two factors, and shows no significant correlation. One of the anomalies in the data is the employment level and price of units at the Deer Valley Club. It should be noted that this development was one of the original fractional fee clubs, has been sold out for several years, and the prices reflect resales. The secondary market for this project has not faired as well as other developments. Sales staff report that the lower prices reflect the lack of an efficient resale process that until recently has not been formalized. At this time, a single brokerage has been contracted to handle the marketing and resales for all units and the sales staff expect prices to improve. f Table 7 Comparison of Employees to Price per Square Foot City of Aspen Fractional Fee Employment Analysis Case Study Winter FTE Per Unit Price Per SF Deer Valley Club 1.83 $99 Franz Klammer 1.22 $700 Northstar Club 0.94 $117 Park Plaza 1.06 $125 Ritz Carlton -- BC '1.38 $164 Ritz Carlton -- High. 1.42 $145 Snowmass Club 1.25 $166 Timbers Club 1.06 $190 Source: Economic 8 Planning Systems September 29, 2003 Page 10 Figure 1 Comparison of Employees to Price per Square Foot City of Aspen Fractional Fee Employment Analysis f' ; 2.00 1 so tso 160 j 120 6 ;, 1.00 e E 0.80 W ~.6~ o ao oso 0 00 $0 $20 $40 $60 PRICE PER WEEK $BO $100 ~ $120 $140 $160 $180 $20( Prlce Per Square Foot Given the nature of the sales of fractional units, and that the length of time varies among the different clubs, the price per week has been evaluated. The purpose of this test is to determine if higher priced packages correlate to higher employment levels. The data in Table 8, and shown in Figure 2, quantify the relationship between the two variables and indicate that there is no correlation. r I 1 1 ~ ~ ~ - ~~- ~~ i I - ~ ' I ~y = -0.0023x + 1.5938 ~~i R' = 0.0766 ~ I • Price per Square Foot i -Linear (Price per Square FooQ ~ I ,' ~ September 29, 2003 Page 11 Table 8 Comparison of Employees to Price per Week City of Aspen Fractional Fee Employment Analysis Case Study Winter FTE Per Unit Price Per Week Deer Valley Club 1.83 $38,750 Franz Klammer' 1.22 $29,100 Northstar Club 0.94 $64,750 Park~Plaza 1.06 $42,000 Ritz Calton - BC ~ 1.38 $95,000 Ritz Carlton -- High. 1.42 $57,500 Snowmass Club' 1.25 $87,800 Timbers Club 1.06 $63,167 Average for 1/10 share units ~ Winter Focus 'Averave for 1/8 share units Source: Economic & Planning Systems Figure 2 Comparison of Employees to Price per Week City of Aspen Fractional Fee Employment Analysis z.oo 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 N _ d C T E d.00 w 0.80 0.60 0.40 g.zg o.og $6 • I _ -.____~ ~I l I i ~ _ I ~_ _ Y = -2E-06x i 1.362 ' ', R' = 0.0158 - • Pr ice per Week , h ~ ~-Linear (Price per Week) I I - $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000 $90,000 $100,0 Price Per Week September 29, 2003 Page 12 SIZE OF DEVELOPMENT The size of development has been evaluated in Table 9 and Figure 3 to determine if there are economies of scale-with fractional fee development. In a typical hotel development, the employees per unit will decrease at certain thresholds as the number of rooms increase. For this analysis, there is a reverse correlation. The per unit employment increases, as the size of the club increases. The relationship is depicted visually in Figure 3 and shows a relatively high correlation among seven of the eight properties. Table 9 Comparison of Employees to Number of Units City of Aspen Fractional Fee Employment Analysis Case Study Winter FTE Number Per Unit of Units Deer Valley Club 1.83 30 Franz Klammer 1.22 63 Northstar Club 0.94 18 Park. Plaza 1.06 36 Ritz Carlton -- BC 1.38 55 Ritz Carlton -- High. 1.42 75 Snowmass Club 1.25 51 Timbers Club 1.06 36 Source: Economic 8 Planning Systems September 29, 2003 Page 13 Figure 3 Comparison of Employees to Number of Units City of Aspen Fractional Fee Employment Analysis z.6o ---- tso I tso t.ao t.zo i ;• a ' ' • d t.oo 1- - T O w o.aa R~ = 0.0574 0 40 ~- I' ! • Number of Unfls ' -Linear iNumber of Units) 0.20 J- I i 0.00 ~' 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 B( Number of Units CONCLUSIONS The most relevant finding from the research is the core employment figure -- fractional fee clubs generate 1.3 employees per unit to serve core functions. The research showed small variations among the various clubs and provides a figure that the City can rely on to equitably evaluate proposed development. APPLICATIONS OF THE RESEARCH Based on the research and analysis, the City can adopt these findings to establish standards for development review. It is recommended that applicants document those areas within the proposed project related to core functions and those related to additional amenities. For all areas that fall into the core funtion category, it is recommended that the City require mitigation at an employment rate of 1.3 employees per unit. Given the relatively small variations between the aggregate average and individual properties, generation rates are not likely to vary significantly. The staffing of the core functions would include front desk, concierge, club assistants (bellmen), transportation, guest activities, housekeeping, laundry, maintenance, engineering, administration, accounting, reservations, and security. The core functions Seytember 29, 2003 Page 14 would also include limited services, such as daily apres-ski refreshments or small, unstaffed exercise equipment rooms. For half of the projects surveyed, 100 percent of the employment fell into these categories. For additional amenities, such as restaurants, spas, and health clubs, it is recommended that the City review these components individually. Proposed restaurants can be assessed at the restaurant generation rates identified in previous research for the City of Aspen. Full-service health clubs, spas with massage therapists, golf courses, or other unique elements should be evaluated based on the size and operating characteristics of each. FACTORS AFFECTING EMPLOYMENT The implications of the findings are that the City should not be concerned regarding price points. It is reasonable to assume that some of the highest priced fractional fee units could be located in the City of Aspen; however, the data show that employment generation rates are not likely to increase as a result of the higher sales prices. Regarding size, the City should review any proposal with the rates found in this study and should not reduce or increase employment rates unless the proposed development is significantly smaller or larger than the projects studied. Because there is a correlation between size and employment levels, the rate may need to be adjusted for very small or large operations. ~. a. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM : Phil Overeynder '"'~~,i~ THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager THRU: John Worcester, Attorney DATE: April 5, 2005 RE: Reclaimed Water System Feasibility Study SUMMARY: Council requested an update of a 1980 feasibility study regarding the potential use of reclaimed water for irrigation use at Burlingame Village and other sites. The feasibility study has been completed and has identified probable customers and system costs. If constructed, the municipal golf course would be the largest water user and would require re- construction of its irrigation system to accommodate the reclaimed water. The total cost of the required improvements is large enough to require bonding or an inter-fund loan. Sufficient revenue sources aze available from the Water Fund and from project customers to amortize the capital costs. Staff recommends that detailed design work be initiated on the reclaimed water project while a more detailed financial plan is developed. The more detailed plan is necessary to consider timing of expenditures (project phasing) and when revenue sources will become available. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: During a work session on the Burlingame Village project, Council directed staff to complete a feasibility study of a reclaimed water system capable of serving Burlingame Village, the municipal golf course and other prospective water users. The project concept is similar to one investigated by the City and the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) in the early 1980's and would use treated wastewater for irrigation. The project is intended to improve available water supplies while increasing the amount of water that remains in Castle Creek and the Roazing Fork River above the wastewater treatment plant. BACKGROUND: In 1980 the City and ACSD completed a feasibility study, which evaluated the potential for re-use of treated effluent at the municipal golf course and other large irrigation usage sites. No action was taken at that time to implement the project. Since that time, treatment processes have been upgraded at the ACSD plant, detailed standazds have been issued by the Colorado Department of Health (CDPHE), regarding the use of reclaimed water, and numerous reclaimed water projects have been installed and successfully operated throughout the state. The City has entered into agreements to extend other utilities across the Bar/X parcel and other areas, creating a current opportunity for cost savings in the installation of a separate water system. After development improvements aze installed at Burlingame and Baz/X and the Maroon Creek Bridge has been re-constructed, the cost of a reclaimed water system would increase dramatically, because it would no longer be possible to incorporate it into the installation of other utilities. The irrigation system at the municipal golf course has exceeded its economic life and is due to be replaced in the next few yeazs. Effluent reuse would require an irrigation system that is designed to accommodate the water characteristics and more effectively use water. DISCUSSION: McLaughlin Rincon Engineers (MRE) was contracted to update the 1980 feasibility study. MRE contacted potential irrigation and snowmaking users of the treated effluent to ascertain their interest in participation. MRE also reviewed the CDPHE standards affecting use of reclaimed water in light of the observed effluent characteristics, and identified costs of the needed system improvements. Three probable customers have been identified: the municipal golf course, Burlingame Village and the Pitkin County Airport. Other potential users include Buttermilk/Tiehack Ski Area (for snowmaking) and the Maroon Creek Club golf course. Subsequent to the completion of the feasibility study, it has been learned that Council wishes to proceed with an irrigation system fronting the 3-mile stretch of Highway 82 from the Airport to the round-about, which would also benefit from the reclaimed water system. The Aspen Valley Ski and Snowboazd Club has expressed an interest in financially participating in snowmaking improvements to Tiehack to improve the efficacy of its early season training programs. Water is a limiting factor for these improvements; the use of reclaimed water could resolve this issue for the Ski Club. Current Issues • The City's water attorney, Cindy Covell, has prepared a confidential memorandum regarding water rights issues associated with this project. Should Council wish to proceed with the project after review of the feasibility study and Ms. Covell's memo, Council should be awaze that the estimated costs for water rights activities ($40,000) have been incorporated into the feasibility study estimates. • Energy Costs and Usaee. Relative to other sources of water available in the Aspen area, reclaimed water is more energy intensive since it requires water to be pumped from a lower elevation back to the point of use. The feasibility study assumes that Aspen municipal electric supplies can be used for this project under the terms of the Holy Cross franchise agreement. The feasibility study also assumes that power will be provided on a "cost-plus" basis rather than the standard rate. Given the energy intensive nature of the project, Council may wish to "green" the energy mix by purchasing an additional increment of renewable energy. • Golf Course Irrigation Svstem. The irrigation system at the municipal golf course has reached the end of its economic life and is in need of replacement in the next 5 years, regardless of whether reclaimed water is used at the golf course. However, beneficially using reclaimed water at the golf course would require the irrigation system to be rebuilt. (See further discussion under financial issues). • CDOT and Mazoon Creek Bridge Replacement. The Maroon Creek Bridge is scheduled for replacement in 2005. While the City and CDOT have entered into an agreement for placement of other utilities within the new bridge, no agreement has yet been reached regarding the placement of the 8-inch reclaimed water line required to implement this project on the municipal golf course. • Business Plan. The utility business plan was prepazed before the feasibility study for reclaimed water and therefore did not include other expenses or revenue from this project. Staff has updated the long-range financial plan for the Water Fund to evaluate fmancial issues associated with implementing a reclaimed water system. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The feasibility study shows that the cost of reclaimed water is reasonable in relation to water rates chazged to potable water customers. However, most of the existing water users (including the municipal golf course) would not be able to save significant sums of money by switching to reclaimed water, considering their current use of ditchwater. For these reasons, reclaimed water projects are often subsidized by potable water customers, with part of the added cost considered to be the cost of expanding available water supplies. Clearly, reclaimed water is less costly than the next increment of potable water supply, such as a well. For comparative purposes, Aspen chazges new development outside the City $1000/ECU to develop new capacity in the water system. Based on average use rates, this works out to be approximately $2,750,000 for each million gallons of added capacity. The comparable figure for reclaimed water is $760,0000 per million gallons of added capacity. The estimated capital cost of the project is $1,140,000; annual operating costs are estimated at $16,800 per yeaz, almost half of which is associated with pumping. Because the project necessarily implies rebuilding the golf course irrigation system, the financial plan for the project needs to also consider this cost, estimated at $2,065,000. This would bring the total amount to be financed to $3,205,000. Available resources in the Water Fund are $150,000 per yeaz in conservation projects, $50,000 in additional revenue from bulk water sales (not related to this project), and $20,000 in annual revenue from water sales from probable reclaimed water customers (Pitkin County Airport and Burlingame Village). The Parks and Golf Funds are willing to commit $30,000 per yeaz for this project, bringing the total available to $250,000 per year. Additional sales to other reclaimed customers would likely increase the available revenue beyond this amount. At current interest rates, a $250,000 annual revenue stream would support bonding capacity between $3,107,000 and $3,475,000 and could capitalize both the reclaimed water system and the golf course irrigation improvements. A more detailed financial plan would be dependent on project phasing during the design phase of the project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council authorize staff to proceed with the engineering design phase of the reclaimed water project and initiate preparation of a more detailed financial plan including bonding for reclaimed water projects and golf course irrigation system. ALTERNATIVES: The recommendation assumes a bond election would be required to support construction of the reclaimed water system, together with golf course improvements necessary to accommodate the system. Other fmancial alternatives may include aninter-fund loan or revision of the Utility Business Plan and water rates. Revision of rates could potentially include adjustment of cost chazged for water service, water consumption or charges imposed for extension of water service outside the municipal boundaries. If Council elects not to proceed with the reclaimed water system, future water supply needs may need to be addressed through other increases in supply. These could include additional well capacity or new surface storage reservoirs to capture peak runoff. Staff believes it may be necessary to revisit the water supply availability study and evaluate these alternatives in more detail in the event of a new annexation, for instance, at the base of Buttermilk. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to direct staff to proceed with the design phase of the reclaimed water system. CITY MANAGER . f ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~