The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.council.regular.20060313 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA March 13, 2006 5:00 P.M. I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Scheduled Public Appearances a) Proclamation - Shining Stars b) Commuter Awards IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes) V. Special Orders of the Day a) Mayor's Comments b) Councilmembers' Comments c) City Manager's Comments d) Board Reports VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion) a) Resolution #12, 2006 - Contract - Wheeler Electronic Media - New Visions Syndications Inc. b) Resolution #13, 2006 - Contract to Purchase Open Space c) Resolution #14, 2006 - Amendment Wind Generated Energy Agreement MEAN d) Minutes - February 27,2006 VII. Public Hearings a) Ordinance #2, 2006 - 202 N. Monarch, Blue Vic Subdivision b) Ordinance #50-A, 2005 - Miscellaneous Land Use Code Amendments Continue to 4/10 c) d) to 3/27 e) f) Resolution #9, 2006 - Holiday House Conceptual PUD Ordinance #6, 2006 - Boomerang Vacant Parcel Rezoning and Lot Split Continue Ordinance #3, 2006 - 522 West Francis Street De-Listing Historic Inventory Resolution #15,2006 - Endorsement of Fire Station COWOP VIII. Action Items a) Resolution #16, 2006 - Fire Station Lease Extension IX. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting March 27. 2006 COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. MEMORANDUM VI a... TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Gram Slaton, Wheeler Executive Director THRU: ACM Randy Ready; Wheeler Board of Directors DATE OF MEMO: 24 February 2006 MEETING DATE: To be determined RE: New Visions Syndication, Inc. SUMMARY: Approval of this contract would provide the Wheeler Opera House with a unique marketing opportunity through focused media placement that would also serve as a promotional tool for the City of Aspen. Staff and Board recommend approval of the request. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: At the January 24, 2006, City Council work session, a memo was prepared for Council regarding a comprehensive media plan for the Wheeler Opera House, including an electronic media component targeting winter sports enthusiasts predisposed to consider Aspen as a vacation destination. Council approved the media plan in concept with the understanding that individual components would be brought back at an appropriate time for contract approval. BACKGROUND: The comprehensive media plan was the result of many conversations over the course of the 2005 year concerning increasing the Wheeler Opera House's visibility beyond Aspen, and particularly using the Wheeler as a marketing tool for Aspen in general. This was further emphasized in the GenoveseVanderhoof & Associates organizational audit presented to Council in June 2005. DISCUSSION: It is the opinion of Wheeler staff and Board that the best way to position the Wheeler and Aspen as destinations to potential patrons beyond the Roaring Fork Valley marketplace is through specific media that will play to a predisposed and interested patron base, such as that already heavily developed by New Visions Syndications through its Mountaintop Ski & Snowboard Series through cable television, supplemented with exposure to airline traffic through in-flight airings. Positioning Aspen as a cultural as well as winter sports destination will, in the opinion of staff and Board, serve as a positive tipping point for potential patrons deciding between Aspen and other Colorado winter sports destinations. . FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Total cost of the project is $40,000 per year for two years by contract, plus a small additional amount for advertising spot creation and editing. [Contracts attached.] ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: None. RECOMMENDATION: Staff and Board recommend approval of the request. ALTERNATIVES: No similar situations or reasonable alternatives have been discovered or can be recommended, as this is a unique situation with a sole provider (approved as such by the Aspen City Attorney). Dnc-_\v~ PROPOSED MOTION: Council moves to approve ~-lij#.I2,-to contract with New Visions Syndications, Inc., for the purposes of electronic media services for the Wheeler Opera House for the 2006 and 2007 years. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ~~ ~ ce-. ~ <j) ~t ~fp~ rwwu"ZS ~ . . RESOLUTION # 1.;L. (Series of 2006) A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND NEW VISIONS SYNDICATIONS SETTING FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING ELECTRONIC MEDIA PURCHASING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and New Visions Syndications, Inc., a copy of which contract is annexed hereto and made a part thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that contract between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and New Visions Syndication, Inc. regarding electronic media purchasing, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Aspen. Dated: 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 *** Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk , ~c, t ~c,\~ ~ (.. t'l~ ~. > o o"v 0,0 ",3.~ "\ \ o~~ o,/-O "" I\. , ':>~_I 0'" (. r e'" '\' \ 0"'<" ,0< ~ ~ ,,\e~ i-,,,q -{ 0' ~ \0<" .., ,o\~ V\og .\ov 0\ \)\s\t Q\\Oro; V\O<" DEAL MEMO It is agreed between THE WHEELER OPERA HOUSE here in after referred to as Wheeler, NEW VISIONS SYNDICATION, INC., and FREEWHEELIN' FILMS, LTD., to enter into the following relationship: . Mountain Top Ski & Snowboard series sponsorship: Using the attached proposal dated December 6, 2005, Wheeler agrees to be an initial two-year sponsor ofthe Mountain Top Ski & Snowboard series. . Fees: Mountain Top Ski & Snowboard Series: In Year One Wheeler will pay New Visions Syndication, Inc. $20,000 on April 15, 200~and $20,000 on August 15,2006. In Year Two Wheeler will pay New Visions Syndication, Inc., $20,000 on April 15, 2007, and $20,0(Xbn August 15,2007. '* . TV Commercial: It is acknowledged that Wheeler will need a :30 second TV commercial for insertion into the Mountain Top Ski & Snowboard Series. Freewheelin' Films agrees to participate in all aspects of concept and creative development as well as execute the finished product. Message & content of the Wheeler commercial to be decided by Wheeler. Budget to be determined by creative approach. Commercial shall ben completed no later than June 15,2006. AGREED to between the parties this -z..L.- day of February, 2006. CITY OF ASPEN ~.~-- Helen Klanderud, Mayor Rodney H. Jaco , esident :lI" r::1,!J~/fIt- 6oM""'TIUElJT R;:e uoo? IOS A"i'PUt'lhrID,v5 1Dj:' r/ft!: .:t:.ITY C,atJPc.IL www.newvisionssyndicotion.com Tel: 970 925 2640 Fox: 970 925 9369 Mailing: P.O. Box 599. Aspen, CO 81612 USA Shipping: 44895 Highway 82. Aspen, CO 81611 USA ~~r TO ~J)tI# ~F rife C /7)' ~F /J-~f?&N' I -h ~2~) INTERNATIONAL QUORUM OF FII.M&VIDEOPRODU([RS " ':. A PROPOSAL FOR TtlO Aspten WHEELER OPERA HOUSE SPONSORSHIP OF THE 2006/2007 & 2007/2008 MOUNTAIN-TOP SKI AND SNOWBOARD SERIES A 13-episode television series of snow board, ski and winter resort travel television programs which The City of Aspen can use to advertise The Wheeler Opera House in other markets. The...series will assist in furthering The Wheeler Opera House's "brand & specific product awareness" to a targeted national Aspen interested audience. Researched, developed & submitted to: Helen Klanderud, Mayor, City of Aspen Randy Ready, Assistant Aspen City Manager Gram Slaton, Executive Director Wheeler Opera House Prepared by: Rodney H. Jacobs, President Kayla Hoffman-Cook, senior Vice President New Visions Syndication, Inc. December 6, 2005 <<::J New Visions Syndication, Inc ,-- .........-..' '. CITY OF ASPEN 2006/2007 & 2007/2008 MOUNTAIN-TOP SKI AND SNOWBOARD SERIES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Sponsorship of the Mountain Top... Series provides The City of Aspen with an opportunity to reach a targeted national audience and to promote to this audience the existence, product and services of the Wheeler Opera House. The subject matter of the Mountain Top programming, because it is specific, will attract year round ski, snowboard, golf, hiking, beach and Aspen- experienced enthusiasts. By putting a Wheeler Opera House commercial into each and every one the 13 episodes will create a "frequency of message" significantly enhancing the Wheeler Opera House branded product awareness and message to a targeted audience, many thousands of whom are considering a visit to Aspen. New Visions Syndication will place commercials for The Wheeler Opera House on Broadcast, National, Regional, and Local Cable, as well as Low Power Television for a seven-month window i.e., September through April in each year of the two-year term. This placement will include opening The Wheeler Opera House billboards plus one The Wheeler Opera House 30-second commercial in each ofthe 13 titles in the Mountain Top...Series episodes. The measured media value of this commercial time is valued at $563,000. * New Visions will guarantee in the TV component, a measured media value, return on investment of commercial placements to be a minimum of $500,000. * New Visions will guarantee in the Airline In-flight component, a measured media value, return on investment of commercial placements to be $63,000. * The resulting measured commercial exposure will provide an approximate 14-to-l advertising value return over the cost of the sponsorship benefiting The Wheeler Opera House. TOTAL ESTIMATED IMPRESSIONS: 206,837,144 TOTAL VALUE: $563,000 SPONSORSHIP INVESTMENT: $40,000 per year for a two-year term. TOTAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT: Minimum 14-to-l . CITY OF ASPEN SPONSORSHIP OF THE 2006/2007 & 2007/2008 MOUNTAIN-TOP SKI AND SNOWBOARD SERIES PROPOSAL A 13-episode television series of snowboard, ski and winter resort travel television programs which The City of Aspen can use to advertise The Wheeler Opera House in other markets. The...series will assist in furthering The Wheeler Opera House's "brand & specific product awareness" to a targeted national Aspen interested audience. This multiple-use strategy sponsorship includes the following: 1. Maximize the Wheeler Opera House messaging by way of target audience, frequency and repetition, and "environment." Environment means the programming in which Wheeler Opera House commercials will be integrated. In this case the "environment" is ski, snowboarding and winter resort lifestyle programming which will attract not only winter lifestyle and sports enthusiasts but the year round potential visitor to Aspen. New Visions Syndication will place Wheeler Opera House commercials on Broadcast, National, Regional, Local Origination Cable, as well as Low Power Television for an airing window of September through April. In addition to New Visions' normal broadcast distribution (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, UPN, and WB network affiliates) our syndication staff has developed a New Visions' Resort Network of TV stations. Stations in these resorts air the Mountain Top episodes repeatedly over the winter season and as a result, influence hundreds of thousands of destination resort vacationers each season during their skiing/snowboarding adventures. The resorts represented in this network include some of the most famous winter destinations in the U.S. including Aspen, Breckenridge, Crested Butte, Keystone, Lake Tahoe, Mt. Bachelor, Mt. Snow, Steamboat Springs, Stowe, Sun Valley, Telluride, Vail and Winter Park. Remember, since each of these resorts has nearly 100% turn-over of visitors every week, the New Visions Resort Network literally reaches hundreds of thousands of skiing, snowboarding and winter sports enthusiasts from most, if not all, the national DMAs (designated market areas). 2. Maximize the Wheeler Opera House ad message by way of airline in-flight. New Visions Syndication will place Wheeler Opera House commercials on multiple airlines for use in their featured in-flight entertainment. By scheduling Mountain Top programming on the major airlines, it allows Wheeler Opera House to advertise and gain a "direct viewer ship" audience. Monthly passenger reports '. ... are provided to New Visions Syndication and will be forwarded to Wheeler Opera House as a part of the monthly comprehensive syndication reports, Combined airline in-flight Wheeler Opera House commercial placements in Mountain Top episodes represent a return of media value, return on investment of $63,000 over the course of ill winter season from this airline component, alone. 3. New Visions Syndication will include opening Wheeler Opera House billboards in ALL of the Mountain Top ...Series episodes. 4. New Visions Syndication will distribute the Mountain Top Ski and Snowboard Series on a barter- syndicated basis which means that all the programs are offered to the stations and the in- flight network on a "free of a license" fee. Wheeler Opera House will receive one (no air time cost), :30-second commercial in each of the 13 ...Series 'titles resulting in airings each and every time the episode runs. RETURN ON INVESTMENT As sponsor of the Mountain Top Ski and Snowboard Series, Wheeler Opera House will have one 30- second commercial integrated into each of the 13 titles for all aspects of syndication including Broadcast/Network Affiliates, National/RegionallLocal Cable, Low Power TV, and New Visions' Resort Network. Further, a minimum of eight commercial units will be included in month-long airings on United Airlines and on US Airways. The total return on investment, per year for a two-year term, is as follows... BroadcastlNetwork Affiliates, NationaURegional/Local Cable, Low Power TV, and New Visions' Resort Network: $500,000 Equivalent Value of Measured TV Media United Airlines and US Airways Entertainment In-flight: $63,000Equivalent Value of Measured TV Media TOTAL: $563.000 SPONSORSHIP FEE: The sponsorship of The Mountain Top Ski and Snowboard Series is a two- year term, i.e. the 2006/2007 & 2007/2008 winter seasons. This sponsorship commitment shall be $40,000 per year of a two year term V\b A$.~c~ MEMORANDUM DATE: March 6, 2006 TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Stephen Ellsperman, Deputy Director Parks and Open Space FROM: Brian Flynn, Open Space and Special Projects Manager CC: Steve Barwick, City Manager John Worcester, City Attorney MEETING DATE: 3/13/2006 RE: Purchase of the Result, Contraband and Della S parcels for Open Space SUMMARY: Since January 2005, the City of Aspen Open Space Board has been working on the acquisition of the Result, Contraband and Della S Parcels. All three parcels are, visible parcels from town, located on the face of Smuggler Mountain. Smuggler Ridge Associates (SRA) holds and option on these parcels and is currently seeking development approvals, on the Result Parcel, from Pitkin County. The Open Space Board has negotiated a purchase price of $3.4 million dollars for all three parcels equaling a total of 24 acres. The Open Space Board is seeking City Council's support and approval to purchase the Result, Contraband and Della S. parcels for $3.4 million dollars. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: During an August 30, 2005 City Council Work Session, the City Open Space Board presented it's current priority list for acquisition. The Smuggler Ridge Associates parcels were the top priority next to Wilk Wilkinson's parcels as the Board's highest priority. The Board estimated the financial outlay between 3.0 and 4.5 million dollars. At the close of the meeting City Council supported the priority list and 1 provided direction to the Open Space Board to move forward in an attempt to secure the acquisition of the SRA parcels. BACKGROUND: Through a court settlement in December of 2004, Tulasi Wilkinson cleared the title of the three lots from her ex-husband. The properties; the Della S. 8.12-acres, the Contraband 9.4 acres and the Result 6.8 acres are all located on the visible face of Smuggler Mountain. The three parcels are accessed off of Smuggler Mountain road and sit adjacent to several other City and County open space parcels. At the January 2005 work session with City Council, the Open Space Board received direction, from City Council, to begin researching the potential acquisition of one or all of the Smuggle Mountain properties now owned by Tulasi and Jaya Wilkinson. The Board was in agreement with City Council that all three parcels are important to the greater open space preservation of Smuggler Mountain and should be considered for acquisition as open space. In early April the Board and staff opened discussions with David Myler. David Myler is the legal representative for the current option holder, Smuggler Ridge Associates. Smuggler Ridge Associates (SRA) has an option to purchase the properties from Tulasi and Jaya Wilkinson. Currently, SRA is seeking approval for development of the three parcels. David Myler informed the Board that both the Result and the Contraband are currently in Pitkin County review for 1041 approvals. Current approvals have been granted for two 5,750 sq feet, single-family homes, one on each parcel. Congruently, SRA wanted to explore an opportunity to preserve the face of Smuggler Mountain by reducing the impact from development on upper lots. SRA proposed a land trade between a portion of the City owned Mascotte 99 open space for the Result and Contraband parcels. The proposed land trade would require the City of Aspen to trade an equal value of land on the Mascotte 99 Parcel, with a development right, in exchange for the developers extinguishing the Contraband and Result development rights. The City would acquire the Contraband and Result mining claims as open space. On April 21, 2005 staff and the Open Space Board attended a site visit of the Mascotte 99 Open Space, the Contraband and Result mining claims. At the direction of the Board staff researched the Mascotte 99 parcel to determine the possibility of the proposed land trade. The deed on the property reserves the Mascotte 99 property for open space and or affordable housing. Staff has determined that the Mascotte 99 was purchased with open space funds thus requiring a vote in order to sell or trade a portion of the property. Additionally, the warranty deed retains the parcel for open space and park use unless a multitude of circumstances take place. If all of the circumstances are worked out then the City could determine the property unfit for open space and or affordable housing and be allowed to sell the property on the free market. Until that time the property must remain as open space. '- The Board felt that the Mascotte 99 parcel had just as much if not more impact visually as would the proposed homes located on the Result and Contraband claims. Additionally, with the restrictions set forth in the deed, the Board felt it would better serve the community by not 2 accepting or pursuing the proposed land trade. The Board informed David Myler that the Board, based on the details above, did not support the proposed land trade. In June 2006, David Myler, representing Smuggler Ridge Associates, presented a new proposal to the City Open Space Board for the bargain sale of the Result, Contraband and Della S. mining claims. At the request of the Board, SRA prepared a limited appraisal of the value of the three lots. The appraisal valued the three parcels at $6.5 million dollars and SRA is offering a bargain sale for $3.5 million dollars. Separate from the purchase by the City, but part of the SRA financial picture, they would also be seeking tax benefits and three transferable development rights off of the properties. The Board had the appraisal reviewed by Aspen Appraisal Group and provide an opinion of value based on local knowledge and understanding of the codes. The opinion of the local appraiser was that the $6.5 million dollar value was high and based on some unknown assumptions. The Board discussed with Mr. Myler its concerns with the high values and assumptions expressed in the limited appraisal. Mr. Myler informed the Board that under the County's new zoning SRA would be allowed the development of the lots with up to 3,500 sq foot and one rural remote cabin. SRA feels this current zoning supports the values of the properties stated in the limited appraisal and supports the methodology and dollar amounts used in the appraisal. David Myler met again with the City Open Space Board and provided a new proposal suggesting a bargain sale of $3.3 million dollars. The lower amount was based on the possible success of SRA receiving TORs and using the sale of these to make up the difference between the 3.3 million and 3.4 million. Craig Ward, City Open Space Board Member and local realtor provided the Board with an opinion of value based on the location and current zoning of the lots. Under these current conditions, Mr. Ward stated the value of the total acquisition between $3,750,000 and $4,750,000. Mr. Ward was comfortable with SRA's bargain sale for $3,300,000 based on his opinion of value. The Board did agree that the successful acquisition of TDRs would not be contingent on any purchase between the City and SRA. David Myler informed the Board that SRA would attempt to receive the TORs prior to any contract with the City. The Board unanimously voted to make and offer for 3 million dollars for the acquisition of the three parcels not contingent on any TDRs. Staff met with Pitkin County OST on November 3, 2005 requesting a financial participation in the purchase of the SRA properties. Pitkin County OST stated that they have more interest in the upper portions of Smuggler Mountain not the lower portions, like the SRA parcels. Additionally, with the upcoming Wilkinson Property purchase the County is stretching its available funds. However, the County OST Board did agree that Smuggler Mountain is an important asset and a value to the upper Roaring Fork Valley. Instead of participating in the purchase of the SRA parcels the County Board committed to working towards the successful acquisition of Mickie Flanigan's Parcel, another important property identified for open space. This acquisition along with the City's acquisition of SRA would help sterilize 99% of the face 3 of Smuggler Mountain and provide an approximate 50/50 split in the acquisition of open space on Smuggler Mountain. On November 29,2005 The City of Aspen Open Space Board offered SRA three million dollars for the purchase of the Contraband, Della S. and Result mining claims. On December 2,2005, SRA countered the City's offer with a purchase price of $3.3 million dollars and 5 additional contingencies. The Board again informed David Myler that the contingency to secure TDRs is not acceptable to the Open Space Board. The Board felt the counter offer inappropriately forces Pitkin County into offering TDRs in exchange for the properties being preserved as open space. The Board directed David Myler to secure any TDRs prior to making an offer or counter offer to the City. In good faith the Board offered to counter the $3.3 million dollar purchase price and TDRs with the removal of any TDR contingency and raised the original offer of $3 million to $3 million fifty thousand ($3,050,000). During the December 15 2005 Open Space meeting, SRA informed the Board that the BOCC was not going to grant any TDRs on the properties. Additionally, it was presented that there are some challenges to securing the tax benefits. In order to secure the State Tax Credits SRA would need to close with Tulasi and hold the property for a period of one year. These additional challenges and carrying costs forced SRA to offer a counter to the Board's offer, countering with $3.7 million as the bargain price sale. The Open Space Board rejected the $3.7 million dollar bargain sale and offered to purchase the three properties for $3.4 million dollars. SRA accepted this final offer from the Open Space Board. The offer will require the City of Aspen to pay $300,000 as an earnest payment and the remaining $3.1 million will be placed in an interest bearing escrow account. SRA will use the earnest money to secure the open space acquisition, leaving the remaining $3.1 million as leverage to fund their option purchase with Tulasi Wilkinson and carrying cost for a period of 14 to 16 months. At the close of the 14 to 16 month period the 3.1 million will be used to close the purchase option between the City and SRA. Interest earned will be returned to the City of Aspen. The delay of 14 to 16 months between the earnest money and the final sale is necessary for SRA to secure both State tax credits and Federal State deductions. These tax benefits will make up the difference between the original bargain sale price of $3.7 million and the City's offer of $3.4 million. The Board discussed the importance of recognizing the value of preserving these three lots for a multiple of reasons. First, the three lots are located on a majority of the face of the mountain and development would be an enormous impact both visually and on the road, which is currently used for recreational purposes. Second, there is a perception in the community that the recent Wilkinson acquisition protected the face of the mountain. The Board feels the community would be shocked and let down seeing these lots developed. Third, these lots combined with adjacent open space parcels would provide an unprecedented amount of native wildlife habitat and contiguous open space. Fourth, the SRA group has been diligent and willing to work through multiple meetings and acquisition scenarios delaying BOCC approvals 4 in order to find a workable solution with the City Open Space Board. For these reasons, the Board felt it was appropriate to offer $3.4 million dollars for the purchase of the lots, a three hundred thousand dollar increase over what the Board had originally estimated for acquisition costs back in 2004. During the February 2,2006 meeting the Open Space Board unanimously supported to offer the Smuggler Ridge Associates $3.4 million dollars with a $300,000 earnest payment and the remaining $3.1 million placed in an interest bearing escrow account for a period of 14 to 16 months. SRA has accepted this offer and drafted a purchase contracted delivered to the City on February 23,2006. DISCUSSION: Purchase of the SRA parcels is inherent to the overall acquisition and protection of Smuggler Mountain. The County Open Space and Trails Board has committed to acquiring the only other privately held parcel in the Smuggler Area. In a partnership to preserve all of Smuggler Mountain the two Boards agreed to cooperatively preserve the rest of Smuggler Mountain by acquiring these final parcels separately. Acquisition requires the City of Aspen to pay $300,000 as an earnest payment and the remaining $3.1 million will be placed in an interest bearing escrow account. SRA will use the earnest money to secure the open space acquisition, leaving the remaining $3.1 million as leverage to fund their option purchase with Tulasi Wilkinson and carrying cost for a period of 14 to 18 months. At the close of the 14 to 18 month period the purchase price will be increased based on the amount of interest earned on the $3.1 million dollars in escrow. The City will pay a final cash amount equal to the $3.1 plus interest. After the close of the contract the interest earned will be returned to the City of Aspen thus reducing it's out of pocket costs to $3.4 million dollars. The delay of 14 to 18 months between the earnest money and the final sale is necessary for SRA to secure both State tax credits and Federal State deductions. These tax benefits will make up the difference for SRA to break even in the acquisition and bargain sale of the parcels. The City Open Space Board is seeking City Councils support and approval for the allocation of Open Space Funds for the purchase of the SRA parcels. Approval tonight will allow staff to prepare the contract and memo for consent approval during the regularly scheduled city council meeting on March 13,2006. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: In September, the Finance Department issued the Series 2005B Sales Tax Revenue bonds which are secured by the combined revenues of the original 1.0% and the additional 0.5% Sales Tax for the purpose of purchasing, maintaining and improving open space and recreational facilities. $11.281 million of the bond proceeds were earmarked for open space purchases. To date, $8.65 million has been spent for open space purposes leaving $2.63 million available for this acquisition. The remaining balance will be paid from current fund balances which will be reimbursed from proceeds from the fourth coming open space bond issuance expected to be completed before year end. 5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: The approval of this request will greatly improve the overall open space inventory adding an additional 24 acres of open space. Additionally, the acquisition of this parcel will add to the recent Wilk Wilkinson acquisition. Importantly, unlike the Wilk Wilkinson Parcel, these three acquisitions are located on the majority of the front of the mountain. Development of these parcels will greatly reduce the overall value of the Wilk Wilkinson acquisition due to visual impacts, road impacts and improvements and the public perception that the City had already protected the face of the mountain. The parcels will provide wildlife habitat containing scrub oak, serviceberry, a healthy mature forest containing multiple native species. The purchase will contribute to the preservation of a total of 271 plus acres of open space providing continuity and wildlife corridors between Axtell and Protection Open Space, Wilk Wilkinson's Parcel, Mascotte 99 Open Space, Bayer Open Space, Silver Brick Open Space, the Pontiac and the Grand Turk Conservation Easements. Exhibit one - map The purchase supports the City of Aspen's Environmental Bill of Rights that guarantees to its citizens "The right to dedicated open space protected from urbanization and development. " Additionally the purchase complies with Aspen City Council's adopted Resolution #108 in 2001 stating that it is the City's Desire to acquire, maintain and manage open space properties for recreational, wildlife, agricultural, scenic, access, and related purposes; and to acquire, preserve, develop, maintain and manage trails for similar purposes." RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends City Council support and approves the City of Aspen Open Space Board's offer of $3.4 million dollars for the acquisition of the Smuggle Ridge Associates parcels. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve resolution # \:::> , for the purchase and acquisition of the Contraband, Result and Della S. parcels located on Smuggler Mountain." CITY MANAGER ~ COMMENTS: ',' Q ~. 6 RESOLUTION NO. /3 Series of 2006 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL EST ATE FOR PURCHASE OF THE RESULT, CONTRABAND AND DELLA S PARCELS, BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND SMUGGLER RIDGE ASSOCIATES, 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 Contract to Buy and Sell Real Estate for purchase of the Result, Contraband and Della S parcels, between the City of Aspen and Smuggler Ridge Associates, 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 Contract to Buy and Sell Real for purchase of Result, Contraband and Deila S parcels, between the City of Aspen and Smuggler Ridge Associates, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the Mayor or City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the _ day of ,2006. 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: 3/6/2006-G:\tara\Resos\Smuggler open space.doc THE MYLER LAW FIRM PC 211 Midland Ave, Suite 201 Basalt, CO 81621 Phone: 970-927-0456, Fax: 970-920-4259 The printed portioos of this fann, except differentiated additions, have been approved by the Colorado Real Estate Commission. (CBS 3-7-04) I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1. AGREEMENT. Buyer agrees to buy, and the undersigned Seller agrees to sell, the Property defined below on the tenus and conditions 15 set forth in this contract. 16 2. DEnNED TERMS. 17 L Buyer. Buyer, THIS FORM HAS IMPORTANT LEGAL CONSEQUENCES AND THE PARTIES SHOULD CONSULT LEGAL AND TAX OR OTHER COUNSEL BEFORE SIGNING. CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE (VACANT LAND - FARM - RANCH) Date: Februarv 28. 2006 Purchase Price: $ 3.570.000 Ci ty of Aspen, Colorado 18 will take title to the real property described below as t8] Joint Tenants 0 Tenants In Common 0 Other 19 N/A 20 b. Property. The Property is the following legally described real estate: 21 See Bxhibit A 22 in dlcCounty of Pitkin 23 24 25 26 27 28 . Colorado, commonly know~ as No. Street Address City State together with the interests, easements, rights, benefits, improvements and attached fixtures appurtenant thereto, vacated streets and alleys adjacent thereto, except as herein excluded. c. Dates and Deadline.. Zip all interest of Seller in Item No. Rererence Event Date or Deadline I pa Loan Application Deadline N/A 2 pb Lo_n Commitment Deadline N/A 3 pc Buyer's Credit Infonnation Deadline N/A 4 iSc Disapproval of Buyer's Credit Deadline N/A 5 ~ 5d Existing Loan Documents Deadline N/A 6 pd Objection to Existing Loan Documents Deadline N/A 7 ~ 5d Approval of Loan Transfer Deadline N/A 8 ~ 6_(4) Appraisal Deadline N/A 9 p- Title Deadline 3 day. after MEC 10 pc Survey Deadline See 24.&. 11 ~ 8c Survey Objection Deadline 10 day. afer MEe 12 Pb Document Request Deadline 3 clays alter M2C 13 i 8a Title Objection Deadline 10 day. after DC 14 ~ 8b Off-Record Matters Deadline 3 days .fur NEe IS i 8b 01I~Record Matters Objection Deadline 10 day. after MBC 16 ~1O Seller's Property Disclosure Deadline 3 day. after M!:C 17 ~ lOa Inspection Objection Deadline March 16, 2006 18 ~ lOb Resolution Deadline March 17, 2006 19 ~ IOc Property Insurance Objection Deadline MArch 16. 2006 PREPARED BY: David J. Myler.. Eaq. CBS 3-7-04, Contract to Buy and Sell Real Estale (Vacant L.and - Faflll- Ranch). Colorado Real Estate CommiSllon RealFA$Tl!l5cflwafll, 02006, Version 6,16. Softwars Registered to; Cher Brammer, THE MYLER LAW FIRM PC Buyer{s) ~ 0212810614:48:36 p-~ Seller(&)~ 20 ~ II Cknlng Date September 17, 2007 21 i 16 Possession Date september 17, 2007 ~A 22 i 16 Possession Time Clc.i~ 23 127 Acceptance DeadUne Date March ~, 2006 24 127 Acceptance DeadUne TIme Noon .... . ~ #f 29 30 d. 31 N/A Attachments. The following are a .part of this contract: 32 Note: The following disclosure forms are attached but are not a pan of this contract: 33 34 35 35 36 37 38 39 40 e. Applic:ablUty of Terms. A check or similar mark in a box means that such provision is applicable, The abbreviation ''NIA" mealls not applicable. The abbreviation "MEC" (mutuaJ execution of this contract) means the latest dote upon which both parties have signed this contract. 3. INCLUSIONS AND EXCLUSIONS. The Purchase Price includes the fonowing items (Tnclu&ions): .. Fixtures. If attached to the Property on the date of Ibis contract, lighting, heating. plumbing, ventilating, and air conditioning fixtures, inside telephone wiring and connecting blocks/jacks, plants, mirrors, floor coverings, intercom syslems, sprinkler systems and controls; and none 4\ b. 42 none Exclusions. The following attached fixtures are excluded from this sale: 43 c. Personal Property. If on the Property whether attached or nol on the date of this contract: 44 stann windows, stann doors, window and porch shades, awnings, blinds, screens, window coverings, curtain rods, drapery rods, stOTage sheds, 45 and all keys. If checked, the ronawing are included.: 0 SmokelFift Detectors, 0 Security Systems; and 46 N/A 47 d. Transfer of Personal Property. The Personal Property to be conveyed 8t Closing shall be conveyed. by Seller, free and c1eur 48 of all taxes, (except personal property tuxes for the year of closing), liens and encumbrances, except 49 N/A 50 Conveyance shall be by bill of sale or other applicable legal instrument. 51 e. Trade Fixtures. Witl1 respect to trade fixtures, Seller and Buyer agree as follows; 52 N/A 53 r. Water Rights. The following legally described water rights: 54 .~l we~l ~nd ts owned by Sel~.r 55 Any water rights shall be conveyed by ClUit c1.im deed or other applicable legal in&tnunent. 56 g. Growing Crop.. With respect to the growing crops. Seller and Buyer agree as follows: 57 N/A 58 4. PURCHASE PRICE AND TERMS. The Purchase Price set forth below shall be payable in U.S. Dollars by Buyer as follows: 59 Item No. Reference Item 1 '4 Purchase Price 2 j4a Earnest Money 3 i 4b(l) New First Loan 4 ~ 4b(2) New Second Loan 5 ~ 4c AssumptiOfl Balance 6 ~ 4d Seller or Private Financing 7 8 9 He Cash at Closing 3,2"10,000 PREPARED BY: olvld J. Myler" Esq. CBS 3-7-04, Contract 10 Buy 8Ild Sail Real Estate (Vacant Land. Farm. Ranch). Colorado Real Estate Commission ReaIFA$Tl!l Sof!W@C2006. Version 6.16. Software Reglslared to: Cher BrammDf, THE MYLER LAW FIRM PC 6uyer(s) ~ 0212810614:46:38 s.'.rr.~ 110 I I TOTAL 1$ 3,570,0001$ 3,570.0001 60 Note: If there is an inconsistency between the Purchase Price on the fint page and tbis"fi 4, the amount in ~ 4 shall control. 61 8. Earnest Money. The Earnest Money set forth in this section. in the fann of check . is part payment 62 oflbe Purchase Price and shall be payable 10 and held by ..ll.~. ~\Mo"by,m.~~~i\I\t.'tMI 63 \a\:hcldn\, \In\lle'oMt.1 lMl.tlo \geWm'ldn\l~ m.. '&'tne\;~Molllt.y,~~' kI\a'll\lle\tOMo!rMlwkh \Ili~ il<IrltJ'ak!\.1Irllolsk 't1\c\p.irlitls\doht'o1lll,}\~ 64 """~\s'th ~ k 'd\f'f<lrlllli\clc\ll1l1\c\ In\ lv\i\ill~ '1M k~ pal'rilclrlt. \ TM }oA1\I\~ 'ahl'ot.ro\e\ &tlIlv.1V-lttdlil:\8llriltls\ 'lJlclrill~ \de)>hM 10\ lit. \l!l1>s'lllg 65 ""'W/ly. \MnY}~'<lr,,"Ib'nl."lo'ams~lu'dlA kVcO\ WollSll.lDr/olo 'f!o'lde\ 'oa~ "k~"'Io\5\M. kilrilM In'''iAy,&!p\JAi'''Itlu\l~'''lld.Io\a 66 \!'oM .~"'iMl ilr'dlA 'p"Ip"'~ lot. l>lovldlJlg.l>Il'M1A1l1A "oMing.ldIlCltla'aldu\MiW!orld, \gelllo\t.Mll"~\a\:ltJ'oMIllt\t!o\!ln'll\llgtlle\ Ib..UII,y 67 \i1l1tl<:\lMc'olUlng.Mibk 'I1aln'ekt'llllMe'yIde)>MiIt& 'Mt'Ii'tlla1i1lrlt1>s'll.4dn'tj< 'Ifo'lde\ \mibls'lt.....~\i./I \1\al1llle'ltllll.~lrlld.Io\So\l\ 'iln\I\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \~i\\\\~\\\\\N6~~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \~V\\\\\\\\\\\~)\\~~!\.l\~~~W'al"In\mhll~~'aM\!'okh\mibls~.~km",,"W'o\~In~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \~\~~v..~..\\~tkll~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ . \~\\\\\~~In'a/l~lIlt.~"~~'y...\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~\~~~)~\I\Jt~'\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \~\\\\\1<re'lt6tlohlalo\\106Wk~\m~.\K1\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\.~'a~''k'am~46~'o~.aoK\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \~\Cij~~\~'lJl~..~~~~..\~~It~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\kro~'e~"h~d \~\\N\l<:\l~\~\\\\\\\\~~"~~~"~\~i\I~~~loi&~~h&~\~6K\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ V'S\ 'o'f\tIlA 'Utln\lltMl kMUah \<!o\ 'e\tate 'ltkiCI\llo\l\ji'6/l<!rly\lu\M......~ \If'<iA 'I<lo'l"', .....\lldjus\8b~ ln~ \rlu'e \Dr\gndllllle\l\jlo'y\n'enl \~\\&ln)~~~~~~m~\M\~In~.~~'kMh~'k~~~"&~IbU\"'\a~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ ~\ \ \ \ \IldIli \diMoillt\ ~<'>ilIls~ },t\!.rl>> ,llM~ "" ;lRldIldIlOo\lIo\~t\ "klsms\llrld\ ~~\Mt""'.~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ %\c\t\tk& \dlM\l61I1td"'Mnt. \~i\~~h~i&'I<lo..\~~~It~t'Ii\~\\\\\\\\\~~H~\~kls'IlMhM~dll~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ , \~\"'RW~~lOo\~\~!.rl>>~~~~hy,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'I\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ 'tl~\ \ \ \ \9olV<h~W\IIIle'lY.~tlo/e~~Io'aIlIo\s\Nldll'o\1OllI\lu\giloltro"~~'I<\&Xo.M. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \%IdrlM-toIlI\MoMr/l.\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \'tl\\\\\\\\\\\\~)\\~~H~R~~~<<'~\6&km"'~~IlI\~~m\~)~.lli~~&~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \~\\\\\~~In~~~~O\~\~~'y,,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~\I}~k~\I~h\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \'tll\\\\\1<re'ltbtlohtolll\\Io\~Vodt\m~\K1\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\.~~\\Rm.k~.~"~\4.K\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \'tl~\{g~~\~~~.~~'aN."~~m~It~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\n'e~'e~.h~d \ 'tll\ \1Il\l<:\lt\rlo\ ~MI \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~ )>m'Idn"'\"" II'IthA In,1l 'Il.llI\lI<tiUs'lllb"" lu\Cr&\ ~~ lo\iIRlIila\Mqlo'y\n'eh~&1lI\ \Mp.lynle""'''''''W\lIlkles. \'tl~\~~~kM~~"""6~&~~.~t~~v\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ 'tl'V\ \ \ \ \IldIlll\diMo~I\~llls~ \t\!.rl>> .Illll\ ~k ;lRldIldIlIln\l\r\\I\"klsmS\llrld\lIiollVodt""'\MI\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \%\clt\ti\ \oltaI\l6Il1\MoMnt. \'tli\~kh~~\'I<loi\~M~~~&k~\\\\\\\\\~Io\&~\~ht..hMh~~4\~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ . \'tl'V\""W~~lOo.~\~!.rl>>~~;lRldIhy,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ '\)~\ \ \ \ ~~~\IIIle'ly,wau.YI:I.'~lo'an W\.\IIrIdIa\lolll\lu\gilllltloi'lMu\dl'l<\&Xo't!ld. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \%IdrlM-toIlI\1IrltMdt\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ '\)\ \ \ \ \ 'e\ \ \ \ \ \Ms"'lolp'd\li~ \llh~"''gO!l:. '1<\ 'o~\n'e\!ln\l\~\llI\lWktlrtg\hJlo~ \~ \J\e\Apprl>J!iluRlI:\tlrMlm\ 'all\Mll.'dlmIp\iIlll '8OIlln\;b ,el \,\)i\~nl\ht\tlok"'~Io"~~~W~'p~jo"lo~l\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\m\~Wms\l>~~~~Vk~M\l>~\~\at \ '\)l\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \~.lu\1Jn\"''olI..t.6'b\c\Ud1ng.~Io''''Ib\\Ile\foKlt.ro'WU.lrld\CI1le'd\~ 'Itl."MlitlI/eW.\~ \ G1....\p.lr\)\ '1Iiuran.!e\IIIeUliim \,\)~\"'''K\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ . \ ,\)l\ \ \ \ \9olV<U.I!r~'cIt. 'p\y,~ ~ \/alllillMeA lllt.l'lt6 ~~ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ll.\ 'IlIe\N..... \Jt"~\rlp'u.Il.\&\ 'n.lv\i"lold~ W \1Ia1l \,\)~\"''''\~MI\\\\\\\\%~~\Nlo'l<\~\i\wpa~5h\Illlt~k~d$\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\pD.m)W\~~\/I~l<:\l~~~'e~lt.w~if \ '\)'1'\ .....~.\H\dIA illt\u\l\JlrlrlclPoh ..Mk......\dI\t\\ 'tkI1lN/IBI ~ 'e\ 'OI~ k\l\ls\lI1"n \lI<!\ll.llSolrlp....n 'ao1Oo\;~ \wto\r.. \;AtIs\~ \Ile\ilriIdUo\ 'alt'eilsh \ ,\)i\ .,.\4tM:&'WolIBIl)lc\"Mr.w"'k'l<\lul,j\l\1I:~ioH~'y't/ld<k\ilo\.'6\)~ \ \~ \ \ \ \ ~ \ \~~) Ih'eh 'ffi,llu.>'e\-'l\'(.~ 'l'tloloh/aW, WliMdrM.bl'e'lll:ht'\ve \'\)V\up6/1~~~hy,$IIIIo\.Kllh~~"6~~oo"'om.h \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\. \1'00\ \ \ \ \ge~kn \lUSI\8IlI ~lMlIt\ 0\ \l!tM,!ld.li-....\l\a'bllkj 'oR 'a1lil\JOAil\ "I "f>PlIUIII\, \<lo\rlp'li'iM:\wltf. \IleVe4i1il<!n\c'olo\M \l!tMl6 'li'om \1'0\ \ \lIIklli\y,~"K"" \wHMc'e<'I.~ HAlh.'e~'OI~. 'al>M+1illtA IcliRMl'cl>ln'llliln\l!o\ li-lolu"~h 'Oo"~~\ ilr'l1li~k .KNllllil\lY'aMlhbe \I~l\p..~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~.'all.~h~\~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \1~)\\\\~\\\\\$d~h.k""~i~~k~~\~Y~Q~~&&~~~)ro~ll~kpk~\Io~\~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \I~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~Cij~~~..h~\KlT'aPan~M\~m~D~&~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ . \1~l\'alD\llANX\~~\NR~Am\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \I~~\Cijx~~~~~~~~~il~~~~MRM~~~\~&~5~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \1~~\Cij~"n\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'~"~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\,~\\~~~~W~It.!\.ki~~\;It."'\ocmg \I~ll\ \M~Io}oMy, Ulli'ik'll\e\t\>hiI....rlIllc'ale\l\ \1i]5lrlCt'Oale~&.l6aw,liM ~i'6\Ml\ \ \ \ \ \ \~n<<li1oWlr\lly\ ,mV'S>.I\o.~\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \I~V\Cij~~..~\~tkre~nS..~~~~~~~&Wk.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~\\\\\\\\\\\\ \1\9\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ . \I\\\\\\\1>>e~k~"'\~'oM\ha~~~~1I1."~~6t.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~\",,,\~~~;M~M*AM \In \ '" \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \'.Pe\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \Mllld.iIl&l>IiMp.ll"ka~'a~Ib.'ri\t\.K\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 'do 'pk~ 'oh1llln\.\RIt.Yn\l!ots \I\l\.hM\~Io~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~~h~.It.Wba~Ib\\\\\\\\~'y\Jt~\So\~&~k\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"t"m \I~~\~role'r'p\~\lI1."~~Il~~"'~p\~\I"'\;~~lu~\~~~~"'i&)>h~"on\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\...t&~~6~1t.~\~1t.~~~ \1\l\{9~.M\~5~kNiIt.0It.\n'e\<!o~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\.1~'oOO~"IlM"'mN'~~~.\llo\l\\\1i]5IlMl\\~~"H~\~ \In \ \Il/rUo1ld hy, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ilNo\iln"'~W",,".M1 ~".iIlIridc'a ~1t.1'I<\ 'IN,. \1011I\ ~\1\M!OI b<\rlIllill 'ltllA ~1o'Mng.Io\loA:\('/} if PREPARED BY: Da'Vld J, Myler" ~q. CBS 3-7-04, Contract to Buy and Sell Real E.6tate (Vacant Land - Farm - Ranch). COlorado Real Estate Commlsllion ReatFASTCBl So~re,;~OO6. Ver&lon 6.16. Software Reglalered to: Char Brammer, THE MYl.ER LAW FIRM PC BIJYeI'(S) ~~ 02/2B10614;4!l:3B P.~ Seller(s) v-p- \In\ 'U~ 'pkjldlcln\ \.\ddt """'tiv'tl!.ltI\t'loln\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ "'ah:k&lr'dlojlSltllle\ \tk lIh.l.lIll<b, \1\!\lt"'''&\;h ..n \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \M.f\s'uhl\ ~~\ !lIlo\J'lil:'dIle, \I~i\Xl~~~~\hnln"S<<~~In't/\fi'uk&lr\~~S'uikb~~NW~~~~\\~~\~~jo&Nln."lll~~'dIotllhh~MTM't'th~~~\\\\\\\\\% \I~~\~~~'u~~~'thmk~~repa~wk~.'p'tNM~~~\\\\\\__\\__\_\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ , \I'2~\ 'oaS\.l.)~ 'lD..98.1I\ ~~\ 'tJ\a:lole\lNld\lI<1llVell, 'uk\ll:1'l1&lo~\a \geloMty\i\Wtlll\oarll\lln\l\~l:C\~ 'f'IIlo\iailo~\9I1It'tmk"'\ilflhl\ng \J'2\\'~~&lr"t~~~..h:'o\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\Nk~l~"~~\I~\m'hh~~\i~~~mk1'l1l1~~'h~\Me. \I'21\\\\~\~~hM\\~~"M\~~~wllh'o\m'uk~~~"\hh:\~Mk~\~h:Y~k~~"~~~'t\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \I'2l \ \ \ \ 'e\ \ \ \ \ \ti:hlb~\OlOlik. \ \6lI~ildIlWn~i\dId.~ ll'uyMa\ 'CIllo\llg\ilol>lllllillk 'Oo'sll"Mt."i.~:lllM.ftn~\'h 'tr.hilok ".M. 'tlullhhc!. In\t\Jhds \1'2.\ \Mi1ll!.1>dn\PI; 'uktll\lllMPP\illlliMt\:.Io\a\iO ~awil, 'WI1i<lb\i'llklllllh U....\<Ilild<kmlc\mlrisli:\ 'tiIddls,\&\i\MI\!b'tblll\M;Ms\lln\l\J.""\teH~'t\!b'tck \I'2S\'u.lI..~~'t~kX&OQGiWkk~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \I'2~\~\~~N>>l~~~~~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \1'2'\ \ \ \ '<<> \ \ \ \ \M.lm~p~1k!o\r.h\ \~ 'Is\ 10\ ~~ M\ ,,\ 1p'olt\d/\1lth 'i'u\dha~ Il/iM.~ .....lalrling. a '<it'" loat., \Mlf\,ln\~~lnB\lI>l>1\ is \I'2i\ 'tIo\ 1o\~lelCaWdt\CIhilillj!. 'IlUyil1\ \t.Itq1\iIl!d\~lm:h\Md'oh 'th~~ln1ollll.h 'vil1\t\:lb\C.l'llp'I...l.tkm\JlV."~ \AppllealillA \lilWllBa~~). \I'2~\ 'IlUyilllllll\l'W./>Mt't \Wlh\~h:I. aM In.S<<\t. ""la\ll.1ollh 'ojopI\>"i\I~lIilikhrltly'uln\l\Jl<MI; 'plok.!. W.l.ln\~'d\t'an~ ~h<1oM kl\ \IhcloMe\1ts \I\l~\ ".S 'fUt'akh "\I\M.ld,,\Ilo.""'lI 'dIoMriI",,~ltqnill!d\~h:h&!l-,\lln\l~1lllb)i!c\Io\~.h \t-l.....S Xi)\lln\l'il\4d, \iklelo/'lila\>\Jlo!. 'tllo\MMb'llli1\ih~ \l\ch \I\l\ \ llllln\./\ Il!o\l't" 'tbrisk,..' 'BIlyM hi\rll&.\ 10\ hlkNfY\ 1Ile\1e'tAo"ah1't \t'rlplile\rle\tls\~f, le\tll~ "loll ',;..1>1\ \1'1>~ 'uklb~le'" 'II\e\ 10llh \Or\tls\l\rll~lon \J'il\ ")o~lIllo\ih>\ \ hM 'idtMtro\ihl\y, "a""'t\W 'thtlrlg't \ In\ 'trro..ln\Sllln\:M\ '\lIa\ \wMIN\/>1'<jII\1lc't \h:h&!r's \t\Pp\<lW\ \If\1b't \Ioh/\ \;lpjohoo\iIlh \or \I\ll \ ~1Id;1Ijj..~ 1Ile\t\>l>1\ ~ \rluy'db'lllin \l1t'fe'r~ 'tInillililljj. 'phMdo~\ge\J't/\ In't~''''<Io\lIdd\tkht't~iI<lla)\ "''uI.t\Or'l<!l<'plu\o't~~M>V/d'IoI!. 'Iluyer \J'i.\\ol.~~~Vh~'thh~N~t\>~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \I'iS\ \ \ \ 'll. \ \ \ \ \..~li:ltIll\rlilrilMt~ \tf~'t/\ ls\tI>\jloy\,llt\b"JIM'~ ~\I\ilr'tJ\a"l. 1'kihh ..~ ""IoUlihi\. a '<it""tuall "k 'ttodc\MJ\iIl\~ '4h,\lhis \I\l~\ "''ulltric\ 'Is\/xln\lkll>loa1\llPolo ~ hhlhilllrig\a- ","hn ldolo 'c\>ln'u\lhMt\ \1Illiol. 'tMd\IIdn\llhaN ,,'t ""''ttohd. "1Voll "alnM- SOIln\ \tlc'oiv't.. 'rR>m \In\ 'tidy't", .. 'llkMthilr/l \.oan 'Colddu"bloh.lt\Dft/d\l.. '<S~}. \Wlikilr/l.IIllc't\d/\~n~h \Jlo'b\lk~ 'uI. 'ualalm hIlc.. \II>M. 't~"'ln\tlolehh ~~ ll'uy~\so \I\lll\ ""'liSM\~h:I., \hik 'tMllo'tMh.N'Il\rin'IlIo"'" \J'F\S8t.U:Il\D@'EWI&'I\tl.li:m\'l:\~ ro1lJ'Ol). m'l'l:Il"tNA'tf;\\Ml'6nUR \I\lg\~f;~~'t~'6nUll~LL~lN~Wt.~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \I\I~\ \ \ \ 'c\\ \ \ \ \ltNllMMo\a'nISdolo~ \ ,t. ll'uylJr\ k\ 10\ p1>~ "\I\M ~M \If\t'l1h ~ 'I'D"!' 'I:/y\'tlIe\:~t\rlg\ 't \p-.m\s\c\ry\Nl<b. \11 \ftI~\of \1\1\ \ \ge\l't/\Mtf\t.'I<!I<'\s\ilok~Illln\IIo'<lo\ \0\. "TAI'tAs'ta a\ 'CIdslrlg\ \IIi" 'tODIkM \s\Mo\lkmahl\t\ilo.~MhJlp'rI>."'\ 'ui'lluyht'6\t\1Ia'll'tilh 'thilily \1\11\ 'o.S 1Cnldi/Wo\t\1ln'tlo\ 'WIli1ll!. aAlrM.\ ',;..Mk ,,'t \o't \ge\JW Mil. "hI!. 'u'oMlnte \di*,,<lriI1Il\ 'lI\ 'tWlh\hlIs't:\ ~ ~h 'tNWII hUPP\~ \II. 'il'tl\<!r\by \J'4l \ 'llolYth'h 'CrMlll Utllw...lihA v.'talll\e\ \~ 'Ilk), \o't '&JYcM 't\Jle'~ \lIt1lldol.tldn\INld\SIMJu\rle.r.\OO\t't<lrh1l1k\ftU~~a \m"~llI' 't1l1\tloym'tnl \1\1'4\ ".S \Mdi~ 't~/wlitlMl \(2) \atlVeh "'vMe.lll\ lIIah \geNIJr\ hil; \Ve\:lli\ 'ady'tNol. 'tIn't~IlI\ &IliN~\ ~ 't1e\l1lW.lttliIlMo \~1\dh\dilljj. ""IoUli1\il< 8 \I\IS\ ",.lrill\t\Mdih },lp.It); \(1~ i/\~ 't1\dl1\iIl'lilrlnahM aM ~hcloMe\1\Me"i"~ lo; \ge\lM~\I\Ile\r.lld. "y\ge\Jh/\ In\1ldII'fiIl'tt\l~ aM .~/\lelCahcd \I\I~\ \1>. l>\lh:I\<\M:'tjlt1tll 'p\dlh<lt\geN~\iklale'sMI\t'l1le\tM'I>~\ilu\;\(>l~ It\9e~Me'''tIo\ joto'vldl:\MtIdn\ddtJ..!..~ ~hJlc!Ck \lIsaNlrloMl \I>.ll'uy~y \J'4l\ 'Oi~'rhlllil'<ll\llQ""""\li:ko!dltl v.'oatlrle\ ~11>.)~ IIleh \ge\l't/\whivM\lh\Mdn\lklov\ llIgelllth NMo~wS!. \Yr/tM ""h~hMiMp'pl<lWh to \I'411\~'thM~~hhlllll\lkte~&k~'uh~~'t~N'tm\ilo~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \J'4~\ \ \ \ 'cl. \ \ \ \ \f;~k/b\g.Uan.Il"~'tw\ \ If\ all 'I<!I<\.\i\o~\1'l1l>1\ \\ '<10\ \J.\M. TAI'tIls't1!. \o't\t>lo\iIlk.\ 'il't1l<<\",\I\~ro"ldI:\~\ht\ \~ loon \I'I;~\ '<M,\rlI!dla ~h<IJMihk .hla~ S<le\IIdI"d.lll~ "loa "h~ \rlc\Ildlc'ehMs) 'ld. ~'l<<<\Jly\ 'i..laNhB \Mdl1\ 'DdI:.ln'ehle\ ltehdllde\ \~ 11111 '\I'\lls\Mo\J'ect \1'1;\ \ \a "hMitll>.rle\ ")oM. 'IlUyln"o\ ~ aft/!. ,,~~'ttII\at\1I1't ~whil>M..K 'sMh\ \dolo \do\:hlllhM. \tf\MiM1\ lollllc't\MlIllihdt1l1k \,.\00.11 'loon \1'1;1\ '<MM~ \1g\lMh~lihye.,'u'\ .IIMbc!iWMllly\ge\J't"~&h '01\jh<\llo'n\ta~\tu\o'n\~,",>>h*IIln't\ X~ ~,\ 'BIlY't/\ '\lh<le'ph;\ \he \I'I;l \ \Mrlo'o"lI,,"MiNMs'df'l~Iklc\d"'tlIt's.\1'f'lJ\e\lItMe"'h aAlrMdl l>t ~ ""hil1oMl'thl. llIo'phil~ k\r'tqtliIe\l~tIlls\do''''hdt lol./xln'dltll>.hl\tlp'ulo 'Buyer \1'1;.\ ""\eUliIli\. \h<lb\hAlrhw.\ 'Wi\llo\ih 'tluln'g't \ih Itllh \ilrlrls\d/\!lIl:h \Jhtllt, 'e"~,",,\o/e~ tOr\Jl. \II. ~\oIC. \ltltlr/d'tM 'tppn.Vo'I 'll. "vh ....flIln'tlllby \I'I;~\ 'APPrloUl\''rU.ah 'lY'oUI't/\lilWllna\NI\ 111)\ \&h 'clolltric\ ...~~ '1l!rIn\rlo~ loh ',;.hII. 'dIot't\ If\SNIe'I\1. \11 'b't\t'elna~\I\frMo\I\e'b\l., \miter \I'I;~\ 't.IlI!.~ilt/llkl&ln'u\tIt'llUy'tMde\ .ht\dllllliJ\ kilc'l1'Wln'p"1>tIc'e'o\ ..cllVhM In\~~<\ \&k 't<'>rldokMih~hc!.ltldoll>hltS ..~~It...\~PtJo'l>' \ \ \ \ \ \ 157 6. APPRAISAL PROVISIONS. 158 a. Appraisal Condition. 111is subsectioJl8. 0 Shall ~ Shall Not apply. 159 Buyer shall have the sole option and election to terminate this contract if the: Purchase Price exceeds the Property's valuation 160 determined by- an appl1liser engaged by N/A . The contract snail terminate by Buyer giving Seller 161 written notice of termination and either a copy of such appraisal or written notice from lender thaI confinns the Property's valuation is less 162 tban the Purchase Price, received on or before Appraisal Deadline (g 2c). If Seller does not receive such written notice of tennination on or 163 before Appraisal Deadline (~2c), Buycrwaives any right to tenninate under this subsection. 164 b. Cost of Appraisal. Cost of any appraisal to be obtained after the date of this contract shall be timely paid by 0 Buyer I 65 0 Setler. 166 7. EVIDENCE OF TITLE. 167 a. Evidence of Title. On or before Title Deadline (9 2c), Seller shall cause to be furnished to Buyer, at Seller's expense, It J 68 current commitment for owners title insurance policy (Title Commitment) in an amount equal to the Purchase Price, or if.this box is checked, 169 DAn Abstnct of title certified to a cum::nf date. At Seller's expense, Seller shall cause the title insurance policy to be issued and delivered 170 to Buyer as soon as practicable at or after Closing. If a title insurance commitment is furnished, it 181 Shull 0 Shall Not commit to delete or 171 insure over the standard exceptions which relate to: 172 (1) parties in possession, 173 (2) unrecorded easements, 174 (3) survey matters, 175 (4) any unrecorded mechanic's liens, 176 (5) gap period (effective date ofcomrnitment to date deed is recorded), and 177 (6) unpaid taxes, assessments and unredeemed tax sales prior to the year of Closing. PREPARED BY: David J. Myler" Esq. CBS 3-7-04, Contract to Buy and Sell Real Estate (Vacant land - farm - Ranch). Colorado Real Estate Commission R..IFAST.. ~~00fl. V""""" ..,. Softw... Regl.lered 10' Ch.. B.."""... THE MYLER LAW FIRM pC Buyar{&} (~ 02128106 14;48:38 .8OU-v'" Seller(s) W 178 Any additional premium expense to obtain this additional coverage shall be paid by ~ Buyer 0 Seller. 179 b. Caples of EJ:Ceptions. On or before Title Deadline U 2c), Seller, at SeHer's expense, shall furnish to Buyer and 180 KIA ,(I) a copy orany 181 plats, declarations, covenants, conditions and restrictions burdening the Property, and (2) if a title insunlnce commitment is required to be 182 furnished. and if this box is checked t8I Copies of any Other Documents (or, if illegible, summaries of such documents) listed in the 183 schedule of exceptions (Exceptions). Even if the box is not checked, Seller shan have the obligation to furnish these documents pursuant to this 184 subsection if requested by Buyer any time on or before Document Request DeadUne (~ 2c). This requirement shall pertain only to l85 documents as shown of record in the offices of the clerk Bnd recorder. The abstract or title iUS\lranCe commitment, together with any copics or 186 summaries of such documents furnished pursuant to this section, constitute the title documents (Title Documents). \&7\ \ \ \ \ \.\ \ \ \ \ 'itlokWly\ '(),Mr'lll:rM 'itlokWly\l\lMdU'Il\ Xl '2\~ \lUs.lIM \ 0. 'Ilu'y\~ \l\llIlIoo"~Bu>'e\ 'oM lb. \li..Ir'df'<I',t,lii\l\ 'C'o\rin\ihlulnl \811. \~~M )olc\rW "1It!.\ "')oIn\dn\d01It'''\MrMllsIrMl,''..\~lt.'e''\!uWIt\lS3.hll/l~''\~~\~ \>Io't ~.~ \'Mc.li~1o 'Oe\-lil;Mte \~\[l\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~~~~"~"~k~"~~~~~~~~"\~~~"~M$\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \90. \ fe'r 'SIlM:lc \l\llI1\Ile\jlo1d. 11)\ \[lll.~\ 'CSl'SeIl"" \1\t....lsOs\ ..~..&\dor.,,'olo\J..~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ MIa\!\ ~)\ '<!Ill. 'e"'''i!s\ \<lolI \'r \~II\h~re~~h~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 192 8. TITLE AND SURVEY REVIEW. 193 a. Title Re'\'iew. Buyer shall have the right to inspect the Title Documents. Written notice by Buyer of unmerchantability of title, 194 fonn or content of Tide Commitment or of any other unsatisfactory title condition shown by the Title Documents, notwithstlmding ~ 12, shall 195 be signed by or on behalf of Buyer and given to Seller on or before TItle Objedlon Deadline (fi 2c), or within five (5) calendar days after 196 receipt by Buyer of any change to. the Title Documents or endorsement to the Title Commitment together with a copy of the document adding 197 any neW Exception to title. If Seller does not receive Buyer'8 notice by the date specified above, Buyer accepts the condition of title as 198 disclosed by the Title Documents as satisfactory, 199 b. Matten not Shown by the Public Record.. Sener shall deliver to Buyer. on or before Off-Record Matters Deadline (~ 2c) 200 true copies of alllcases and surveys in Seller's possession pertaining to the Property and shall disclose to Buyer all easements. liens (including, 20 I without limitation, governmental improvements approved, but not yet installed) or other title maUers (including, without limitation, rights of 202 first refusal, and options) not shown by the public records of which Seller has actual knowledge. Buyer shall have the right to inspect the 203 Property to determine if any third party has any right in the Property not shown by the public records (such lIS an unrecorded easement, 204 unrecorded lease, or boundary line discrepancy). Written notice of any unsatisfactory condition disclosed by Seller or revealed by such 205 inspection, notwithstanding ~ 12, shall be signed by or on behlllf of Buyer and given to Seller on or before Off-Record Matten Objection 206 Deadline (~2c). If Seller does not receive Buyers notice by said date, Buyer accepts title su~iect to such rights, if any, of third parties of 207 which Buyer has actual knowledge. 208 Co Survey Review. Buyer shall have the right 10 inspect Survey. If written notice by or on behalf of Buyer of any unsatisfactory 209 condition shown by Survey, notwithstanding ~ 8b or ~ 12, is received by Seller on or before Survey Objec.tlon Deadline (~ 2c) lhen such 210 objection shall be deemed an unsatisfactory title condition. If Seller does not receive Buyer's notice by Survey Objection Deadline (~2c). 211 Buyer accepts Survey as satisfactory. 212 d. Special TuingDlslrlets. SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICTS MAY BE SUBJECT TO GENERAL OBLIGATION 213 INDEBTEDNESS THAT IS PAID BY REVENUES PRODUCED FROM ANNUAL TAX LEVIES ON THE TAXABLE 214 PROPERTY WITHIN SUCH DISTRICTS. PROPERTY OWNERS IN SUCH DISTRICTS MAY BE PLACED AT RISK FOR 21S INCREASED MILL LEVIES AND EXCESSIVE TAX BURDENS TO SUPPORT THE SERVICING OF SUCH nEBT 216 WHERE CIRCUMSTANCES ARISE RESULTING IN THE INABILITY OF SUCH A DISTRICT TO DISCHARGE SUCH 217 INDEBTEDNESS WITHOUT SUCH AN INCREASE IN MILL LEVIES, BUYER SHOULD INVESTIGATE THE DEBT 218 FINANCING REQUIREMENTS OF THE AUTHORIZED GENERAL OBLIGATION INDEBTEDNESS OF SUCH 219 DISTRICTS, EXISTING MILL LEVIES OF SUCH DISTRICT SERVICTNG SUCH INDEBTEDNESS, AND THE POTENTIAL 220 FOR AN INCREASE IN SUCH MILL LEVIES. 22J In the event the Property is located within a special taxing district and Buyer desires to tenninale this contract as a result. if 222 written notice is received by Seller on or before Off-Record Matters Objection Deadline (ti 2c), this contract shall then ternlinate. If 223 Seller does not receive Buyer'S notice by such date, Buyer accepts the effect of the Property's inclusion in 8\lch special taxing district 224 and waives the right to terminate, 225 e. Right to Object, Cure. Buyer's right to object shall include, but not be limited to those matters listed in ~ 12. If Seller receives 226 notice of unmerchantability of title or any other unsatisfactoty title condition or commitment terms as provided in subsection 8 a, b, c ltod d 227 above, Seller shall use reasonable efforts to correct said itelTl5 and bear any nominal expense to correct the same prior 10 Closing. If such 228 unsatisfactory title condition is not corrected to Buyer's satisfaction on or before Closing, this contract shall then tenninate; provided. however, 229 Buyer may, by written notice received by Seller on or before Closing, waive objection to such items. 230 f. Title Advisory. The Title Documents affect the title, ownership and use of the Property and should be: reviewed carefully. 231 Additionally, other matters not reflected in the Title DOL.:uments may affect the title, ownership and use of the Property. including 232 without limitation boundary lines and encroachments, area, zoning, unrecorded casements and claims of easements, leases and 233 other unrecorded agreements, and various laws and governmental regulations concerning land use, development and environmental matters, 234 The surCace estate may be owned separately from the underlying minerai estate, and transrer or the surface estate does not necessarily 235 include transfer of the mineral rights. Third parties may hold interest In on~ gas, other minerals, geothennaJ energy or water on or 236 under the Property, which Interests may give them rights to enter and use the Property. Such matters may be excluded from the title 237 insurance poJil.-Y. Buyer is advised to timely consult legal counsel with respect to aU such matters as there are strict time limits provided in this 238 contract (e.g., Title Objection Deadline (~2c] and Off-Record Matters Objection Deadline [~2c]). MEPARED BY: D8Vld J. Myler" e.q. CBS 3-7...04. Contract to Buy and Sell Real Estate (Vacant Land. Fann - Ranch). Colorado Real Estate Commission Rea\FA$TCfil Softw~~OO6, VeRsion 6.16, SoftW8Ail Reglllterad to: Cher Brammer, THE MYLER LAW FIRM PC BUye<(') 2t1?Z...- 02l2BmB 14,46,36 .'''MY Seller(SI~ 9. LEAD-BASED PAINT. Unless exempt, if the improvements on the Property include one or more residential dwellings for which a building permit was issued prior to January 1. 1978, this contract shall be void unless a completed Lead-Based Paint Disclosure (Sales) form is signed by Seller and the required real estate licensees, which must occur prior to the parties signing this contract. 10, PROPERTY DISCLOSURE, INSPECTION AND INSURABILITY; BUYER DISCWSURE. On or before Seller'. Property Disclosure Deadline (fi 2c), Seller agrees to provide Buyer with a Sener's Property Disclosure (Vacant Land) form completed by Seller to the best of Seller's current actual knowledge. .. Inspection Objection De.dUne. Buyer shall have the right to have inspections of the physical condition of the Property and Inclusions, at Buyer'S expense. If the physical condition of the Property or Inclusions is unsatisfactory in Buyer's subjective discretion, Buyer shall, on or before Inspection Objection Dcadline (~ 2c): (1) notify Seller in writing that this contract is terminated, or (1) provide Seller with a written description of any unsatisfactory physical condition which Buyer requires Seller 10 correct (Notice to Correct). If written notice is not received by Seller on or before Inspection Objection Deadline (~ 2c), the physical condition of the Property and Inclusions shall be deemed to be satisfactory to Buyer. b. Raolutlon Deadline. If a Notice to Correct is received by Seller and if Buyer and Seller hove not agreed ill writing to a settlement thereof on or before Resolution DeadUne (fi 2c), this contract shall tenninate one calendar day following the Resolution Deadline, (~2c), unless before such termination SeUerrcceives Buyer's written withdrawal oflbe Notice to Correct, c. InsunblDiy. Thi" contract is conditioned upon Buyer's satisfaction. in Buyer's subjective discretion, with the availability, teons, conditions and premium for property insurance. This contract shall tenninate upon Seller's receipt, on or before Property Insurance Objection De.dUne (~ 2c) of Buyer'lrwritten notice that such insumnce 'waS not satisfactory to Buyer. If said notice is not timely received. Buyer shall have waived any right to tenninate under this provision. d. Damage, Liens and Indemnity. Buyer is responsible for payment for all inspections, surveys. engineering reports or for any other work perfonned at Buyer's request and shall pay for MY damage which occurs to Ibe Property and Inclusions as a result of such activities. Buyer sball not permit claims or liens of any kind against the Property for inspections, surveys, engineering reports and for any other work performed on the Property at Buyer's request Buyer agrees to indemnify, protect and hold Seller harmless from and against any liability, damage, cost or expense incurred by Seller in oonnection with any such inspection, claim, or lien, This indemnity includes Seller's right to recover a1l costs and expenses incurred by Seller to enforce this subsection, including Seller's reasonllble attorney and legal fees, The provision.~ of this subsection shall survive the termination of this contract. 11. CLOSING. Delivery of deed from Seller to Buyer shall be at closing (Closing). Closing shall be on the date specified as Closing Date (~2c) or by mutual agreement at an eorlier date, The hOUTand place of Closing shall be as designated by mutual aareement U. TRANSFER OF TITLE. Subject to tender or payment at Closing 8S required herein ond compliance by Buyer with the other tenns and provisions hereof, Seller shan execute and deliver a good and sufficient 80801&1 warranty deed to Buyer, at Closing. conveying the Property free and clear of all taxes except the general taxes for the year of Closing. Except as provided herein, title shall be conveyed free and clear of all liens. iDcluding any governmental liens for special improvements installed as of the date of Buyer's signature hereon, whether assessed or not. Title shall be conveyed subject to: . 8. those specific Exceptions described by reference to recorded documents as reflected in Ibe Title Documents accepted by Buyer in accordance with ~ 8a (Title Review), b. distribution utility easements, c. those specifically described rights of third parties not shown by the public records of which Buyer has actual knowledge and which were accepted by Buyer in accordance with ~ 8b (Matters Not Shown by the Public Records) and ~ 8c (Survey Review), d. inclusion of the Property within any special taxing district, e. the benefits and burdens of any deClaration and party wall agreements, if any, and r. other none 13. PAYMENT OF ENCUMBRANCES. Any encumbrance required to be paid shall be paid at or before Closing from the proceeds of this transaction or from any other source. 14. CLOSING COSTS, DOCUMENTS AND SERVICES. Buyer and Seiter shall pay, in Good Funds. their respective Closing costs and aU other items required to be paid at Closing, except as otherwise provided herein, Buyer and Seller shall sign and complete all customary or reasonably required documents at or before Closing, Fees for real estate Closing services shall be paid at Closing by 181 One-half by Buyer and One-half by Seller 0 Buyer 0 Seller 0 Other 239 240 24\ 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 \ 'b~ \ \ \ \ 'Ren'WI ~..\Ilak_ \ '{SJ\Rtln~~ \A&.~Il>' \ft.k'olWlJ\ \ \ G1\'\"''tNle\l~ ~~1lrkjc \l'tp.l6\tk 'I1kN\IlVI~r.t. klla\l\lle\oIr'tIli\e'd\Il; 298 \1l11jle...\'le\I'tMh"N"k<iWl>lll~lthSek '''UIM''''''MIil't~.hlll~~kumllkllc'l1~M.~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ o One--tualr by Buy~r and ODl~..half by . Any sales and The locol transfer tax of ~/A % of the Purchase Price shall be paid at Closing by Seller 0 Buyer 0 Seller 0 Other use tax Ihat may accrue because of this transaction shall be paid when due by [81 Buyer 0 Seller. 15. PRORATIONS. The following shall be prorated to Oosing Date (~ 2c). except as otherwise provided: a. Taxes. Personal property taxes, if any, and general real estate taxes for the year of Closing, based on tbe Calendar Year Immediately Preceding Closing D Most Reeent MIll Levy and Most Recent Assessment 181 Taxes ror D Other PREPARED BY: O.vld J, Myler.. Esq. CBS 3.7..()4, Connet to Buy and Bell Real Estate (Vacant Land. Fann. Ranch). Colorado R&al Estate Commission ReaIFA$Tl8lSaftware, C2006, Version 6.16. Software Registered to; Cher Brammar, mE MYLER LAW FIRM PC Buyer{s) ~ 02/2610614:48:38 Par4A./ Sellar(s) '"fIT 299 300 30l 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 c. Other Prorations. Water and sewer charges; interest on continuing loan, Bnd none d. Final Settlement. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, these prorations shall be final. 16. POSSESSION. Possession of the Property shall be delivered to Buyer on PosJeSsion Date and Possession TIme (~ 2c), subject to the following leases or tenancies: none If Seller, after Closing, fails to deliver possession as specified, Seller shall be subject to eviction and shall be additionally liable to Buyer for payment of $ 200.00 per day from the Posseulon Date (~ 2c) until possession is delivered. 17. NOT ASSIGNABLE. This contract shall not be assignable by Buyer without Seller's prior wrinen consent. Except as so restricted. this contract shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns of the parties. 18. INSURANCE; CONDmON OF, DAMAGE TO PROP);;RTY AND INCLUSIONS. Except as otherwise provided in thi, contrllet, the Property, Inclusions or both shall be delivered in the condition existing as of the date ofthis contract, ordinary wear and tear excepted. a. Casualty Insurance. In the event the Property or Inclusions shall be damaged by fire or other casualty prior to Closing, in an amount of not more than ten percent of the total Purchase Price, Seller shan be obligated to repair the same before the Closing Date (~ 2c). In the event such damage is not repaired within said time or if the damages exceed such sum, this contract may be terminated al the oprion of Buyer by delivering to Seller written notice of termination. Should Buyer elect to carry out this contract despite such damage, Buyer shall be entitled to a credit, at Closing, for all the insurance proceeds resulting from such damage to the Property and Inclusions payable to Seller but not the owners' associarion, if any, plus the amount of any deductible provided for in such insurance policy, such credit not to exceed the total Purchase Price. b. Damage, Inclusions and Services. Should any Inclusion or service (including systems Bnd components of the Property, e.g. heating, plumbing, etc.) fail or be damaged between the dare of this contract and Closing or possession, whichever shall be earlier, then Seller shall be liable for the ~ir or replacement of such Inclusion or service with a unit of similar size, age Imd quality, or an equivalent credit, but only to the extent that the maintenance or replacement of such lnclusion, service or fixture is not the responsibility of the owners' association, if any, less any insurance proceeds received by Buyer covering such repair or replacement. The risk of loss for any damage to growing crops, by fire or other casualty, shall be borne by the party entitled to the growing crops. if any. as provided in * 3 and such party shall be entitled to such insumnce proceeds or benefits for the growing cropS, if any. c. Walk-Through and Verification of Condition. Buyer, upon reasonable notice, shall have the tight to walk through the Property prior to Closing to verify that the physical condition of the Property and Inclusions complies with this contract. 19. RECOMMENDA nON OF LEGAL AND TAX COUNSEL. By signing this document, Buyer and Seller acknowledge that the respective broker hIlS advised that this document bas important legal consequences and has recommended the examination of title and consultation with legal and tax or other counsel before signing this contract. 20. TIME OF ESSENCE, DEFAULT AND REMEDIES. Timc is of the essence hereof. lf any note or check received as Earnest Money hereunder or any other payment due hereunder is not paid. honored or tendered when due, or if any other obligation hereunder is not perfonned or waived as herein provided, there shaII be the following remedies: .. If Buyer is in Default: 181 (t) Specific Performance. SeUer may elect to treat this contract as canceled, in which case all payments and things of value received hereunder shall be forfeited and retained on behalf of Seller, and Sener may recover such damages as may be proper, or Seller may elect to treat this contract as being in full force and effect and Seller shall have the tight to specific perfonnanee or damages. or both. o (2) Liquidated D.mages. All payments and things of value received hereunder shall be forfeited by Buyer and rctained on behalf of SelIer and both partie8 shall then:aftcr be released from all obligations hereunder. It ;s agreed that such payments and things of value are LIQUIDATED DAMAGES and (except as provided in subsection c) are SELLER'S SOLE AND ONt Y REMEDY for Buyet's failure to perform the obligations of this contmct. Seller expressly waives the remedies of specific performance and additional damages, b. 1f Seller is In Derault: Buyer may elect to treat this contract as canceled, in which cllse all payments and things of value received hereunder shall be returned and Buyer Dll1Y recover such damages as may be proper, or Buyer may elect to treat this contract as being in filii force and effect and Buyer shall have the right to specific performance or damages, or both. e. COlts and Expeolel. 1n the event of any arbitT8tion or litigation relating to this contract, the arbitrator or court shall award to the prevailing party all reasonable costs and expenses, inchlding attorney and legal foes. 21. MEDTATION. If a dispute arises relating to this contract, prior to or after closing, and is not resolved, the parties shall first proceed in good faith to submit the matter to mediation. Mediation is a process in which the parties meet with .an irqpartial person who helps to resolve the dispute infonnally and confidentially. Mediators cannot impose binding decisions. The parties to the dispu1e must agree before any settlement is binding. The parties will jointly appoint an acceptable mediator and will share equally in- the cost of such mediation. The mediation, unless otherwise agreed. shall terminate in the event the entire dispute is not resolved within 30 calendar days of the date written notice requesting mediation is sent by one party to the other at the party's last known address. This section shall not alter any date in this contract, unless otherwise agreed. 22. EARNEST MONEY DISPUTE. In rhe event of any controversy regarding Earnest Money and things of value (notwithstanding any termination of this contract, or mutual written instructions), Earnest Money Holder shall not be required to take any action. Earnest Money Holder may await any proceeding, or at its option and sole discretion, interplead all parties and deposit any money or things of value into a PREPARED BV: David J. Myler.. Esq. CBS 3-7.04, Contract 10 Buy and Sell Real EBtale (Vacant Land. Farm - Ranch). Colorado Real Estate Commission RealFASTQJl Softwa,.~. Version 6.16. Softwere Registered to: Cher Bl1lmmer, THE MYLER LAW FIRM PC Buyer(s) ~ tt!:I.- 02128106 14:48:38 S~I.'r.V 359 360 36\ 362 363 court of competent jurisdiction and shall recover court costs and reasonable anomey and legal fees fees. 23. TERMINATION. In the event this contract is terminated, all payments and things of value received hereunder shall be returned and the panies shall be relieved of all obligations hereunder, subject to ~~ IOd, 21 and 22. 24. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS. (The following additional provisions have not been approved by the Colorado Real Estate Commission.) See Addandua A attached hereto and inoorporat8d herein by this reference. 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 25. ENTTREAGREEMENT,MODIF1CATI0N.SURVIVAL. This agreement constitutes the entire contract between the parties retating to the subject hereof, and any prior agreements pertaining thereto. whether oral or written, have been merged and integrated into this contract. No subsequent modification of any of the terms of this contract shall be valid, binding upon the parties, or enforceable unless' made in writing and signed by tbe parties. Any obligation in this contract tbat, by its tenns, is intended to be performed after termination or Closing shall survive the same. 16. NOTICE, DELIVERY AND CHOICE OF LAW. a. Physical Delivery. Except for the notice requesting mediation described in ~ 21, and except 8.!1 provided in ~ 26b below. all notices must be in writing. Any notice to Buyer" shall be effective when received by Buyer or by Se11ing Brokerage Finn, and any notice to Seller shall be effective when rece;ved by Seller or Listing Brokerage Finn. b. Electronic Delivery. As an alternative to l!hYsical delive~ any signed document and written notice may be delivered in electronic fann by the following indicated methods only; ~ Facsimile [.J E-mail 0 None. Documents with original signatures shall be provided upon request of Bny party. Co Choice of Law. This contract and all disputes arising hereunder shall be governed by and constued in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado thai would be applicable to Colorado residents who sign a contract in this state for property located in Colorado" 17. NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE, COUNTERPARTS. This proposal shall expire unless accepled in writing, by Buyer and Seller. as evidenced by tbeir signatures below, and the offering party receives notice of acceptance pursuant to ~ 26 on or before Acceptance Deadline Date (fi 2c) and Acceptance DeadUne Time (~ 2c). If accepted, this document sball becomc a contract between Sellcr and Buyer. A copy of this document may be executed by each party, separately, and when each party has executed a copy thereof, such copies taken together shull be dcemed to be a full and complele contract belWeen the parties. BU::Y of .~~ Ir~ By: City Man qer DATE 3 - ]-cJl;; BUYER :By: DATE 385 (NOTE: Irthilil offer is belng countered. or rejected, do not sign this document. Refer to i 28] 386 Smuggid1- ,.oDioUon, LLC SELLER By: SmUggler q_ Association, LLC DATE ;y?;pdb J&~\~&\~~~)~~~~~k~~~~\\\~~~\\~~~~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ J&~\~Uk.~.~~~~.~~k~}Wb.~.kn&~~~)<<\~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ J&~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ J~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~~~~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ J~h JU l\IUle\ 'ClOs'lne.IoloVu"NIuls\lln'd\IlAiu..lt\Jtl"no!t'll.~lPt"hMIU'tlt"'lt!n"H'o.'dr'tft;ljlr"'ll"ill& P"/.dIhle'{l'l1"} \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ PREPAFlED BY, David J. Myler" Esq. CBS 3.7~, Contract to Buy anti Sell Real Estl!te (Vacant Land. Farm -Ranch). Colorado RB8I Estate Conynisalon RealFA$TaI> Software, Cl2006. Version 6.16. Software Registered to; Cher Brammer, THE MYLER LAW FIRM PC 0212810614:48:38 Pege 8 of9 ~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ~~'" \ lIltOJUll.\4fiIOI()"W'L'EOG~ \tM, liMe'cli~\aI'o\m\ ....luIdw.IMg'ev.Gc!ipt\b.t\lbli '&nIe'o~ M<mli~ \I\of><loll\<pllili~!ocl. '\rl.l "" lInd. ~~\~lIa'M,m~~\n~~~.k&OO\~!~\nli~~~~>>Y~~~~~~M~~.&~~\~^~~k\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ~~n\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ~~~\TkaSiIi~k311~k.~\~k\~.k\~~.~~~1I~.\m~.~\rn.~k~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ~~\Tka~.lik311~k~.\~Uk~k~IMV\\~~.~li~~lIliMre.\mXh~\rn.~<kbn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ .a~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ .ak\lIltOJUll.S\t~tNS~"&)Nb~W~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ .a:l. \ Sililik& lI'ldl/e"'!a ~\rlp'tll~lilll\bt\lId<t\dIr.alll\ ...\111 'pki\l'b'y\ \ GI'tlilt\dg\IlNlk'eNlP\Pllu\o\ \fJ.II"'~~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ .a1\fJ.{ft~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\. .a4.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ .a~ \~'Ml>C.cldn\PllltM")\l5kkl!>lIldk.,.,\"i\;MgJIroW.3c\lii'a'll"<.ml>M<kMMr~.hb1\i~'I<l<l\;''ld.l>C.Pdicl. .,,\ \ \ ~'G'tk~ \ ~k \ \ \ \ .aa\fJ.{ft"~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\. .a~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ .aa\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ .a~\Sililik&~k~Nw.<<\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ By: Signature Date .\~\'LMlik&lI~!kFkm~~am&\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ .\k\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ .\:l.\~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ .~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\lIldklit\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ .\4.\~\IKm~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ .~\?k&re~n\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ PREPARED BY: P.vld J. My\e\"" EBq. cas 3-7...04, Contract to Buy and Sefl Resl Estate (Vacant Land - Farm - Ranch). Colorado Real 5s,tata CommissIon R..,FA$"" $"WY;;OO6. V...1on 6.16. Softwa'" RegO"""" 10: C,,", ""'mmer. THE MYLER lAW FIRM PC Buyer(sl I. 02/28/06 14:48:38 Page 9 01 9 Seller(s) _ ADDENDUM A to Contract t'l> Buy and Sell Real Estate Btjyer: City of Aspen Dat,: February 28, 2006 i 24. Additional Provisions a. b. 5'(# c. The Earnest Money described iniparagraph 4 shall be paid to Seller no later than I business day after the Inspectioni Objection Deadline. Surveys. Seller shall deliver to jJuyer copies of such surveys of the Property as Seller has in its possession prior to the SurVey Deadline. Buyer shall be entitled to obtain updates of the surveys at its expenses. ! I Seller's Acquisition of the ProP~'rty. Buyer acknowleges and understands that Seller is not the owner of the Property n the date of this Contract but has a valid and enforceable option to purchase the Property from its current owners, Tulasi and Jaya Wilkinson. Seller's performance is conting t upon its acquisition ofthe Property prior to the Closing Date. ' . , I Conservation Easement. Prior ~o Closing, Seller shall have the right to create one or more conservation easements uj grOSS on the Property ("Conservation Easements") pursuant to the requirements o~Article 30.5 of the Title 38, C.R.S. and Section 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1~86, as amended, (the C.R.S. are IRC requirements"). Provided that the documents e1' dencing the Conservation Easements shall satisfY the CRS and IRC requirements an approved by Buyer, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, Seller ay execute and deliver any documents deemed reasonable and necessary by S lIer to grant the Conservation Easements including recordation of the documents epidencing the Conservation Easements, and the Conservation Easements shall fncumber the Property at Closing. The Conservation Easements shall be Permitted Exceptions and Buyer agrees to accept title to the Property subject to the Conservation Eaj.ements. Seller shall provide Buyer with copies of all documents evidencing the Cotlservation Easement prinr to execution thereof by Seller and Seller shall allow Buyer t9 make cnmments nn the form of the Conservation Easement. Seller shall considclr the comments of Buyer in connection with finalizing the Conservation Easements but S~ller shall not be obligated to incorporate all of the commen~ of Buyer into tbe crnservation Easements. Bargain/Sale. Sellers have o"'ned an Option to Purchase the Property since January 31, 2002 (the Option"). The sell~ recently exercised the Option. Since the date Sellers acquired the Option and subs quent to the date of the exercise of the Option, Seller and Buyer acknowledge that the operty has substantially appreciated in value. Seller in furtherance of the charitable I1UIposes of Seller, Seller desires to give, donate, transfer, gift over and convey to Buyetr and Buyer desires to receive, accept and acquire from Seller the excess of the value pf the Property over the Purchase Price. The transfer of the Property to Buyer by Seller c~ntemplated hereby will qualifY as a charitable contribution as dermed in Section 170(c) \lfthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the d. e. ~( "Code"). Buyer shall use the Property exclusively in furtherance of its public purposcs. On the Closing Date, Buyer shall have accepted the gift contemplated hereby. Buyer will comply with all reporting requirements of the Code, as amended, in connection with the transaction contemplated hereby. Buyer acknowledges that Seller's gift hereunder is made out of Seller's detached and disinterested generosity and that, from and after the Closing Date, Sellers shall not retain any residual or pecuniary interest of any nature whatsoever in the fee interest in the Property which is the subject of such gift. Buyer covenants and agrees that it shall execute such further documents as Seller may request in confIrmation of such acknowledgment. The parties agree to execute and deliver such I.R.S. forms as Seller may reasonably require in connection with the making of a gift to a tax-exempt organization and the acceptance thereof, including, but not limited to, I.R.S. Form 8283. Seller and Buyer agree that the fair market value (as that term is defIned in I.R.S. Regulation 1.1 70A-l (c)) of the Property, which is the subject of the gift contemplated herein, as of the Closing Date shall be determined by an appraiser mutually agreed to by the parties. f. Assignment. The Property consists of three separate parcels of Property (individually, a Parcel"). Prior to Closing, Seller shall have the right to convey title ("Conveyance") to the separate Parcels to one or more members of Seller and/or to one or more entities owned in whole or part by members of Seller (individually, a "Permitted Assignee") provided that a Permitted Assignee assumes the obligations of this Contract as it relates to a Parcel conveyed to a Permitted Assignee (" Assumption") In connection with such Conveyance and Assumption, the Seller and Permitted Assignee shall have the right to allocate the purchase Price among the Parcels not in excess of the Purchase Price hereunder pursuant to a written agreement executed by Seller and all of the Permitted Assignees. Further, at the request of Seller, Buyer agrees to enter into separate Contracts with all of the Permitted Assignees on the same terms and conditions therein, except as to account for the sale of only one Parcel provided that a condition to Closing all of the Parcels shall be required to be closed simultaneously. g. Seller's Costs. Seller shall provide Buyer with a description of its costs incurred in connection with acquiring, holding and seeking development approvals for the Property no later than March 10, 2006; h. Continuance of Approval Process. Seller's performance in contingent upon an agreement by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County to continue its consideration of pending land use applications for the Contraband and Result to a date following the Closing Date. i. Aspen City Council Approval. This Contract is specifIcally contingent upon the formal approval thereof by the City of Aspen City Council as evidenced by a resolution authorizing and ratifying the Contract. Buyer shall deliver to Seller a resolution of the City Council authorizing the terms of this Contract no later than March 17, 2006. j. Seller shall convey any and all mineral rights appurtenant to the Property and owned by Seller to Buyer at Closing by quit claim deed. O:\Client\Smugglcr R\dge Auociates\City of Aspen Smuggler Ridge Assoc Contnel Addendum ^ 030206.wpd ~r ~ l;f~ V\c, MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Phil Overeynder, Utilities Director CC: Steve Barwick, City Manager CC: John Worcester, City Attorney DATE: March 7, 2006 RE: Wind Generated Energy Purchase Agreement with Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska (MEAN) SUMMARY: This contract amendment would increase the amount of wind energy purchased, recognizing the increased demand resulting from Burlingame Village Phase 1. The energy purchase agreement will ensure that 100% of the power for Burlingame Village is from a renewable source, provided by the municipal electric system. Any excess power not used at Burlingame Village will displace fossil fuel power purchases for existing electric customers. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council approved the 2006 Electric department budget. The 2006 Budget includes both revenue and expenditure authorizations for increased wind energy purchases to serve Phase I of Burlingame Village and to continue the same relative proportion of wind energy to the municipal electric utility considering anticipated growth in customer demand for electric power. DISCUSSION: The cost of wind energy is higher than the cost offossil fuel powered electric power provided by MEAN. The utility business plan set a goal of 78 percent energy from non carbon sources. An increase in renewable energy purchases is necessary to attain this goal considering that load growth will continue for new service territory (such as Burlingame Village) and within existing service territory. An allowance was made for anticipated growth in the 2006 budget to allow wind energy purchases to continue to keep pace with the growth. This contract amendment increases the wind energy purchases by an additional 750,000 kwh annually to match expected growth. This additional amount is added to the City's existing contracted commitments to result in approximately 14.5 million kwh in annual wind energy purchases (about 22.5 percent of total energy purchased). 1 CURRENT ISSUES: The increased wind energy purchased through this amendment represents the last available wind energy at the Kimball wind site, given the current configuration pfthe site. Future increases in wind energy deliveries will require modification to transmission facilities (i.e., substation improvements) to create additional capacity. If the City does not act on this amendment in March, the wind energy will go to the next utility waiting in line. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Funding for this action is contained within the purchase energy line item for the 2006 Electric Department. The rate for wind energy is approximately $0.46/kwh versus an average cost of$0.29/kwh for fossil fuel energy. The higher initial costs for wind energy will last until the facility is fully amortized (10-12 years) at which time expected costs for wind energy will be less than coal fired energy. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: Approval of this contract will contribute towards meeting Canary Initiative goals of further reducing carbon dioxide emissions associated with electric power production. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the contract. ALTERNATIVES: If this amendment is not approved, the percentage of overall renewable energy would slip, considering expected load growth. Other renewable energy purchases or projects (hydroelectric, etc.) are not available in the same time frame. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to adopt resolution 1tLt 2006. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ~~A..Q ~ ,;'tf! h t7flJo"'90 J()00 e1ednc ~ a,]..D~Qj , "~ J {d;i D ~~~ 2 RESOLUTION # I ~ (Series of 2006) A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDMENTTO THE WIND GENERATED ENERGY PURCHASEBETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND THE MUNICIPAL ENERGY AGENCY OF NEBRASKA (MEAN), SETTING FORTH THE REVISED AMOUNT OF WIND ENERGY PURCHASED AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council an agreement between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and MEAN., a copy of which is annexed hereto and made a part thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section I That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves revised Exhibit A to the second supplemental agreement for Wind Energy Purchase between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and MEAN, a copy of which Exhibit is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager ofthe City of Aspen to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen. Dated: 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 ofthat resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk \-\0 M e:.,.. 0",,,, , <- . . NMPP Energy . 1111 0 Street - Suite 200 . Lincoln. NE 68508 . Phone: 402.474.4759 . Fax: 402.474.0473 P.O. Box 95124 . Lincoln, NE 68509 . www.nmppenergy.org March 3, 2006 VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL Phil Overeynder Utilities Director City of Aspen 130 S Galena St Aspen, CO 81611-1902 Dear Phil: Enclosed you will find two originals of revised Exhibit A to the Second Supplemental Agreement for Wind-Generated Energy Purchase between the City of Aspen (City) and the Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska (MEAN). This Exhibit reflects the addition of 750,000 kWh/year of wind-generated energy for the City and replaces the Exhibit mailed to the City on December 8, 2005 (which to date has not been signed/returned to MEAN by the City), as well as the Exhibit A executed as of August 4, 2005 between MEAN and the City. Please have the authorized official sign and return both of the enclosed originals to MEAN. MEAN will return one fully executed original for the City's file. If you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please feel free to call Kevin Gaden at 800-234-2595. Sincerely, '1\\~\\L\~ Michelle J. Lepin Legal Administrator Enclosures SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR WIND-GENERATED ENERGY PURCHASE BETWEEN MUNICIPAL ENERGY AGENCY OF NEBRASKA AND CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO EXHIBIT A Contract Wind Energy Month kWh Januarv 1,490,352 February 1,201,652 March 1,142,492 Anril 1,255,998 Mav 1,064,183 June 909,877 Julv 805,545 Awmst 851,377 Sentember 1,136,724 October 1,647,417 November 1,316,150 December 1,603,849 Annual Total 14,425,616 Effective date ofthis Exhibit A: April!. 2006 Supersedes: Exhibit A executed as of August 4, 2005 between the Parties, and Exhibit A issued effective January I, 2006. WHEREAS, the Parties have duly executed this Exhibit A to the Second Supplemental Agreement for Wind-Generated Energy Purchase as of the date and year shown below. MUNICIPAL ENERGY AGENCY OF NEBRASKA CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO By: By: Name: Name: Title: Title: Date: Date: -~.~~"'"~~_..~., -"~,~.~..--~~.._.,,,-- - -. . V, \ a. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director CM\N) FROM: James Lindt, Senior Planner ~ RE: Second Reading of Ordinance No.2, Series of 2006, 202 North Monarch Street Subdivision - Continued Public Hearine: DATE: March 13,2006 ApPLICANT /OWNER: Blu Vic, LLC. REPRESENTATIVE: Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. LOCATION: Lots K, L, M, N, and 0 of Block 78, City and Townsite of Aspen; 202 N. Monarch Street. CURRENT ZONING: Lots K-M are zoned R-6 (Medium- Density Residential). Lots Nand 0 are zoned Mixed Use (MU). PROPOSED LAND USE REQUEST: Subdivision to split the existing parcel into two parcels of land. SUMMARY: The Applicant requests subdivision approval to subdivide the existing parcel of land into a 9,000 square foot residential parcel and a 6,000 square foot mixed use parcel. Photo Above: Property as seen from E. Bleeker Street. ST AFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached ordinance, approving the proposed Photo Above: Property as seen from N. subdivision request with the conditions of Monarch Street. approval included therein. 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. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant, Blu Vic, LLC, requests subdivision approval to subdivide the existing 15,000 square foot parcel located at 202 N. Monarch Street into two (2) parcels; a residential parcel (Lot I of the proposed subdivision) of 9,000 square feet to contain the existing historically designated single-family residence and a 6,000 square foot parcel (Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision) for future development under the Mixed Use Zone District's requirements. In conjunction with the proposed subdivision, the Applicant originally proposed to open a portion of the currently unopened but platted alley and improve it to the City's standards for public alleys to provide vehicular access to the proposed 6,000 square foot parcel for development under the Mixed Use Zone District's requirements. The existing 15,000 square foot parcel contains a single-family residence that is designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historically Designated Sites and Structures. The Historic Preservation Commission has approved the existing shed for demolition (resolution was attached as Exhibit "E" in the first reading packet). The parcel currently has a split zoning with the westernmost 9,000 square feet of land being zoned R-6 and the easternmost 6,000 square feet being zoned in the Mixed Use Zone District. The proposed subdivision places the new parcel boundary line where separation in zoning currently exists on the fathering parcel. PREVIOUS HEARING: At the last Council meeting, City Council heard additional discussion about the access and the development possibilities for the parcels in the proposed subdivision. City Council also considered additional public comments and had a lengthy discussion about the issues associated with this proposal. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Applicant requested and was granted a continuance to further address some of City Council's concerns. 2 UNCERTAINTY ABOUT NATURE OF DEVELOPMENT: Several City Council members expressed concerns once again about the uncertainty of what is to be developed in the proposed subdivision. As was discussed in the staff memorandum for the previous hearing, Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, sets forth what needs to be included in an application for subdivision within the City of Aspen. The required contents in a subdivision application include the identification of proposed lot boundaries, public improvements, and vehicular access. However, the required application contents for subdivision do not require the Applicant to provide a specific development plan for each of the lots within the proposed subdivision. As was also discussed at the last hearing, the prior City Council discussed whether they wanted to have the subdivision section of the land use code amended to require architectural drawings and specific development programs and plans when reviewing a subdivision proposal and CowlCil decided not to amend the code in this manner. Staff would suggest that if City Council does want to start seeing greater detail in future subdivision applications such as development programs and site design, Council should direct Staff to bring forward code amendment to the subdivision section to require site specific development information. The Applicant did offer to deed restrict Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision against further division through either a subdivision process, lot split, or historic landmark lot split. Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed ordinance reinforcing this offer by the Applicant. LOT I PRESERVATION: Nearing the conclusion of the last hearing, several City Council members expressed interest in whether the Applicant could preserve the remainder of the land on the proposed Lot I that is not currently utilized for the existing historic residence. City Council wanted the Applicant to look into the possibility of establishing transferable development rights (TDR) to sell ofl from the property to preserve the existing single-family residence as the only residence on Lot I of the proposed subdivision. Alternatively, City Council also wanted the Applicant to explore whether the neighbors of the property would entertain providing funding to buy-off the excess allowable FAR from Lot I to maintain the open area between the existing residence and neighboring parcel to the north as open yard space. The Applicant has responded by asking the neighbors if they would like to contribute funds towards buying down the excess allowable FAR on the Lot 1. The Applicant's letter (attached as Exhibit "C") expresses that he approached the neighboring property owners and the neighbors indicated that they were not willing to buy-down the excess allowable FAR from Lot 1 to maintain the area on the parcel that is not covered by the existing historic house as open yard space. Additionally, the Applicant indicated that he explored the possibility of establishing TDRs to extinguish the excess allowable FAR, but that the anticipated value of selling ofl the TDRs does not compare to the proceeds he would get from the construction of an additional single-family residence. Staff believes that the concern over developing the large yard area on Lot I is somewhat contrary to the incentive program that has been set up for historic properties. The entire basis for the historic landmark lot split code provisions are to allow for historically designated properties to split in order to allow for the development of new residential units that are 3 compatible in size and scale to that of a historic resource, rather than to push additions onto the historic resource. VEHICULAR ACCESS OPTIONS: There was considerable discussion about the vehicular access options at the last meeting. It appeared that the majority of City Council felt that it was appropriate to take access to Lot 2 by opening the alleyway from North Mill Street as the altemative access proposal represented. It also seemed apparent that the majority of City Council was not in favor of having a new curb cut on East Bleeker Street. That said, there did not appear to be a majority of Council members that favored opening the alleyway from North Monarch Street to access Lot I unless an effort to preserve the large yard area around the historic house failed. Since the Applicant has not been able to come up with a possible method of limiting the development on Lot I to a single-family residence as was described above, Staff has proposed a condition of approval in the ordinance providing that the Applicant would have the ability to open the alleyway from North Mill Street to access Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision and the ability to open the alleyway from North Monarch Street to access Lot I of the proposed subdivision, since this is the access option that City Council was closest to having a majority opinion on at the last meeting. Staff does not support the Applicant's suggestion that City Council consider the subdivision and the access to the subdivision under separate ordinances. Staff feels that in order for City Council to approve the subdivision, access must be established in conjunction with the subdivision. Therefore, Staff has not included a separate ordinance for Council's consideration related to the access. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve the proposed subdivision with vehicular access to the parcels being provided from East Bleeker Street. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As was discussed at the last meeting, Staff believes that the subdivision review standards are met by the proposal and recommends that City Council approve the proposed ordinance to split the property at 202 N. Monarch Street into a parcel of 9,000 square feet and a parcel of 6,000 square feet. Staff does not believe that the land use code requires the Applicant to provide a site specific development plan to simply subdivide the property and that the concern over the potential of splitting Lot I in the future is irrelevant because it is not being requested by the Applicant at this time. Staff further feels that the access option of opening the alley from North Monarch Street to access Lot I and opening the alley from North Mill Street to access Lot 2 is appropriate. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: 4 RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE MADE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Ordinance No.2, Series of 2006, approving with conditions, the 202 N. Monarch Subdivision to divide the property described as Lots K-O, Block 78, of the City and Townsite of Aspen into a 9,000 square foot parcel and a 6,000 square foot parcel. " ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A --Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B - Revised Ordinance Exhibit C -Letter from Applicant about Lot I . 5 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 Aspen Area Community Plan. The properties to be subdivided are located close to the core area of town, which should encourage the residents to use altemative means of transportation such as walking and riding their bicycles as is encouraged by the AACP. Staff also finds that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) in that this proposal would create a vacant parcel for infill development within the original Aspen townsite from a fathering parcel that was significantly underutilized. In conjunction with the proposed subdivision, the Applicant has also proposed to provide sidewalk adjacent to the Monarch and Bleeker Street right-of-ways, thereby filling in a missing sidewalk link on both streetscapes as is consistent with the expressed transportation goal of adding sidewalk connections within the City. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Staff Finding The Applicants have not proposed a specific plan for Lot 2 of the Subdivision, but have represented that development on the site will be constructed in compliance with the , regulations established in the underlying Mixed Use Zone District. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Staff Finding Staff does not feel that the proposed subdivision will adversely affect the future development of 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 Applicant at this time is not proposing any additional development on the proposed Lot I than what exists at this time and the existing single-family residence is within the allowed dimensional requirements of the R-6 Zone District in which it is located. Additionally, the Applicant has not proposed a site-specific plan on the proposed Lot 2, but has made a representation in the application that all new development on Lot 2 will meet the Mixed Use Zone District's dimensional and use requirements. The Applicant has also represented that all development on Lot 2 will need to obtain necessary development allotments prior to being developed. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6 B. Suitability of Landfor 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 harniful 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 Staff believes that the properties are suitable for subdivision. Only a small corner of the proposed Lot 2 contains steep slope and there are 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 providedfor 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 justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. Staff Finding The Applicant has consented in the application to meet the applicable required 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 not proposed any new construction within the subdivision at this time. This application is simply to subdivide the existing parcel into two (2) parcels of land. Any future development on Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision will require the Applicant to apply for and obtain all necessary development allotments prior to commencing construction. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7 E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards setforth at Chapter 26.630. Staff Finding The proposed subdivision is required to meet the School Land Dedication Standards pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630. The Applicant has proposed to pay cash-in-lieu of providing land. In this instance, the amount of the required cash-in-lieu payment cannot be determined at this time because there is not a specific plan proposed on Lot 2 of the subdivision. Therefore, the dedication amount cannot be determined because it is calculated based on the number of bedrooms being proposed in the subdivision, which is still an uncertainty. The Applicant has consented to paying the applicable school land dedication fee at the time of building permit issuance for development within the subdivision. Thus, staff finds this critcrion 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-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. (Ord. No. 44-2001, 92) Staff Finding The Applicant has not proposed a specific development plan for Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision at this time. Staff has proposed a condition of approval that requires all necessary growth management allotments to be applied for and obtained prior to developing Lot 2. Staff finds this criterion to be met if all applicable development allotments are obtained prior to developing Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision. 8 Ex0v\ krt \~(/ ORDINANCE NO.2 (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, THE 202 N. MONARCH STREET SUBDIVISION, DIVIDING THE PROPERTY AT 202 NORTH MONARCH STREET INTO TWO PARCELS OF LAND, CREATING LOTS 1 AND 2, OF THE 202 NORTH MONARCH STREET SUBDIVISION CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. ParcelID: 2737-073-/7-005 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Blu Vie, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson and Associates, Inc, requesting to subdivide the property located at 202 N. Monarch Street (Lots K-O, Block 78, City and Townsite of Aspen), to create Lots I and 2 of the 202 N. Monarch Street Subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the fathering parcel has a split zoning with the westernmost 9,000 square feet (Lots K-M) being zoned R-6 (Medium Density Residential) and the easternmost 6,000 square feet (Lots N-O) being zoned Mixed Use (MU); and, WHEREAS, the proposed Lot I is to contain 9,000 square feet and maintain the R-6 (Medium Density Residential) zoning designation that the land currently contains; and, WHEREAS, the proposed Lot 2 is to contain 6,000 square feet and maintain the Mixed Use (MU) zoning designation that the land currently contains; 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, 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 202 N. Monarch Street Subdivision without allowing the opening and improvement of the alleyway pursuant to Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 37, Series of2005; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission expressed that they supported keeping the alleyway closed and providing for vehicular access from E. Bleeker Street to the new parcels to be created; 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 February 13, 2006, the Aspen City Council reviewed the proposed 202 N. Monarch Street Subdivision and continued the public hearing to February 27,2006; and, WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on February 27, 2006, the Aspen City Council reviewed the proposed 202 N. Monarch Street Subdivision and continued the public hearing to March 13,2006; and, WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on March 13, 2006, the Aspen City Council reviewed the proposed 202 N. Monarch Street Subdivision and approved Ordinance No.2, Series of 2006,by a _ to _ L-~ vote, approving with conditions, the 202 N. Monarch Street Subdivision, the opening of the westernmost 90 feet of Block 78 Alley to access Lot I and opening of the easternmost 145 feet of the Block 78 Alley to access Lot 2 of the subdivision; 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 202 N. Monarch Street Subdivision, subdividing the parcel located at 202 N. Monarch Street into 9,000 square foot parcel (Lot I of the subdivision) and a 6,000 square foot parcel (Lot 2 of the subdivision), with the conditions contained herein. Section 2: Plat and Al!reement 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: Dimensional Requirements Development on Lot I of the Subdivision shall conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 (Medium Density Residential) Zone District. Development on Lot 2 of the Subdivision shall conform to the dimensional requirements of the Mixed Use (MU) Zone District. Section 4: Growth Manal!ement Allotments Since the Applicant is not proposing any development on Lot I of the subdivision at this time and there is not a specific development plan proposed on Lot 2 of the subdivision, any future development within the subdivision shall require receipt of applicable growth management allocations prior to submitting for a building permit. Section 5: Historic Preservation Review on Both Lots Any development on either Lot I or Lot 2 of the subdivision shall be subject to review and approval pursuant to Chapter 26.415, Development Involving the A.\pen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Section 6: Sidewalk. Curb, and Gutter Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any new development within the subdivision, the Applicant shall have installed an attached sidewalk meeting the City Engineer's design requirements along the entire lot frontage abutting East Bleeker Street. The Applicant shall also enter into a sidewalk agreement to install a future sidewalk adjacent to North Monarch Street along the entire lot frontage if it is deemed appropriate by the City of Aspen to have a sidewalk in this location at some time in the future. The Applicant shall consult with the Parks Department in designing and installing the sidewalk along East Bleeker Street in order to preserve the significant lilacs that exist along East Bleeker Street. Additionally, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on any new development within the subdivision, the Applicant shall upgrade the curb and gutter along the entire lot frontage abutting both East Bleeker Street and North Monarch Street to meet the City Engineer's design requirements. Section 7: Vehicular Access and Allevwav Improvements Vehicular access to Lot I shall be provided by opening and improving approximately the westernmost 90 feet of the Block 78 alleyway. Vehicular access to Lot 2 shall be provided by opening and improving approximately the eastemmost 145 feet of the Block 78 alleyway. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on any new development on Lot I of the subdivision, the Applicant shall have opened and paved to the City Engineer's standards, a 90-foot long portion of the alley in Block 78 of the City and Townsite of Aspen, to provide vehicular access to all development on Lot I of the subdivision from the alleyway to be accessed from North Monarch Street. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on any new development on Lot 2 of the subdivision, the Applicant shall have opened and paved to the City Engineer's standards, a l45-foot long portion of the alley in Block 78 of the City and Townsite of Aspen, to provide vehicular access to Lot 2 of the subdivision from the alleyway to be accessed from North Mill Street. Prior to recording a subdivision plat and agreement, the Applicant shall submit a plan for review and approval by the City of Aspen's Public Works Director to relocate the existing above-grade utilities in the alleyway. Also, prior to improving the alleyway, the Applicant shall submit a detailed design plan to the Community Development Department for the alleyway improvements that addresses soil stability, erosion control, and drainage as well as a detailed site improvement survey. In designing the alleyway improvements, the Applicant shall consult with the City Engineer and Parks Department to determine an acceptable grade. Section 8: School Lands Dedication Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School Lands Dedication, the Applicant shall pay a fee-in-lieu of land dedication in conjunction with any residential development in the subdivision. Prior to building permit issuance on any residential development within the subdivision, the Applicant shall pay the school lands dedication fee associated with the subdivision as calculated by the City Zoning Officer using the dedication schedule in effect at the time of building permit submission as set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.630.030, School Lands Dedication: Dedication Schedule. Section 9: Park Develoument Imuact Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee, the Applicant shall pay a park development impact fee at the time of building permit issuance for any construction within the subdivision that adds new residential/lodge bedrooms and/or commercial/office square footage. The City Zoning Officer shall calculate the amount due using the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submission as set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.610.030, Park Development Impact Fee: Fee Schedule. Section 10: Sewer Line Extension The Applicant shall be required to provide a main sewer line extension to serve Lot 2 of the subdivision, subject to the review and approval of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, prior to the development of Lot 2. The Applicant shall submit a detailed service plan for review and approval by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District prior to building permit submittal on Lot 2. Section 11: Fire Surinklers Development on Lot 2 shall contain fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system meeting the requirements of the Fire Marshall. Section 12: Landscauinl! The Applicant shall submit a tree protection review plan and a tree permit for any new development within the subdivision. The Applicant shall also submit a landscape- planting plan for improvement of the City right-of-way for the entire lot frontage abutting both East Bleeker Street and North Monarch Street that will be reviewed by the Parks Department in conjunction with submitting a building permit application for new development in the subdivision. Section 13: Lot 2 Deed Restriction Al!ainst Future Lot Sulit The Applicant offered to deed restrict Lot 2 of the Subdivision against further subdivision through the subdivision, traditional lot split, or historic landmark lot split processes. This deed restriction shall recorded at the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office prior to or in conjunction with recording the subdivision plat. Section 14: Vested Ril!hts The development approvals granted herein shall be 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 vested property right, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: Lots 1 and 2, of the 202 N. Monarch Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, by Ordinance No.2, Series of2006, of the Aspen City Council. Section 15: 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 construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 16: 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 17: A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 13th day of February, 2006, 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 9'h day of January, 2006. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk ,,,,,,",,.~__,,_,_~;__'","_"_'_" >. ,. "_''''~~'.~_'__'''''~_'~__~'__"'_ , ..'" ';_' __.._ ,~",,_~'"',_'_'_'"~"'~_'__ 'MM' FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 13th day of March, 2006. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: John P. Worcester, City Attomey 3 March 2006 Exl1,'kJ,1- t\c // STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, INC Planning. Urban Design Landscape Architecture Transportation Studies Project Management Mr. James Lindt, AICP Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 200 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE: 970.925.2323 FAX: 970.920.1628 E-MAIL: info@scaplanning_com WEB: www.scaplanning.com Re: Blu Vie LLC Open Space or TDR Options Dear James: I am writing in response to the request by Council Member Jack Johnson that the applicant for Blu Vie look into the alternatives for an eventual Historic Preservation Lot Split on Lot I of the proposed Blu Vie Subdivision. Alternatives mentioned included looking at possible use of City of Aspen Historic TDRs and acquisition of open space by abutters. With respect to TDRs, experience in the City of Aspen is quite limited. City staff reported to us that the Aspen Historic Society had an agreement to pre-sell their requested TDRs for $60,000 each. At this point, no TDRs have actually been sold. An estimate of the maximum value might be $75,000. Without any addition or garage, seven TDRs might be generated from Lot I, each representing 250 square feet of floor area. At a possible value of $75,000 each, that would generate $525,000. It should be noted that this is nowhere near the apportioned land value of the open space, which is $1,485,000. It should also be noted that that is based on no addition to the existing structure and no garage, both of which are unlikely development scenarios. Therefore, the TDRs would not only be insufficient to compensate for the land value, but would not provide any amount sufficient to fund the extra costs involved in restoring the Victorian residence. Mr. Semrau did inquire of adjacent property owners with respect to an open space purchase by neighbors. Only one expressed some interest in contributing, but it remained unclear how such a purchase might be equitably arranged. We do not believe that this is a viable option, either for providing neighborhood open space or for achieving the restoration of the historic resource. Returning to the application before you, there has been consistent support for the appropriateness of subdividing the mixed-use zoned parcel from the residentially zoned parcel. Staff has correctly pointed out that neither the code nor Council policy decisions require that a full development application be provided as part of a subdivision application. It has also been noted that it would be prohibitively expensive to prepare a full development application in advance of a determination of the preferred manner of accessing the site and an approval of the subdivision itself. PLANNING AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CLIENTS James Lindt, AICP 3 March 2006 Page Two However, the development potential and intentions are nonetheless quite clear. Lot 2 would provide for a mixed-use development that could incorporate commercial, free- market residential and affordable housing development. It would need further review by the HPC for compatibility with the historic resources on the fathering parcel, as well as review by the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council for Growth Management allocations and/or exemptions. There is no likelihood that a lot split would occur on this proposed lot, as this would be inconsistent with developer intentions as well as those of the City Council, which would be required to review and approve such a lot split. With respect to Lot I, containing the historic residence, it may make sense that this lot would be the subject of a request for an Historic Preservation Lot Split. A lot split would provide the revenue to subsidize the restoration of the historic residence. This is one of the primary intentions of the Historic Lot Split exemption, and clearly appropriate on a 9,000 s.f. parcel. However, if this were the actual subsequent request, it would require an application and further review by the HPC and the City Council to achieve this intention. A lot split was granted, for example, on the historic Mona Frost property, just around the comer on Hallam Street, in order to achieve the reconstruction of the historic Frost residence. That lot split involved only a 6,000 s.f. fathering parcel, considerably smaller than the Blue Victorian under consideration here. Finally, given that there appears to be support for the subdivision, but continued division on Council with respect to the access approach, would it be possible to split these issues? That is, could one ordinance be provided for the subdivision itself, and a separate ordinance provided for the access point. That way, the question of subdivision could be separated from access issues and each could be voted upon separately. We believe that this subdivision proposal entirely meets the requirements of the land use code, as indicated by our code responses, staff's analysis, along with P&Z and HPC support for the subdivision. It will result in development that will enhance the Mixed Use area and promote infill, support the restoration of an historic residence, and provide infrastructure amenities that have been long-needed in the area. Long-term potential includes the resolution of access issues for several adjacent properties. The applicant has been very forthcoming in preparing three different access plans to try to accommodate the concerns of neighbors and the P&Z, and has shown a willingness to be flexible in approaching the access question. This project, while presenting no negative impacts, will result in a significant improvement of the area and support stated community goals. AICP, ASLA SON ASSOCIATES, INC. James Lindt From: Sent: To: Subject: MARY RECHLlTZ [mrechlitz@msn.com] Thursday. March 02. 2006 8:37 PM James Lindt 3-2-06 letter. alley block 78 Mr Lindt: The following letter will also arrive by mail. Mary Rechlitz March 2, 2006 Mayor Klunderud and Aspen City Council c/o Community Development Department Attn: James Lindt City Hall 130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Alley Block 78 Dear Mayor and City Council Members, Once again I am writing to you regarding the proposed opening of the alley on Monarch Street. I am very disappointed that the majority of you recently reversed your ruling and have voted to open the alley on Monarch Street in reference to Mr. Semrau's proposed development on the corner of Monarch Clnd Bleeker Streets. I find it disheartening that you would rule in his favor and disregard the wishes of the residents of that neighborhood. As I stated in my earlier letter, the opening of the alley on Monarch for vehicles will definitely disrupt the Walk Experience in that part of the West End. A number of us were under the impression that Mr. Semrau publicly stated his willingness to comply with the neighborhood by having his access come from Bleeker instead of Monarch Street. The unanimous decision from P & Z and Council at the first hearing to keep the alley closed should be given more consideration. Please reconsider this matter for the sake of the people who call that street their home and vote to keep that alley on Monarch closed. Sincerely, Mary Rechlitz 306 Lakeside Drive Basalt. CO 81621 ph: 927-3864 1 SVEN ERIK ALSTROM AlA ECOLOGICAL ARCHITECTURE P.C. 842 WEST 21sT STREET POB 551 LAWRENCE. KANSAS 66046 ASPEN. COLORADO 81612 7857491018 9709251745 Mayor and City Council and John Worcester. City Attorney City Of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen. Colorado 81611 3 March. 2006 202 N. MONARCH STREET SUBDIVISION Please recognize the wisdom of the Planning & Zoning Commission's analysis. commentary. and unanimous denial of the proposed subdivision proposal by Tim Semrau. Blu Vic L.L.C. As a past member of the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Committee. a former member of DEPP (Downtown Pedestrian & Enhancement Committee). and as a former resident of 219 N. Monarch. and 223 East Hallam from 1988 to 1997 I am very familiar with the subject property. I strongly urge you to recognize the many goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan. (AACP) which the present application would thwart. Chief among them being maintenance of the existing historic steetscape as mentioned on page 42 of the AACP. My friend and former personal attorney. the late Nick McGrath cannot give you his opinion of this application but I believe that he would urge you to oppose the opening of the alley at 202 N. Monarch and to deny the present application for subdivision of this parcel. As pointed out by others. without a specific development plan I urge you to not support development of an alley which undermines and shatters the historic fabric of a neighborhood which is a very important portal to Aspen's historic West End neighborhood. Finally. i believe that this proposed subdivision would conflict with the neighborhood compatability requirements of the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Guidelines. Best Regards. Sincerely. Sven Erik Alstrom AlA TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Aspen City Council Sob and Crispen Umacher March 3, 2006 Alley Opening between 202 and 212 N. Monarch St., Aspen We were thrilled on February 13th, when the City Council unanimously agreed with P&Z to deny the easement/alley opening between 202 and 212 N. Monarch St.! Their reasoning and yours was in conoem about traffic, ruining the Victorian neighborhood and the lack of the developer's plans. We were then shocked upon hearing the City Council reversed its decision on February 28th, 3 to 2, to allow the opening to happen! Why? It seems to have come full circle with "new" information that is not new.... The 'New" information involves three issues as far as we can understand: maps that show every easement and alley in Aspen, the possibility of future need for off street parking for 212 N. Monarch and questions about the Sleeker St. hill. The vote suggested the entry for the new multi- use buildin9 would be from Mill St., the driveway for the residences would be from the alley opening In question, and the current access on Sleeker would be abandoned. We would like to point out the following as we have before in letters to you. The maps are not new, similar to others, but they show small buildings on all alleyways in Aspen, including the one in question. Of course everyone knows these buildings were for the most part outhouses, sheds and chicken coops and were CORRECTLY placed on the property lines as far away as possible from the main houses because of the smell NOT because the alleys provided drive able access to the sheds! The easement/alley between these two houses has never been opened in over 100 years! The present access off of Sleeker St. is on level ground, it is not on the hill , it is above it. If used for the two residences the hill would not be problematic especially since the developer suggested the access would be moved towards Monarch. The third issue is one Mr. Hodgson needs to address. It involves the future possibility of owners of his house wanting off street parking and wanting to use the easement/alley. We tend to doubt it because of the lack of property owned on that side of the house. Our concems are the same as in our last two letters, since we feel the "new" information is not really new. If the city opens this easement/alley you are giving the developer a driveway so he won't have to take it from his own property, you would be giving him more property to develop. Now we know he does plan to build a multi family complex between 202 and 212 N. Monarch St., which finally came out at the last meeting with you. What else is he thinking? Why should the city spend tax payer's money to give someone a driveway, it is not an alley, it is a dead end driveway to the developer's houses. Opening the easement is not in the best interest of anyone but the developer certainly not the city,or the neighborhood! Does it seem right to open the easement to traffic within 10ft. from an existing original Victorian, asphalt a city owned space, create more traffic problems in a residential neighborhood, ruin Victorian gardens and perhaps a 100 year old fir tree ALL to benefit a developer?! We feel not!? We feel strongly, as the plans become more clear, that you need to be very careful about supporting the developer's need to move the Blue Victorian closer to Monarch St. We don't doubt the foundation needs to be redone, but this can be achieved without permanently relocating the house. Please visualize the possible Monarch St. block starting at the corner of Sleeker and Monarch Streets if the developer's plans go through as suggested! Imagine walking down the street; the Slue Victorian is moved close to Monarch St.; a second residence is built next to it ,of approximately 2,000 sq. ft.; then the paved alley close to the new residence and within 10ft of the neighboring original Victorian which is located at 212 N. Monarch St. Gone is the wonderful open space, and the historical feel of the neighborhood that has been there for over 100 years. Gone forever! Please reconsider your votes and preserve this area of Aspen! Page 1 of 1 James Lindt From: Bill Parzybok [billparzy@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday. March 05. 2006 621 PM To: James Lindt Subject: Blue Vic Issues Dear Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council: I am very disappointed to learn that the council is leaning toward allowing the developer to make many undesirable changes to the "Blue Vic" property. I am directlY' affected as my home is directly across the street. My home is at 232 E. Bleeker St. I have, for over 24 years, tried to maintain my home in the spirit of historic Aspen and the West End charm of Aspen. This charm and historic attribute sets Aspen apart from other ski area resorts. I know the city has a HPC but it appears to me that not much history is being preserved. The "Blue Vic" is a classic home that would be great if restored but adding more structures, eliminating major open yard space and adding a street (alley) seems very counter to historic preservation. In particular 1 am opposed to the oJlening of an alley that would service commercial property and increase traffic congestion on a street (Monarch) that pedestrian traffic is encouraged to use during the summer months when the cones are up to discourage vehicle traffic. I note that the alley behind the old Paepke home on Bleeker and the Historic Society museum is also not cut through. Will this be next? I strQllgl)'lJ11~~H)'QILa_ndJbe~j!y cQllncil to have the strength to resist these changes that are slowly eroding the charm and spirit of Aspen a charm and spirit that has set us apart for so long. You have the opportunity to make the tough decisions that can retain some Aspen's unique historic charm. I wish you the best in wisdom and foresight in your decision process. Thank you for listening. Sincerely, Bill Parzybok 232 E Bleeker St. Aspen, CO 81611 3/6/2006 ,..__._"-,._-_.~..,.~~-".<..,.^"_.~'-~----".~._'_.:.,~~"---. Brooke Hodgson Latimer 49 Siscowit Road Pound Ridge, NY 10576 March 5,2006 To Whom It May Concern: I have been following the hearings on the proposed subdivision at the comer of Monarch St. and Bleeker Street and was pleased when the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously against opening the alley to access the development. And again I was encouraged when the Council seemed in total agreement with this ruling. Now I discover that at the continuation of the Council meeting, the vote allowed the developer to go ahead with his plans. As a visitor to Aspen for close to forty years, I am appalled at the amount of development that has been condoned by the town. It must be curbed and reexamined before the wonderful qualities of the historic town of Aspen are completely swallowed up. There is nothing gained by opening the alley onto Monarch Street. Any buildings erected or moved by the developer are easily accessed by Bleeker or Mill Street and there is no need to disturb the visual entry to the historic part of Aspen any further. I hope that you will find this request of the developer unnecessary and unacceptable. Sincerely, $il~/' fit; t Brooke Latimer ---.J l'd 19S6-996-80l J9118M ~J8L-\1 d9l:90 90 90 J8L-\1 March 2, 2006 Mayor Klunderud and Aspen City Council c/o Community Development Department Attn: James Lindt City Hall 130 S. Galena Street, 3'd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Alley Block 78 Dear Mayor and City Council Members, Once again I am writing to you regarding the proposed opening of the alley on Monarch Street. I am very disappointed that the majority of you recently reversed your ruling and have voted to open the alley on Monarch Street in reference to Mr. Semrau's proposed development on the comer of Monarch and Bleeker Streets. I find it disheartening that you would rule in his favor and disregard the wishes of the residents of that neighborhood. As I stated in my earlier letter, the opening of the alley on Monarch for vehicles will definitely disrupt the Walk Experience in that part of the West End. A number of us were under the impression that Mr. Semrau publicly stated his willingness to comply with the neighborhood by having his access come from Bleeker instead of Monarch Street. The unanimous decision from P & Z and Council at the first hearing to keep the alley closed should be given more consideration. Please reconsider this matter for the sake of the people who call that street their home and vote to keep that alley on Monarch closed. Sincerely, ~~ AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH, P.C. Attorneys At Law 600 E. Hopkins Avenue Suite 205 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Frederick F. Peirce Thomas Fenton Smith. Telephone (970) 925-2600 Facsimile (970) 925-4720 Emai] Addresses roeircelaJaps-vc,com tsmithra>Qvs-pc.com dsul!ivQn(a)QVS-Dc.com Daniel J. Sullivan Ronald D. Austin OF COUNSEL 'Also Admitted in Delaware March 3, 2006 VIA HAND DELIVERY Aspen City Council 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Ordinance No.2, Series of 2006, 202 North Monarch Street Subdivision Dear Council Members: This letter is submitted on behalf of Philip Hodgson and his family in connection with the above-referenced matter. We have the following concerns: I. Procedural Due Process We request that the public hearing be opened at'the continuation of this matter on March 13, 2006. On February 27, 2006, City staff presented new evidence not contained in the staff reports and as to which our clients and the public have had no opportunity to review and to respond. As you know the Council had unanimously decided on February 13, 2006, not to open the alley from Monarch Street and continued to the matter to February 27, 2006, for other reasons. On February 13, 2006, the City CoUncil gave no indication of any desire to reconsider opening the alley. Nevertheless, on February 27,2006, the staff opened the hearing with a well-orchestrated although apparently unsolicited presentation in favor of opening the alley. We do not believe that the "new evidence," which was the stated basis for the reversal of opinion on this issue, justifies opening the alley. AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH, P.C. A//orneys a/ Law City Council, City of Aspen, Colorado March 3, 2006 Page 2 2. Allev from Monarch Street On February 27,2006, staff presented the 1904 Sanborne Map for the ostensible purpose of documenting that the alley was previously opened. However, the Sanborne Map proves nothing of the kind. First, it cannot be understood to show anything other than the platted alley, (as opposed to an improved alley) because it shows an alley all the way from Monarch Street to Mill Street, and we know that this was never the case. Second, the map is inaccurate because it does not show the encroachment into the alley shown on the 1896 Willits Map. Third, it is inconsistent with the 1892 deed for the 212 Monarch Street property, which includes a conveyance of "title and interest in and to the alley way between said lots (A, B, and C) and Lots K, L, and M, in said block." While this conveyance was ineffective unless the City had vacated the alley, it is evidence that the alley was not in public use. Staff distributed a list of nine landmarked properties with houses facing the short side of the block. However, this list is misleading because only two of them, 525 North Second Street and 311 South First Street, have opened alleys perpendicular to the street. In addition, these two alleys are through alleys and not dead-ends. We suggest that you take a look at the alley adjacent to the 311 South First Street property for a good example of how the opened alley detracts from the historic character of the property. Also, on February 27, 2006, staff introduced arguments regarding the placing of a driveway alongside the 212 North Monarch property and the ways in which this would be inconsistent with the HPC Design Guidelines. However, no one has proposed any such driveway and we do not understand why this assumption is made, or why the City would not reject any such request for the very reasons stated by your staff. In fact, since opening the alley from Monarch Street would create a de facto driveway, each of these objections is equally applicable to the opening of the alley as requested by the applicant. Finally, Ed Sadler expressed concern about the safety of the driveway from Bleeker Street shown on the applicant's revised proposal, Exhibit C. As we stated at the hearing, since the proposed driveway is in a different location, concerns about the existing curb cut are irrelevant. In addition, we have measured the grade change from the proposed new driveway on Bleeker Street to the Monarch Street intersection. The grade change is actually in the opposite direction, because the grade change is ten inches (10") over one hundred feet (100') sloping towards Monarch Street from the proposed new curb cut, which is above the crest of the hill. Therefore, there is no basis for safety concerns based upon the grade of Bleeker Street at the point of the proposed new access. F:\Files A-L\Hodgson\City Council Ltr. 3.3.06.doc AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH, P.C. A /torneys at Law City Council, City of Aspen, Colorado March 3, 2006 Page 3 3. Hodgson Parking It was stated at the hearing that the Hodgson's use of a portion ofthe alley adjacent to Monarch Street constituted a misappropriation of City property and that this use meant the alley was already opened. This is inconsistent with the facts. As stated by Philip Hodgson on the record, the parking was verbally authorized by the City in 1990, when Councilman Michael Gassman and the City Attorney met with Mr. Hodgson on the property. Mr. Hodgson had proposed placing a parking space on his property and this alternative was the City's idea. Reinhard Elder, then owner of the Blue Vie property, also agreed. The Hodgsons have never asserted anything other than a revocable license for this parking space, and Mr. Hodgson stated on the record his agreement to remove it upon request by the City. Therefore, we fail to understand how this has anything to do with opemng the alley to the public, which seems to be so important to City staff, and now to the City Council. In the face of unanimous opposition by West End residents, at the February 13, 2006, hearing, unanimous opposition by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the lack of any demonstrated public purpose for opening the alley from Monarch Street, and the Applicant's willingness to use Bleeker Street instead, the City Council has now indicated a willingness to open the dead-end alley/driveway. We urge you to retum to the original idea ofleaving the alley closed. 4. Code Provisions for Allevs The Applicant has repeatedly stated that the Code requires an alley. This is incorrect. Section 26.580.020 B.l.k states as follows: "Alleys shall be provided in subdivisions where commercial and industrial development is expected, except when other provisions are made and approved for service access." The provision for "paved alleys," 26.580.020.A.1.d, must be read in a way that makes these two provisions consistent. We view the provision for "paved alleys" to mean that where alleys are required, they must be paved. However, the Code does not require alleys in connection with residentiafsubdivisions, and only requires them in connection with commercial development when there is no other provision made for service access. Therefore, an alley is not required in connection with this application, especial1~ since there is access from Bleeker Street. 5. Incrementalism Council Members have expressed different views on the piecemeal approach to the development of this property. It is our view' that the Code neither requires absolutely nor prohibits absolutely the subdivision of the Blue Vic Property in the absence of a F:\Files A-L\Hodgson\City Council Ltr. 3.3.06.doc AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH, P.C. Attorneys at Law City Council, City of Aspen, Colorado March 3, 2006 Page 4 complete development plan. However, the Code does require that in order to approve a subdivision application you must determine that the application is consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan (26.480.050.A.a), consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area (26.480.050.A.b) and shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas (26.480.050.A.c). -....., In this case, you do not have enough information about the future development of this property to make those determinations. The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously agreed with this, as to the request for opening the alley which is part of the subdivision application. While we disagree, for the reasons stated in our February 27, 2006 letters, that a further split of proposed Lot I is permitted, you should have any such proposal before you now or not at all. Accordingly, we urge you to deny this application. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH, P.C. B'~ Thomas Fenton Smith TFS/dh cc: Philip Hodgson F:\Files AvL\Hodgson\City Council Ltr. 3.3.06.doc FROM R-ONE,LLC FAX NO. 1 203 2278510 Mar. 062006 10: 14AM P2 Members of City Council, Re: North Monarch Street alley Since the mid 1960s our family has been coming to Aspen. I have personally been discouraged to visit as frequently as I had in the past due to the continual construction annoyances we put up with each time_ I try to stay up to date with local issues and am bewildered by this situation regarding the opening of the alley from Monarch Street. I've read the reports in the papers, letters to the editor, and other information available online from the City of Aspen website. I was very happy to hear that the applicant's proposal to use City property to access his private property was turned down, as I saw this as a step in the right direction for Aspen, (and apparently this sentiment is shared by your citizens as over 80% believe you should declare a moratorium on all future construction until contradictories in your building codes can be resolved)_ However, I am amazed to hear that you have overturned your first decision and now intend to open the alley despite public opposition. I believe this will be a terrible error on your behalf if you follow your current route through the next hearing. I would expect you to listen again to what the public has to say before you make your final decision, as this will impact them the most Regards, Angela Gomez 77 Partrick Rd. Westport, CT Message Page] of I James Lindt From: UPPER. LOIS A [Iupper@aspensnowmass.com] Sent: Monday. March 06. 2006 5:28 PM To: James Lindt Subject: Monarch Street Dear Mr. Lindt. As a Valley resident for 32 years I would love to express my opinion on pedestrian traffic in the Aspen City limits. When living in Aspen my family enjoyed many walks throughout the town core. Now that we own a home in Snowmass Village we are still often in town trying to support our local businesses whenever possible. We bring many friends and relatives to Aspen to enjoy it's charm and heritage. Our hearts are still very much a part of Aspen. I am aware of the possible alley on Monarch Street. I have not come forward sooner because I read the City Council initially rejected the concept of an alley leading to commercial property on that street. I thought the access to any additional commercial or residential properties on the corridor would be accessed on Mill Street. which I believe would be much more appropriate. I know that Monarch Street is used a great deal for pedestrians using the Yellow Brick Building and also for the Walk Experience. Please do not allow this wonderful Victorian neighborhood to be effected by more cars and commercial type congestion . You really need to realize how much so many of us appreciate what is offered in this area as it is now. Thank you for your consideration to this issue. Very Sincerely. Lois Upper LOIS UPPER Ski & Snowboard School/ Aspen Skiing Company 800-525-6200 x4579/ 970-923-0579 3/7/2006 B. Wilkes PMB 13 P.O. Box 10006 Saipan, MP 96950 March 7. 2006 James Lindt Community Development Department c/o Aspen City Hall 130 S. Galena St.. 3rd Floor. Aspen. CO 81611 Fax # (970) 920-5439. Email: jamesl@ci.aspen.co.us Re: Alley Block 78 February 3. 2006 Dear Mr. Lindt: It seems that two unanimous conclusions by the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Aspen City Council confirmed that the development of a public alley was not in the benefit of Aspen's citizens and visitors. One planner stated. "This is a parcel that is very significant to visitors because it is the entrance to the whole west end tour..." and. "I value the fact that the character has remained unchanged and opening the alley stands in stark contrast to the property and conflicts with the AACP goal of biking and walking." I respectfully disagree with the City Council members who now are stating otherwise. Hopefully. they will review what is at stake and realize that it makes no sense to open pristine open space for the purpose of pavement. Open space is of a great value to residents of the community as well as to visitors. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I grew up in Aspen. and members of my immediate family still live there. It will be a travesty and will eventually result in less revenue from visitors if our town loses its unique charm. Sincerely. Bethany Wilkes beewilkes@gmail.com Page I of I James Lindt From: Sent: To: Denis Cyrus [cyrus@sopris.net] Monday. March 06. 2006 9:00 PM James Lindt Cc: wyleyhodgson@gmail.com Subject: Semrau subdivision / opening alley Block 78 James Lindt Community Development Dept. City of Aspen March 6. 2006 James / City Council: I originally wrote to you a month ago. prior to the original public hearing on the Semrau subdivision proposal requesting the opening of the alley in Block 78. urging you not to open the alley off Monarch Street. Upon learning that the P&Z had unanimously recommended not opening the alley. and after hearing numerous public comments all asking that the alley not be opened. and the comments of the majority of council members expressing their reluctance to open the alley. and even the apparent willingness of Me. Semrau to seek other means of access to the residential portion of his proposed subdivision. I felt that it was reasonably clear that the alley should not. and would not be opened. I was quite surprised to learn that at the continuation hearing. which I was not able to attend. and the purpose of which I believed to be the examination of the remaining details of the subdivision proposal other than the alley access. that the Council decided to ignore all of this previous input and open the alley. Since I was not at the hearing. I do not know. and cannot discuss your reasons for this decision. I am writing now only to express my continued objection to this approach of putting an alley through the front yards of the historic residences on Monarch Street to access the rear yards to the east which this subdivision proposal effectively creates. If an alley is to be created in this block by this subdivision. it belongs behind (to the east of) the historic residences. between the residential portion and the commercial portion of the subdivided property. running from Bleeker to the north to the adjacent property. if access.to that property is one of the goals. I hope that Council will reconsider this option as well as all the previous public input. and allow further discussion and additional public input at the next hearing. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely. Denis N Cyrus 3/7/2006 March 6, 2006 ,James Lindt, Commnnity Development Department c/o City Hall 3rd Floor 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Members of the Aspen City Council, My name is Hayley Pace and I am writing to once again communicate my concerns regarding the proposal to open and pave a lOS-foot long portion of Alley Block 78 on the Monarch Street side. I am aware that there have been many arguments made against this proposal including the potential impact that the increase of traffic will have on the safety of the pedestrians and bicyclists in this residential neighborhood. As a former employee of both the Early Learning Center and a former first grade teacher at the Aspen Elementary School, I can attest that there are a substantial number of children that are escorted to and from activities in the neighborhood and in town that use the West End streets and specifically North Monarch Street. There are safer and more logical alternatives that would have less impact on the safety of the children, citizens and visitors of Aspen. When working for the Early Learning Center I was responsible, with one other employee, to supervise and escort groups of 20-25 children through the neighborhood, and specifically down North Monarch Street, to attend activities in town. The outings with the children are more frequent in the summertime with students traveling along North Monarch Street up to four or more times a day, walking to and from an activity. As you already know North Monarch Street and others streets in the West End are closed to through traffic in the summer making the streets safer and more enjoyable to walk on. One of the purposes of closing the streets to the West End is to deter vehicular traffic from using these streets to access Highway 82. Opening this alley on North Monarch Street will only not only encourage more traffic to traverse the neighborhood, but it will definitely put the lives of the children and their supervisors at an increased risk of danger. Opening the alley contradicts the AACP's goals of having "fewer trucks and other heavy vehicles [should] traverse the city's streets" and to "improve safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, mass transit riders, and automobiles in the Aspen area". The Aspen Center for Environment Studies (ACES) sees 30 classes, with 18-20 students in each class, from Aspen Elementary School three times a year as part of their Environmental Education curriculum. That's about 900 students spread out throughout the school year visiting ACES via the West End neighborhood. So each week of the school year a different teacher supervises and escorts a class of 18-20 students through this neighborhood to ACES. Many times the teachers walk the students into town to have lunch at Wagner Park using North Monarch Street. This only addresses the students from Aspen Elementary School. ACES also sees students from the Roaring Fork School District as well as students as far west as Rifle. From my experience with my first grade class it was hard enough to navigate my way through this neighborhood with the existing traffic. I know that opening this alley to provide either residential or commercial access will only add to the difficulty of traveling safely though the neighborhood with or without children. Page I I think this situation might be different if this alley was a "through" alley and it provided a safe "through-access" to the public, not a dead-end access without a turn-around point. It isn't feasible to be a "through-way" alley and therefore has never been opened. It's doesn't serve any public purpose and should remain closed. Keeping the alleyway closed supports the AACP's philosophy that" .. . more and better bikeways and walkways should increase. The volume of traffic on streets and highways in the Aspen area should not be allowed to grow, and ideally should decline". As this is a dead-end or one-way access, there will be large vehicles (e.g. garbage trucks, service trucks, etcetera) backing out ofthe alley, with lessened visibility of pedestrians and bicycle traffic. Increased traffic flow will compromise the safety of the young children from the Early Learning Center, the students from Aspen Elementary School and other schools, and students using the Red Brick school for gymnastics and other activities. At this point only one vehicle pulls out onto North Monarch Street from the alleyway. Mr. Hodgson has volunteered to remove this parking pad so no vehicles are backing out onto North Monarch Street. If this becomes the access point for the applicant's residence and/or his future mixed-use development, there will be manv more cars backing out onto North Monarch Street. There will be even more cars and traffic if the applicant is allowed to split the residential lots with additional houses built on the property. The AACP states the need to "improve safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, mass transit riders, and automobiles in the Aspen area". Opening Alley Block 78 will only create an unsafe situation with increased residential and commercial traffic. I strongly urge you to take these concerns into consideration before a decision is made regarding the opening of Alley Block 78, and to reconsider access off Bleeker and/or Mill Street. Sincerely, Hayley Pace Page 2 March 4, 2006 J ames Lindt Community Development Department, c/o Aspen City Hall 130 S. Galena St., 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Email: iamesl(d1ci.aspen.co.us Fax: (970) 920-5439 Dear Mr. Lindt: I have recently learned that the City Council has reversed their decision regarding maintaining closure for alley block 78 on Monarch St. I am writing this letter to express my concern regarding that decision. During a public meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed Mr. Semrau's development proposal and recommended to keep the alley closed. Then during the City Council meeting in early February, the City Council agreed with the Planning and Zoning Commission decision. However, on February 27'h, the Council reversed their decision, yet there has been no significant change in plans. It appears that the Council has turned its back on the citizens of Aspen, in favor of one person. There was a recent survey conducted by the Aspen Times regarding a moratorium on development in the City until further analysis could be conducted. Results from this poll stated an overwhelming opposition to continue unchecked development. The citizens of Aspen have spoken, yet the Council appears deaf. Mr. Semrau's proposal is contrary to the direction of Aspen's citizens and visitors. I encourage the Council to listen to the public and consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Sincerely, Mimi Konicki Sylvania, Ohio James Lindt Aspen City Hall Community Development Department 130 S. Galena St., 3rd Floor, Aspen, CO 81611 March 05, 2006 Dear Mr. Lindt: I sent you a letter opposing the opening of the alley between 202 and 212 N Monarch Street in early February. On February 13,2006, the City Council unanimously agreed with the Planning and Zoning Committee to keep the alley closed. However, the Council reversed its decision at the February 27''' meeting. I wish to express my continued opposition to this proposal. I encourage the City Council to review my previous letter outlining my concerns. Most of my concerns that were expressed were not addressed by the developer. I would also like to present new information to the Council for consideration at their next meeting. I would like to elaborate on the potential effects of driveway construction on a subalpine fir located adjacent to the alley on Monarch Street. I would tlrst like to establish my credentials. J am a Research Wildlife Biologist with over 17 years of experience. I am currently employed by New Mexico State University, and previously employed by the U.S. Forest Service. My research experience has related specifically to studying wildlife habitat relationships in forest and desert ecosystems. My concerns about the long term integrity of the subalpine fir tree stems from my experience and research on this topic. Unfortunately, a detailed description ofthe ecology of the subalpine tlr is beyond the scope of this letter. However, for greater understanding, and support of statements provided below, [ encourage the Council to review references provided at the end of this letter by the U.S. Forest Service and Colorado State University. Factors that Influence the Integrity of thc Subalpine Fir Opening the alley may impose threats to the present old-growth subalpine fir. Once a tree is established, any activity that changes the soil condition can be extremely detrimental to the tree's health and long term viability. Soil compaction and change in soil depth can reduce water intlltration, gas exchange, and nutrient uptake for the tree. Construction activities greatly compact soil near the surface. These factors can injure roots and increase stress and susceptibility to disease and insects. Evidence that root stimulants increase the ability of roots to grow below compacted soil or paved areas is lacking (Laird Mcintosh, Botanist, Bureau of Land Management, personal communication). Subalpine tlr trees have extensive shallow root systems with tree root zones that extend a distance approximately equal or greater to tree height. Given these extensive shallow root systems, a major concern at construction sites is the disturbance and impact to the tree's root system, trunk, and branches. Direct tree injury can be caused by mechanized equipment. Machinery may remove or skin the bark, break branches, or shear roots. All cases can cause direct damage to the tree as well as additional stress which increases the likelihood of diseases. There are 2 basic types of root disease that can result from construction practices: diseases that kill feeder roots, and diseases that cause root decay. Diseases that kill feeder roots typically reduce the tree's mineral and water absorbing capabilities. Diseases that cause root decay suppress growth, reduce food storage, and reduce structural support for the tree. Often in subalpine firs, root decay will extend into the trunk of the tree, making the tree more susceptible collapse or fall over due to windfall, snow accumulation, or ice. As root decay increases, the likelihood of property damage or personal damage increases greatly in urban environments. Potential Effects of Opening Alley What does this all mean for the subalpine fir on Monarch Street? Ifwe account for the: . potential root zone (equal or greater distance to tree height), . shallow root depth (all roots relatively close to soil surface), . soils with low bulk density (areas without compacted soil versus road fill or pavement), . water and nutrient availability (areas with high water infiltration and nutrients), and . areas that lack tree root competition (other tree roots absent); then, the potential area for viable roots for this large subalpine fir is likely concentrated in the grassland area that is currently the closed alley (See Figure Below). A paved driveway in the closed alley block would likely affect a large proportion of the root mass for this subalpine tir. The result would be a probable increase in property or personal damage and definite change in the viewshed of this City block. 2 Why Save this Subalpine Fir? In addition to shade and aesthetic beauty, this subalpine fir has provided essential habitat for neo-tropical migrant and resident birds. This tree has provided successful nests for ruby-crowned kinglets, pine siskins, red crossbills, and red-breasted nuthatches. Habitat fragmentation is one ofthe leading factors in the decline of birds and other wildlife populations. This subalpine fir is located near riparian habitats of the Roaring Fork River, Rio Grande Park, and Hallam Lake. Further, this tree's age, size, complex structure, and location provide suitable habitat and connectivity between various habitats for a variety of wildlife. These larger trees not only support greater biodiversity, but can support larger numbers of birds than smaller trees. Thank you for your consideration ofthese comments. I sincerely hope the City Council will reevaluate their position on this proposed development, as the outcome is very important Aspen's citizens and visitors. I encourage Council members to plan for vegetative areas (corridors and open space) that increase the viewshed for residents, visitors, and wildlife. Sincerely, 3<.endal '1J<umfJ. Kendal Young Research Wildlife Biologist 700 Canyon Point Road Las Cruces, New Mexico 880 II Alexander, R.R., R.C. Shearer, and W.D. Shepperd. . 1984. Silvical characteristics of subalpine fir. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-115. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 29 pp. Alexander, R.R. 1987. Ecology, silviculture, and management of Engelmann spruce - subalpine fir type in the central and southern Rocky Mountains. USDA Forest Service Agriculture Handbook No. 659. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 144 pp. Bernad, K.E., C. Dennis, and W.R. Jacobi. Retrieved 2006. Protecting trees during construction. Colorado State University Cooperative Extension - Horticulture No. 7.420. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Available online: http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/garden/07420.html. Sillick, J.M., and W.R. Jacobi. Retrieved 2006. Healthy roots and healthy trees. Colorado State University Cooperative Extension - Horticulture No. 2.926. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Available online: http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/garden/02926.html. 3 Page 1 of2 James Lindt From: Sent: To: ianmeloy@gmail.com Tuesday. March 07. 2006 7:48 AM James Lindt Subject: Letter March 6th, 2006 Dear City Council, I am writing to again express my concern of the consequences that opening the alley from Monarch St. will have on this particular area. Not only will you thoroughly ruin one of the nicest streetscapes left in town, you really will ruin this bicycle and pedestrian corridor. I have been riding my bike down this street for 25 years and have had to continually grow cautious of the traffic that is increasing throughout the West End. By opening this alley, you're essentially pushing the boundary of the West End farther away and simply letting this area become incorporated into the noisy, congested, and frantic area of downtown Aspen. Moreover, I am writing to express my outrage and disbelief that on February 13th you all voted to affirm a motion that denied the applicant access via the alley to his property, and yet reversed this decision so easily at the following hearing. I have seen the second hearing and cannot begin to fathom how the arguments from Amy Guthrie and Ed Sadler convinced some of you to reverse your decision on keeping the alley closed. The arguments regarding the safety of Bleeker St. are simply incorrect. It doesn't appear that Mr. Sadler understands the proposed access from Bleeker St., as there would be no slope to worry about because the driveway would be relocated up Bleeker St. where the grade is flat. Plus, with sidewalks on both sides of the street, pedestrians should have no more concerns than they do walking on the sidewalks of Main St. Also, there already is an existing driveway off of Bleeker St. that serves at least two cars, and this has never caused the problems that Mr. Sadler complained about. As far as ice goes, Monarch is always icier than Bleeker. Go look at it today, you'll find more ice on Monarch than Bleeker. There is no reason why the driveway on Bleeker cannot be relocated to a safer area on the same street to accommodate the same house it always has. This really should not be such a difficult and analytical discussion. In regard to Mrs. Guthrie's arguments, I don't understand why she is focusing on the neighbor's property instead of the applicant's property. From what I heard at the first hearing, the neighbor was willing to give up his parking to preserve the unopened alley. I don't understand why we don't just keep the status quo, but if the neighbor wants to give up his parking space in the alley and relocate it to his own property, what is the problem? After walking down Monarch over the weekend, I noticed that every house has its own private parking. If the neighbor needs a private parking space too, then I'd much rather 3/7/2006 Page 2 of2 see it placed down the street from its current location than having a 90 foot driveway running through the yard with service, garbage, and delivery trucks accessing the applicant's and neighbor's houses. Lastly, considering Mrs. Guthrie represents the HPC, I find it very difficult to understand that all of her arguments are to undermine the historical observations presented at the first hearing; the same arguments that you members of Council could also not understand why Mrs. Guthrie and HPC were opposing ( e.g. that access for the house needs to come from behind the house, not from the side in the front yard). If history is something of a concern for this property, then I think it is clear that new plans with access from Bleeker make the most historic sense. I hope you will rethink opening the alley thoroughly and return to the logic you followed in the first hearing. I look forward to seeing grass, not pavement, in the future. Regards, Ian Meloy 31712006 Community Development Department C/O Aspen City Hall 130 S. Galena St., 3rd Floor, Aspen, CO 81611 Email: iamesl({/)ci.asoen.co.us Fax: (970) 920-5439 March 6, 2006 Dear Mr. Lindt: This letter is in reference to recent findings of the City Council and the Mayor in regard to Tim Semrau's recent proposal to open alley block 78 in addition to subdivision of the 202 N. Monarch property. Originally, I commended the City Council on their Feb. 13,2006 concurrence with the Planning & Zoning Committee's unanimous decision to deny Mr. Semrau access for a private driveway through the unopened alley. P&Z most eloquently stated reason for this opposition, "I value the fact that the character has remained unchanged and opening the alley stands in stark contrast to the property and conflicts with the AAC P goal of biking and walking." Further, the scores of public letters opposed to Mr. Semrau's alley proposal in concert with the multiple publicly presented comments provided a foundation to argue for preservation of the unopened alley. I was pleased to hear of the Council and Mayor's well-informed decision, based on many reasons which were stated in the Aspen Area Community Plan, to recommend denial of the alley proposal. However, I was discouraged as City Council granted Mr. Semrau a "'continuance" at the Feb. 131h hearing based on his failure to present a complete project proposal. My question is why have members of the City Council decided to re-adjust their perspectives to align with Mr. Semrau's request to develop the alley in lieu of such overwhelming public support against this proposal? In light of the public sentiment, demonstrated by a majority vote in a recent Aspen Times poll on a construction moratorium in Aspen, it would seem appropriate for the City Council to act conservatively in making decisions regarding new building and construction. In my previous letter regarding Mr. Semrau's proposal, I outlined reasons and alternatives that still have not fully been addressed nor evaluated. As such, I would encourage the Council to review my previous letter in their deliberation of this proposal. I would like to add a new suggestion not included in my previous letter. I believe it would be advantageous for the City to consider the possibility of creating City Open Space at this location. Stephen Ellsperman, Parks and Open Space Deputy Director for the City has indicated Aspen's commitment "...to the goal of preservation, protection, and enhancement of its natural surroundings with the 200 I voter approved funding for the purchase of open space.'" Once again. my concern regarding Tim Semrau's development proposal stems from my 20 years of growing up next door at 212 N. Monarch St. I am the fifth generation of my family to live in Aspen and consider it a possible home for my future children. I foresee our house being in the family for many generations to come. Therefore, I am very interested in preserving the historic and environmental values of this city block. Please provide these comments to City Council for their consideration. It is the duty of the City Council and Mayor to represent the majority of the public's interest and not only the interest ofa select few. I anticipate the Council's decision will reflect this duty. Thank you. Sincerely, Quinn J{ ''foung Quinn H. Young Las Cruces, NM 505.525.4323 (voice) Email: Quinn Youn!!(iilnm.blm.!!ov William T. Lake 3235 R Street NW Washington, DC 20007 March 6, 2006 BY FAX TO 970-920-5439 AND ElVIAIL TO jamesl@ci.aspen,co.us Mr. Jamcs Lindt Aspen Community Devclopmcnt Dcpartment City Hall 130 S. Galena Street. 3rd Floor Aspen. CO 81611 Re: Application of Blu Vic, LLC and proposed Ordinancc No.2 Dear Mr. Lindt: Oncc more I write to express my strongly-held views about thc above application to subdivide the lot at 202 N. Monarch Street and to open the platted, but never used, alley to provide car and truc k acccss to the dividcd lot.. I understand the City Council is taking up this issue at its March 13, 2006 meeting I havc previously writtcn to comment on the delcterious impact of this proposal in its prcsent form. I continue to hold those views exprcssed in my letter of February 6, 2006. I respectfully rcfcr you to that lettcr, in which I comment on the impact of the project, if approved, on North Monarch Street as the entrance to Aspen's historic district in terms of congestion, commercial traffic in a residential area, pedestrian safety, noise, and adverse visual impact. I am also extrcmely conccrned at the proccss that the Council has undertakcn in considering the proposal. When the mattcr was Jirst placed on the Council's agenda some weeks ago, my understanding was that there was extensive public and written comment raising a number of substantivc issues. The Council's public rcsponse at the meeting was for the mcmbers to unanimously express their agreement with various of these concerns, a~ reported in the paper the following day. The outcome of that initial hearing was that thc Council mcmbers expresscd views that lead us - the public -- to bclievc that they would exercise their authority to require modi tications 10 the proposed project. Yet only a few weeks later - without explanation __ all of the valid points made by residents and visitors were summarily brushed aside when the Council abruptly revcrsed course and indicatcd its support for the proposal. For a political process to be seen as credible and reliable, it must be seen as an open process where views of decision makers are cxpressed candidly and accurately. What has been going on in this instancc appears to be just the opposite. Whatever the outcome, I urge thc Council to fairly take into consideration all of the parties' positions and do their utmost to arrive at a solution that best reflects a balance among those competing considerations. No less should be expected from our leaders. I therefore urge a thoughtful reconsideration at the upcoming meeting. As ] havc noted before, I am a trequent visitor to Aspen, and one who cares deeply about the character of the town. We have family tics to the area dating back many years. We, like so many others, share a deep dedication to the unique historical qualities of the area. The Council should have similar dedication. I urge the Council not to succumb to the entreaties of a well-heeled developer, but to live up to its responsibilities to do what is right here. There are many solutions which will allow the project to go forward in a manner respectful of the historic character ofthe ncighborhood and values of thc town. I would appreciate it if you would share this Jetter with the Mayor and members of the City Council for their considcration of this matter. Thank you. Sincerely, VJ _fl-<j_ -' i ,,--- William T. Lake - 2 - Page 1 of 1 James Lindt From: Sent: To: annie. g.jensen@jpmchase.com Tuesday, March 07, 2006 8:20 AM James Lindt Subject: Alley Hi James - I had written before in regards to the alley opening and was so grateful when I heard the initial ruling. I am wondering why that was overturned? I am still concerned about the alley being opened and a commercial building residing in that space. I wanted to again express my concern and my personal request as a native to Aspen that the alley remain closed. Thank you for your attention, Annie Annie Grace Jensen. Marketing Manager. Chase + Chase Business Credit $ N Direct: [242 e-mail: 3/7/2006 Drew Hodgson 212 N. Monarch St Aspen, CO 81611 James Lindt Community Development Department Aspen City Hall 130 South Galena St. 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 March 6, 2006 RE: Opening Alley Block 78 Dear Mayor and Council Members: I was overjoyed when I heard the unanimous agreement to keep the alley closed during the February 13th meeting. However, my contentment has done a 180 degree turn, just as your decision about keeping the alley closed has changed. I am stunned and outraged at the results of last week's meeting (2/27) in which a decision was made that went against us based on arguments that were refutable. We felt assured by the outcome of the meeting on the 13th and therefore did not feel that we needed a large presence at the continuance meeting. It is unbelievable and baffling to me that such a change in decision was made after both Planning and Zoning and City Council members unanimously agreed to keep the alley closed. It seemed that during the February 13th meeting, council members understood why the alley should remain closed and why Bleeker was the best access point. Even Tim Semrau stated that he wanted to comply with the neighborhood and therefore accepted the decision (or so we thought) of keeping the alley closed. The arguments made by Amy Gutherie and Edward Sadler do not justify overturning two unanimous decisions. How can it be "historically correct" to open an ally which has historically been a closed, dead end? I am strongly urging you to rethink your decisions to open the alley. I hope that you will reconsider and uphold the initial unanimous agreement made during the February 13th meeting, to keep the alley closed. Sincerely, Drew Hodgson March 6, 2006 Aspen City Council City Hall 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Council members, Having followed the meetings about the proposed development of the property on Monarch Street, formetly owned by the Elder family, I feel concerned over HPC claiming the alley was open and in use historically. In going over maps of "old Aspen", including the Sanborn insurance maps, I have found nothing to indicate that the easement between the Hodgson house and the blue victorian was ever used as an alley. There seems to be no evidence to this line of thought. I understand that the Sanborn maps are being used to show that the easement was a working alley. This is an assumption and should have no stronger weight than the belief that the alley was never open. Surely the burden of proof should be on the developer in this case. The Sanborn maps are not conclusive. Without photographs or definite map activity there is no way to say that the easement was ever open. While I like to see the City of Aspen "make history" with wise and innovative decisions, I would hate to see the City writing Aspen's history to fill a need. Sincerely, ~ - ~~-t. --~- Helen Palmer Box 1855 Aspen, Colorado 81612 James Lindt From: Sent: To: Subject: Bruce Weide and/or Pat Tucker [wildsent@bitterroot.net] Tuesday, March 07, 2006 9: 16 AM James Lindt Comments on Alley Block 78 lTames Lindt Community Development Department, c/o Aspen City Hall 130 S. Galena St., 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Fax: (970) 920-5439 Email: jamesl@ci.aspen.co.us March 5, 2006 Dear Mr. Lindt: Please compile my comments in your packet for submission to the Aspen Mayor and City Council. I am very disturbed to hear that the Mayor and City Council are faltering in their response to preserving the unopened alley block 78. In the past r've spent time in the neighborhood and hope to do so again in the future. How Aspen chooses to deal with its historic neighborhoods will greatly influence my traveling choices. I would hope the City would listen to the community and visitors and represent interests beyond those of Tim Semrau. This historic block in Aspen continues to provide a path to the environmental values held in esteem by members of the community. Why else would the community be in favor of so many parks, trails, and open spaces? Dismantling the character of the current blue Victorian property with a driveway would fragment and reduce habitat for the migratory birds that frequent the abundant trees and landscaping for nesting. Further, the Roaring Fork River situated just below this proposed development produces birds and wildlife which rely on neighboring habitats including this property and the adjacent hillside. Of course, Aspen Center for Environmental Studies, Rio Grande Park, and the John Denver Sanctuary are all close in vicinity and further support dispersal of wildlife to our current neighborhood habitats. It would be a shame to deny the pedestrian users of Monarch street the sounds of chirping birds and robins bobbing for worms in what is now the unopened alley. Please forward my comments as I expect the City to have the same integrity for this property as for the surroundings which all support our valued wildlife and habitat. Sincerely, Patricia Tucker 500 Jorgy Way Hamilton, MT 1 Lisa Markalunas 15 Williams Ranch Court P.O. Box 8253 Aspen, CO 81612 (970) 925-8623 March 6, 2006 City Council - City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Proposed Alley, Block 78 - Blue Vie, 202 N. Monarch Street, Aspen, Colorado Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: I am writing to encourage you to consider the best interests ofthe historic neighborhood on North Monarch when you again address the subdivision and access issues related to the above reference parcel. I continue to believe that vehicular access through an opened alley off of Monarch Street will be a detriment to the historic settings of these homes. It is pretty clear from the photographic evidence presented by staff at the last meeting that the alley has rarely if ever functioned as more than a foot path. To introduce vehicle access into this area will serve to undermine the setting of all of the historic properties. Even the developer was willing to proceed with combined access from Mill and Bleeker Streets. If you are concerned about the spacing of the homes, choose to not vacate the alley and retain City control, but don't open it up to vehicle traffic. In reviewing the list of nine land marked properties that face the short end of the block (as provided by City staff) it is really no more than a matter of orientation of the homes to a side street than it is a significant departure from the Townsite grid. Please keep in mind that the three homes on the east side of the 200 block of North Monarch visually present a longer block and are not comprised of just one or two single homes separated by an alley or street. Access behind the home at 202 N. Monarch from Bleeker seems to be a more appropriate solution and one that more closely approximates the historic layout of the Townsite with access from alleys to the rear of the homes. I again reiterate my comments about Paragraph 14.22 excerpted from Chapter 14 of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines which advocates "locating driveways away from the primary fal.;ade to maintain the visual importance the structure has along a block." It is of concern that the Council was unanimously in favor of eliminating the Monarch access when the majority of public support was advocating in that direction; only to reverse yourselves at the next meeting based on what was an obvious attempt by City staff to sway your decision. I encourage you to protect the historic character of what remains to the West End which has been increasingly carved up by overdevelopment and lot splits on almost every historic parcel with any significant land attached to it. Sincerely, Lisa Markalunas William Light 219 N. Monarch St Aspen, CO 81611 Mr. James Lindt, Community Development Department CC: Mayor and City Council Members Aspen City Hall 130 South Galena St., 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81615 March 5, 2006 RE: Opening Alley Block 78 To the Mayor and City Council: I have been on my property since 1965 located at 219 N. Monarch Street. My property abuts the alley which is across the street from the proposed development at 202 N. Monarch Street. I have followed the recommendations of Planning and Zoning and those of the first City Council meeting on this project and was pleased to hear that proposed opening of the dead end alley was not considered a viable access to this development. However, I was disappointed of the results of last week's (February 2ih) continuation meeting. I would strongly urge you to abide by your initial recommendation of February 13th to leave the alley closed. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns. Sincerely, t{)~ d?JiJ- William Light VT"u Monday, March 06, 2006 Dear City Councils Members, I am writing this letter in support of Philip Hodgson. I have been following the question regarding the opening of the Monarch Street Alley. At first I was primarily interested because of the negative impact it would have on Mr. Hodgson's private property and home. However, after sitting through hours of city council meetings I see a larger issue and problem. Opening the alley would create unnecessary automobile congestion, overcrowding, and a change to the charming appearance of the west end. By approving a lot split and opening the alley the town is setting a precedent that will greatly impact the overall neighborhood feeling and atmosphere. I urge careful consideration to this very important issue because the long term ramifications are extensive and irrevocable. Thank you in advance for your time. d!lj~ Barb Stirling i Me< 7. 2006 9: 45AM No, 2334 p, 1 Aspen City Council City Hall 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Fax (970) 920-5439 Dear Aspen City Council: I have been following the proceedings of the proposed development at 202 North Monarch Street. I visited Aspen several times in past years and was allured by its beauty to move here. I was very encouraged by the unanimous ruling by the PlAnning and Zoning commission and of Council to keep the alley closed along Monarch Street. However, I am very disappointed that Council is now intending to open it after so strongly saying you were in favor of keeping the alley closed. I walk down Monarch Street from Hyman Street to the post office area and beyond at least 3 to 4 times a week. I enjoy walking down Monarch because after I cross Bleeker Street and enter the West End, it is amazing how the atmosphere changes, It is like walking up Telegraph 1,\. ve. in Berkeley, CA, which is a very busy street with street vendors and lots of traffic, but as soon as you cross Bancroft Way, everything becomes quiet as you enter DC Berkeley. I feel that this section of Monarch provides the same kind of threshold and blocks out the cacophony of Main Street. I feel that opening the alley will only encourage more traffic and will ruin this feeling. I will no longer be able to walk in the street, but will instead be dOdging the traffic coming out of this paved alley. Please do not diminish the West End anymore. 7 March 2006 Dear City Council members, I unfortunately was unable to attend the last City Council hearing on February 27th regarding the subdivision and its proposed access design at 202 N. Monarch St. I was shocked and very disappointed that the discussions presented by Amy Guthrie and Ed Sadler have seemingly convinced the majority of Council to overturn its previous unanimous decision to keep the platted alley off of Monarch St. closed. I believe the public and I have presented numerous reasons to keep the alley closed and to provide residential access by relocating the current curb cut on Bleeker to the west approximately 60 feet. Therefore, the remainder of this letter serves to fill in the gaps of missing information in the discussions presented by Amy Guthrie and Ed Sadler that needs to be understood in order to affectively see why Guthrie's and Sadler's arguments are not valid. I have emailed both Sadler and the Engineering Department requesting their reasoning why Bleeker was inappropriate for access. Engineering has not sent me a reply. Sadler replied with the following: Our concern is entering onto a street (Bleeker) where the grade is uphill and forces oncoming traffic to stop or slow down on a street that is often icy. This may also give those exiting onto Bleeker from the drive an issue in the winter. The current curb cut on Bleeker does enter to a slope. However, the proposed relocation of the curb cut would enter to the portion of Bleeker that appears flat and actually declines (slopes downward) to the west toward Monarch St. (away from Mill St.). This nearly flat slope runs downhill to create an approximate decline in elevation of II inches from the proposed new curb cut to the intersection of Bleeker and Monarch. The grade was measured via a laser gun operated by a licensed contractor. This fact is clearly evident when it is observed that water drains and often forms a large puddle at the northeast corner of Bleeker and Monarch, and this water subsequently drains down Monarch. Therefore, the new curb cut would actually be located on a very slight slope sloping away from Mill St. Additionally, relocating the curb cut would not logically have any further impact on traffic congestion on Bleeker. Currently and historically there have always been two vehicles entering and leaving Bleeker at the current curb cut location. This location, which enters onto the Mill St -sloped section of Bleeker (at a much greater grade than the opposite grade that the new curb cut would enter to) and is within close proximity to the busy intersection of Bleeker and Mill, has never caused the difficulties or concerns raised by Sadler. James Lindt illustrates this point in an email response he communicated to me when I was inquiring about Bleeker as a possible access for the MU lots and what concerns Engineering had: I think Nick's [Adeh] comments are more based on the fact that Bleeker Street in this area has a slope to it and can get pretty icy during the winter, which could cause stacking problems with vehicles slowing down to turn into the property. Granted that is the case now with the existing curb cut on Bleeker Street, but the existing curb cut only handles two cars (there is only space for 2 cars to park). More cars would likely be entering and exiting the mixed use development than currently use the existing curb cut (my italics). The concern that Engineering and subsequently Community Development had was Bleeker being used for MU access in addition to residential access. However, by providing MU access from Mill (since Engineering and Community Development feel that Bleeker cannot accommodate the increase of commercial access for the MU lot), and by relocating the curb cut farther from the intersection and closer to the middle and nearly flat section of the street, the residential access from Bleeker will only become safer. In regard to the icy conditions on Bleeker, it must be pointed out that because it is such a frequently traveled road, it does receive substantial ice removal from the City. In fact, Monarch St. is nearly always icier than Bleeker and quickly becomes narrow as ice and snow pack build up on the sides of Monarch and deep ruts form toward the middle of the street. Bleeker already has one complete sidewalk for pedestrians and will soon have two. As mentioned above, cars do not currently become congested or get "stacked" on the slope, and any possibility of this will cease with the relocation of the curb cut. Hence, the worry illustrated by Sadler of cars having to slow or stop on an icy, sloped road does not seem at all likely to occur. Moreover, the Jerome has a very long curb cut on the Mill St- sloped section of Bleeker very close to the intersection at Mill with a high traffic flow entering Bleeker and still manages not to cause the issues that Sadler speculates a residential driveway will cause. Lastly, it should also be noted that the City Manager stated in the previous packet, .. .the duel access points [Bleeker and Mill Street entrances] illustrated in Exhibit "c" may be appropriate as well. Amy Guthrie's arguments are inaccurate and unfounded. Her presentation of the Sanborn map does not prove that the alley was once open. It is easily debated that the Sanborn map merely presents all platted alleyways throughout the city (visuals presented at the hearing will further illustrate this), and this seems likely to be the case as the Sanborn map depicts the alley in Block 78 running continuously from Monarch to Mill. There is no depiction of the hillside that breaks this alley; however, there are photographs clearly depicting that the hillside existed at the time the Sanborn maps were created (photographs to be presented at hearing). Moreover, there are discrepancies between the Sanborn and Willit maps (Willit map to be presented at hearing). While the Sanbom presents all buildings bordering the alley, the Willit (which does account for the hillside) depicts a structure in the alley. Another piece of evidence that the alley never was open is the popular bird's eye view of Aspen (again, to be presented at hearing). While this is only a drawing, it is evidently a legitimate source of historical accuracy as Guthrie relied on it to deem the shed on the 202 N. Monarch St. property that currently sits in the alley as unhistorical and approved its demolition. This picture clearly shows no open alley. It is not entirely clear to me why Guthrie has structured so much of her argument against providing access behind the house from Bleeker and instead focusing on reasons to open the alley. Her argument to open the alley seems primarily based on providing parking for the neighboring property. This is a moot point as Guthrie can only speculate what the current owner's plans for his property is and what any future owner's plans may be. Furthermore, it is impossible to know what the City codes will dictate in the future and how they will affect the parking scenario at 212 N. Monarch St. In other words, because the neighboring property is not requesting private parking, it is inappropriate to apply current codes/guidelines to a possible future scenario that cannot be predicted when or if it will arise. I would further like to address the HPC guidelines Guthrie presented to bolster her reasoning for the necessity of providing parking access to the rear of the 212 property. While these guidelines may not support a parking pad in the front of a house, this is still irrelevant as there is no current proposal for a parking pad in the front of the 212 property. However, I would like to point out contradictions that arise in these codes Guthrie presents if the alley were opened: . 'The front yard should be maintained in a traditional manner. ..and not covered with paving..." (1.10) o Opening the alley will reduce the front yards of both the 202 and 212 properties and will not be maintaining the yard as it is covered with pavement. . "Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the site.. .Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving material. .." (1.13) o Opening the alley is not consistent with the historical context of this site, (please refer to my previous comments submitted for the February 13th hearing for detailed historical context information), and again, opening the alley will cover a grassy area with pavement. . "Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact.. .Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts...If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it." (14.17) o Opening the alley will be the most visually offensive altemative to provide access to the 202 property, there is an existing curb cut that can be used for a driveway, and there is no alley existing at this time. . "Garages should not dominate the street scene." (14.18) o The 212 property has not proposed any development of a garage. It is mere speculation that the current or a future owner would request this and is therefore not appropriate at this time to cite codes lobbying for a parking area at the rear of the 212 property. . "Ot1~street driveways should be removed... Non-historic parking areas accessed from the street should be removed if parking can be placed on the alley." (14.20) o The parking pad off of Bleeker at 202 is a historical parking area and should therefore be preserved. The parking pad at 212 was originally planned to be on private property but was instead planned by the City, thus following these guidelines, to be placed at an existing curb cut and on the alley. . "Driveways leading to parking areas should be located to the side or rear of a primary structure. Locating drives away from the primary fayade will maintain the visual importance the structure has along a block." (14.22) o To best maintain the visual importance of this particular block, it is clear that the access should be placed behind the house. Moreover, Guideline 14.22 requires that relevant sections of Chapter 8 be reviewed, e.g. it must first be determined if this driveway will access a garage, as HPC guideline 8.4 states, "[tJraditionally, a garage was sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern should be maintained." I believe this new information clearly refutes the arguments presented by Guthrie and Sadler to relocate the residential access for 202 N. Monarch to the alley. Please thoroughly consider these points I have presented in this letter in addition to the numerous letters of public concem and disapproval of opening the alley. This is public land that should serve the interests ofthe public, not simply a single development that will have no public benefit. This alley should simply remain the utility eas~ment it has been hitherto, and the green open space it provides should be preserved. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. Sincerely, Wyley Hodgson WALTERR. MADDEN 300 PUppy SMITH ST #203-1 02 ASPEN. CO 81611 WALTERROSS@GMAIL.COM (970)925-7232 March 7, 2006 RE: 202 North Monarch Subdivision and Alley Opening At the February 13 Council Meeting, there appeared to be a consensus between Council, the developer, and the numerous citizens present that access to the residential portion of the subdivision should continue to be off of Bleeker Street. The vehicle access to residence at 202 North Monarch has always been off of Bleeker Street and the developers plans (shown at the February 27 Council meeting) actually improved upon this existing access by moving the access West to the top of the hill. It was very disappointing to see some members of council withdraw their support of the Bleeker Street access during the continued hearing at the February 27 Council meeting (where there were fewer citizens present to state their objections to such a plan) . Why spoil the existing beautiful green expanse of lawn that currently exists in the unopened alley by relocating the 202 North Monarch driveway from Bleeker to Monarch? In order to provide for a future access request for the 212 North Monarch property that may never occur? A better solution would be to request that the owner of 212 North Monarch place a permanent restriction on their property to not request a driveway access for that property and continue to access the 202 North Monarch property off of Bleeker Street as it has always historically been. Thank you, ~Jlf( Walt Madden David Hyman & Barbara Reid 1243 Bunny Court Aspen, CO 81611 February 6, 2006 Mayor Helen Klanderud and Members of the Aspen City Council c/o Mr. James Lindt, Community Development Department Aspen City Hall 130 South Galena St. 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81615 RE: Blue Vic, LLC Dear Mayor Klanderud & City Council: We were most disheartened to learn ofthe City Council's apparent change of position regarding opening the North Monarch alley. After both the P&Z and the City Council unanimously agreed that such an alley would be inappropriate for the neighborhood and the least appealing of several options, we cannot understand the reversal. We would contest two points. The platted alleyway that has never been opened is being represented by HPC as an historic alleyway. Conversely, the curb cut on Bleeker that has been a parking area for many years is now being represented as inappropriate for parking. At the meeting of February 13, we heard the City Council state that the one option NOT on the table was the opening of the alley off of Monarch, We urge the City Council to reconsider keeping the platted alley as undeveloped open space as there are several viable alternatives to opening the N. Monarch alley in this pedestrian sanctuary. Please choose to not open the alley on Monarch and to preserve this block as an important entrance to Aspen's historic & pedestrian West End. Please support the interests of all of Aspen's citizens who enjoy this historic walker friendly block, Sincerely, Barbara Reid & David Hyman Community Development Department C/O Aspen City Hall 130 S. Galena St., 3rd Floor, Aspen, CO 81611 Email: iamesl(aJ.ci.aspen.co.us Fax: (970) 920-5439 March 6, 2006 To Mayor and City Council: As the concept for the development at 202 N. Monarch has revealed itself in stages, I must stand by my original premise: the opening of the historically unopened alley on N. Monarch is inappropriate. This was unanimously confirmed by the Planning and Zoning Committee and voiced by city council on Feb. 13, 2006. Torre: "I do not support opening the alley off ofN. Monarch Street." Rachel: "I do not support opening the alley offofMonarch." Jack: "I'm not excited about opening the alley." Helen: "I am not in favor in opening the alley," I felt that this decision was decided for the safety of the "pedestrian walk experience," various tours, ELC children, bicyclists, and walkers. The city has taken an easement to direct people down the hill at Monarch and Hallam to encourage pedestrian access. Also, the unchanged history of the residential neighborhood and streetscape was highlighted in "Aspen's Early Days - A Walking Tour," Lastly, there were viable alternatives that were adjusted in exhibit "c" of the packet. Every home owner on N. Monarch is opposed to the alley opening, as well as many members of the public, The new information received by the City Council on Feb 27th, swaying some members to change their opinions, needs to be addressed: I. The slope for the Bleeker St. access relocated in Exhibit "C," does not slope downward toward Mill St. A licensed contractor from "One At A Time" construction shot the grade, which rose from 0 inches from Monarch Street to 10 \<I inches higher, at the new point of access on Bleeker (100 + feet). Therefore, drainage runs back to Monarch and down to Hallam, Monarch's comer can accumulate more ice, due to the sunnier north side of Bleeker and the more rigorous plowing of that street. Pedestrian traffic on Bleeker would be accessed by the new sidewalk created, plus the added safety of the parallel sidewalk of the Jerome, The Feb. 27th packet to Council notes the City Manager saying, in regard to access from Mill and (the new) Bleeker, "The dual access points illustrated in exhibit "c" may be appropriate as well." Philip Hodgson Page 1 2, Another entry on new information concerned the 1904 Sanborn Insurance map. Looking at the Sanborn maps from 1890, 1893, and 1898, there exists an approximate 12' x 12' structure in the platted alley. The alley is characterized as continuous from Monarch to Mill St., which would be dubious with the hillside. Also, on the 1896 Willits map, a reference for H.P.C., 212 N. Monarch has an outbuilding projecting into the platted alley. Lastly, the 1893 "Bird's Eye View of Aspen" recently used by H.C.P. on this development, shows the existing city alleys, with none at this site. I believe that the Sanborn maps are showing platted alleys only, plus structures. These last two examples, plus the 1890 photograph, can be seen in the "Aspen on the Roaring Fork" book, previously viewed by Council. The "foot path" pointed out by H.P.C, does not constitute an open alley; further, 202 N, Monarch and 212 N Monarch would not have constructed their homes with an open alley alongside. Finally, I am in the possession of a warranty deed from April 1892 concerning the sale of the property at 212 N. Monarch Street. This deed includes the statement, "Also all his right title and interest in and to the alley way between said lots and lots K. 1. and M. in said lot" (78). This does not give me claim to the current alley, but I offer this as more proof that the alley was not opened. 3, I have examined the nine examples of "Landmark" historic homes, supplied by H.P.C. with their side facades on an open city alley. I would discount the two in question, (202 and 212 N. Monarch), as they do not meet the criteria, as of yet. The others: a. II? N. 6th St. is a new house; b. 319 N. 4th St. and 405 Gillespie are not on alleys at all; c. 701 N. 3rd is on a street corner, not an alley; d, 635 E, Hopkins faces an alley, with a city lot between it; e. 311 S. I st does side with the alley behind the Ice Garden rink, but not on a dead end alley, and not in the west end; and f. The last example is 525 N. 2nd, again, is on a through alley with a tapered, unbuilt parcel on the other side. These examples do not reflect the situation on the Monarch site, Bleeker St. has been the historic entry for the Elder property. 4, As far as speculation ofa garage at 212 N. Monarch, I have no intention of constructing one. The backyard is quite small and I wouldn't abut the historic residence. The three homes on our side (east side) have never utilized a garage, and I don't see that need. I would be willing to guarantee this intent, or sell any T.D.R. 's. that may be available to me, to insure this, One correction to H.P.C.'s calculation on my north side is an actual measurement of 16 feet, not 10 feet. This has been my response to the new information presented and if the Monarch alley remains closed, the matter of keeping it under City control, or vacating is up to the Council- the pros and cons are yours to decide. As alleys have the potential for breaking up the massing of dwellings, a City owned, unopened alley might be a better alternative Philip Hodgson Page 2 for a continuation of open space. If the opening occurs, I would mention the subalpine fir tree which grows near the Monarch end ofthe alley, It is not a common tree in the City of Aspen and is of considerable size. I have been told (Tom Cardamone from ACES), that it is a fragile variety with an extensive root system. Colorado State University states that the roots are as long as the tree is tall; therefore, as the tree has likely extended its roots into the platted alley, I would have concerns for the tree's welfare. Also to be mentioned is the full complement of utilities running the length of the unopened alley. The last item on the alley I want to mention is my present parking situation, because I feel it still has not been understood. When I inquired about parking off of the street, I did not raise the current solution. This solution was posed to me by Michael Gassman (member of the 1990 City Council) and the 1990 City Attomey, With consent of my neighbor at 202 N, Monarch, Reinhard Elder, the pad was allowed with a valid, City of Aspen, "no parking in driveway" sign installed on Monarch Street. This was agreed verbally and therefore no written record was recorded. I did not take this site without asking; rather, I am using this pad at the City's recommendation. The City instructed me not to permanently pave the pad to allow for access to the utilities, The "novelty joke sign" was a gift with no legal bearing; likewise, the sign is in the parking area, not the on street to discourage motorists. I have said that I will close this pad at the City's request, but the implication that I parked there without asking permission is wrong. As far as the potential development at the "Blue Vie," I would agree that Council should have concems over the impact of the project. This was initially raised by Council and my observations have been documented in former correspondence. New comments concern H,P.C, code, Chapter 9: moving a historic house is discouraged unless it's the only viable option. If access from Bleeker was granted, that would be a compelling reason to relocate, for accommodation of access to the rear of the home, as H.P .C. encourages, I would take issue with Mr. Clausen's mention of solely a crawl space existing under the Elder's home. I must state that there is a good sized basement in the Elder's home, by perhaps, Victorian standards. I met with Tim Semrau on a possible solution to restrict development on a split residential lot. While I found his offer unfeasible for me, I felt my solution would equal his request. We both agreed that, with City input (TDR's, Open Space Fund), a solution could be achieved. I apologize for the length of this letter, but I feel that my remarks are new and this was the time to present them. I am enclosing some documentation to supplement my statements for your perusal. Thank you for this considerati n, - Philip Hodgson 212 N. Monarch St. Philip Hodgson Page 3 ~ . 5 ~ , ~ -E o . ~ , ~ o . ~ f , ~\\ q ] 0.\ ;;~\, ~ (; w ,,~ ,'1 ,,<e;.; \' '.; ~~: ~ \'\l'l \,j ," ~"~ ;~ ~:. " '.' ~ ~ . o ] " ~ . , . , o . , ; . , ~ "'. ," .~ '0" " --;, --, ~ :s " ]11 ~ ~ ~.~~ 'th i~; l]) ~\o,' Q),~ :<\ Q ,~ (f) l' -.-< ~ .c ~ ~ ~ \ ~ '" ,; ~I ~I ; o " ~ ~ ~ ~ o . ~ . ~ ~ " ~ " f -0 v " . U5 ] . -" o o . U . ;:; :i E-< ~ "' "' ~ ~~ 8 ~ " '" " " '" " ~ ] 'E " ~ oS t ~ .~ M, ~' ;: \. .:..~.o~ f .... "",''- ri. ~"\~>~ ~ l::'\;:~\ : tlO -;:;:' ("'i. .s ~ 2.\~ B ~ -g\.; ~' \... ~ ] :::: 8 -E -5 0 ~ '6 f ~ c3 '~ ~ ,,:. ~ \:,;-- .~~ ~; \:,~. ~: " ~ . " ~ '" ~ " ~ 0 " -j '" " ~ s 0 ] . ~ ~ '" " " ~\ '5' ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ] ., ~ i ~ ~ f .S 0 8 . ] ~ o' M " .~ .. " $ "2 ":I 0: ;; >~ .\~ \ ~ \~" \; , , , '; ~ ~ , , ,~ ~l ,>..'-..-... , ~. ~ f\~ \J ~\ ~ "'" ~~. '\:; ~ '\t " .~ ( ~ " ',',.\; .~ '-.c., .~ , ~ \:; ,. ~ ,\ ~ ,,",', <; , ". . \'" '.", ~ ,~ i:) ~ , \ ~. ~ ,;:: ~,~ \\~ \~, }.. >,- \..., "'~ \ ' . I: 0 ~.\ t. ,~ ~l . \. ,~ ';,;~ , ~~ " \ " .' t' C " > " , " ~ " \ '- \ \ \ , "~ ~ '\ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ) '~ \: ~ .~ ~ , J: .~ '..: . ~ , ~ , ~ " "" ..::' '., .r P N' Ji ;r 1- ~ ~ i ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ 9 OJ ~ l."f::l ~(a > ~ "< '~' 'V..siI: : ; ~0,.I\: g t.f-<~~: .~ ~ S tf ~ ~ 2 ~ 1; ~ ~ "g ~."" 0 ":I =Q., i: e " c.. '" .. E ,. v bD~~ .s .~ -g 0: Q '.. ,,13 "[.~ ~~-.: ;-u.~ P.. ~ i] ":I ~ 2'<: .~ C =" ., "._L L .:~~ 0 o ~:: g M. .~c~.~ ~ _.0 i g a ..p .. J: ~ o ~ 0.. - ~ OJ '::' ;:I = .," ~ f <5 'i ., ~ "2.~-" OJ'::'..p -5 ~ ~j '~ .,'" .. if [~,E ~ o..~ 0 ::: ;,E ~ ~ 0; 0" ; ~.=~ a ~ '0 ~ jj.~ e ~ 0- " . " -,,'-,., ., ';;0 <5 ; :: :. e..!!: ., ., :; ,;;.!:! 1':-5 bD - .~ .:: ~ 1 - ] '" I': _ 0...... "O'Oj'o; ~ .... ; ~ tf - ~.:"O.:;~ ~ ~ '" <i: :J .s ~.g ~ 0 '::.~ ~._ ~ :r: :;; :::c: e'O 0 0: ~ e~~ ] g g ~'-~ ~ E-< ';; :i o:r:: ] -.) " .,:\ J'~ ~~' \:) \: , , \~ \} ] " ~~ ~ q~~ ~ \j;. ~ ~ '" ~ .~ ,~' .,".", ." --\ ~ '" '~ , ,.\~ \ \' \J , _i ~ ~~ 1~ ~ ~:~ ~]o i'~ .: ~ _, ~:.;;:i 'i ~ .g~.,~~"Ot:\~ t ., ~ 1ii e 5 2..' ~ -" E E E ~ :9 ~'O~'~.~-5: 'i: .,.- E ...-= ~ .~ 'TJ .."0 0 ::: _ c..:: g '" .-.\' ~ ~ : ll':\', '" t, ~ w ]. ~ i:. -2\,-5 '"g " ~ ~r,\ ~",15~~2..S ;."~ ~ -" '" 0 ~ 'TJ 0.. "0 -...;; n HH! : ,f .<: ] ~.~ i g ~ g rQj ., i ~1:'~.s ] l ~i -" ~~~ i B E .<: ,'\..'."~\.: 'OE":;:._o..';., _ ",\. 'C : ~ i~ B ,\ ~ ~. 1: ~.; t: c; '\>..:"..'.....:\". ~.~ ~:; \ "- ~~:; I i'~' ~~~:-5 g~ .0';;: ~.::: ~ ~ "':: -" ~ - ;: ~]\O"... ci 13 .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <i '" ;t':s..;;rx. '" -5~~~~~L 0'<: 0 u..'1" .. ~~ .., o.E@ o..x 0.. ~ "r.. '0 ~ -st&,. 0 ~ ______ <i: 0: ;1:....=c 5t:l ~ .5 0.. 'Z~6~i: Elt -5 '0 ~ ~ 'J: 2~l ~Zo ... ~ 1~~ ~ 0 ~ ~ \:' -5 . tID~'.,,,-.,z t:\. ~ ',..c '\.' '~OJ 1! o:r:: ,,~., t: '.::: ,-' Ii],;>- i'lE-< 0.. ::l ~ ~_.", "r-.,~ =z ~ &:: ] L E,:" ':o:r:: :i l:l .. -g~ ~o; II .~ 2,,-, '" ~,~ .;;; a:!-< 'd ., '\" oJ ",X= bD< ~ ~ .-;..~"'..('~> ~ ~ ~~E,,~~""g 'i ~ ~':~~~ .~~ 0:: A .~ [~~ ~] ~! ~ ti ~ l~~ ~ ~ r.Il .!l ~:::E~]~i2 ! ~ 0 ~ ~~'~ iii ~ -g ~'~~j~~ ~ I H lP ~ ~ · 00 OO! " > . '" ~ ,r~ 'q~ ~ \ ~ ); ;' . ~\'>;:~\s -~ 't ~ ~~~ ~ :\ .... "';_"J "t> \S ~ <:: <'[\0,: ~ e A~\'" 1;: \.;~ tiM). ~jln .Dlin) t!:> 2!ln'lllH llI!I mil EJ - IIl!Wm 1li1J~ Pin) C A ~. C;'"OllJbD>' ~;;!ii:;.5.8 '" '" ""8 .:= 0 ~ '"C.~ (j ~~ ;:E ..0':'::: =' . 13 g e F "'" .f' ....lnt5l-o~gu ~ l::::....... C ~.- Q)"'-' ell ........... CIS :d :t::"'" <l:l :; z'" e ~ .... tv u 0 "" .. .- >- '" ,,"" ",::::t:-,,"-5-S !ii] 11-13:B.:s'O . t: <oo)..c:g 5 ~lU~.~:=:"E' ~ ""C 0-.... as .... '"0 ..c""'C;;.(lJ >-.....~::3c~~ ..ct,5'So.i:Q "S;l 13 '8~bOgU ~ "" c::2~ aCtIO :: _..0- ~ ClS o : ~ c:: Q) ell .- =--- s: ~ o:;::s ;;.""C bD c: ~..8;:S~~~:I: ..0 U':l~'" 1.fJ::: E ltl U III ClS Q) 1~ C~.8..c..c QJ ;Il::c:: Q) ""1' ~ Q) .....:l I,., ...... t- Q) ;g' ., .... '" :> O ~:,;).~ .f""I;> ..c:E':;::,.J;;j~cQ) Q) >.tr.l...... ~ _...c= -:S 6 .. o..c .""" ",~>-!lE~ m- ~ II) r:: ~ 4.l CIS ~ a~::E "'~., -,,0 .=~~ 1:l-5 "...,; ~ 0 r... .=di:l~~'a '" ~ li 1 ';i b:::: ::>~-<~Q:!:I! . " ~ "" 0 ~~ ~ !l 0", " ~ bOO ",-" " " Q.J .~ -5t: " " ~ o e ~ '" ., '" 108 .8~ o " ~ 1J e " " " bO~ " ~ .- " ~~ "'''' 'l;;"" ~ ~ . .t: "" o ~ (:S ]~..e >6] "~-€h ~ ~.- ~ Es ~ " bO- QJ C::!.S -5]5 QJ "C :g ~;~ :::: " :2-5 ~ . . . .... on :::=- o :c .... ... ca: :c .~:::: Q) .." ...... al~ CIS .- ~:: ~ ~ >.~~ s: c ;;0. CIS ~ al.~ ~ " E co ~ 0. In o-i Q,l ~~~Gb ~ - '" ~s::::s: ...... "I:: C o ,,::> E ., ~ :g .S ~..8 11 " ~ ~ ~ -:S ~ .... ~t.iJ'.EJ: ..0 C In .... .s bO '" ~ lil.5 6l, 6..c~~ ..Q"'" ~ "'0 ::: "'l ...... l:::: .. Q.J o cu ::::!: c... 0 as .;<l " t:..<: Q)"; ClS U E " " QJ'"C ~.t o ,,0 ..c . ctI ~ 1! '" " ...,. ...... ~ [; ~ ...... 0 E..VI .~: 8 [J '"" ~~ o::X= e 0)::: 0 C3 ~]g~l l1 e"" " o ~ . o Z 1m III ~ ~ ~ C l8 Examples of land marked properties with houses facing the short, rather than the long side or the block. 117 N. 6'h Street 319 N. 4th Street 405 Gillespie 70] N. 3rd Street 525 N. 2nd Street 311 S. First Street 635 E. Hopkins Avenue 212 N. Monarch 202 N, Monarch &1f?o~ ~:?0 I I, , :1; ! ! \ I, i ~r- I,." ,'!~' ;; ._'/ t: ! ~~:1~ · ;:i:! ,\ ."t' It ~ --\' .. I' ~ .--4., , . . :'. I -~, I" ii., ' , \ '\' ., I . I I' '\" ~ j" \,;, r.-;' . \ " ,I ;/, ," ' " ., i \. ' ' I ' " · / ' \ 'Y':' '1" I II ',,/ ' ; , ' ".' " . , , .,,' ' . , '. I' ,I' :a..')" /"~ -~~ ,t , ' ,,' ,,--' '" . ,.,t; _ \. . . ~ . \ ~!~~~.~,'A "~. t ~' l~i' /I~.' _ ~ I I ..~ a-"'~~: ____.:'lI.... ., . ,J.',. .n-'" ,_,'0 _.--......./ "-, " I ~ '~Ii i 3;.1. --. - ~~~.....,-.. ~$' - _.. ,,<; I ,: =,..."., "":'1' } ._, ~., i . i: l' i !I.,~=r,-~, I'; fL " 'I .1' " 'l' ~ · ~ ' - I!' 'I" '. . " ~ I i ,f~' ',) <~'~\' ,} ..-!~ '~i' :".7,j. ... -.. ! ~ ~' . . ~< .~;",:...:' ..,",,: -'-,"n "~':"~""' '~-f~.~t~~'f4 ~ ';C'~~L ,~- ,...;.~.. '-.c, -o-..-___...-;~ ~~_ ~~",~<.:'" .'. .. -.._,:".--.:' ::-' ......... ...Ji......._:_ ,'t;. .-". :_... . _ _ \ \ '7 t\). 6 ~ (~~~ ~lq ~. tf&- '0 ~ ~ ~"W~",-,,\ '"'D ~~\G.tfl- ~bW~ Il...l..L~Y~ 405 6-tlt.es~le klO\ 61..:) '!>'u t>"LLre-y '70 l N.. '3~ ~~S ON "5~ ~D, \ t>...LLEY. S'~'::> ~. ;;(~ ~ \h~\O ~ , \$uTl\~ l\LLe:y 1.N\\\"t \,,\'~ \..~ C\J~~ -s.~~ ~u~ c.~\)CE" ~ ~Rt:\\Cr +\?c 1;:::x~'Y\...~ I " \ ~\..:)~~ 3\\ 5. \ S\; ~ ~I.., ~~~ To ~ ~\,)\ . t\Q~ "R\.)\JS ~O>>.\. \"\ "SOOt.0$. ~ ~ellttS C%' />v:) -f\tu;:;y O),j ~ I.~e;- \jk.:lk"~,",\Je - '36 ~.\Io\>\<<1.l5 M.LI;!'-( \.'5 ~ <g<::lM..~~ oN L..~ _ ~o"'" ~p.., '"\r\~l;G..'tt- A.~ LP{:> c. Cl "'5 L') B - . AL.~l~ ~l~ I >t \\\,f\(\ -$~~~'S I 1l\JV N...~~.~ ~ f><.r:a.~ ~. Lo\::lcr- ~ ;> ,:.i -rl~ .......-=. ~ ,;.._1, \J'{'"""-";"" ,,~......~ \"S ~LL- ';~~. -.. ~ ~-"'- r' '.". ..-, ...,;., : . .._,,,.,,,;~ : _.~.__~Li/:;..."..._.,=", \jn.L\\\.e::; \10 ~~_ ~..-....'~ ..--'<1 t...-"'-- Lc:~ c...\.~ ?.f'-.'~.:c-\~G- "'S.lG.l.) ~~~ oc=- ~O\.l6-T"( 'S.\~ ~"'a.. HlbIE;';; '::!I"!J~ ..,I~Y;;~~ .:PA8JQNfr:c~ PARkl~G~~ '. ONLY: ONLY'"- "Alt~M.i.. I, ,I , i '~ .ill.......... ..,~\"';, '" ~l.,.. \ 1l 1 .y,..-,.. 1 ' . :-.1"/,' "." )1,1.- ~ ;::It;:~~: ~ ' ;~~~~J~~Ji parking signs. The parking signs measure rarkangC-Slns 12"w x 18"t. Each sign has an epoxy Durable .oated base-for resistance to the weather measure c..o~~"T\OI...:>-s. -:;;'~y Ol-.J ~ "S-\-\......~~. ;:s-~~ ~ th~ dr '1SLeE:K.~ ..... \'I€ -SLO~e: ~'<S.e.S ~ 'M.O\,:)t\.~c.\,\ \\\~G-'<\. ~ ~a..cc..k~b ~ (~~'Bl\ ~c.~ I ~'e~~~ \. T' '~ \0 ~ ~\ \....\.. '5\, \8cto ~cr..~~~ "~. ~~~"\CE. ,,~~~ ow "t\\e If ~o~~, We;.. ~~~ ,~;:~:'. ~. ';' ~ t"~~' B, , ff:~#~1 t '~i2il '. "t' ,e 6: , ,l ~,,' I ,.,,,/j},' ~ ~:~ I' ',~ 'w5~!>i./ ' , :'t." '13 'Ii, _. ~'~ / f:---;~ L; ''''E ~,' _<.;3lC, / f3,'~-...! jf ',=~. /f' ~~o_ ~7:~-:11 ;':./, /V'_~,"o . , [".. '~I' ,-. ., _ _ _ <,~ '--' ell, -- .. 'L; 0 ~ . r.. -. --, '0(-' ~' . , .'l{ij ~--.s,... ~~'.: ~..... ~j'~""::'" ~ ,-q .._~-., _ .. -----+ "'fjfrt .....~tI. i' ..' /' .>;c~rr-'-,_ ~' .If':"t-:',;.,/ l'iit.::./~--I ,,-.'- cr- ..' ~ .. '~ .~ .. "1~q-t+wet.~I'!fj! II q ~ " ~ ~t 1* ptr9fi'/r~it -'~1i~7g:j:~~'L~ff'~.<~~: ;.c:~,,~ ". ~ iJIIr~.'. ~'~I :1" j tl~ r:...j lj -: .~~ - . '., :..r.~ ! ~-s~__ I ~j.. .--1 - If ~~r:.::rlf ~., .. l~t J'".,,~.,., , I ~ i :".: J ~"'--'~~~~7 l :- T(~. ~~........ :..: . ~... ______ J ,.1" 1 - ~ .. ! , . .. "'..,. .~, '0!V~ >, ~ ~ . G. I1!E -" ~ .. o""........c..... -'----- .. ..!? f" ,.t, t ~ ':;..---... ------, .... ' , , .i~: 0' . ; ~ ---:I r.........jj- '~ / C/'., ~ ." "j , ~.4: ~ ~,::'7.' 'i~'" . ~ e r;a,-I I" ,"'f ,.. t- ~ f B fi I bt J' G r , JQ ~ '1' 0,,-< .~;. . ,~ ~ 117 "1. .......< ~- ~/S. l!j:. !!: " I' 4;( ~, '!:< gn~ 1; , i~,! , I "' - Ie<;' ...,' c , , c'.-/ t:==? I /', . /: ,; r- I / , 0 /.4'" - " ~~I 1i' / .;;,- , ~ I . ..'1.," C}.-;;....., " / / f', ~. ~i "3".y /% ".. "1 i'~;'~, ~#\~~ J~:; ,.> f't:' "~$// ',,- ,~ ',~ ;.', _/j, h ". tr- ~ ' I ~ / q,j, P.J' ,ll;: \ " 1/ 'J" i " ..... \'lPQ-,: ' "'1' ~. ~ ,,' r~l.f ~ / ~;;: /"1, /;, I ,,~ .' ~",": :/:1,< '. ~.v~ f '(" ...~., ~~ ~~ <> .. ,\ - b -<::. 9~, :--.: ,'~ 0 ,,"'~ ,,\\ ';-"_~ ~~ -t, ~' : .~-r'~' / ~~' ,'. ~7.' < : II.; /4 ~~l" ... ~, ~/ J ~.: / 0 Ii. ' ~,,~v/;' ~-., J' ~ ~'~~, z, ~~'.<'''<l>-~ '."" --~ .I Ii 1 0 ~' r! II '1 ,,/1, ~ ..,/,;>~ .. , . ;- " -, '.~ ;....~ :ga 6) },' l '-" " ~ 1 " ~,It,~ ~~ '. r!rfiT~~~Jr?'$ , 'j .. t-- :" ~l ---:'_"'_'__._'_~-'-~----~"__''''_~-''~'_':'-' f.....~:...c.- --&;.: . ---_ ...- <.l) ...D 0, vi {/I t ~J. ~ if (iIJ 8 5 t ~, S / :;; [, ~ ,- F ~ /' .;. C ~. & rJ "C ~K ,1 r ~ 6 t c ~ ~~ n ~ 1':--'_ -;: . ~~ ,~~ ,---- m 1I~ ~ ~. 'f t-' - _'.I " ~ ~ \P ~ OJ {}. l ,~ i '- - ~ ... , .It. .' -~P "...~:'_. ;'-'- - " .... '.1. , , '/. .':tlj;.',...,../ ."-::", ~ 0 ~ rl- G ff ~ E } ~ '[ F ~Sr ~ 5 ~ z::- g s C 1 U f, ;r; cP-?- c ~ d ~ 7j r .. --":::::1--" ';~"":"i~'J'T :-_.i,~ ;;;:'i!;"-,/c:':-~"'''''>",*,.M """','?"',;''20~'!f;Z'lfftfff> ,>:,.-" .. .-,'-:-' ,',' "0_ --"~->F. ," '.'..'~,~' '. Il"'" . , '~ : . -':"\':.:'..'", :-, __,-_'>':.: .:::-,- -','0> '. "'._,\' _'~C , - .-' ',- . - -' - - - . . '. .' .',- _ "'.' ,- U". . - . '. . ", - - ,~ -";'~---"'---!!!!t..~ ~.".w....~-_.' ,~ .' ~ - 17- ,- If, 0 ()\ G ". f v f q' ::-.~ f: r (j) -;: G G ,Q f 7 l ~ ~ ~ 5 ,", I ~ ~~;~l ~ ~s , >~,,~ X~ 0"0- I f f ~ o () iii' C f( :J. U' Cuthbert L. Myrin Jr. 300 PUppy SMIIII SI, # 203,101 Asrr.N, COLOR/\[)() 81611 [-MAIL Bm I@MYRIN.l,OM TUJ.I'HONl. 970925'2691 h\\.SIMILL 8[5-361'9[23 WWW,MYRIN,l,lM March 7, 2006 VIA EMAIL Members of the Aspen City Council City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 202 N. Monarch Land Use Issnes - Subdivision & Opening of Alley Dear Members ofthe Aspen City Council: I am writing to you in my capacity as a citizen of Aspen concerned about the tool of "more development" proposed by the Community Development Department as the solution to every issue in Aspen, Most recently this tool was applied to a recommendation by that department to develop a brand spanking new subdivision to envelop a historic Victorian home, The larger travesty is the recommendation by this department to open an alley that has never before been opened to serve this subdivision which, if like others in Aspen, will likely have owners that are rarely in town to use this never before opened alley, The previous owners of the Victorian raised generations of family enjoying the local school systems yet had no conflicts with their access from Bleeker St. On another note, Jack Johnson was correct that there is some benetit to both adjacent neighbors (Hodgson's & Blue Vie) ifthere is not a new house squished between the two, Others in Aspen also appreciate the land around the Blue Victorian as one enters the West End from a busy commercial core, This feeling by others is well summed up in the quote below: "I've always loved that house with all that land around it. I think the land size around it is very appropriate, I don't know what you would come back with on a continuance," Helen Klanderud just prior to her vote to continue the meeting, So, how can the love of all the land around the house be something that future generations can come to love? The developer of Blue Vie offered to sell the north 45 feet of Lots K,L&M for $1,485,000 with 7 TDR certificates and no future development rights, The developer agreed that $300,000 of additional value would accrue to the Blue Victorian without a house squished in next door and considered lowering the asking price for the land by about 1/5 to $1,185,000, The Hodgson's as adjacent neighbors perhaps could contribute $300,000 to reflect 20060307 City Council TDRs.doc lof2 .._-"----...,._<,,...,...,,.....~--,.,...,..-._.......~.~_.~......_~.,_.,.. .. ,-.,~- Members of the Aspen City Council Page 2 of2 the additional value accruing to their property thus making up 2/5 of steps to preserving the land along Monarch tor future generations to come to love, This covers the first $600,000 leaving $885,000 unresolved, The developer estimated the 7 TOR's are worth $525,000 total ($75,000 each), The problem is that no City TOR's have sold so the true value is unknown, (fsold for $125,000 each, or $875,000 total, this would resolve the issue of retaining the land so loved around this Victorian, I suggest pursuing one of two solutions, First, the City purchase the TOR's for $875,000 and place them on the free market to establish a basis for this tool of Historic Preservation, Vacant land in the zones where these TOR's can land is listed for approximately $1,000 per square toot of above grade developable FAR, 1 sent a request to every member of the Board of Realtors on their general Listserv for assistance on valuing TOR's to'no avail. Would the City be willing to help in this way to establish a value for TOR's? Alternatively second, the value placed on the TOR's by the developer could chip away at just under 2/5 more of the pie or $525,000, The developer is in the business of development and could either sell these for the value he estimated or alWly them to a development of his own, In the alternative with the developer retaining the TOR's, what about the tinal 1/5? Perhaps a bake sale as suggested by the developer or the Open Space Fund as suggested by Jack Johnson or the old Aspen approach that Les Holst took to raise funds tor Pioneer Park of pitching a tent and camping out on the land until the funds were raised, 1 encourage you to consider Jack's suggestion as it brings the City in as a partner in 1/5 with the adjacent neighbors and the TOR program, Amount $1,485,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $225,000 $360,000 Balance $1,485,000 $1,185,000 $885,000 $585,000 $360,000 $0 Please consider dedicating some time and energy to making these 5 pieces of the pie come together to allow future generations to enjoy the same love of this house with all the land around it as so many people in our community have had the opportunity to love, Very truly yours, Bfal By: Cuth bert L. M yrin J r, Encl. Board of Realtors Listserv email 20060307 City Council TDRs.doc 20f2 .. ._.._'A"'_",",,___'_O'..._..._ . "'_._'''._'~'_''_'''." Bert Myrin From; Sent: To: Subject: aborgeneral@memberclicks.com on behalf of Bert Myrin [Bert@myrin,com] Monday, March 06, 2006 10:45 AM ABORgeneral@memberclicks,com aborgeneral: City of Aspen TDR's - 250 s/f FAR bonus. Help Greetings; This question is probably ridiculously simple and I am sorry to waste anyone's time with it, but I do not know the answer. A while back the City of Aspen initiated a TDR program, Each TDR provides an additional 250 square feet of Floor Area beyond that already allowed in the landing zones, City TDR's can land in the R6, R15, R15A, R15B, and R30 zones but not if the landi ng site is historic, Any idea what someone might pay for an additional 250 square feet of FAR? The simple answer is to list them and see but before listing it seems there must be some rational method to determine a listing price, The city has no record of any TOR's ever being severed from a property, perhaps because no one want's to be the first to discover their value or lack thereof, Vacant land in landi ng zones is listed for about $1 ,ODD/sf of developable FAR so when someone purchases vacant land they are willing to pay $1 ,ODD/sf of developable FAR, The Aspen Board of Realtors reviewed this email as appropriate for the General Listserv and requested that all replies occur off list so please reply directly to me and not to the I istserv, Thanks for your help figuring out a range of value for these untested City TOR's, . Bert Bert Myrin, Licensed Broker, GRI, ABR Real Estate Office of Cuthbert L. Myrin Jr., LLC, P.O. Box 12365, Aspen, CO 81612 Landline (970) 925.8645 Mobile (970) 925.2691 (815) 361-9123 Fax 03/07/2005 14:25 8502102142 SUZANNE H GALLUP PAGE 02 March 7, 2006 John H, and Suzanne H, Gallup I Jefferson Drive New Milford, CT 06776 J ames Lindt Community Development Department c/o Aspen City Hall 130 S. Galena St., 3rd Floor, Aspen, CO 81611 Fax'# (970) 920-5439, Email: jamesl@ci,aspen,co.us Dear Mr. Lindt: How can the City Council flip flop from a UNANIMOUS agreement for preservation of the unopened alley block 78 on North Monarch St. to now, fractured consensus with the possibility of allowing access for Tim Semrau's private enterprise? I think the City Council needs to revisit the public's priorities over those of a single developer, I do not support the response of the City Council in the second hearing, I find it difficult to believe such strong arguments were presented which overwhelm the irreplaceable values associated with this pedestrian lifeline, Please re-think your decisions here, I'm confused by the waffling.., Thank you ~'~ ' .J~za\. e a S~G:hs ) Ma~ 07 06 01:06p Fi~he~~ ~ Wild1i~e Sci. (505) 646-1281 p.2 James Lindt Cummunity Development Department, c/o Aspen City Hall 130 S. Galena St., 3rd !'Iour Aspen, CO IH611 Email;iamesl(iilci.aspen.co.us Fax: (970) 920.5439 March 6, 2006 Dear Mr. Lindt In a pn!vious letter to you, J stat,'d my agreement with the recommendation of the Planning and Zonine Commission on maintaining closure for alley block 71l. Furtller, I was pleased to find that City Council had come to a similar cons"nsus after hearine the proposal. However, I am greatly concerned that tlley Council has now taken a 180 degree turn tu no longer consider !lit' benefits of preserving the character of the blue Victorian in its historic setting, Constructing a driveway will disrupt the natural surroundings as there ar" currently S{~Vcra] trees in this area. What am I to think of Aspen? A town ready to ~t and dev,']op every squate inch of property, so then' is nothing familiar left in this town? I heard that the Mayor herself was drawn tu this particular atea in Aspen, Why now is she suddenly changing her mind? I hope the Cuuncil m('mbers can resist the temptation to comply with the develop"r's every request. I sure Tim Semrau has more plans up his sleeve for Aspen, Tlll're will be plenty of chances to appease him. Let's just not roll over to pad his pockC!t book for this very important part of town. Consider th,. needs of Aspen first. Once aesthetic values and viewsheds are destroyed, they cannot be Tl,deem(,d. SiI)l:erely", .' I " ( ; ./1"'/ }u. ~_~,-- L..f.JtllYf.L <.::-:-- Anlin'a Emst 2535 HagC!rty Rli, Las Cruces, NM 88001 Ma~ 07 06 01:06p Fishe~~ ~ WildliFe Soi. [505) 646-1281 p.3 March 6, 2006 James Lindt Aspen City Hall Community Development Department 130 S, Galena St. 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr, Lindt: I don't know who the City Council is trying to fool, bull will not stand for their insincerity. What could have possibly detracted the City Council from their previous unanimous agreement with the Planning & Zoning Commission's unanimous recommendation to oppose opening of alley block 78, The public was present at the first City Council hearing. Then, when the City Council had assured the public that the alley would not be opened, some Council members Change their minds when there was less public representation at the second hearing, How convenient for Tim Semrau to have convinced Counci) members to tum their heads to the public's overwhelming comments. This flippancy toward the citizens and visitors of Aspen is appalling, I suggest the City Council start thinking for the City, Thanks, ;;:;. ./ /', ." .,-?" .,,, " ,,~7 ~t::_,,~ Scoll Schrader 2535 Hagerty Rd. Las Cruces, NM 88001 '----.- I STANDARD}}REGISTER 03/08 '06 07:48 NO.299 01/01 814 833 0963 James Lindt, Community Development Department c/o Aspen City Hall 130 S, Galena St" 3rd Floor, Aspen, CO 81611 Fax: (970) 920-5439 Email: jamesICi!!ci.aspen.co.us March 5, 2006 Dear Mr. Lindt: This letter is regard to the recent reaction of the Aspen City Council in response to the "continuance" of Tim Semrau's proposal to open alley block 78 among other things, I was dismayed t.o hear that the City Council has suddenly changed their stance on the fate of this historic alley. Once again, I am concerned about the significant changes the proposed driveway access on Monarch would bring to this neighborhood. I am not clear on why City Council took made such a drastic change in their thinking following their previous unanimous decision to disapprove private access to the unopened alley. Aspen is a high profile community and t.hese needless development actions are not muted, Those of us in the region with friends and family in Aspen are quite aware of how the town is responding to development proposals. Many of us read the Asoen Times and follow the choices the individual City Council members make in response to requests with varying integrity. I suggest City Council listens to the public's comments because that is what leads to a cohesive community, Not every development action needs to be granted. City Council can also be remembered for doing good actions for the communit.y which inevitably supports the overall economy of Aspen. Sincerely, ;: tJ /;v-r-rv J~ -. Esther I. Nelson Las Vegas, NM i''''OO" 11:24 FAX 1fI001/001 8708270374 LAW OFFICES To the Aspen City Council, I was bom and raised in Aspen and am always saddened to see the houses and open spaces I remembered when I was young replaced by new buildings or large additions, I've come to understand that this is sometimes inevitable; however, it still bothers me to lose open space. I just recently learned about the current battle to open the alley along Monarch Street. I was very happy to hear that so many people spoke out against opening the alley since this is public land that does not need to be opened to development. But I am very confused why you have now decided to open the alley two weeks later after telling the public you fully agreed with them and wOllld never open it. This area has particular meaning for me, 1 attended school both at the Red Brick and Yellow Brick Schools and walked past these Victorians everyday, I always loved all the space around the houses and all the beautiful lilacs and trees on the property. This brings me to the point that although the elementary students were re-Iocated by the high school, the Red Brick and Yellow Brick still serve children everyday, Several times I have seen large groups of very young children walking down Monarch Street right past the alley. I think there will clearly be serious safety concerns with opening an alley at this location. I am encouraged that you are not in favor of allowing the developer to build a second house on the property, It would be such a sad sight to see this unique piece of land made synonymous with much of the other neighborhoods in town that contain Victorians with huge additions in the rear placed as closely as possible to the neighboring house, I hope you will consider the public concern and not open the alley, While it is very tough to control development on private property, this is a situation where you have complete control over our public land, Please do 110t hand it over for the use of one (and hopefully not two) house, Thank you, ~-LL Sarah Kuhn James Lindt From: Sent: To: Subject: dward@sopris.net Wednesday, March 08, 2006 8:42 AM James Lindt Alley on Monarch Street Dear James, I know this e-mail is beyond the deadline but I am out of town at present and hope it can in some way be included in the information regarding the decision concerning the possibility of opening the alley on Monarch. We have attended both the Planning and Zoning and City Council meetings regarding this issue. We have submitted letters at both times to indicate our serious objection to the opening of the alley. At both public meetings it was clear that there was unanimous opposition to opening the alley. Now, it seems the decision was reversed. How can the local public have confidence in the civic process if an event such as this occurs? Thank you, James, for your efforts throughout this process to include public opinion and additional information. Sincerely, Tom and Donna Ward This message was sent from Sopris Surfers Webmail www.sopris.com 1 MEMORANDUM VI\b TO: THRU: FROM: RE: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council III . Chris Bendon, Community Development Director()J\\fl!\ Jennifer Phelan, Senior Long Range Planne& Proposed Miscellaneous Code Amendments - Continued from Public Hearinl! on January 9. 2006 MEETING DATE: March 13,2006 In an effort to fully review and address issues raised by the City Council at the January 9, 2006, hearing and to make room for some current land use cases on the agenda of March 13'\ Staff has asked to continue the review of the code amendments to a later date, Staffrecommends that the Council open and continue the hearing to April 10, 2006, Recommended Motion: "[ move to continue the public hearing on Ordinance No,50, Series of2005, to April 10, 2006," Page I of I MEMORANDUM Vile TO: THRU: FROM: RE: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council ^ \ . I . ^ Chris Bendon, Community Development Director\)JWV I Jennifer Phelan, Senior Long Range Planner ~ Holiday House Affordable Housing Project - Planned Unit 1>evelopment (PUD) Amendment - Conceptual Review, Resolution No. '1-, Series of 2006 MEETING DATE: March 13,2006 SPECIAL NOTE: This staff report is new since the February 13th report and addresses issues raised by the City Council since the initial public hearing on this application. It contains the following: . A summary of the issues from the last meeting; . Staff comment; . Staff recommendation & motion; and . a resolution. Also attached is a portion of the original staff report of February 13, 2006. This is attached primarily to show the development proposal, background and dimensional standard matrices associated with the development so that you have this information at hand. The Applicant has not submitted any new materials to Staff with regard to the application, but intends to discuss the issues raised by Council at the continued hearing. **Council should bring the bound Aspen Skiing Company application from the last February 13,2006 hearing. We will have extra copies at the hearing. ** SUMMARV: At the February 13th public hearing for the Holiday House application, the City Council reviewed the proposal and moved to continue the meeting to March 13, 2006, At the February 13th hearing, a number of issues were raised by the Council that pertained to both the overall proposal and to components of the conceptual review of the planned unit development amendment. Below, the concerns voiced by the City Council are itemized issue by issue, Comments from Staff follow, Page I of 12 I) Conceptual Review issues with regard to the Planned Unit Development Amendment . Allowable Floor Area, The floor area should be reduced as well as the density of the project. The Applicant is requesting that an increase in the allowable floor area be granted allowing the size of the project to be 24,790 square feet, an increase of 1,165 square feet over the base allowance of 23,625 square feet. In a number of reviews before the Planning Commission, the Applicant has continually reduced the overall floor area of the project and has also reduced the overall density of the project by both bedrooms and dwelling units, A further reduction in the floor area by the Applicant to meet the dimensional requirement may not correlate to a reduction in the density of the project or result in a noticeable change in the scale of the project. The Applicant has indicated that they will be bringing in floor plans that show that they can meet the allowable floor area requirement for the Residential Multi-Family zone district. . Adequate Parking, Off-street Parking for the proposal is not adequate, In previous designs reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Applicant proposed more off~street parking spaces than the nineteen spaces currently provided for the twenty-five unit building (74 bedrooms), In one alternative the Applicant proposed twenty-nine parking spaces for a thirty-three unit building (84 bedrooms) and in a second alternative the Applicant proposed thirty. four parking spaces, more than the required one parking space per dwelling unit ratio, for thirty-one units (78 bedrooms), In both of the proposals that provided over thirty off. street parking spaces, much of the parking was provided by a sub-grade parking garage that was accessed via West Hopkins Avenue, In both proposals Staff recommended that access from Hopkins be denied as Hopkins is a designated pedestrian way and a direct private driveway access to the street will increase the potential conflict between vehicle and pedestrian, Where we have alleys in the City, it has been policy to use those alleys for access and service, Additionally, this type of access does nothing to enhance the pedestrian. friendliness of the building; instead the garage entrance creates a void in the face of the building. In fonner design iterations, Staff encouraged the Applicant to reduce the size of the project: number of bedrooms, number of units, F,A,R" and height. Staff also asked that the Applicant orient the parking along the alley, This compromise reduced the parking ratio and Staff supports this compromise, The Applicant feels that the Holiday House will have far fewer car owners due to the seasonality of the employees and the project is so close to town and transit. Providing information on the percentage of employee housing residents owning cars, seasonal occupancy, or the percentage of foreign workers housed in employee housing would provide better insight for comparison, Page 2 of 12 2) Residential Design Standards! Design Issues . The intent of the residential design standards is to improve a building's pedestrian orientation and scale, The design of the building has undergone a number of changes over time including: reducing the height of the building to meet the City's height requirements and reducing the front massing of the building adjacent to Hopkins and the historic house to the west of the site, Further reworking of the design of the building to meet all of the Residential Design Standards may help to soften it. However, the design standards that are not currently met (first story element and number of doorways facing the street) have little impact on the massing and scale of the building, Staff supports the current design, STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the project is consistent with the goals of the AACP in providing an affordable housing project that is located within the city near transit and within walking distance to the commercial core, As was previously stated in an earlier report, Stafffeels that there is certainly a need for additional affordable housing development, which is located near the commercial core and close to mass transit options, We feel this is a very good site for affordable housing, With the upgrades proposed, the proposal would also greatly improve the living conditions of residents living at Holiday House, Staff supports the FAR increase for affordable housing in this location as reducing the floor area may not result in less density but less incidental space such as storage and mechanical spaces, With the parking layout being accessed from the alley rather than Hopkins, Staff supports the parking reduction, However, additional information about ot1:street parking demand for this type of development and mitigation options to ensure that residents of the Holiday House do not bring more cars than the site can handle can be discussed in greater detail. Staff recommends conceptually supporting the F,A.R, increase and off-street parking reduction, The resolution includes approval for the floor area increase, a reduction in parking, and a required contribution to car share, CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMITlVE): "I move to approve Resolution No, 9, Series of 2006, approving with conditions, the Conceptual Holiday House PUD requests to construct a twenty-five unit (25) affordable housing multi-family structure on the property known as, Lots C, D, E, F, G and the east 7,5' of Lot B, Blk, 60, City and Townsite of Aspen," Page 3 of12 EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - Review Standards Exhibit B - Correspondence from Scott Martin and Katherine Sand to City Council dated February 16,2006 Exhibit C - Minutes of the February 13,2006, City Council hearing, INFORMATION FROM FBRUARY 13, 2006 STAFF REPORT: ApPLICANT {OWNER: Aspen Skiing Company REPRESENTATIVE: Phillip Ring & David Bellack Aspen Skiing Company LOCATION: 125 & 127 Hyman Avenue, Lots C, D, E, F, G and the east 7,5' of Lot B, Blk. 60, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO, CURRENT ZONING & USE Residential Multi-Family (RIMF) Zone District with a PUD overlay, the property currently contains 35 multi-family residential units within two structures, PROPOSED LAND USE: Multi-family residential building with 25 units, STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval with conditions, SUMMARY: The Applicant requests subdivision and associated land use approvals to demolish the existing thirty. five unit multi-family structures and replace them with a new multi- family structure that contains twenty-five affordable housing units, L PHOTO: Existing structures along W, Hopkins PHOTO: Existing structures from the alley, LAND USE REQUESTS: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals to redevelop the site: Page 4 of 12 . PUD Amendment to establish allowable floor area and the parking requirement pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445, Planned Unit Development. (Council will be considering Conceptual PUD approval), . Subdivision for the construction of multiple dwelling units pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision (action is taken at Final PUD Review), . A GMQS approval for the development of affordable housing pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470,040 C,7" Affordable Housing, The applicant is also requesting a credit for any excess housing built (action is taken at Final PUD Review), . Variances from the Residential Design Standards pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410,0200" Variances, The applicant is requesting variances from L.U,C, Section 26.410,0400,1., Street oriented entrance and principal window, and L.U,C, Section 26.410,0400.2, First story elements (action is taken at Final PUD Review), PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant has requested approval to demolish the eXlstmg thirty.five (35) unit multi.family affordable housing buildings located at 125 and 127 W, Hopkins Avenue and would like to replace the two buildings with one new building containing twenty. five (25) deed restricted affordable units, The property, located in a Residential Multi. Family (R/MF) zone district, allows multi-family dwellings as a permitted use, The property also has a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay upon it. The Applicant is requesting that the PUD overlay be amended to allow for a larger Floor Area Ratio (FAR) than what is allowed by the underlying zone district by an increase of 1,165 square feet and to allow for a reduction in the minimum number of off. street parking spaces required from twenty.five (25) to nineteen (19), Table 1: EXISTING UNITS Floor Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom Total Basement 7 I First Floor 7 3 Second Floor 5 3 Annex - First Floor 4 Annex - Second Floor 5 Unit Total 19 15 1 35 Bedroom Total 19 15 2 36 As noted in the application there are currently 64 beds at the Holiday House, Many units are dormitory style with bunk beds. Page 5 of 12 Table 2: PROPOSED UNITS Floor Studio 1 2 3 4 5 Total Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Lower Level I I I First Level I 2 I 2 Second level I I 5 I Third Level I 4 2 I Unit Total 1 2 8 3 9 2 25 Bedroom Total 1 2 16 9 36 10 74 In summary, the project would change as follows: . The units would decrease, from 35 to 25, . The bedrooms would increase from 36 to 74, . The beds would increase from 64 to 74, In conjunction with the anticipated development, the Applicant has designed a total of nineteen (19) on-site parking spaces, The underlying zoning requires one off-street parking space per dwelling unit or a total of twenty-five (25) off,street parking spaces for the proposal. All of the proposed parking spaces are surface parking accessed from the alley, The following table compares the proposed development dimensions with the dimensional requirements of the Residential Multi-Family Zone District, The shaded blocks indicate a difference from the underlying zone district and where the PUD would allow deviation, if approved: Table 3: DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Dimensional Requirement Proposed Underlying Residential Dimensional Multi-Family Zone District Requirements Requirements Minimum Lot Size 15,750 SF Existing 6,000 SF Minimum Lot Width 157,5 Feet 60 Feet Minimum Lot Area/Dwelling 630 SF: I No Requirement Minimum Front Yard Setback 10 Feet 5 Feet Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 Feet 5 Feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback 10 Feet (building) 5 Feet Five Feet (dumpster enclosure) Maximum Height Up to 32 Feet 32 Feet (for parcel density 2- one unit per 1,500 SF oflot area) Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.57: I or 24,790 s.f. 1.5: I or 23,625 s,f. (for parcel density 2- one unit per 750 s,f. oflot area) Minimum Off-Street Parking 19 Spaces One per unit or twenty-five Page 6 of 12 STAFF ANALYSIS: Council will only be considering the PUD Amendment, bow ever, analysis is provided on the other land use requests. Comments from Staff follow in a separate italic paragraph. PUD Amendment A Planned Unit Development (PUD) is a process in which a site specific development plan is created which encourages flexibility and innovation in the development of land and promotes objectives outlined in the Land Use Code (LUC) and goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) by allowing the variation of the underlying zone district's dimensional requirements, The parcel currently exists with a PUD overlay, however, based upon the new development proposal the PUD must be amended and dimensional requirements established, The applicant is requesting that the allowable floor area and minimum off-street parking be varied, Off-street parking requirements can be varied through the Special Review process (LUC Section 26.430) or through the PUD process, Staff is recommending that the parking requirement be finalized as part of the development plan of the PUD, but that the Special Review criteria also used in evaluating the parking, Allowable Floor Area: With the current size of the parcel and density proposed on the parcel, the Applicant is allowed a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.5: I or an allowable floor area of 23,625 square feet. The Applicant is requesting a FAR allowance of approximately 1.57:1 or an allowable floor area of 24,790 square feet. This represents an increase in the allowable floor area of five (5) percent or 1,165 square feet, Through a number of design iterations, the Applicant has progressively reduced the floor area of the building, Included in Table 4 are some examples of FARs of other projects within the Aspen Infill Area, Table 4: FLOOR AREA RATIOS Development Lot Size Density FAR Aspen Townhouses 12,000 SF I unit per 1,333 SF 7,708 SF* of lot area Cottonwoods 15,000 SF I unit per 833 SF of 19,815 SF* lot area Little Ajax 26,596 SF 1 unit per 1,899 SF ,82: 1 or 21,808 SF of lot area Seventh and Main 9,000 SF 1 unit per 750 SF of ,96:1 or 8,640 SF lot area Draco 6,000 SF I unit per 857 SF of 1.04: I or 6,250 lot area SF** Holiday House 15,750 SF 1 unit per 630 SF 1.57:1 or 24,790 SF (Current Proposal) of lot area Holiday House 15,750 SF I unit per 508 SF of I :87: I or 29,521 SF (Previous Submittal) lot area Notes: * Data was gathered from Pitkin County Assessor website and is gross square Page 7 of 12 Develo ment Lot Size Densi FAR footage, **The FAR shown is the allowance for the residential component. The entire lot, which includes a commercial component, was allowed a maximum of 1,64: I The Applicant is requesting afive (5) percent increase in the allowable Floor Area. This number has decreased over time as the Applicant has evaluated different design scenarios, Staff helieves a five (5) percent increase in the floor area is a nominal increase for the development of affordable housing. However, at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of January 3, 2006, the Commission requested the Applicant further reduce and meet the underlying zone district requirement for allowahle floor area. Off-Street Parking: In previous submittals the Applicant had proposed to provide a combination of underground parking accessed via Hopkins Avenue and surface parking from the alley, Due to concerns with regard to vehicular access from Hopkins which is also a pedestrian/bicycle corridor, the Applicant is currently proposing to provide surface parking that is accessed from the alley, The Applicant is requesting a reduction in the off- street parking due to the limited number of employees that will have vehicles and for removing the vehicular access point from Hopkins Avenue, The request is to reduce the number of required ofl~street parking spaces from twenty-five (25) to nineteen (19), The Applicant has provided parking ratios of other SkiCo housing developments, Included in the table below are additional ratios from other affordable and multi-family projects within the Aspen Infill Area, Table 5: P ARKING RATIOS OF OTHER DEVELOPMENTS Development Parking Dwelling Space to Bedrooms Space to Spaces Units Unit Ratio Bedroom Ratio Snoweagle* 8 8 1:1 26 ,3 I:I Divide* 10 6 1.67:1 8 1.25:1 Club Commons* 60 60 1:1 152 .39:1 Heatherbed* 13 21 ,62:1 30 ,~:I Existing Holiday 12 35 .34:1 36 .33:1** House* Proposed HH* 19 25 .76:1 74 .25:1 Little Ajax 14 14 1:1 41 .34:1 Seventh and Main 12 12 1:1 13 ,92:1 (9 on,site, 3 remote) Draco 7 6 ,85:1 10 ,7:1 (0 on. site, 7 remote) Juan Street 12 6 2:1 17 ,7:1 Page 8 of 12 Notes: * SkiCo developments ** As submitted by the Applicant, the existing Holiday House currently has 64 beds providing a ,18: 1 space to bed ratio, The proposed development is within close proximity to the commercial core and bus service is a few blocks away, With the location within close walking distance to goods and services and transportation the project can accommodate a reduction in the parking requirement. Staff supports the reduction in parking spaces, At the last Planning and Zoning Commission hearing (January 3, 2006) the Commission supported the reduction in parking with the caveat that no on-street residential parking permits be available to the residents of Holiday House, Staff does not support prohibiting residents of the Holiday House Irom receiving residential parking permits, as the restriction is punitive to a specific segment of the community, Below, are a number of options that Council may want to consider as part of the parking discussion that are not as restrictive as prohibiting Holiday House residents from applying for residential parking permits, These options were discussed with Tim Ware, Director of Parking: . Provide remote parking for Holidav House, Council could require the Applicant to provide six remote parking spaces so that the Applicant meets the off-street parking standard, One drawback to remote parking is that residents often do not use the spaces since they are not close to the residences, . Limit the number of residential parking permits available to Holidav House residents, Council could limit the number of parking permits available to residents of the Holiday House, Tracking of these agreements by the Parking Department is somewhat onerous and difficult to administer. If Council is interested in this option, Stall" would recommend that the permits be applied for by a SkiCo representative once a year and it would be SkiCo's responsibility to distribute the permits, . Contribute to car share, Since SkiCo hires staff from around the world, and many do not bring their vehicles with them, SkiCo could contribute financially to the car share program, Ideally, a car share vehicle could be located on the block of Holiday House, The development is within close proximity to the commercial core and bus service is a few blocks away and can accommodate a reduction in the parking requirement. The proposed Holiday House parking ratio is close to some other ratios as outlined in Table 5. With the close proximity of transit and ea.sy walking distance to downtown, the requested reduction in parking can be supported by Staff Staff would also suggest that in lieu of providing the of/:street parking spaces, the Applicant support the car share program with afinancial contribution. Page 9 of 12 Subdivision: The Applicant is requesting subdivision approval because the development of multi- family dwelling units requires approval of subdivision pursuant to the definition of subdivision in the City's Land Use Code (LUC), 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, Review Standards, Staff feels that the proposal is consistent with the infill development goals established in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP), GMQS Approval for Development of Affordable Housing: Affordable Housing approval is being requested for the development of twenty-five (25) atTordable housing units, The review criteria, as outlined in Exhibit A, for the development of affordable housing are met. Currently, thirty.four (34) of the thirty.five (35) existing units have been deed restricted at the Holiday House, It appears that one unit has been deed restricted twice, As the Applicant is proposing to deed restrict the entire project, the twice restricted unit can be subtracted from the one unit that is currently not deed restricted, The Applicant is requesting a credit for the affordable housing that is being created in excess of what currently exists, The request for the credit has been recommended for approval by the Housing Board, final approval is within the authority of City Council. To develop a comparison between what exists and what is proposed the applicant determined and Staff verified how many employees were housed based upon the type of unit. The numbers used in the calculation are from LUC Section 26.470,050 A.2" Employees Housed, which is outlined below, Table 6: CURRENT AND PROPOSED UNITS Studio 1 2 3 4 5 Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Existing 19 15 I 0 0 0 Proposed I 2 8 3 9 2 Table 7: Credit Calculation Studio 1 2 3 4 5 Totals 1.25 Bedroom Bedro'ODl Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Employees 1.75 2.25 3.00 3.5 4.00 Housed Employees Employees Employees Employees Employees Housed Housed Housed Housed Housed Existing 23,75 26,25 2,25 0 0 0 52,25 Proposed 1.25 3,5 18 9 31.5 8 71.25 Difference 19 Stafffinds that there continues to be a needfor the development of additional affordable units in that the AACP '.I' goalfor the development of 1,300 additional affordable housing units has not been met. The Housing Authority has reviewed the proposal and find, that PagelOofl2 the proposed affordable housing units meet the Employee Housing Guidelines requirements. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN ST ANDARD VARIANCES: All new structnres in the City of Aspen are reqnired to meet the residential design standards or obtain a variance from the standards pnrsuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards, The proposal has been designed to meet the majority of the design standards, The three (3) design standards that are not met by the proposal are: I,) the requirement for a certain number of street oriented entrances, 2,) the requirement for a minimum size of a covered entry porch, and 3,) First-story element. The Applicant has agreed to meet the minimum size required for the covered entry porch, With regard to the building elements, for everv fonr units the Applicant is required to provide one street oriented entrance, For the current proposal, the requirement would be six (6) entrances, The Applicant is proposing two (2), Additionally, the Applicant is required to provide a first story street-facing element(s) that comprises at least twenty (20) percent of the building's overall width, Currently the first story elements proposed do not meet the twenty (20) percent minimum, The Applicant has made an al/empt to provide additional entrances to the garden level apartments, but those do not count toward meeting the criteria, With the dormitory type offacility being proposed, the additional entrances become non~functional, The entry standard is [{eared towards a townhome development pattern and does not lend itself to the type of building proposed. The Applicant has also proposed a covered ramped entryway to the [{arden level that looks like but does notfunction as ajirst story element. It does add additional pedestrian elements and scale to the building. Staff recommends that the two variances be approved. SCHOOL LANDS DEDICATIONS FEE: Given that the proposed development constitutes a full subdivision review, Land Use Code Section 26,630, School Lands Dedications, requires that the Applicant either dedicate lands for school function or pay a cash-in-lieu payment. The Applicant has proposed to pay a cash-in-lieu payment pnrsuant to the fee schedule established in Land Use Code Section 26,630, Staff will include a condition of approval in the future ordinance requiring that the Applicant pay the School Lands Dedications fee prior to issuance ofa building permit, PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE: The Applicant is required to pay a Park Development Impact Fee for additional bedrooms added to the site pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26,610, Park Development Impact Fee, Staff will include a condition of approval in the future ordinance requiring that a Park Development Impact Fee be paid at prior to building permit issuance, Page II of 12 REFERRAL AGENCY ISSUES: The proposed application was referred to the City Engineering Department, Parks Department, Water Department, Electric Department, Environmental Health Department, Building Department, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, and Aspen Fire Protection District for comments on technical issues, Commentsfrom the referral agencies will he incorporated into the conditions oj'approval oj'the ordinance as appropriate. Page 12 of 12 RESOLUTION NO.:1 (SERlES OF 2006) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS THE HOLIDAY HOUSE CONCEPTUAL PUD AMENDMENT TO CONSTRUCT A MUTI-F AMIL Y BUILDING CONSISTING OF TWENTY-FIVE DEED- RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 125 AND 127 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2735-124-59-702 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen Skiing Company, represented by Phillip Ring, requesting a combined review and approval of Subdivision, consolidated PUD Amendment, GMQS approval for the development of affordable housing, and certain variances from the Residential Design Standards to construct a multi-family building consisting of twenty.five deed-restricted affordable housing units located on the property known asl25 and 127 W, Hopkins Avenue; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned Residential Multi,Family (RJMF) with a PUD overlay; 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, the Planning and Zoning Commission determined during the review of the application that the application was available for a combined review of the land use requests but that the PUD Amendment should not be reviewed as a consolidated review but as a four-step review; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on August 16, 2005, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application, took public comment, and continued discussion on the application until October 4, 2005; and, WHEREAS, on October 4, 2005, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application, took public comment, and again continued discussion on the application until November 1,2005; and, WHEREAS, to further review the suggestions raised by the Planning and Zoning Commission at the October 4tl' hearing, the Applicant requested, and the Commission granted a continuance of the Application until January 3, 2006; and, WHEREAS, on January 3, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No, I, Series of 2006, by a seven to zero (7-0) vote, recommending that City Council approve with conditions, the proposed subdivision, conceptual PUD Amendment, GMQS approval for the development of aflordable housing, and certain variances from the Residential Design Standards to construct a multi-family building consisting twenty-five deed-restricted affordable housing units located on the property known as 125 and 127 W, Hopkins Avenue; and, Page 1 of3 WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the conceptual Planned Unit Development proposal during a duly noticed public hearing on February 13, 2006, and continued the hearing to March 13, 2006, under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets many of the applicable development standards and where the standards are varied, that the approval of the conceptual Planned Unit 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 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 City Council hereby approves with conditions the Holiday House conceptual PUD Amendment in order to construct a multi-family building consisting of twenty-five deed- restricted affordable housing units located on the property known as 125 and 127 W, Hopkins, Section 2: Dimensional Requirements The conceptual development proposal as presented will vary the dimensional requirements of the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Zone District. As a PUD Amendment, the dimensional requirements shall be set as follows and the final PUD application shall be in substantial compliance with the following dimensional requirements: PUD Dimensional Requirements Minimum Lot Size 6,000 SF Minimwn Lot Width 60 Feet Minimwn Lot Area/Dwelling No Requirement Minimum Front Yard Setback 5 Feet Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 Feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5 Feet Maximwn Height Up to 32 Feet as allowed in the underlying zone district Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.57:1, not to exceed 24,790 SF Section 3: 0((- Street Parkin!! Requirements As part of the conceptual PUD Amendment the parking requirement shall be set at nineteen (19) off-street parking spaces and the final PUD application shall be in substantial compliance with this requirement. As an auto disincentive, and as part of the final PUD application, a contribution to car share shall be suggested by the Applicant. Additionally, the final PUD application shall Page 2 of3 demonstrate that the parking shall be adequately screened on the side property lines by a fence or other method, Section 4: 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 5: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances, Section 6: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the City Council of the City of Aspen on this 13th day of March,2006, APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY COUNCIL: City Attorney Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk Page 3 of3 EXHIBIT A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS In accordance with Section 26.445,030(2) of the Land Use Code, due to the limited extent of the issues involved, the Applicant has requested a consolidated conceptual/final PUD, This two-step process consolidates the conceptual and final development plan reviews by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, with public hearings occurring at both, Section 26.445,050, Review Standards: Conceptual, Final, Consolidated, and Minor PUD outlines that a development application shall comply with the following review standards A. General Requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. StaffFindinlZ Staff believes that the proposal is consistent with objectives of the A.\pen Area Community Plan. The Applicants have proposed to develop affordable housing in close proximity to the Commercial Core of the City as is consistent with the housing policies that are setforth in the AACP In addition, the Interim Aspen Area Citizen Housing Plan states that citizen housing should be provided within the metro area and in close proximity to public mass transit as is the proposed development. StafJfinds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff FindinlZ Currently, there is a mix oj'lodging. multi:family residential buildings, and some single- family residences in the immediate area Staff believes that the proposed development is consistent with the character of the existing land uses in the immediate vicinity in that the uses in the immediate vicinity are diverse. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. StaffFindinlZ Staff does not believe that the proposed expansion will adversely affect the future development o/the surrounding area in any manner, Thus, Stafffinds this criterion to be met by the proposal. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments. is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed - I - development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. StaffFindinz The Applicant's project, as proposed, does not require additional allotments, Replacement units shall not be deducted from the respective Annual Development Allotments or Development Ceiling Levels, This criterion is met. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural and man-made hazards. c) Existing uatural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing aud proposed mau-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Staff Findinz With the current size of the parcel and density proposed on the parcel, the Applicant is allowed a Floor Area Ratio (FA,R.) of 1,5:1 or 23,625 square feet. The Applicant is requesting a F.A.R, allowance of approximately 1.57: 1 or 24,790 square feet which is a five percent increase from the underlying zone district allowance, All other dimensional requirements are met. Providing affordable housing is a goal outlined in the AACP. 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. StaffFindinz Staff believes the massing and scale of the proposal have been modified a number of times to create a scale and massing more appropriate to the neighborhood The mass ot the building has been lowered closer to Hopkins to create a more pedestrian scale, 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 - 2 - c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. Additionally, the application will be reviewed under the Special Review Standards (LUC Section 26.515.040) A. A Special Review for establishing, varying, or waiving off-street parking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests, and employees ofthe project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, cxpected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts onto the on-street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area, and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guest and employees. 2. An on-site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. 3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. Staff Finding The development is within close proximity to the commercial core and bus service is a few hlocks away. Moreover, Stafrfeels that proposed parking ratio is consistent with that of several other affordable housing developments that have been constructed within the City ofAopen. For comparison purposes, the 7''' & Main Street, DRACO, and Music Associates of Aopen Affordable Housing Projects each had parking ratios at or below one parking ,space per unit. Stafffinds this criterion to be met, 4. The maximum allowable density within a pun may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a pun 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. StaffFindinf! Stafl believes that sufficient infrastructure capabilities exist to accommodate the proposed development, The adjacent public right.oi-way on West Hopkins is a seventy, five (75) fiJOt wide right-of-way and is already sufficient to accommodate the required fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance for the proposed development. The City of Aopen Fire Marshal, Streets Director, and a representative .trom the Aopen - 3 - Consolidated Sanitation District have reviewed the proposal and have proposed conditions of approval to mitigatefor any insufficiencies, Stafffinds 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 mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. StaffFindinlZ Staff. helieves that the site is suitahle for development and that this criterion is not applicable to the subject application. 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 FindinlZ The Applicant is not requesting an increase in allowable density, Staff believes that the site is suitable for development and that this criterion is not applicable to the suhject application. B. Site Design: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: -4- 1. Existing natnral 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. StaffFindin~ Staff believes that the infill parcel does not have any existing natural or man-made features of the site that are unique. Stafffinds this criterion to be met, 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. StaffFindin~ There is only one building proposed for the site, Therefore, this criterion is not applicable, 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. StaffFindin~ StaffJeels that the proposal is appropriately oriented towards W Hopkins Avenue. The Applicant has reduced some of the massing of the building towards Hopkins and included elements that act as first story elements to create visual interest, 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. StaffFindin~ Staff' believes that the proposal is appropriately arranged in a manner that allows for emergency vehicles to easily access the site. The site is served by a 75 foot wide public rifiht-of:way that provides sufficient emergency access to the site Statffinds this criterion to be met, 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. StaffFindin~ The Applicant has proposed to provide units that meet the building department '.I' accessibility requirements. Statffindl' 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. StaffFindin~ .5 - The Applicant will be required to submit a site drainage plan that was prepared by a licensed engineer, The proposed development shall not increase historic flows of the property. Stafffinds this criterion to be met, 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately de-signed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. StaffFindinf!: The Applicant is not proposing to construct any non-residential structures on the site, Stafffinds this criterion not to be applicable, C. Landscape Plan: The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character ofthe city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designed treatment of exterior spaces, preserving existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. StaffFindinf!: The Applicant is proposing to maintain the significant cottonwoods that exist on the property. The Applicant shall submit a right-or-way landscaping plan for review by the Parks Department prior to issuance ofa building permit for the project, Staff.finds this criterion to be met, 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposal is preserving the natural features of the site, Please see StaU's response to PUD Review Standard B(l) above. Stafffinds this criterion to be met, 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Findinf!: The Applicants have proposed and are required to provide tree protection fencing around the drip line of any tree that is to be preserved on.site. Additionally, no construction activity or storage of construction materials shall be allowed within the drip line of any trees to be preserved on the site, Stafffinds this criterion to be met, D. Architectural Character: It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the - 6 - building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan and architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 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. Staff Findinz Staff helieves that the proposed architecture will provide visual interest and has been revised to create a more pedestrian scale along W Hopkins, The scale and massing is compatihle with the huilding across the alley. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. StaffFindinz The Applicant has stated that less intensive heating and cooling systems will be used where reasonahly possible, Stafffinds this criterion to he met to the extent possible, 3. Accommodate the storage and shielding of snow, ice, and water in a safe an appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Findinz Staff will require a snow storage plan which is included in the resolution as a condition of approval. Stafffinds this criterion to he met, E. Lighting: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardons interference of any king to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. StaffFindinz The development shall meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code requirements and the Applicant shall submit a lighting plan for the Zoning Officer to review at the time of huildin[< permit submittal. Stafffinds this criterion to be met, 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final pun documents. - 7 - Up-lighting of site features, buildiugs, laudscape elements, and Iightiug to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Findinz The development shall meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code requirements and the Applicants shall submit a lighting plan .fiJr the Zoning Officer to review at the time of huilding permit submittal. Stafffinds this criterion to be met, G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area: If the proposed development includes a common park, opeu space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development iu the proposed pun, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amouut, locatiou, and design of the common park, opeu 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 pun. Staff Findinz The Applicant is not proposing any common park, open space, or recreation area, TherefiJre, sta.f/finds that this criterion is not applicable. 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 pun or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. Staff Findinz The Applicant is not proposing any common park. open space, or recreation area. Therefore, stafffinds that this criterion is not applicahle. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Staff Findinz The Applicant is not proposing any common park, open space, or recreation area, TherefiJre, staflfindl' that this criterion is not applicable H. Utilities and Public Facilities: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose any undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. - 8 ' Staff FindiniJ Staff believes that adequate public facilities exist to accommodate the proposal Staff finds this criterion to be met 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. Staff Findinz The affected utility agencies have reviewed the proposed plans and the concerns have been addressed as conditions of' approval in the attached resolution. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. StaffFindinz The Applicant is not proposing to install oversized utilities or public facilities and it is not anticipated that the Applicant will be required by the City to provide oversized utilities. Staff does not find this criterion to be applicable to this application, I. Access and Circulation (Only standards 1 & 2 apply to Minor PUD applications): The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through and approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. StaffFindinz The proposed development has adequate access from W Hopkins Ave, Staf/finds this criterion to be met, 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. StaffFindinz Staff believes that the vehicular access points proposed ofl the alley as part of the development is an appropriate for access, Stafffinds this criterion to be met. J. Phasing of Development Plan. The purpose of these criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan .9- is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final pun 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-Iieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the pun, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. StaffFindinl! The Applicant is not currently proposing to phase the construction. Therefore, Stafffindl' this criterion not to be applicable, - 10- E~t>\\ }S Scott Martin & Katherine Sand P,O, Box 51 Aspen, CO 81612 PHONE: 920,0103 FAX: 920-0063 February 16, 2006 Dear Mayor Klanderud & Members of the City Council: We had to leave the Council meeting on Monday before the comment period on the Holiday House project, so we are sending the following letter to the local papers, As residents of the Hopkins Street neighborhood near the SkiCo's proposed redevelopment of the Holiday House, we welcome the Ski Co's proposal for employee housing at that location, We want our neighborhood to be a lively, vital neighborhood. Not a ghost town like much of the West End. Lively and vital sometimes means less-than-serene. It sometimes means not being able to park right in front of your house, But that is a small price to pay for living in a real neighborhood, We welcomed the addition of the affordable housing project at the Fourth Street end of Hopkins and we welcome it on the First Street end of Hopkins, The objections to the Ski Co's proposal voiced at Monday evening's Counsel meeting boil down to classic NIMBY, "Affordable housing is great, but not on my block," "Seasonal housing is great, but not across from my house." "Young people are great, but not in my neighborhood," "I should get to park next to my condo but my neighbors should not have cars," As residents of this neighborhood, we want more affordable housing, not more monster houses, We want more occupied residences, not more second houses sitting vacant for months on end. We want more seasonal workers who will come for a short time and decide to stay on, keeping Aspen a vibrant community, (It was interesting to hear, among the trashing of seasonal workers from the NIMBYs, that both the Mayor and the Pro-Tem Mayor first came to Aspen for a season not expecting to stay long term.) We have concerns about parking in the neighborhood and traffic on the Hopkins Street pedestrian byway, Our greatest concern was about an underground parking garage with an entrance on Hopkins, that would have resulted in traffic turning across the pedestrian byway mid-block. But the Skieo and the City are working to address those concerns. We also think there is room for improvement in the design of the building, but not with the goal of reducing the number of residents. Concerns about past problems with noise generated by residents of the Holiday House should be addressed as such, and should not be used as an excuse for forcing the SkiCo to build a marginalized faciiity, (Our own view is that one source of the noise problem in the past was that the common space, including a barbecue pit, were on Hopkins Street. The housing was so substandard that the residents naturally congregated outside along Hopkins Street to socialize.) One of the objections raised against Burlingame was that its location outside of town will add to sprawl and traffic. Now we're being told that an in-town project is inappropriate unless it houses fewer residents and preferably does not house seasonal residents. There are two places the SkiCo can build employee housing: in town where it beiongs or down valley where it contributes to sprawl and traffic, There is no better location for seasonal housing than the Holiday House site and that opportunity should be maximized, not squandered, We hope that the City Council will approve the SkiCo's proposal for In-town affordable housing without arbitrarily reducing Its occupancy to satisfy cries of NIMBY. Less is not automatically more. Smaller is not always better. Aspen desperately needs housing in town for seasonal workers and we welcome that housing in our neighborhood, Scott Martin & Katherine Sand ~xt\ \f~G Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council February 13, 2006 RESOLUTION #9,SERIES OF 2006 - Holiday House Conceptual PUD Jennifer Phelan, community development department, told Council this is conceptual review of a planned unit development for 125-127 West Hopkins, owned by Aspen Skiing Company, This property is zoned RMF with a PUD overlay and contains 35 units of employee housing, 36 bedrooms and 64 beds, The proposal is to demolish the structures and replace them with one 25-unit structure, 74 bedrooms with 74 beds, The applicant requests PUD amendment to establish the floor area and parking requirements for the site, The applicant also requests subdivision, growth management approval, credit for the excess housing created and 2 variances from the residential design standards, Ms, Phelan told Council this proposal meets all the underlying zone requirements except the floor area and the off street parking requirements, The applicants request to increase the allowable floor area and to reduce the on-site parking requirement. The FAR allowed is 1.5:1 or 23,625 square feet and the applicant is requesting 1.57:1 and 24,790 square feet, an 1,165 square foot increase, P&Zhas reviewed the project, has seen several different designs and a decrease in floor area, Ms, Phelan said affordable housing is needed in the community and the 1,165 square foot increase is nominal. P&Z recommended this project meet the underlying FAR requirement. The code would require 25 off-street parking spaces. The original application had access off Hopkins with parking underground, Ms, Phelan pointed out Hopkins is a bikeway and staff recommended not using it as access, This plan has 19 parking spaces accessed off the alley, at grade, This project is close to the commercial core and to mass transit, and staff recommends approval of a parking reduction, P &Z suggested no residential parking permits be allowed, Staff feels this prohibition would affect just one segment of the community. Staff has presented other options, like remote parking or contributing to the car share pro gram, Ms, Phelan stated this application is consistent with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan and the this redevelopment would improve the living conditions of the residents. This is a good location for affordable housing because of its proximity to the commercial core, Staff recommends conceptual approval including the reduction in FAR and a contribution to the car share program, David Corbin, Aspen Ski Company, showed a photograph of the site and where it is located, near Paepcke park and the Ice Garden, Corbin showed lodges and some niulti. family housing in the RMF zone and noted that the proposal fits within the character of the neighborhood, Corbin told Council this site is two buildings, one of which was built in 1959 and the other portion is a 9 one-bedroom building, The older building contains the majority of the beds, Corbin told Council people are sharing very confined spaces in the older facility; the housing is sub-standard and the building needs to be replaced, Corbin said the Ski Company has used this building for 20 years for employee housing, The older building is no longer habitable, This property is deed restricted for employee housing and has been a long-standing use in the neighborhood, The applicants would 16 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council Februarv 13, 2006 like to replace and expand existing housing. The Ski Company feels this is important to their company; they only have two properties in the commercial core, Corbin noted one of the goals of the AACP is to provide affordable housing that is integrated into the community, The AACP also seeks to create a community of the size, density and diversity to encourage interaction, involvement and vitality among the residents, The AACP also addresses revitalizing the community by increasing resident housing, This proposal is to increase from 64 to 74 beds, Corbin said the goals of the housing in town have not been met. This proposal integrates housing units within the existing community, The AACP also states affordable housing within the traditional town site should be encouraged to protect open and rural lands, The Aspen Skiing Company is a private sector company trying to provide affordable housing as outlined in the AACP, Corbin presented housing criteria of the AACP, one of which is to be developed within the city, Another criteria is proximity to transit. This project is located close to transit and close to the core, Corbin stated this project is compatible with this mixed multi- family neighborhood, Corbin said with the exception of FAR and parking, this proj ect complies with all dimensional requirements, Corbin noted another criteria is to optimize the site's development potential for affordable housing, This application seeks to do that w-ithin the setbacks and within the height. Corbin said the applicant needs to enhance the quality oflife of the residents of this existing building, These are substandard cramped quarters, In the new building each person will have his own bedroom, Corbin noted another criteria is quality of design and construction, construction standards in Aspen are high and will be met. The applicants will make this as environmentally sustainable as they can, Corbin said this is located in the multi-family district and has a PUD overlay, which allows them to seek a height variance and a parking variance, Corbin said the opposition they have heard is that the mass and density is too large, This building fits within the height and fits within the setbacks, The parking requirement is one space/unit. In the original proposal, the building was 36,643 square feet. This has been reduced to 28,705 square feet. The parking was under the building with the entrance off Hopkins, This was, objectionable to the neighbors, Corbin said the solution was to eliminate the underground parking and put all the parking off the alley on the back ofthe building and reduce the number of parking spaces to 19, Corbin reiterated they have reduced the FAR from 8,015 square feet over the allowable to 1165 square feet over. Corbin said thi;s amount of space is mostly in the mechanical and storage space, Corbin pointed out that Section 26,445,050(B)(3) states the appropriate number of off street parking spaces should be established on the probable number of cars, the availability of transit, and the proximity to commercial core, Corbin said the applicant feels the number of residents owning cars will be small and there is mitigation against having 25 spaces for 25 units and that 19 parking spaces will suffice, Corbin said the codes state that the maximum density may be increased if the increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the AACP, Corbin said the project 17 Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council February 13, 2006 fits within the site's physical characteristics, fit within the height and setbacks, and the community goals are being met with this project, and that the site can accommodate this density, Councilwoman Richards asked if music students will use this structure in the summer. Corbin said ifthere is space available, they would make that space available, Pam Willis, Aspen Skiing Company, told Council they make any space they have available to other community organizations, Councilwoman Richards said that would make parking a year round issue. Jim Laing, Aspen Skiing Company, said they have put "no car" restrictions on some of their properties and have had no problems renting the units, Phillip Ring, representing the applicant, presented the site and floor plans of the proposal to Council. Ring showed the two major entrances off Hopkins street, where the building is carved out to create 19 parking spaces, Ring showed the different unit sizes, studio, one, two, four and five,bedroom, The larger units are generally for seasonal employees, Everyone will have his or her own bedroom and everyone has an exterior window, Ring showed the second floor, also with an arrayofunits, Ring told Council the housing office has reviewed the proposal and the units and is in agreement with the proposal. The 3 ,d floor is scaled back at the comers to soften the streetscape, Ring labeled the boards A, floor plans B, aerial photo C, the outdated illustrative drawing D, Councilwon:r.m Richards asked ifthere is bicycle storage, Ring pointed out the space on the 1st floor for 20 bicycles. Laing told Council housing has been the Ski Company's number 1 employee issue for many years and is the crux of their ability to attract and retain employees, Laing noted the demographics of the Ski Company's employees have changed and they are recruiting international employees, The work force is growing older and those employees will need to be replaced over the next 10 years and without housing, this will be a difficult situation, Laing said the Ski Company has taken the , management ofthe Holiday House back; they have changed the mix of residents to provide a better balance, Ms, Willis said there is an on-site manager who is an employee of the Ski Company, Corbin stated employee housing is a community need as well as one for the applicant. Economic sustainability is important as is having employees living in the core, Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing, Rhonda Bazil, representing Phyllis Bronson, Jesse Boyce and Cottonwoods, said the neighbors obj ect to density and to parking, Ms, Bazil noted the applicants have stated they want to increase the quality of life in the building; however, they are adding 10 more people to an already dense building, Ms, Bazil said they could reduce the FAR by reducing the number of people in the building. Ms, Bazil stated this is a seasonal housing project and the Aspen Area Community Plan states more resident type housing in the community core is needed, Ms, Bazil said one agreement reached between the neighbors and the applicants was to have no on street parking by residents, Ms, Bazil said these residents are purportedly seasonal and do not come with cars, Ms, Bazil said the adjacent property owners would like to have no on street parking permits as well as the car share requirement. 18 Re2ular Meetin2 Aspen City Council February 13. 2006 Phyllis Bronson, West Hopkins, said this has been a difficult process, The project is being thrust on the neighborhood, This is a quiet residential neighborhood; not a commercial neighborhood, Ms, Bronson said she feels as if she does not have control over the neighborhood, Ms, Bronson said she supports employee housing but she does not want 75 transients in her neighborhood, Ms, Bronson stated this building has not been well maintained and there have been many calls to the management as well as the police. Jane Erb, Cottonwood Condominiums, told Council their building has changed from rental to full time residents, Ms, Erb said the Holiday House has been mis-managed and calls to the police have been frequent and necessary, Ms. Erb said this project will change the character of the neighborhood, Ms, Erb stated she would like the FAR kept where the building currently is and the number of residents reduced, Marilyn Hill Harper, Cottonwoods, said the building is too massive and too dense both from the building and from the number of people, Ms, Harper said 19 parking spaces for 74 residents does not make sense, Ms, Harper said the alleys and streets are often full in this area, Councilman Torre moved to suspend the rules and continue the meeting to midnight; seconded by Councihvoman Richards. All in favor, motion cau~ed. Barat Seert, Cottonwoods, stated parking in this area is a big concern, Jesse Boyce, West Hopkins, stated the Holiday House was too large to start with, Boyce stated past management has been a disaster, Increasing density over 64 residents is too dense, Ray Koenig, Cottonwoods, agreed the experience being a neighbor of the Holiday House has been very bad, Koenig said he would like the FAR reduced and the number of people reduced, Koenig said the bedrooms in the Cottonwoods face the Holiday House and when the cars on the alley start up, it is unpleasant. Henry Hite, property owner on Hopkins, said the residents love their area of Aspen, Hite showed all the single-family houses in the area. Hite said the Holiday House is a dump, Hite noted the current project is two buildings and the replacement is one building, which makes it look more massive, Hite agreed parking is impossible; the Molly Gibson lodge creates a lot of on street parking, Hite said it is imperative the project not be given on street parking permits, Hite said the Ski Company has been short sighted about housing . their employees, Hite said he would like to see the building less dense with a better parking situation, Gerit Mauerhoff, Cottonwoods, told Council he has been physically threatened by Holiday House residents who parked in the Cottonwoods parking lot. Brigitte Starri said she cannot fathom a 75-person structure with 19 parking spaces, These residents have cars and guests, Toni Kronberg agreed there is a need for more affordable housing, This project is on the transit lines and the infrastructure is in place, Ms, Phelan entered an e. mail from Jesse Boyce and Phyllis Bronson into the record, 19 Relwlar Meetin2; Aspen City Council February 13, 2006 Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing, Corbin stated the applicants did agree to limit on street parking permits; however, P&Z did not put that in as a condition, Councilwoman Richards said she wants reassurance there will not be two people to a bedroom, Councilwoman Richards said there should be a separate listing ofthe on-site manager in the phone book, in perpetuity, Councilwoman Richards said she has concerns about how the roof is measured, flat versus pitched roof, and there should be a minimwn of a pitch in order to qualifY for pitched roof, Councilwoman Richards agreed the two buildings broke the mass on site up, Councilwoman Richards agreed this building should comply with the underlying FAR, This is an impact on the neighborhood, Councilwoman Richards said the applicants should look for a livable product, not just as many units as possible, Councilwoman Richards said residents in the AACP refers to year round residents, Councilwoman Richards stated there needs to be commitments regarding on-going upkeep on the exterior and interior of the building. Councilwoman Richards said some affordable housing projects have been allowed to deteriorate, Councilwoman Richards said this project needs to be smaller and she would like the mass broken up more, Councilwoman Richards noted the residential guidelines state there should be 6 entrances to a project and there are only two in this building, Steven Dunn, architect, told Council for height calculation, they took the existing grade between the two existing buildings and translated that to the mid'point of the center gable roof. Councilwoman Richards said this does not appear to be a peaked roof, which would get a higher roof. Councilwoman Richards said the community will have to live with this building for a long time and buildings shape the way people feel about their environment. Mayor Klanderud said many then-seasonal residents have turned into full time residents, Mayor Klanderud stated being seasonal can be people with large houses or people in Aspen for the music season or people in lodges for two weeks, Mayor Klanderud said if this is not the place for seasonal workers, where is the place for seasonal workers, Seasonal workers make the resort community work. Mayor Klanderud said young people add to the vitality of the community, Mayor Klanderud applauded the Ski Company for doing this in the private sector rather than just letting the government construct all affordable housing, Mayor Klanderud stated she is not comfortable with 19 parking spaces, It is possible these employees will not have vehicles, Mayor Klanderud stated she could live with the extra FAR ifthere were the required nwnber of parking spaces, Mayor Klanderud said ideally she would also like to see the FAR reduced to fit better in the neighborhood, Mayor Klanderud said this is an excellent location and employees living here will not be adding to the congestion on Main street. Councilman Johnson stated he supports the attempt to provide employee housing. Councilman Johnson said this building is large because of the addition of kitchen and living space, Councilman Johnson said this could be more dormitory,style with less FAR, Councilman Johnson said this building does not fit into the neighborhood and does 20 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council Februarv 13. 2006 not solve the problems it needs to, It does generally meet the criteria of AACP but does not meet the visual criteria or the criteria of quality of design; however, this is an appropriate use for the site, Councilman Johnson said he would like to see the building be more responsive to the other needs of the neighborhood, Ms, Willis told Council Ski Company employees want their own bedroom; it makes a better living experience, Councilman Johnson said he does not see a discrepancy between having one's own bedroom and having fewer shared spaces, Councilman DeVilbiss stated 19 parking spaces for this many residents is not enough and . remote parking does not work, Councilman Jolmson asked what it means to give conceptual approval. Councilman DeVilbiss read from the code that conceptual approval does not constitute fmal approval or permission to proceed with any aspect of the development but authorizes the applicant to submit an application for final review, Worcester said conceptual is a preliminary step to file a final application and an effort to give the applicant a chance to get comments from P&Z and Council before spending time on fmal design, =' Councilman Torre said he has issues with parking. Councilman Torre advocates limiting parking and would like to know if the applicants can regulate their residents not having cars, Councilman Torre stated he supports P&Z's request to comply with the code for FAR Councilman Torre said the layout of the building would give residents space for overnight guests and will add to the density and the impacts ofthe immediate neighborhood, Councilman Torre stated he has problems with the architecture and that the front of the building looks like it should be the rear of the building, Councilman Torre noted the fact this i~ one building instead of two makes it read as a larger mass, Councilman Torre said he would like to see more integration of types of tenants and lifestyles, The design of a building can lend itself to how much of a party place it would be, Councilman Torre moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 2 a,m,; seconded by Councilwoman Richards,' All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Johnson, Motion carried, Councilman Torre said he can support a project like this in this location in a different, slightly smaller configuration. Councilman Torre said if the applicants could figure out how to make this an auto-free project, he would support that. Councilman Torre said he would support no on-street parking passes and would support joining the car share; program. Mayor Klanderud noted a major deterrent for driving is living close to work. Councilwoman Richards said she feels this needs to be the right scale, compatibility and quality appearance for this neighborhood. If the building is reduced, it will be more in line with the parking requirements, Councilwoman Richards moved to approve Resolution #9, Series of2006, conceptual POD with the conditions that it be brought in line with P&Z recommendation; seconded by Mayor Klanderud, 21 Rej!ular Meetine Aspen City Council Februarv 13, 2006 Mayor Klanderud said she does not agree with the P&Z recommendation about the prohibition against on-street parking permits, CounCilman Torre said there are too many outstanding issues for conceptual approval. Councilwoman Richards withdrew her motion, Councilwoman Richards moved to continue Resolution #9, Series of2006, to March 13th; seconded by Councilman Johnson, All in favor, motion carried, Councilwoman Richards moved to go into executive session at 12:20 a,m, pursuant to C,R.S, 24-6-402(4)(a) acquisition of property; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss, All in favor, motion carried, Councilman Johnson moved to come out of executive session at 12:50 a,m,; seconded by Councilman Torre, All in favor, motion carried, Councilwoman Richards moved to continue the meeting at 4 p,m" February 14, 2006; seconded by Councilman Torre, All in favor, motion carried, Council left chambers at 12:50 a,m, Kathryn S, Koch, City Clerk 22 VI'e. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~ Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer THRU: RE: 522 W, Francis Street-Request to De.list from the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, Second Reading of Ordinance #3, Series of 2006 DATE: March 13,2006 APPLICANT: Michelle Lawson, represented by Lisa Purdy Consulting and Preston Fox, PARCEL ID: 2735-124-10-005, ADDRESS: 522 W, Francis Street, Lots M and N, Block 27, City and Townsite of Aspen, ZONING: R.6, Medium Density Residential. RECOMMENDATION: Staff and HPC recommend that this property be de-listed from the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" finding that it does not have sufficient architectural integrity to be designated, SUMMARY: 522 W, Francis Street was listed on the original Aspen Inventory, which was created in 1980, In 1990 the building underwent a significant remodel. At the time HPC only had complete purview over properties that had been declared Aspen Landmarks, Inventoried, but not landmarked properties like this one underwent review if more than 50% of the structure was to be demolished, It is staffs assumption that the 1990 project at 522 W, Francis did not trigger that standard since the work did not receive HPC approval. 522 W. Francis Street -1 The addition that was constructed was very damaging to the architectural integrity of this miner's cabin, The new owner has requested de-listing, REOUEST TO RESCIND DESIGNATION ON THE ASPEN INVENTORY OF HISTORIC LANDMARK SITES AND STRUCTURES 26.415.030 Designation of Historic Properties The designation of properties to an official list, that is known as the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures which is maintained by the City of Aspen, is intended to provide a systematic public process to determine what buildings, areas and features of the historic built environment are of value to the community, Designation provides a means of deciding and communicating, in advance of specific issues or conflicts, what properties are in the public interest to protect. A. Establishment of the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmarks Sites and Structures has been established by City Council to formally recognize those districts, buildings, structures, sites and objects located in Aspen that have special significance to the United States, Colorado or Aspen history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture, The location of properties listed on the Inventory are indicated on maps on file with the Community Development Department. B. Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, stmctures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance, The significance of properties will be evaluated according to the following criteria: I, A property is deemed significant for its antiquity, in that it is: a, More than 100 years old; and b, It possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age or 2, A property constructed at least forty (40) years prior to the year in which the application for designation is being made that possesses sufficient integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, and association and is related to one or more of the following: a, An event, pattern or trend that has made a significant contribution to local, state, regional or national history; b, People whose specific contribution to local, state, regional or national history is deemed important and can be identified and documented; c. A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman or design philosophy that is deemed important, 3, A property that was constructed less than forty (40) years prior to the year in which the application for designation is being made may be considered under subsection 2, above, if the application has been filed by the owner of the property at the time of designation or, when designating a historic district, the majority of the contributing resources in the district meet the forty (40) year age criterion described above, 2 4, The Commission shall adopt, maintain, and make available to the public guidelines, score sheets, and other devices to apply the criteria set forth in this Section to potentially eligible buildings, sites, structures or objects, or collections thereof. Staff Response: The goal of this process is to evaluate the property to determine if sufficient evidence exists that it no longer meets the criteria for designation, If that is the case, the property shall be removed from the Inventory, otherwise it shall be retained on the list. HPC makes a recommendation to Council, and Council will make the final decision, According to the Pitkin County Assessor's office 522 W, Francis Street was built in 1885, It clearly meets the first standard for designation, Section 26.415,030,B,l.a, related to demonstration of antiquity by virtue of being over 100 years old, Staff has completed site visits and an initial assessment of all I9lh century miner's cottages in Aspen to address the second standard for designation, Section 26.415,030,B,l.b, demonstration of integrity, This assessment is made using a scoring system that was adopted by HPC. While the Land Use Code does not state a specific threshold score that must be attained, it was generally understood when the scoring forms were created that a minimum of 50 points out of 100 was required, Staff agrees with the applicant's assessment (attached) that 522 W, Francis Street warrants 20 out of 100 points, Community Development staff has the benefit of understanding the status of the remaining miner's cottages as a whole and finds that this property does not measure up to the architectural integrity of the other examples, While the original miner's cottage form is still evident when the property is viewed from the street, the back half of the building has been demolished by the large new addition, The miner's cottage that is perceivable is essentially a "false fa9ade" without much historical substance behind it. In addition, nearly all exterior materials have been replaced and the front porch has been completely enclosed, HPC held a public hearing on December 14, 2005 and recommended the de-listing of 522 W, Francis from the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, Council may choose to accept this recommendation, and the integrity analysis provided by staff and the applicant, or may formulate its own rating for the property, RECOMMENDATION: Staff and HPC recommend that 522 W, Francis Street, Lots M and N, Block 27, City and Townsite of Aspen be de-listed from the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance #3, Series of 2006, de, listing 522 W, Francis Street, Lots M and N, Block 27, City and Townsite of Aspen from the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites," CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: EXHIBITS: Ordinance #3, Series of 2006 A, Application B. Drawing indicating remaining portion of historic building, . 3 ORDINANCE #3 (Series of 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE DE- LISTING OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 522 W. FRANCIS STREET, LOTS M AND N, BLOCK 27, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO, FROM THE ASPEN INVENTORY OF HISTORIC LANDMARK SITES AND STRUCTURES PARCEL ID: 2735-124-10-005 WHEREAS, Section 26.415,050 of the Aspen Municipal Code establishes the process for Rescinding Designation and states that an application for the removal of a property from the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall follow the same submission requirements and review procedures as for designation except that with respect to Section 26.415,030(C)(4), an explanation shall be provided describing why the property no longer meets the criteria for designation, The HPC and City Council shall determine if sufficient evidence exists that the property no longer meets the criteria for designation and, if so, shall remove the property from the Inventory; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department recommends that the historic designation of 522 W, Francis Street, Lots M and N, Block 27, City and Townsite of Aspen be rescinded and that these properties be de-listed from the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on December 14,2005, the Historic Preservation Commission was presented with the Community Development Department staffs analysis of the property, as well as the owner's, Staff recommended that the property be de-listed from the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures and HPC agreed via Resolution #46, Series of 2005, by a vote of 4 to I; and WHEREAS, City Council has considered the request for de-listing under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered those recommendations made by the Community Development Department, and the HPC, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and WHEREAS, City Council finds that 522 W, Francis Street does not meet the standards for designation and should be de-listed from the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures; and WHEREAS, City Council tinds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the 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, 522 W, Francis Street, Lots M and N, Block 27, City and Townsite of Aspen does not meet the standards of Historic Landmark Designation and shall be de-listed from the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, Section 2 The Community Development Director is hereby directed to have the official zoning map of the City and/or any other maps depicting those properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures changed to reflect the de-listing of 522 W, Francis Street, Lots M and N, Block 27, City and Townsite of Aspen, Section 3 This Ordinance shall not have any dIect on 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 by any 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 13th day of March, 2006, 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 was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen, Section 6 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 9th day of January, 2006. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 13th day of March, 2006, Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: John P. Worcester, City Attorney Li s a Pu r d y Consulting ~\lol~A . . . . . . . . . 121 Pea rI S t r e e t Denver, CO 80203 Ph (303) 733-7796 Fax (303) 733-711 0 Memo to: Date: From: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission June 30, 2005 Lisa Purdy, President Kate Taylor Randall, Research Assistant Lisa Purdy Consulting Request for Removal from the Historic Inventory 522 W. Francis Street Re: Michelle Lawson, the owner of 522 W. Francis St., has retained our services to evaluate the historical significance of her property. After some research it is our opinion that the property has been so significantly modified that it fails to meet the City of Aspen's requirement that the property possess "an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting, design, material[sJ, workmanship and association." The property at issue was built in 1885 and was once an L-type miner's cottage. Sadly, the historical integrity of this simple house was significantly comprised when the front porch was filled-in to add interior space and when an insensitive two-story addition was added directly onto the west and north sides of the house. The addition was modeled on the original Victorian era house and is difficult to distingnish from the original portion of the house. As a result, the house no longer meets its preservation objective to convey what life was like for an average citizen in Aspen during the silver mining era. It is our professional opinion that this property has been so significantly modified that it no longer contributes to national or local history and should therefore be removed from the City of Aspen's Historical Inventory. Please do not hesitate to call us if you have any questions regarding my attached scoring. Lisa Purdy Kate Taylor Randall Best regards fZA II Land Use Application l'-! 1,'~ \. PROJEcr: Name: Location: Parcel ID # e.- ~ i &7T' V1 'Y1 APPLICANT: Name: Address: Phone #: Fax#: o ?;f fe,f I E-mail: It1 '-c.hc,1/ e REpRESENT A TNE: Name: Address: Phone #: 0207 .11/0 E-mail: .u>W1 TYPE OF APPLICATION: lease check all that a I : o Historic Designation o Certificate of No Negative Effect o Certificate of Appropriateness o -Minor Historic Development o -Major Historic Development o -Conceptual Historic Development o -Final Historic Development o -Substantial Amendment o Relocation (temporary, on or off-site) o Demolition (total demolition) o Historic Landmark Lot Split /I<C%iJ'1dif1) De7lJnp,hon Vtom-t FEES DUE: $1:210. ~ RET~'FO~'~~ ? EN x 1J 0 I . ' L 0 / 0 , I lJ /If . . N 0 I 8 (I .. ST. 1 'I R, $, f' q -/ .-1> ,~1L- ~___ ST. , . C' ...-, s~ 4tJ9 I , l N. 5~H 'II d 1'1 " Poll. p . /100 P R P K P 1/ p P , , , , , p p d d.. p'~ '-<) I~ q: K. {j ~ d ' -'1-======-============ ========== ==== === p'.\. " ~ u u P d '" " u u ii :L-' .- II r p~ ~ ~ . -' ;. :- :' 1. I ': \, ". ' '" "'. iJ p ~~VO~\~Uv c I ~, , 4 , ~ I ; ~ H, I : ~ ,.. .. .,.." /.1/ E . ~ ,. 4q/ - ~ 1/00 R s '. M {I 't p Q. '%. c ~ LcD:! 0, \, ~ "" '2.7 .... i;; , "> i;; '" ... I 4/1 N.4T~ IJ/Z /" Do, . / . I' 1JZ o , ~ ... n / . IJ . L_-:t . ... '" ... B . 5 z..z.. vJ. F/lflnc./ j FI2PNT IlEAl.. <;' ~ f kv -f; v' (,v, INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT- 19TH CENTURY MINER'S COTTAGE Integrity is the ability ola property to convey its significance, . LOCATION Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. 5. The structure is in its original location, 4- The structure has been moved within the original site but still maintains the original alignment and proximity to the street. 3- The structure has been moved to another site, still within the historic Aspen townsite, 0- The structure has been moved to a location which is dissimilar to the original site, TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 5) = . DESIGN Design is the combination 01 elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style ola property, BUILDING FORM 10- The original plan form, based on San borne maps or other authenticating documentation, is unaltered and there are no recent additions, 8- The structure has been expanded but the original plan form is intact and the addition(s) would meet the design guidelines, 6- The plan form has been more altered, but the addition would meet the design guidelines, 4- The structure has been expanded in a less desirable manner, but if the addition were removed, at least 50% of the building's original walls would remam, 2- The structure has been expanded and the addition overwhelms the original structure, destroying more than 50% ofthe building's original walls, O. Two historic structures have been linked together and the original character of the individual structures is significantly affected, ROOF FORM 10- The original roof form and the original porch roof, if one existed, are unaltered, 8- The original main roof is intact but the porch roof, if one existed, has been altered, 6- Dormers have been added to the structure or additions have been made that alter the roof form, but the changes would meet the design guidelines, 2. Alterations to the roof have been made in a less sensitive manner, not in conformance with the design guidelines, 0- Less than 50% of the original roof form remains, SCALE 5- The original one story scale of the building, and its character as a small cottage is intact. 4- The building has been expanded, but the ability to perceive the original size of the 3 or 4 room home, is preserved, 3. The building has been expanded and the scale of the original portion is discernible, O. The scale of the building has been negatively affected by a large addition, whose features do not reflect the scale or proportions of the historic structure, FRONT PORCH 10. The front porch is not enclosed and original decorative woodwork remains, or ifthere was no porch historically, none has been added, 8. The front porch is enclosed but maintains an open character and some original materials, 6. The front porch is not original, but has been built in an accurate manner, per the design guidelines, 2. The front porch has been enclosed and most original materials are gone, 0- The front porch is completely gone or replaced with a porch which would not meet the design guidelines, DOORS AND WINDOWS 10- The typical door and window pattern on the original house is intact, two doors off the front porch, large double hung windows in gable ends, and tall, narrow double hung windows placed "sparsely" on building walls, 8- Less than 50% of the door and window openings on the original building are new and the original door and window openings are intact. 2- More than 50% of the door and window openings on the original building are new and/or some of the original opening sizes have been altered, 0- Most or all of the original door and window openings have been altered, SIMPLICITY OF DESIGN 5- The overall sense of "modesty" in design and detailing on the original structure is intact. 0- New, non-historic trim and other decoration have been added to the building and have altered its character. TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 50) = 2 . SETTING Setting is the physical environment ala historic property PROXIMITY TO SIMILAR STRUCTURES 5- The structure is one of a set (at least three) of buildings from the same period in the immediate area, 3- The building is part of a neighborhood that has numerous remammg buildings from the same period. 0- The building is an isolated example from the period, HISTORIC LANDSCAPE FEATURES 5. A number of elements of the original landscape are in place, including historic fences, walkways, plant materials and trees, and ditches, 3- Few or no elements of the original landscape are present, but the current landscape supports the historic character of the home, O. The current landscape significantly obscures views of the structure, TOTAL POINTS (maximum oflO) = . MATERIALS Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period oltime and in a particular pattern or configuration toform a historic property, EXTERIOR WOODWORK 10- Most of the original woodwork, including clapboard siding, decorative shingles in gable ends, trim, fascia boards, etc, remain, 6. Original siding has been replaced, but trim and other elements remain, 6- Original siding is intact but trim or other elements have been replaced, 0- All exterior materials have been removed and replaced, DOORS AND WINDOWS 10- All or most of the original door and window units are intact. 8. Some window and door units have been replaced, but with generally accurate reconstructions of the originals, 6- Most of the original windows have been replaced, but with generally accurate reconstructions of the originals, 0- Windows and/or doors units have been replaced with inappropriate patterns or styles, TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 20) = 3 . WORKMANSHIP Workmanship is the physical evidence of' the crafts of' a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. DETAILING AND ORNAMENTATION 5- The original detailing is intact. 3- Detailing is discernible such that it contributes to an understanding of its stylistic category, 0- New detailing has been added that confuses the character of the original structure, 0, The detailing is gone, FINISHES 5- All exterior woodwork is painted and masomy unpainted, 4. All exterior woodwork is painted and masonry is painted, 3. Wood surfaces are stained or modern in appearance but masonry is unpainted, 2. Wood surfaces are stained or modern in appearance and the masonry is painted, TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 10) = . ASSOCIATION Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. 5, The property would be generally recognizable to a person who lived in Aspen in the 19th century, TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 5) = . BONUS POINTS UNIQUE EXAMPLE 5. The design of the building is unique or one of a small group among the miner's cottages, (i,e.It has Italianate or Second Empire detailing,) OUTBUILDINGS 5. There are outbuildings on the property that were built during the same period as the house, MASONRY 5-0riginal brick chimneys and/or a stone foundation remains, PATINA/CHARACTER 5. The materials have been allowed to acquire the character of age and are obviously weathered, 4 MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS= 100 (and up to 20 bonus points) MINIMUM THRESHOLD FOR DESIGNATION= 50 POINTS Note: Each area of the iutegrity analysis includes a descriptiou of the circumstances that might be found aud a point assignment. However the reviewer may choose another number within the point range to more accurately reflect the specific property. 5 Scoring Sheet for 522 W. Francis Street 1. Location. (5 points) The house is in its original location. ~l)frW~ k.1 ' \.-\\'~~v l c.- ~~.avLl~ OVl ~l.W Scored by Lisa Purdy and Kate Taylor Randall June 30, 2005 2. Building Form (2 points) The covered front porch of the L-type miner's cottage was filled-in and added to the interior square footage ofthe house pre-1980. In the early 1990's the former owners expanded the simple single story structure to a 4,929 square foot two story home. This was done after prior owners tore down the house next door, and built the two story plus basement addition onto the western and northern sides of the original structure. As a result, over soolo of the original waIls have been removed to allow for the addition, which inappropriately abuts the original structure on two sides without the use of a connector. The Architectural Inventory Form completed by the City of Aspen in 1998 states: "Is]ignificance has been severely compromised. Through a large addition and insensitive alterations. Also detailing has been added and altered which further confuses the historic character. Remaining altered Miner's Cottage is readable but now out of context." 3. Roof Form (2 points) Alterations to the original cross-gabled roof where made in an insensitive manner. Furthermore, the addition with multiple gables and dormers adds conjectural features that convey a false impression of its age. In May of 2005 with approval from the City of Aspen, the applicant replaced the roof with shingles of similar composition. The new roof does not alter the form of the roof. 4. Scale (0 points) The multi-story addition overwhelms the original structure and defeats the historical preservation objective stated in the 1980 Inventory Record as "It]his modest structure is of historical importance by illustrating the family/home environment and life style ofthe average citizen in Aspen which was then dominated by the silver mining industry." The early 1990's addition conveys a Victorian era style, rendering the historical portion of the house indistinguishable from the new two-story addition. To the casual onlooker the home appears to be a Victorian era mid-sized mansion not a home representative of an average citizen during the late 1880's. 5. Front Porch (0 points) , The original covered front porch of this L-type miner's cottage was f"Illed-in and added to the interior square footage ofthe southeastern corner ofthe house prior to 1980. 6. Doors and Windows (2 points) An original shallow bay window directly below the front gable of the original portion of the house is intact. An additional original window faces west on the front side of the house. All of the other existing windows have been replaced. The front door was removed and replaced when the front porch was filled-in. 7. Simplicity of Design (0 points) In the early 1990's inappropriate trim was added to the original gable of the house. The addition inappropriately makes use of Victorian era architectural details such as turned posts, decorative brackets, and transom windows. These details obscure the separation between old and new. 8. Proximity to Similar Structures (3 points) The house is located in Aspen's West End, which features many historic homes and has retained much of its historic character. 9. Historic Landscape Features (0 points) Much of the historic landscape was removed when the front porch was filled-in. The front walkway was moved roughly 8 feet to the west and now curves around the original structure to the new front entryway in the addition. Original landscape features unknown and unable to be determined. 10. Exterior Woodwork (0 points) All of the original wood shingle roof and clapboard siding has been removed and replaced with similar materials. 11. Doors and Windows (2 points. Note: there is no scoring category available between 0 and 6) The front door to the home was relocated when the front porch was filled-in. The addition onto the back of the house envelops what would have been the rear entry. All ofthe original windows have been removed and replaced with inappropriately styled panes with the exception of two of double hung windows on the front ofthe house. 12. Detailing and Ornamentation (0 points) Victorian era detailing was added to the original house around 1990. The addition was also modeled after the Victorian era style with turned posts. decorative brackets, and transom windows. This new detailing confuses the original modest styling of an average miner's cottage of the late 1800's and obscures the separation of old and new construction. 13. Finishes (4 points) All exterior woodwork has been painted and no existing masonry is visible. 14. Association (0 points) As a result ofthe overwhelming addition that is similar in style and character and the loss ofthe front porch, this property is no longer recognizable as a miner's cottage to a person who lived in Aspen during the 19th century. 15. Bonus Points (0 points) This house does not meet any of the criteria in this section. TOTAL POINTS: 20 , Written Description of How the Property Does Not Meet the Criteria for Designation 1. Loss of the Defminl! Architectural Features of a Historic L- Tvoe Miner's Cottal!e The two gabled rooflines of an L-type cottage of the mid- to late-19th Century intersect to form a letter "L" shaped structure. At the intersection of the two wings a I-story covered porch was historically featured in this style of house. The defIning feature of this former L-type cottage, the front porch, was fIlled-in and added to the interior square footage of the southeastern comer of the house prior to 1980. The historic front door of the house was also lost when the porch was fIlled-in and is now located further back on the property in the two-story addition. Two small modem windows have been added and siding matching that of the house was added obscuring the old portion of the house from the newer fIlled-in porch area. In the City of Aspen's Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Treatment of Porches 5,2 the City directs owners of historic properties to "[a]void enclosing a historic front porch." Further, the City's Preservation Principles reiterate the importance of preserving existing site feature such as "original doors, windows, porches, and other architectural features. " 2. The Two-Storv Addition Comoromises the Intet!ritv and Si....ificance ofthe Original Structure Since the property was added to Aspen's Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, a signifIcant addition that compromises the integrity and signifIcance of this property has been added. In the early 1990's the former owners expanded the simple single story structure to a 4,929 square foot two-story home. The addition abuts the western and northern sides of the original structure and overwhelms the original structure. One must assume that both the City and the owner were unaware of the historical status of this property because the City issued permits for all of the addition without consulting with the Aspen HPC. The design of the addition is thus inappropriately modeled after the Victorian era style with turned posts, decorative brackets, and transom windows. The simple cross-gabled roofline of this L-type cottage is overwhelmed in scale by the multiple gables and dormers in the addition. This new detailing confuses the original modest styling of an average miner's cottage of the late 1800' s and obscures the separation of old and new construction. In the City of Aspen's Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, Building and Roof Forms 11.5 the subsection states that the addition "should not overwhelm the original in scale." In Architectural Details 11.9, it states "[t]he imitation of older historic styles is discouraged." 3. The Simificance of the former Miner's Cottal!e is no Lonl!er Readable As stated above, the addition was modeled after the original Victorian era house and is difficult to distinguish from the original portion of the house. As a result, the house no longer meets its preservation objective stated in the Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Inventory Record, dated September 30, 1980, which states: The significance of the residential structure is not of those who owned it or lived in it, nor of its architecture, although the structure is representative of Aspen's Mining Era. This modest structure is of historical importance by illustrating the family/home environment and life style of the average citizen in Aspen, which was then dominated by the silver mining industry. The Architectural Inventory Form completed by the City of Aspen in 1998 corroborates our conclusion that this property no longer meets its preservation objective and the Aspen standards for preservation in the following statement: Significance has been severely compromised. Through a large addition and insensitive alterations, Also detailing has been added and altered which further confuses the historic character. Remaining altered Miner's Cottage is readable but now out of context. OAHP1403 Rev. 9/98 COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Official eligibility determination (OAHP use only) Date Initials Detennined Eligible- NR Determined Not Eligible- NR Determined Eligible- SR Determined Not Eligible- SR Need Data Contributes to eligible NR District Noncontributing to eligible NR District Architectural Inventory Form 1 of 4 I. Identification 1. Resource number: 5PT,272 2, Temporary resource number: 522,WFR (522,WF) 3, County: 4, City: 5, Historic building name: 6, Current building name: 7, Building address: 8. Owner name and address: Pitkin Asoen 522 West Francis Street, Asoen Colorado 81611 Charles Isreal PO Box 11689 Asoen, CO 81612 II. Geographic Information 9, P,M. 6 Township 10 South Range 85 West SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 of NW 1/4 of SE 1/4 of Section 12 10, UTM reference Zone .-l~; ~ -.L. --L --L. ~ ~mE ---L -L ~ -.lL -.lL ~ ~mN 11, USGS quad name: Asoen Quadranale Year: 1960 Photo Rev, 1987 Map scale: 7,5'~ 15' Attach photo copy of appropriate map section. 12, Lotls): Addition: M&N Block: 27 Year of Addition: 13, Boundary Description and Justification: Site is comorised of Lot M & N, Block 27 of the Citv and Townsite of Asoen, Assessors office Record Number: 2735.124.10.005 This descriotion was chosen as the most soecific and customary descriotion of the site. III. Architectural Description 14, Building plan (footprint, shape): Irreaular 15, 16, Dimensions in feet: Length x Width Number of stories: One storv. Two storv Addition 17, Primary external wall materialls) (enter no more than two): Horizontal Wood Sidina 18, Roof configuration: lenter no more than one): Gable Roof 19, Primary external roof material (enter no more than one): Wood Shinale Roof 20, Special features (enter all that apply): Porch R<;>source Number: Temporary Resource Number: 5PT,272 522,WFR Architectural Inventory Form (page 2 of 4) 21, General architectural description: A tvoical sinale storv, wood frame, Miner's Cottaae form fronts the street. A small aable end faces the street with a sinale larae double huna, in a shallow bav as the orincioal window, The bav has a hiD roof suooorted bv brackets on a detailed cornice. the base has a simole sill. A cross aable runs oarallel to the street, the eave continuina to the face of the front aable wall. Two small sauare.ish double hunas sit under the eave, A larae two storv addition sits back from the street with a contemoorarv entrv confiauration, under a Dorch and a second floor balconv, The fa9ade has turned oosts, brackets, oval window and transom windows over both windows and doors. 22, Architectural style/building type: Late Victorian 23. Landscaping or special setting features: Three cottonwood street trees. very larae. Honevsuckle hedae at east side. Two mature fir at north side. 24. Associated buildi~gs, features, or objects: none IV, Architectural History 25, Date of Construction: Estimate Actual 1885 Source of information: Pitkin Countv Assessor 26. Arch itect: Unknown Source of information: 27, Builder/Contractor: Unknown Source of information: 28, Original owner: W, H, Gilstrao Source of information: Pitkin County Assessor 29, Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): Addition of a two story structure. alteration of the oriainal structure. addition of Victorian era detailina. 1990. 1980 ohoto shows oorch had been filled in. and sidina altered ore 1980, 30. Original location ~ Moved Date of move(s): V, Historical Associations 31, Original use(s): Domestic 32, Intermediate use(s): 33, Current use(s): Domestic 34, Site type(s): Residential Neiahborhood Resource Number: Temporary Resource Number: 5PT,272 522.wFR Architectural Inventory Form (page 3 of 4) 35. Historical background: This structure is reDresentative of Asoen's minina era character. The buildina reDresents a tVDical tvoe known locallv as the "Miner's CaUaoe". characterized bv the size, simole olan, and front aable / Dorch relationshio 36. Sources of information: Pitkin County Courthouse records: Sanborn and Sons Insurance MaDs; 1990 and 1980 Citv of Asoen Survev of Historic Sites and Structures VI. Significance 37, Local landmark designation: Yes Designating authority: 38, Applicable National Register Criteria: No -1L. Date of designation: A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; .x.. c, Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory, Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual) Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria 39. Area(s) of significance: Architecture 40. Period of significance: Late 1800's Silver Minina Era 41, Level of significance: National _ State _ Local X 42, Statement of significance: This structure is sianificant for its Dosition in the context of Asoen's mini no era. It describes the nature of the life of an averaae familv or individual durina that oeriod. as well as the construction techniaues. materials available and the fashion of the time, 43, Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: Sianificance has been severelv comoromised. Throuah a larae addition and insensitive alterations. Also detailina has been added and altered which further confuses the historic character. Remainina altered Miner's Cottaae is readable but now out of context. VII. National Register Eligibility Assessment 44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Eligible _ Not Eligible --.lL... Need Data 45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes No ~ Discuss: Resource Number: Temporary Resource Number: 5 PT .272 522,WFR Architectural Inventory Form (page 4 of 4) If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing Noncontributing Contributing Noncontributing 46, If the building is in existing National Register district, is it: VIII. Recording Information 47, Photograph numbers: R6: F32, 33 Negatives filed at: Aspen/Pitkin Communitv Development Dept, 48, Report title: Citv of Aspen Update of Survev of Historic Sites and Structures, 2000 49, Date!s): 6/29/2000 50, Recorder!s): Suzannah Reid and Patrick Duffield 51. Organization: Reid Architects 52, Address: 412 North Mill Street, PO Box 1303, Aspen CO 81612 53, Phone number!s): 970 920 9225 NOTE: Please attach a sketch map, a photocopy of the USGS quad, map indicating resource location, and photographs, Colorado Historical Society. Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866.3395 CITY MONUMENT (' SE COR. BlK. 21 ~ 75009'11QE N 75l>06'26.W L 136.29' 136.52' F t':, ,4i i E I Pi CC,f" /7 L , IlT I LIT 1 E: 16'2..9 ctp SE.T Z.SQ47 AREA 6,005 SQ, "- '" 0, o o 0 o 0 q> )" )" ..J N '" N :' ..J UJ 14 '" 0 ;; '" "' 0 ~ ~ ;; i= <l " z '0 "- 0 " 14 ;; .,. N S>.T 2.5"1.47 ff S 75009'11 "E S 750 08 09 E 60.051 50,27 . F DRIVE 21 2 '" I'- ~ M N <0 oC "'il <n ~4 0: OJ OJ il." <l '" .,. I- U1 N UTILITIES 2.r-lD SToRY DEC\( tX?6.0 15.0 N GAS 2 STORY HOUSE CRAWL SPACE ACCESS -~, i... 19.1 SAlCONEY <0 o I ___BAY WINDOW l 26. I t I'- ~VO)(\~ 500~,.G~,.i"J,. f 59,99' FI"~"'\~ I. '1 , ' N7S"09'II"W 422.12'VVl\V\.4.-V~ lV}, BASIS OF BEARINGS LJ0VALVE N 75009'IIIlW N 750 10 1'3 IW GRAVEL PARK I NG EDGE OF PAVEMENT ~I?/!I!IC/,) J'7, ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEaAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY "'ITUI..1 TUg!:!:" "'C:Arl~ AF"Tc:R YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT. MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON MANHOL<O " :i' ~ f- , , < " f- 3,2 2,3 '" g g o 0 o 0 <t .,. ~ ~ '" '" "' .,. '" 0 .,. U1 ~ ~ = U> 2 N s n -5-71 E-BAR ~Ro ;~. 177V7'T) ~ -." S- ~ -r i]l Vltf. MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Helen Klanderud and City Council Chris Bendon, Community Development Director cJAVv'J James Lindt, Senior Planner ::::rL-. Resolution No,b Series of2006, Aspen Fire Station, Endorsement of COWOP Recommendations- Public Hearinl!: Thru: From: RE: Date: March 13,2006 BACKGROUND: The Aspen Fire Protection District and the Thrift Shop received eligibility to go through the COWOP review process to develop a use program and conceptual development plan for a new headquarters fire station and thrift shop on the property at 420 E, Hopkins Avenue in January pursuant to City Council Resolution No, 4, Series of 2006 (attached as Exhibit "B"), Since being deemed eligible for the COWOP review process, the COWOP task force that was assembled for this project conducted three (3) meetings of three (3) hours each and a fourth meeting of approximately an hour and a half. Additionally, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) conducted two (2) work sessions on the conceptual design and approved the conceptual development plan pursuant to HPC Resolution No, 3, Series of 2006 (attached as Exhibit "C"), Several additional meetings with the Fire Protection District's Board and Firefighters were also held to review the design, In conducting the four (4) task force meetings, the COWOP task force reviewed a variety of issues and opportunities related to the use program, the design, and the site plan for the proposed fire station and thrift shop, Out of the discussions that occurred at these four (4) meetings and the abovementioned HPC work sessions, the Fire Protection District and thc Thrift Shop developed a use program and conceptual development plan that the COWOP task force unanimously endorsed and recommended that City Council endorse, The use program, the conceptual site plan, the conceptual t100r plans, and the conceptual massing plan and elevations are attached as Exhibit "D", Additionally, the written conceptual recommendations of the COWOP task force are attached as Exhibit "E" and the meeting minutes from the four (4) task force meetings are attached as Exhibit "F", Having developed conceptual plans that are acceptable to the COWOP task force, the Fire Protection District and the Thrift Shop have requested endorsement of the fire station COWOP process and conceptual plans (proposed resolution is attached as Exhibit "A"), There is also an item on the agenda for an extension of the Fire Protection District's lease of the City owned property subject to this COWOP. Staff would recommend I that City Council consider the lease extension in conjunction with the COWOP endorsement request since these items go hand in hand with each other. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: The proposed use program includes a first floor containing four (4) fire apparatus bays that enter onto E, Hopkins A venue, a reception/entry area for the Fire Protection District's offices, and the main retail area for the thrift shop, The apparatus bays span through two floors, and the remainder of the space on the second floor contains a 1,500 square foot firefighting museum/educational area, 2,476 square feet of shift quarters, and some office/storage space for the Thrift Shop, The partial third floor is to contain office space for the Fire Protection District, an Emergency Operations/Community Room of approximately 1,300 square feet, and a smaller training/meeting room of about 960 square feet. Additionally, there is a basement proposed under the Thrift Shop and the Fire Protection District's reception area for storage and mechanical equipment. On the exterior of the building, four (4) tuck-under parking spaces have been proposed off the alleyway, along with a trash and a goods drop,off area for the Thrift Shop, At the front of the building, an apron is proposed for the fire trucks to enter out onto E, Hopkins Avenue, The apron will likely contain colored concrete to distinguish it from the sidewalk and the road, but the details on the apron materials and design have not been worked out at this conceptual stage, A small pocket park area has been proposed to be retained in front of the Thrift Shop component of the building, However, it should be noted that the proposed plans bring the Thrift Shop component further south towards E, Hopkins Avenue than the existing Thrift Shop space to provide the Thrift Shop with a better relationship to the street. The bell that sits out in front of the fire station would be maintained in the small entry plaza to the proposed fire station, PROPOSED TIMELINE: The Fire Protection District has initiated a request for a bond issuance in the May election to fund the design and construction of a substation at North Forty and a new headquarters station at 420 E, Hopkins A venue, Staff anticipates that the COWOP task force would now be inactive until after the May election, Staff would then anticipate that the COWOP task force would be reactivated this coming summer to review details leading up to an application for review of final land use entitlements (requires PUD, Commercial Design Review, Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility, and Special Review for OfT-Street Parking) and the final HPC review. According to the Fire Chief, if approved, construction of this facility would not take place for several years due to the need to construct the North 40 substation first and use the existing station to serve the community until the substation at North 40 is completed, which may result in a request for an extended period of vested rights, 2 STAFF COMMENTS: Staff believes that the COWOP task force has thoroughly considered the issues and opportunities involved with the possible development of a new headquarters fire station at 420 E, Hopkins Avenue and have developed in consultation with the Fire Protection District's development team, a conceptual use program, conceptual site plan, and a massing plan that is acceptable to both the COWOP task force and the HPC. Staff expects that HPC could request changes to the fenestration and materials as part of the final HPC review, but that the overall massing and site plan will likely not change significantly as part ofthe final HPC review process, The topics discussed by the COWOP task force during their deliberations included the following: . Providing affordable housing for the general public above the proposed tire station, . Providing affordable housing for emergency service personnel above the proposed fire station, . Providing affordable housing above the Thrift Shop, . Structurally designing the lower floors to accommodate a possible future fourth floor above the proposed fire station and a third floor above the proposed Thrift Shop, . Architecturally designing a future fourth floor above the proposed fire station and a third floor above the proposed Thrift shop, . Including an emergency operations room/public meeting room in the proposed tire station, . Including a tirefighting museum and fire educational element in the proposed fire station, . The street relationship of the proposed fire apparatus bays, . The street relationship of the proposed Thrift Shop and entry to the proposed fire station, . Constructing four (4) apparatus bays rather than three (3) apparatus bays, . Including tuck-under alley parking, . Providing a basement under the apparatus bays for emergency service parking or other compatible uses, As was mentioned earlier in this memorandum, the COWOP task force's conceptual recommendations on the items discussed above and background for the task force's recommendations are represented in the document attached as Exhibit "E", Many of the final recommendations from the task force on the topics of discussion were unanimous amongst the members of the task force, ENDORSEMENT: Statr has envisioned this as a formal check-in with City Council as to the COWOP process and the conceptual planning that has occurred thus far on the fire station, Staff would like to make it clear that City Council's endorsement of the conceptual planning 3 would not mean that this is a final approval or entitlement in any manner. The Fire Protection District and the Thrift Shop will have to submit an application for the review of final land use entitlements as is discussed in the "timeline" section of this memorandum, This check-in is more of a mechanism to provide City Council, the Fire Protection District, and the Thrift Shop with a comfort level on the direction that the project has taken, CITY OPPORTUNITIES To PARTNER IN THE DEVELOPMENT: Staff believes that the City could partner in the development in several ways, During the COWOP task force deliberations, discussion about the possibility of using the emergency operations room as a public meeting room emerged and the Fire Protection District indicated their willingness to allow for the room to be used for City meetings when not needed by the Fire Protection District. That said, Staff would like City Council's input as to whether Council would be willing to provide funding for the City to make the room a quality meeting space given that the City has recently had a goal of improving the inventory of public meeting spaces that is available. There were also discussions during the COWOP deliberations about whether the Thrift Shop space should be designed in a manner to accommodate a possible third floor. Cost concerns from the Thrift Shop prompted the task force to recommend that the Thrift Shop not be required to design the lower floors of the Thrift Shop space to accommodate a third floor. This recommendation coupled with a comment by one of the COWOP members suggesting that the City explore the possibility of putting some City office space in the development has prompted Staff to wonder if City Council would be interested is paying the incremental cost for designing and developing the lower tloors of the Thrift Shop space to accommodate an additional tloor for the purpose of City office use. Staff would also like some input from City Council on this possibility. PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Staff has included a proposed resolution for City Council's consideration. Approval of the proposed resolution would endorse the conceptual use program, conceptual site plan, conceptual building massing and form, the COWOP task force's conceptual recommendations on the issues identified above, and would give direction to the Fire Protection District and the Thrift Shop to proceed towards developing and submitting an application for the review of final entitlements. ST AFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff feels that the COWOP task force thoroughly discussed the issues and opportunities involved with the redevelopment of the fire station and developed a quality, conceptual product. The Fire Protection District has also expressed that they are pleased with the conceptual product that has resulted from the process as is evident in the letter from the Fire Chief that is attached as Exhibit "G", Staff recommends that City Council approve Resolution No.~, Series of 2006, endorsing the conceptual use program, conceptual site plan, conceptual building massing and form, the COWOP task force's conceptual recommendations on the discussion issues, and allowing for the 4 Fire Protection District and the Thrift Shop to proceed towards developing and submitting an application for the review of final entitlements for a new fire station and Thrift Shop at 420 E. Hopkins Avenue. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No, IS, Series of 2006, endorsing the conceptual use program, conceptual site plan, conceptual building massing and form, the COWOP task force's conceptual recommendations on the discussion issues considered during the task force's deliberations, and giving the Fire Protection District and Thrift Shop direction to proceed towards developing and submitting an application for the review of final entitlements for a new fire station and Thrift Shop at 420 E, Hopkins Avenue, EXHIBITS: Exhibit A- Proposed Resolution Exhibit B. Approved COWOP Eligibility Resolution Exhibit C- HPC Conceptual Design Approval Resolution Exhibit D, Conceptual Use Program and Development Plans Exhibit E- COWOP Task Force's Recommendations Exhibit F- COWOP Task Force Meeting Minutes Exhibit G- Letter from Fire Chief 5 Eik;lo'f- \A' RESOLUTION NO. I ~ (SERIES OF 2006) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ENDORSING THE CONCEPTUAL USE PROGRAM, THE CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN, THE CONCEPTUAL BUILDING MASSING AND FORM, AND THE COWOP TASK FORCE'S CONCEPTUAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW HEADQUARTERS FIRE STATION AT 420 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS 0, P, Q, AND R, BLOCK 87, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN. PARCEL NO. 2737-073-30-851 WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, pursuant to Resolution 4, Series of 2006, determined eligible for the City's development reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare of the public (COWOP) review process the redevelopment of 420 E, Hopkins Avenue owned by the City of Aspen, as more fully described in said Resolution, for the purpose of providing a new headquarters fire station and thrift shop facility; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26,500,050 ofthe Land Use Code and the above referenced Resolution, the Fire Station COWOP Task Force Team has met four (4) times to consider the development opportunities and issues associated with developing a new headquarters fire station at 420 E, Hopkins A venue and have, in conjunction with the Aspen Fire Protection District's development team, developed a conceptual use program, conceptual site plan, conceptual massing and building forms for a new fire station and Thrift Shop; and, WHEREAS, at the February 23, 2006, meeting of the Fire Station COWOP Task Force Team, the Task Force unanimously recommended that City Council endorse the conceptual planning for 420 E, Hopkins Avenue that has been completed, as detailed in Section I of this Resolution; and, WHEREAS, two (2) work sessions were held by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) on the design, massing, and site planning for the proposed fire station and Thrift Shop; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission granted conceptual approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development on February 8, 2006, pursuant to HPC Resolution No, 3, Series of2006; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director believes direction from City Council, considering comments from the public, on the key elements of the plan, as described herein, will be beneficial to the plan and the planning process; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed and considered the conceptual planning for the proposed fire station, as more fully described in Section I of this Resolution, and has recommended City Council endorse the conceptual use program, the conceptual site plan, the conceptual building massing and form, and the COWOP task force's recommendations on the discussion issues identified in the Resa No, , Series of2006 document entitled "Fire Station COWOP- Task Force Issue Identification and Recommendations" included in City Council's packet for the regular meeting on March 13,2006: and, WHEREAS, providing input on the planning for these lands, through adoption of this Resolution, shall only be considered advisory in nature and shall not constitute entitlement of the property, Approval of a final development plan shall require adoption of an Ordinance after a public hearing and upon consideration of a recommendation from the Community Development Director and a final recommendation from the COWOP Task Force Team; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the progress of the planning for 420 E, Hopkins Avenue, as described herein, has taken and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, has taken and considered public comments at a public hearing, and endorses the planning direction, as described herein, of the Fire Station COWOP project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: City Council hereby endorses the conceptual use program, the conceptual site plan, the conceptual building massing and form, the COWOP task force's recommendations on the discussion issues identified in the document entitled "Fire Station COWOP. Task Force Issue Identification and Conceptual Recommendations" that were presented in written, graphic, and model format at the March 13, 2006, regular City Council meeting, and hereby gives the Aspen Fire Protection District and the Thrift Shop direction to proceed towards developing and submitting an application for the review of final development entitlements, Section 2: Following endorsement of the direction for planning these lands described in Section I above, the Fire Station COWOP Task Force shall reconvene after the May bond election, if the bond is approved by the voters of the Aspen Fire Protection District, to consider final design parameters for the project and forward their final recommendation to the City Council. FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 13th day of March, 2006, Attest: Kathryn S, Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud Approved as to form: John p, Worcester, City Attorney Reso No. , Series of2006 &~,k l'f \l{8/f RESOLUTION NO.4 (SERIES OF 2006) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL DETERMINING THE ELIGIDILITY OF DEVELOPMENT RESONABL Y NECESSARY FOR THE CONVENlE~CE AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC (COWOP) FOR THE ASPEN FIRE STATION REDEVELOPMENT ON A PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN, LOTS 0, P, Q, AND, R, BLOCK 87, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN. Parcel No. 2737-073-30-851 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the City of Aspen for a determination of eligibility for development reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare of the public (COWOP) for the redevelopment of the Aspen Fire Station on City of Aspen owned parcel known as Aspen Fire Station property, Lots 0, P, Q, and R, City and Tovmsite of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the subject propeliy contains approximately 12,000 square feet and is zoned Public (PUB); 3.J.~d, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.500,050 of the Land Use Code, the City Council may malce a detennination whether a proposed development is reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare of the public by applying the standards of Section 26,500,040 during a duly noticed public hearing after talcing and considering comments from the general public, and a recommendation from the Community Development Director; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director determined that the proposed development may be eligible for consideration as a project reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public, 3l1d notified in writing the Planning 3l1d Zoning Commission 3l1d tile Historic Preservation Commission, the date of the public hearing before the City Cowlcil at which time a detennination is to be n:ade concerning eligibility of the proposed development; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Cowlcil has reviewed and considered tile COWOP proposal wlder the applicable provisions of tile Municipal Code as identified herem, has reviewed 3l1d considered the recommendation of tile Community Development Director, 3l1d has talcenand considered public comment at a public hearing; and, \VHEREAS, the City Council finds tIlat tile development proposal meets or exceeds the Standards for Determination, Section 26.500,040, for tile following reasons: 1 . Prepare a formal recOlmnendation to the City Council regarding the above tasks, S. COlmnunity Development and Interdepartmental Technical Staff Review. 6, Work sessions and a noticed public hearing shall be held with the Historic Preservation Commission to review the project against tile conceptual HPC review standards, 7, Task Force Team develops and formulates recommendation to City Council. 8, Fonnal review and action by City Council (in public hearing). 9. City Council approves conceptual development plan for the project. Standards of Review and Analvsis: I. Section 26.44S.0S0, Review Standards: Planned Unit Development. 2. Section 26.310 Amendments to tile Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map. 3, Section 26.470, Growth Management, to tile extent determined necessary during project review, 4, Section 26.480, Subdivision, if determined to be necessary during project development and review, S, Any necessary teclmical design standards of utility providers shall be considered and the COWOP decision .shallnot supercede fu"'1Y non-city utility provider. 6, The Aspen Area Community Plan shall be considered a policy guide and the final recommendation shall include an analysis of conformance with this adopted plan. 7. Asset Management Division "Affordable Housing Development Guidelines" if any affordable housing is incorporated into proj ect. 8, City of Aspen Civic Master Plan Core Principles 1,3, and 6. Section 3 Pursnant to Section 26.500,OSO(B)(c), the Task Force Team shall be assigned by City Council no later than January 10,2006. Section 4 Pursuant to Section 26.S00,OSO(B)(d), tile timeframe for the procedures to accomplish the tasks of the Task Force Team shall be March for a presentation of tile initial findings ~li1d August for a final recommendation from tile task force team to Ci~y Council. Section 5 The City shall pay for the cost of tile COWOP task force teanl binders and for tile City's staff tune spent in developulg and reviewing the conceptual plan, TIle Fire District shall pay the cost of the remainder of tile expenses related to the COWOp, RESOLVED, passed and approved tins 9til day of January, 2006. 3 ~~tol~G A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCA TED AT 420/422 E. HOPKINS A VENUE, THE ASPEN FIRE DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN HEADQUARTERS AND THE THRIFT SHOP, LOTS 0, P, Q, AND R, BLOCK 87, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO.3, SERIES OF 2006 PARCEL ID: 2737-073-30-851 WHEREAS, the applicant, the Aspen Fire Protection District/The Thrift Shop, represented by Studio B Architects, has requested Major Development (Conceptual) for the property located at 420/422 E, Hopkins Avenue, Lots 0, P, Q, and R, Block 87, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415,070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.4l5,070,D,3,b,2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections, The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated February 8, 2006, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines had not been met, and recommended continuance; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on February 8, 2006, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote of 3 to 1. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves Major Development (Conceptual) for the property located at 420/422 E, Hopkins Avenue, Lots 0, P, Q, and R, Block 87, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: I, Study the relationship of the circulation spine and the Thrift Shop with varying degrees of cantilevering, and study the setback of the Fire Department entry doors, APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 8th day of February, 2006. Approved as to Form: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Jeffrey Halferty, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk PROPOSED BUILDING PROGRAM ASPEN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND THRIFT SHOP REQUESTED PROGRAM SPACES COWQP CONFIRMATION FEBRUARY 23, 2006 A VFO APPARA TUS SA YS I\[IF~~uS Bay~ EMT Storage Bio Decontamination Area Bunkerslorage---- - Bunker Washer Area Tool Room General Storage SCBA Hose Drying Tower Backflow Pre venter Area Vestibules Outdoor Storage ~oolT1 - -~~~--~'-~~ __ _~______._____201 1 . ?gj 1 200; -f'-- - is: ," ----------.- --'"20; 1 600: 1, 144' 1 100 1 -35: 2 49 1 ------so-- A VFD LIVING QUARTERS AREAS PRIVATE Dayroom Kitchen Di~~~L Area _____ ShifVGuestQuarters Quarters Bathrooms Laundry Bathroom Weight Room Janitor Closet { Minor Storage 2,476 CONFIRMED 1126106 1 1 1 4 2 1 1 ---( 1 320 240~ 192 192 128. 100 -48' 480' n 320 240 192 768 256 100 48 480 72 AFPD DISTRICT OFFICE PUBLIC Entry_~~t!~t!I~______ Recept~o_n_ ___ Training f Meeting Room Officer's Office Workstations LibraryfA~chiyes General Offices Copy Room / Area Offi<;El ~~~1!!lEl__ ______________ Public Reslrooms Janitor Closets Mus~urrii~~u~ti91i~Tc;o~Pl?~~_I_~-- CO.I!1_l!1un~ty RoomfE~Elrgency Ops 5812 CONFIRMED 1/26/06 80: 1 300! 1 9601 1 192j 2 36: 1 ---~----- 3 1~~1 _n1...____~L 1 961 2 300 1 4()j 1 1.500, 1 1.3Cio;-n 80 300 960 192 72 144 432 96 96 600 -- ------------- 40 1,500 1_,3_0_0 _ THRIFT SHOP Retail Space Storage Restroom Offi~____ Drop-off Area Janitor Closet ~ _ __!~~9_q_, 80; 144 100 1~i 3 940 CONFIRMED 1126106 2,000 1,600 80 ----- --------------- 144 100 16 BASEMENTIPARKJNG Add'l Basement below Bays/Driveway ,7.000] 7000 PURSUE FUNDING PARTNER 7.0.00 _No!JI1~1,I~_Eld in CUrrent Program FUTURE BUILD-OUT Future Development of 3rdf~!~ f!r:s 7,500 7 500 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 7,500 Not included ~n CUrren~ P_':Ogram UTILITY AREAS - COMMON Mechanical Room Electrical Closet - ----------------- Network Room 1481 1,~8_~ 100 100 CONFIRMED 1/26{06 Size:d for Future Build-Qut 5% 25,626 1-00' 100 TOTAL NET AREA 19'407 Gross To Net factor 120% ~tructure_&_C;i!:.~l!!.a!!!!.n GRAND TOTAL GROSS AREA 23,289 GURRENTPROGRAM Studio B ArchitectslFisher Associates January 30, 2006 b{;')J It- fl ExAl\~)'f '~t: - FIRE STATION COWOP - ISSUE IDENTIFICATION AND CONCEPTUAL RECOMMENDATIONS THE FOLLOWING ISSUES WERE DISCUSSED BY THE COWOP TASK FORCE IN DEVELOPING A USE PROGRAM FOR A NEW FIRE ST A nON AT 420 E, HOPKINS AVENUE. Location ota New Station, The COWOP task force initially studied and received an explanation of the Fire Protection District's history and operational characteristics from the Fire Chief. The Fire Chief also explained to the COWOP task force why the existing fire station site was suitable for the development of a new fire station to meet the District's future needs, It was explained by the Fire Chief that the District needs to develop a substation out at North 40 on the west side of the Castle Creek Bridge to serve the development that has occurred in that area of the community, When it was realized that a new substation was needed west of the Castle Creek bridge, it was determined by the District that the size of the headquarters station in town did not need to be as large as had been previously envisioned to meet the District's needs, Therefore, while the Zupancis property had been previously considered for the new development of a large, consolidated headquarters station, it was now considered to be inappropriate for the Fire District's anticipated needs, To further support this finding, the District and the Civic Master Plan Committee agreed that the existing fire station site could accommodate the District's future needs. After hearing the explanation of the Fire District's assessment of their needs, the COWOP task force unanimously agreed not to discuss other sites for the fire station as was included in the COWOP's procedural guidelines that were adopted by the task force. General Affordable Housinz above the Fire Station: The COWOP task force in developing a use program from the fire station asked the architects and the Fire District to look at whether it would be appropriate to include affordable housing units for rent or sale to the general public above the fire station, The Fire Chief and the Pitkin County Emergency Services Coordinator, Ellen Anderson, expressed security concerns about locating affordable housing of any type above the fire station, Mrs, Anderson expressed that she had recently been involved in Homeland Security meetings and that placing housing in public buildings like police and fire stations had been discussed at these meetings, She reported that it was concluded at these Homeland Security meetings that locating affordable housing over these public facilities that serve the safety of the community was not appropriate because of terrorist risks associated with unsupervised entry into these types of buildings, After discussing this issue at length, the COWOP task force unanimously agreed that affordable housing units for the general public on the roof of the fire station were inappropriate because of the security concerns that were raised. Affordable Housinf! fiJr Emerf!encv Service Personnel above the Fire Station: After dismissing the possibility of providing affordable housing for the general public on the roof of the fire station, the possibility of providing affordable housing for use by emergency services personnel was discussed because they are already screened when they are hired by the emergency service agencies, Once again, Ellen Anderson expressed concerns that guests of the emergency services personnel living on top of the fire station could potentially create security concerns, Additionally, the Fire Chief expressed that the Fire District did not have an immediate need to provide housing for their firefighters, The COWOP task force understood the security concerns that were expressed and agreed that if the Fire District did not have a need at this time for additional housing that it should not be included in the building program, but the task force agreed that the building should be designed in a manner that could support an additional floor if the Fire District needed housing in the future. The COWOP task force also identified that shift quarters would be appropriate for the redeveloped fire station. Affordable Housinf! above the Thrifl Shoo: The COWOP task force also discussed the possibility of providing affordable housing over the Thrift Shop component of the building, Ellen Anderson felt that there would still be security concerns associated with locating atlordable housing above the Thrift Shop because of it's proximity to the fire station, The COWOP task force concurred that there should not be affordable housing above the Thrift Shop in the use program. Structurallv Desif!ninf! Lower Floors to Accommodate Future DeveloDment: As was briet1y described in the COWOP task force's recommendation related to constructing affordable housing for the use of emergency services personnel, the COWOP task force has recommended that the fire station be designed to structurally support an additional floor in the case that the Fire District would have future needs on the site. There were also discussions by the COWOP task force about whether the Fire District should go ahead and design an additional floor so that there would be architectural compatibility between the development that is going to take place now and the additional floor that could be added in the future, The architects reported that it would be very difficult to design an upper floor for future construction that there was not a use identified for. The COWOP task force decided that the lower floors should be structurally designed and developed to support a fourth floor above the fire station if needed at some time in the future, but that a fourth floor should not be designed at this time because the Fire District's future needs and uses for an additional floor cannot be determined at this point. Additionally, the COWOP task force supported that the Thrift Shop will explore the possible costs and anticipated need for structurally designing and developing the Thrift Shop component of the building to accommodate a future third floor and will report back to the COWOP task force when the task force is reconvened after the May bond election. Emerf!encv Operations Room/Public Meetinl! Room: Pitkin County has no real adequate facility to act as an emergency command center during a regional emergency situation as was discussed during the COWOP meetings by the Fire Chief and the Pitkin County Emergency Services Coordinator. The Fire Chief and the Pitkin County Emergency Services Coordinator identified that a room of about 1,300 square feet would be of acceptable size to use as a command center in a regional emergency situation, Additionally, the City Staff asked the Fire District if they would be willing to partner with the City to finish the room out as a nice public meeting space with all of the amenities that would be required to hold government meetings in the room, The Fire District indicated that they would be willing to allow it to be used for City meetings and the City Staff will request funding from the City Council to make the room a good venue for public meetings, An emergency operations room/public meeting room was identified as a desired program element of the new fire station facility by the COWOP task force. Museum/Fire Historv Educational Element: The Fire District has a considerable amount of memorabilia from their extensive history of fighting fires and reacting to emergencies in our community, Additionally, the fire station is a favorite attraction of school groups, kids, and adults alike, who are enamored with the job that firefighters do and the equipment that they use, The District would like to provide an area to display this memorabilia for the public to view and would further like this area to serve as an educational component displaying their pride in serving the community and the community's pride in the protection provided by the Fire District. A tire museum/fire history educational area of approximately 1,500 square feet was deemed to be of sufficient size to functionally accommodate school groups and to display the District's memorabilia, A fire fighting museum/fire history education area of 1,500 square feet was identified as a desired, non-essential program element of the fire station facility by the COWOP task force. This area could be used for emergency response purposes in situations where additional emergency response space is needed. Desizninz Circulation Corridor to Overate as a Future Avvaratus Bav: The COWOP task force explored the possibility of the designing the circulation corridor and the Thrift Shop portion of the building to be used as potential future apparatus bays if the Fire District and the community ever needed additional bays, It was determined that becausc the Thrift Shop has to fund the construction of their portion of the building, it would not be cost etTective for them to construct the Thrift Shop space to operate as a future bay, In subsequent program planning sessions with the Aspen Volunteer Fire Department, it was recognized that a fourth bay should be included in the current development program, Emergency Medical Services clearly plays an increasingly important role in the mission scope of the Aspen Fire Protection District. That need should be addressed immediately, It was further recommended that the first floor of the circulation corridor should be designed at a width and a height that could allow it to serve as a future bay for smaller emergency service vehicles like an ambulance, if that can be achieved with the new four-bay apparatus configuration. The Fire District acted upon this recommendation by changing the proposed design from a three (3) bay to a four (4) bay design. Street Relationshiv olThril1 Shov and Circulation Comvonent: The COWOP task force discussed whether the Thrift Shop space and the circulation component should be designed so that these elements meet the front property line along E, Hopkins as the Historic Preservation Commission's design guidelines encourage for development in the Historic District or whether these elements should be pulled back as --....,.,...""'~-.~~_.-.'~---<~--~;--.."~. they exist in the current fire station to maintain the existing pocket park, The COWOP task force unanimously concluded that it would be appropriate to bring the Thrift Shop space and the circulation component to an intermediate setback that still allows for a green space for the public to use, while still giving the structure more of a street presence than the existing fire station. The COWOP task force forwarded this recommendation to the Historic Preservation Commission for their consideration in reviewing the design. Allev Parkinz: The COWOP task force considered whether the new fire station should include some pull-under alley parking and a drop-off space for the Thrift Shop. Unanimously, the COWOP task force supported providing 4-5 head-in parking spaces accessed from the alleyway given that a lack of parking is always a problem. Basement Under Apparatus Bavs: , The COWOP task force discussed whether there should bea basement constructed under the fire apparatus bays, There was a contingent of task force members that felt the Fire District should go ahead and build a basement under the apparatus bays while they are constructing a new fire station, It was suggested that a possible use for the space under the fire apparatus bays could be parking for emergency services personnel. Another suggested use for this space was as parking for the general public, Once again, security concerns eliminated the possibility of using a space below the apparatus bays as a parking garage for the general public, It was also decided that providing parking spaces for emergency services personnel would not eliminate the need for firefighters to use the parking on E, Hopkins A venue because of all the obstructions that exist in the alley, The Fire Chief expressed that in the case of an emergency, the fire fighters need to know that they can quickly park without running into an obstruction in the alleyway, The architects also studied how many parking spaces would really be created and it was determined that only about 12 spaces could be created after considering the space needed for ramping of vehicles, Price for reinforcing the space underneath the bays was also discussed and the Fire District indicated that they did not see the below grade parking as a necessity or something they could fund through a bond, The COWOP task force determined that a basement under the apparatus bays should not be included in the development program, but that if an alternative source of funding presented itself between now and the time of finalizing the design, the development of a basement for compatible uses under the apparatus bays should be considered. Overall Use Prozram: After three (3) COWOP task force meetings, the task force voted that the overall use program (attached as Exhibit "A") that has been established for the fire station was appropriate. The vote was unanimous. ATTACHMENTS: FINAL USE PROGRAM &i\ll~~+ \p' Aspen Fire Protection District COWOP Task Force Meeting January 12, 2006 Fire District City of Aspen Community Development Planning Director Chris Bendon chaired the first meeting of the Aspen Fire Protection District COWOP Task Force, If he is absent for any future meetings, Deputy Director Joyce Ohlson will serve as chair. In attendance for the meeting were Chris Bendon (Planning Director City of Aspen) James Lindt (Senior Planner City of Aspen) Dwayne Romero (Board Director Aspen Fire District) Gilbert Sanchez (Architect Studio B Architects on behalf of the Fire District) Steve Skadron (P&Z) Darryl Grob (Aspen Fire) Mia Dancee (Fenton Construction) John Kelher (Owners representative for the construction for the project) Marcia Goshorn (Housing Authority) Sue Colby (Thrift Shop) Mike Haisfield (VP Fire Department) Dylan Johns (P&Z) Ann Foster (Interior Designer) Torre (City Council) Rich Walker (Aspen Ambulance District Director) Jack Wilkie (citizen appointee) Sam Houston (neighbor and developer) Amy Guthrie (Historic Preservation Officer) Jason Lasser (HPC) Sarah Broughton (HPC) Chris Kiley (Design Workshop, citizen appointee) Bridger Smith (on appointment on behalf of Conoco station at the AABC) Cynthia Andrews (citizen appointee) Tara O'Bradovich (City, records) Jim Lawrence (KSPN/KNFO news) Mike Hammond, President AVFD Rob Schneider, member of COWOP group Chris Bendon (CBl gave a brief explanation of what a COWOP is and what the COWOP process does, City of Aspen is not a statutory City, rather a home rule municipality, This process takes Council out of being owner and approver and takes a project to members of the community and stakeholders to decide what the project should be, James Lindt, principal planner for this COWOP project, discussed how the COWOP works in this specific project and how the review goes, James indicated this project would typically go through a regular land use review process if we didn't have the COWOP process, Regular land use review process would have multiple steps which would require review by P&Z commission, who would make recommendation to City Council in a conceptual manner and then Fire District would come back as applicant and go through final process to deal with details including P&Z recommendation to City Council. This COWOP process allows Task Force to be a recommending body to City Council in this scenario on the conceptual application, Actions of this COWOP are like a P&Z commission as P&Z will not review the conceptual portion of the application, This project will require review and approval by HPC as this site is located in commercial core historic district. James provided binders with background information, resolution passed by City Council identifying this project as a COWOP project, task force roster, procedural guidelines for this Task Force, Fire Station eligibility application that went to City Council, COWOP section of the land use Code, and description of the property zoning, The property is zoned in the public zone district. It doesn't have dimensional requirements for buildings, basically all development that occurs in public zone district has to go through a PUD process, When someone is proposing to develop a PUD, P&Z and City Council look at character and context of neighborhood to see whether it is consistent with the context of the neighborhood and the dimensional requirements of the neighborhood, Because this is zoned public, it will eventually require entitlement as a PUD, Binders provided also include the surrounding zoning classification from the Code, which is the commercial core zone district, so this is important in figuring out what the context of the neighborhood is and what is allowed on these properties, Also included are Civic Center Master Plan excerpts, Civic Center Master Plan is an ongoing master planning committee for civic areas of town which includes library plaza, courthouse area, City Hall and the Fire Station, Fire District was major player in Civic Center Master Plan discussions through the past couple of years and it was determined, through that process, that this was the appropriate site to redevelop the fire station, Schedule: James indicated City Council reviewed conceptually and gave go ahead, Fire District has a February 1st date to have a conceptual idea and cost estimate of what the program would be, They are requesting a bond issue in the May election, City staff has provided a meeting agenda believed to get the Fire District to a conceptual program by the February 1st deadline, Staff suggests a checking back with City Council before February 1 st deadline to see if the COWOP is moving in the direction that they feel is appropriate, Torre indicated he would check with other Council members to see if they feel they should look at what the COWOP has done, CB stated we might look where we are at the end - ~-"."-,-------",,",,,,,~-,,,,,--~.,,--,,-,,,,-,,, of next week regarding the level of issues and comfort level. Schedule suggests two COWOP meetings to begin with, Fire station will put out bond issue, then follow up with greater detail and more COWOP meetings later on, First two meetings in February and March and maybe into April then one or two COWOP meetings per month to look at the details of the project is timeline, Rules of Engagement: CB stated this is the 5th COWOP put together. Burlingame D, Burlingame Ranch project, Obermeyer, Visitor's Center, which failed on the ballot. COWOP has had relative success in its history, Procedural Guidelines: CB advised that procedural guidelines are general and pointed out that Fire District has been through extensive planning process to determine this is where their headquarters are going to be, The COWOP will not be determining where the headquarters should be, The determination has been made by the District, and is supported by the City, to redevelop their headquarters here, CB wants the COWOP to be comfortable with the history of that, but its not a question being asked to the COWOP, CBadvised to make sure you are present and to keep in mind that if you are representing constituent groups that you are soliciting that groups interest, not what you want personally, CB mentioned he can delegate his role as chairperson if he would like, Direct questions to staff member and project planner James Lindt, CB, or Gilbert Sanchez (GS) from Studio B, Ultimately City Council will make the final decision on this. City Council is expecting a final recommendation from the COWOP, It's up to them to make a final decision, which can be different from the COWOP recommendation, Consensus is the aim, but if consensus can't be reached, they will reach consensus with resignation, or even a minority report, Task Force will have formal votes and the vote will be recorded, CB explained his thumbs vote, Thumb up = I'm okay, we can move on, Thumbs sideways = ambivalent, don't really have an opinion, not going to hold it up, we can move forward although I'm not necessarily for it. Thumbs down = I got something to say, I have a problem with moving forward, CB will address thumbs down issue, and won't move forward until issues are addressed, CB discussed ground rules by stating to make sure that opinions are on the table and make sure to give each person a chance to talk, With respect to media, discussions should be handled by CB or James or someone who is appointed, If you are on the Task Force and speak to the media, you should represent your opinion, especially at some point of divergence, but be cognizant that this is a group process; make sure you are soliciting your interest or representing the district if not a citizen; James will send out notices via email. THUMBS UP on procedurals, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE FIRE WHISTLE BLOWS: Darryl Grob discussed the operational arm of the Aspen Fire Protection District (AFPD); AFPD is 87 square miles, is bigger than the City, smaller than the County and spans essentially from Difficult Campground to Gerbazdale and up to ends of Woody Creek and Castle Creek, not including Lenado, AFPD is responsible for all fires, and have mutual aid agreements to be first aid responder for all wildfires in those 87 miles, Also maintain EMS component, Rich Walker and Aspen Ambulance District's role, provide first due advanced life support ambulance at the hospital. Members of the Volunteer Fire Department provide a second basic life support ambulance and a third if there is a multi-victim accident. AFPD also perform technical rescue which includes auto extrication, aircraft extrication, swift water rescue, collapse rescue, quite a large responsibility when it comes to technical rescue capabilities. Mountain rescue takes care of high angle, Currently AFPD baseline level of service is based on room and contents fire in a conventional structure, NFPA standards requires 2 pieces of apparatus and 15 to 18 firefighters depending on the circumstances, National statistics indicate you will get 1 out of 3 with a volunteer fire department. AFPD exceeds that national average by a substantial margin, AFPD membership maintains approximately 45 citizen firefighters all state certified, many EMS and HAZMAT certified as well. 6- 8 additional citizen firefighters will be recruited this Summer. AFPD force is summoned by radio pagers, 911 triggers electronics and all 45 firefighter pagers go off and receive basics of the call. Guidelines dictate which pieces of apparatus respond to what kinds of emergencies in what locations, AFPD is a special district and levy in property tax and are second highest property valued fire district in state of Colorado, second only to a major portion of Denver. AFPD has the 4th lowest mill levy for fire protection in the State of Colorado, largely due to property valuation and we field a volunteer fire force, Almost all AFPD are certified to drive apparatus, Response time is dictated by national standards, This is one of the components of station location analysis leading to the configuration trying to be developed with this bond issue, National Fire Academy has established the survivability within a structure to be approximately 5 minutes inside that structure after open burning begins, so that is a small window of opportunity at the front of the event. Siren is backup to electronics, In event of a catastrophic electronic failure, if siren goes off and haven't heard pager, report to fire barn, All firefighters are ICS qualified, now being converted into National Incident Management System to comply with the Homeland Security requirements and FEMA AFPD works with Sheriff, Ambulance District, Police, and gas and electrical companies to control the emergency, Marcia Goshorn questioned out of 40 how many volunteer firefighters live in town? Dwayne commented 20-25%, Darryl stated majority, Mike said majority of them or at least two-thirds, Darryl stated residency requirement is minimum two years residing in the district before you can join, Volunteers are required to make 20% of all calls to remain members, AVFO (AVFO) is governed by bylaws and exists as an organization onto itself and the AFPO has identified them as the operational arm, Darryl estimated 400 calls for service in the course of a year. National trend shows a decline in structure fires and Darryl believes we reflect that in our community, Darryl discussed increase in urban interface fires and referenced Summit County beetle kill forest as a tinderbox, Prospect of that infestation and forest around us is small to avoid, Climatologic is changing and we are drier. Oarryl's suspicion is combining the beetle kill, with trend in climate and the component that all the flat spots in the valley are taken, will reflect our mission over 10, 15, 20 years. Chris, citizen, asked about other facilities including North 40 and the relationship with the headquarters, Darryl has been involved in station location analysis since 1983, At that time they looked at the library location, Eagles, Obermeyer, and have been pursuing for a long time, Darryl attended National Fire Academy classes and came back to the district and performed that analysis and identified the Aspen Village and Woody Creek station as logical locations, Both serviced Highway 82, Rescue pumper and additional inventory located 10 miles out from Aspen and 10 miles out from Basalt. Woody Creek was located as close to Woody Creek and Upper River Road and is divided by the river. For decades, the premise was to serve from a consolidated headquarters station located adjacent to commercial core, Commercial Core sees bulk of calls for service, Civic Center Master Planning process prompted AFPO to look at facility and ensure success of mission (life safety and property conservation) that exceeded ability to achieve facility on 4 City lots, Apparatus was kept at Sardy Field crash fire rescue facility but was torn down, but replacement removed AFPO from Highway 82 and they declined and looked around, AFPO began to work with John McBride who has Lot 2, Block 2, of the North 40 at the Aspen Airport Business Center. Conceptual drawings are 65000 square feet, an acre and a half but will only develop front half of the lot. Ability to service everything beyond Castle Creek was being compromised and becoming risky, Resources were redistributed so downsized and relocated programs to the North 40 and this location will remain headquarters, Steve Skadron asked Darryl where they will be when they are under construction, Darryl responded they are in the process of developing that plan, They have a timeline mapped out and have met with met with ORC, Working with Fenton Construction as general contractor, they have identified the team that will carry them through with Studio B and Fisher Associates from Denver who are fire station technology specialists; Leslie Lamont has been enlisted as COWOP consultant and Alan Richman as land use consultant in the County land use application process; if concepts are in place, AFPD has an executed option agreement to purchase land (contingent on bond issue) and will buy land; construction will commence 12-14 months later and when that station is complete, they will strip the headquarters barn and leave first primary response within City of Aspen somehow; DRC will require plan to be mapped out very carefully for pedestrian and traffic control James Lindt explained the DRC is a Development Review Committee which is a series of City agencies that discuss technical portions of development applications, Marcia Goshorn: Does Darryl foresee having to expand the number of volunteers with the new facility(ies)? Darryl discussed how shift quarters will be put in place and there will be a rotation of staffing, Automatic aid agreement will be with Snowmass for allcalls, TOUR: Darryl and Sue gave tour of fire station and Thrift Shop, Back portion was remodeled in late 80's and offices were built 5 years ago, Offices, apparatus, storage, back lot and Thrift Shop were seen, Darryl indicated they want to have an 18 foot clearance in the bays SUE COLBY: Thrift shop is over 50 years old and have been in this location for 23 years, They own and have paid for the building, but sublease the land from the Fire Department lease from City, Thrift Shop is a grassroots organization that recycles everything and invests in 80-100 organizations, Meet every month and gives all money away every month, Don't have fund or foundation, Have a one page grant application and have many other methods of support, Thrift Shop mission statement is to sell goods and raise money to support community organizations and to provide affordable clothing for community, Thrift Shop has been participating over last three years in the Civic Master Plan and look forward to this process being finalized, Thrift Shop will be at end of process, CB Bendan clarified that the 4 City lots are owned by City and leased to AFPD and sublease with Thrift Shop is component of AFPD lease and one lease serves both Thrift Shop and Fire District - in exchange district agrees to be the fire district for the City of Aspen DISCUSSION: CB asked Darryl to discuss 2-3 year internal process about future, Darryl described station location analysis which was driven by impetus of Civic Center Master Planning process and opportunity that presented itself at Zupancis, ..-...._._,-,-......,.,,~~---.......,...~_._-...'-. --- - ,,"-.--'-'-~-'_.''''~-'' .-.- ,,~,------.+~._'..... , ...._.._.,.-.-....~--'.._.~~.".-------_..._.~_.._,- Darryl recognized goals could be reached, enhance life safety, and continue cultural contributions at existing site, Station is tremendous center of vitality, Realized that circumstances in other locations were not better or worse, but simply different and a broader scale of contribution could be achieved logistically where they are now, CB added that a Council member might add that the Thrift Shop has been traditionally a desire of City Council and once the AFPD lease is up for renewal, the Thrift Shop should be a part of this process, CB discussed when the consolidated station was under discussion at the Zupancis property and was able to handle needs at a larger parcel, and now those needs are shifting to another site, which is making this more viable, CB reiterated that it is important to understand and be comfortable with background because it becomes building block, QUESTIONS: Sam Houston asked if this process is about Fire Station, not really about the Thrift Shop, today, CB responded that it is and this process includes the Thrift Shop but it is part of the Fire District planning, The Thrift Shop doesn't have the same level of logistical matters, but they have their own issues, Sam questioned if the design we were going to see incorporated the Thrift Shop? CB responded that yes, it has always been envisioned that the Thrift Shop would be incorporated, Gilbert Sanchez has included it in the design, Darryl commented they are recognizing this as one concept, although there is a clear line, Bonding money for AFPD can't be spent to develop Thrift Shop facilities, Thrift Shop will develop their own funding program and line financially will be drawn, THUMBS UP for background and understanding of District history, GILBERT SANCHEZ (GS) and STUDIO B ARCHITECTS: COWOP exists to explore possibilities of site and GS has been working with Darryl and his group to identify those needs and physical constraints are evident. GS has spoken with Thrift Shop and they wish to remain on the site, Thrift Shop has spatial needs and desire generous space to operate efficiently and facilitate the community, Those two development opportunities are what GS is coming to the table with right now, GS wants to hear opinions and explore ideas and identify those that make sense to pursue, Darryl passed out a sheet and identified the building program which shows 4 lots that compromise 12,000 square feet of lot area, With uses and zoning, GS is able to go up to 36,000 square feet of FAR. Present building represents around 8,000 square feet. Order of magnitude of what is here now and what could be if FAR is maxed out is significant. Chart identifies specific needs with apparatus bays and support spaces totaling 6,000 square feet (net areas); shift quarters and dayroom, kitchen, laundry, bathroom about 2,500 square feet; district offices up to 2,800 square feet; Thrift Shop close to 4,000 square feet. Adding all that up including circulation and structure is somewhere around 19,500 square feet. At 20,000 square feet and we can go to 36,000 so there is room for more physical opportunities and there is room to do something else if desirable, GS showed model of block of Hopkins, Thrift Shop comes out or close to street line and aligns with ISIS, Isis is only historic building on this block, Scale of block: Zele Cafe is set back and is two stories, fire station is one, but with higher volumes with apparatus space actually one and a half, ISIS is three stories with its addition, Existing configuration has demarcation line between Thrift Shop and Fire Station and right now there is an architectural distinction, Physical differentiation has been discussed between the two buildings, and aesthetics and distinctions will evolve with discussion, but right now will be discussed as a general mass, Each bay is 22 feet wide by 52 feet long by 18 feet clear inside, Where it is now is the best way, Alley width is difficult and most of the time there are trucks present and apparatus space was quickly rejected in the alley, Activity in front of bays is special. Setback is an important guideline that relates to construction in the historic core, Buildings up to street make strong street front and pedestrian and building zone are clearly delineated which is a strong concept in an urban setting, Problem here is by pulling building back you could lose strong identity of street front. Texture, color, pattern were discussed to create more urban plaza when trucks aren't there, Break in street front allows something to happen with the unique qualities of this building, so it's a safe trade off to pull back from street front, foremost to satisfy life safety issues, Thrift Store would have floor added on top of its current space to double its current space, There is a potential for a third floor space, Joining the two would be a circulation spine there would be public entrance with an elevator, Seems economical and beneficial to share some elements, Could be additional office space, memorabilia to display artifacts, gallery, or a hall of honor. GS discussed carving out the bottom and have a second and third floor to park underneath and provide trash or other elements, Program space can be fit in and Darryl has discussed passing on legacy of space for future needs not anticipated right now and this might happen on third floor, Modular and wider components show typical downtown core and functions of apparatus space which stack up to 20,000 square feet. In commercial core zone you can go up to 42 feet, 46 if setback a certain distance from property line, fourth floor would be at 42 feet exactly, CB asked GS about last box on top, GS responded part of represents program and then condition for future needs, Darryl intercepted that one of the concepts is a consensus in emergency services across country that future is in emergency management and managing large number of resources, One concept AFPD is _......'__~~,~,_",__'-..~__,__.._"..~,..,.._._......",.^........".._._,___.,...-.-......, '_'~'''r~_~__;_'__'~'-'_ looking at is community room to be transformed into emergency operations center with all of communications and wireless capabilities, The need for sophisticated emergency operation center is apparent. Chris, Design Workshop asked why isn't that on this program? Darryl responded it's a multipurpose room and its going to be there but are still flushing out details, Darryl stated it's a programmatic issue with input from HPC and community at large and will come back before his board next Tuesday, GS discussed guidelines HPC used to review and how he focused on setback, and building mass and form witb scale, Detailing is down the road, Urban discussion of pushing building back to accommodate programmatic needs of apparatus bays yet HPC guidelines state that wherever possible the building should be up to the street front. GS stated that HPC agreed where apparatus bays are that wasn't possible, Circulation space and Thrift Store space were presented pulled up to the street line, Grassy area with trees and bell would be lost in order to satisfy HPC guideline, Block has a peculiar space and consideration was given to pushing elements back, Commentary and opinion stated it would create a stronger street line even though not on the street because of stronger relationship among all the buildings, GS would like more input as they are working hand in hand with HPC , Sarah (HPC): Clarified that HPC commission did not agree to consensus on the massing and its relationship with the street. She indicated that many of the commissioners felt it was important to maintain the zero lot line on this block, so not to steer judgment. GS responded that he meant there was a difference of opinion, He wants additional input. James Lindt added that the location of the bays was accepted by HPC, Sarah responded that there was a strong opinion that some of these buildings should be pushed forward to help define the historic street pattern, Amy Guthrie (HPC) added there was discussion at HPC that ambulance bay doesn't have same turning radius issues and there was debate about that Jason (HPC) stated weren't in agreement about all four doors being in the same plane and there was discussion about that being broke up, One bay is long this is truly for massing and discussion, Do we crowd the street and divide Zele Cafe from bays or pull back and make one continuous street facade, it's a community discussion, GS concluded presentation and opened up to talk about programs. CB asked for direction from GS as to how this committee relates to HPC and when he will need direction about the programs from this Task Force, GS references zone uses, CB mentioned not to worry about code, but to come up with the best idea, Marcia Goshorn asked about basement level. GS responded not planning on that now, Bruce Romero asked if that envelope anticipated for the Thrift Shop also anticipates a low grade program? GS confirmed, Bruce commented to revisit do we want to place a general community room general purpose room into the program today and secondly the notion of the back alley parking to ensure its recalculated for "x" parking spots at certain minimum depth. Darryl discussed difficulty with shift quarters and parking for staff. Apparatus weight, engineering and structure required for underground programs is extraordinary; shifts would be covered and off the street and you can tolerate mechanical rooms underground under rear portion of project. Chris, Design Workshop asked Darryl about the parking requirements for the trucks out back? Darryl stated there is uncertainty in the strategic plan and immediate goal is enhance goal to deliver mission, beyond that AFPD is out of sequence just a touch James asked how many firefighters are anticipated at one shift at one time? Darryl responded anywhere from two to six. During X-Games EMS demands on community are extraordinary and those events are increasing; Minimum of 2. Darryl confirmed quarters looks like dorm style housing and has workstations and a recreational component. Jason (HPC) questioned why wouldn't this be the place to have affordable housing? Darryl responded conditional housing will probably be a component of the program. Jason asked if volunteers were established or is there a need for housing? Darryl responded they would probably populate a couple of them. AFPD is specific in recruiting and looking for stable people. Goal is a 10 year volunteer. Don't want someone to volunteer because of housing. Sam Houston asked how wide is the Thrift Shop and the circulation space? Gilbert responded Thrift Shop is 28 feet wide and circulation space is about 20 feet. Bays are 20 feet deep. Sam commented having lived here for 21 years is happy for the fire department and thinks its great location is staying right here. As a developer it might not be the greatest investment, but he strongly supports its location from a community and social standpoint, and commented you never get a second shot at a property and suggests the Task Force consider, if economics make sense, look at going down a level now while they have chance; secondly Sam stated fire equipment has an important need to be at street level and circulation center bothers him that it could be a future need for a future bay. He suggests to stress it wide and big enough to use as alternate bay; Sam looks at the Thrift Shop as a potential future bay for the fire station and it should be managed and structurally built so it could be 6 bays and fire department can preempt. City should maintain that right on behalf of the community. Sam further commented that employee housing at the ISIS has transient use and suggests to save space as its emergency central. As a neighbor, Sam mentioned the ISIS has an elevator adjacent to fire station and is not speaking on behalf of his partners, but if that could help with access that might save space and expense. James asked where that elevator is located. GS summarized what has been said and Sam interjected he is not suggesting to reduce. Marcia added Sam's comments suggested flexibility for the future. GS responded he understands they do need to discuss other opportunities for programs at the Thrift Shop site. CB stated that the group should identify potential program elements to add to project and let GS as Designer and Darryl as policymaker and conduit to the district fetter those things out, then tell the City if those are true programs or not. After Darryl meets with his board it will be a feedback process. Sam's comments embody the fire districts concept about creating legacy for future needs. CB confirms this allows ideas to be put to the table. Potential program ideas are: 1. 2. Affordable housing Incident command emergency operating response center that has the technology to conform to an community meeting room to emergency operation center in a couple hours Museum/history element 3. Should affordable housing, apartment style, be looked at? A few no's. Marcia Goshorn commented that affordable housing works but would like to see flexibility in future so that if fire department needs change its use could shift. CB changed suggestion: 1. Should the Task Force give direction to Designer and Darryl to explore the idea of permanent affordable housing developed on the site and to have Darryl and GS respond to the Task Force from a physical design standpoint. Is it physically possible and is it consistent with vision of where the district sees this going? Report back yes on issues policy or design wise. THUMBS UP Rich Walker questioned whether affordable housing was for all employees or residents? CB responded that is part of the exploration and should be part of the discussion Fenton Construction commented it makes sense to really provide housing for fire volunteers and to think about quality of life for people living above fire station Sam mentioned his concern is idea of future needs of fire department and that is what site should be devoted to. Darryl is the right next step Darryl questioned modular or housing concept and CB responded both. Darryl sees public access and security concerns with FEMA and Homeland Security a parameter to this issue. They have promulgated increased security concerns because of link identified with people securing uniforms and using them for purposes. As a world class organization with world class personalities we are sensitive to issues and ADA requirements are going up Sarah (HPC) Due diligence requires every developer to provide affordable housing and as developers we need to put it through due diligence out of respect CB questioned 2. Should GS and Darryl explore possibility of affordable housing and temperance permanent ability and report back to Task Force so they can make decision? THUMBS UP 3. Should emergency central room be explored physically and what does it mean to other districts? THUMBS UP Darryl stated EOC room in Denver is probably 8 times size of today's meeting room with independent work stations all networked of 35-50 people with a media room that is secured from public; Ellen Anderson, County Emergency Management Coordinator is involved and Darryl would go to her to contact state and help flush concept out. Darryl guesses 2 or 3 times this size. This is a go vote. 4. Should museum, history, reference to past and district be explored? THUMBS UP - Darryl commented there will be a children's public education component to that concept 5. Should we explore back alley parking? THUMBS UP Chris, Design Workshop: what about functional requirements of Thrift Store? Sue responded we need increased or better designed storage to be addressed. Our input hasn't been explored. CB commented Sue needs to further explore with GS Sam thinks explore going down even if entirely unfinished. Darryl doesn't argue and will poll in the election. Romero stated to run it through constraints later. 6. Explore potential for basement? THUMBS UP Sam commented public space bay would go away before the Thrift Store went away. If you wanted expansion for another bay, an alternate should be discussed. 7. Should increments of building should be designed? THUMBS UP Darryl commented anything AFPD does is contingent upon Thrift Shop accommodation Jason (HPC) Urban space part of museum component? Do we want to have a pole and fire hose, hydrant out front? CB responded not an UP/DOWN on whether its forward or back, but to understand the feeling and character and urban design of the meaning of the buildings up front or pulled back. What does that really feel like? For everyone else we should walk through what is going to look/feel best. GS will explore that component for next time. Sue: Will people object to losing bits of greenery? CB said we should talk about that and it should be addressed Adjourned. Next meeting Thursday, January 19, 2006 11 :00 AM. Aspen Fire Protection District COWOP Task Force Meeting January 19, 2006 Fire District Leslie Lamont chaired meeting Cynthia Andrews, citizen appointee Scott Lindenau, Principal of Studio B (scottlindenaustudiob@sopris.net) Gilbert Sanchez, Studio B Darryl Grob, Aspen Fire Rich Walker, Aspen Ambulance Director Jeremiah Dancy, Fenton Construction Pat, Fenton Construction Marcia Goshorn, citizen, member of housing board Torre, City Council John Keleher Anne Foster, citizen (anneaspen@aol.com) Nancy Gensch, Thrift Shop Ellen Anderson Jack Wilkie Rob Schneider Dylan Johns, P&Z Chris Kiley, citizen (Steve Skadron, Sue Kolbe, Amy Guthrie, Sam Houston Jason Lasser, Linda McCarthy also present) Leslie Lamont (LL) welcomed everyone and James called for approval of January 12, 2006 minutes. Torre questioned task force's recollection of second half of meeting. Task force confirmed sentiments and no inaccuracies stated. Minutes approved. THUMBS UP COWOP task force list was updated. LL discussed issues team wanted Studio B to consider from last meeting. LL noted this is a public meeting and to keep discussion flowing public input time will be after discussion 5a, 7a and after 7d on agenda, then as we wrap up opportunity will be given to public for comment. Gilbert Sanchez (GS) his team further studied items from last week and met with DG and Fire District (FD) board to see what it meant from FD point of view; Dwayne was unable to join; Program sheet was revised to include museum educational component, community room, emergency opps room, additional basement space below apparatus bays which is about 5000 square feet and affordable housing (AH) 36,000 was mentioned as allowable FAR based on commercial zoning, but since four lots are publicly zoned and this is COWOP process, not restricted to FAR requirement, but GS wants to work within historical context of commercial core. Thrift Store (TS) is retail, so space changes to less than 36,000; public uses 3 t01 ratio meaning FAR to square footage of property, but for retail it is 1.5 t01 so half the amount of space; 31,000 square foot permitted to use under CC zoning. AH in CC zoning has no limitation in CC zoning. Using 31,000 square feet GS allowed 3,000 sq ft of housing on top of building; numbers will continue to adjust = 31,881 square feet includes program elements added in; Previous discussion was 4 bays, now 3 bays as FD future needS are already considered at North 40 currently under development. North 40 has 3 bays for future expansion that don't currently house equipment and FD has already considered things that could happen for the ABC which allows shuffling at headquarters to work better programmatically; GS showed sketch diagrams that identified how spaces would layout three dimensionally on 4 floors of space Scott Lindenau (SL) showed layout of 4 bays; HPC work session last week agreed bays set back makes sense looking at plaza, community gathering spot; lower level would keep current TS basement, expand for mechanical storage for FD and have entertained large basement to be done later although storage and moving up and down stairs with fire equipment not pertinent; mechanical equipment and storage elevator serves both; Ground level TS wants store front and component differentiated from FD and be two story volume, FD up to three and perhaps four stories. 4 bays, 9 parking spots TS 3-4, FD 3-4 protected by canopy; egress at least 2 fire stairs and elevator; 2nd level, because apparatus bays are 18 feet tall with 2 feet of structure this a double height space, TS has whole 2nd level, and in back are future dorm rooms for fireman; 3rd floor is open as museum, operations center, community gathering and offices for future; TS shows flat roof HPC suggest to step back from street and alley to put AH in 3000 square feet on 4th floor. SL goes to HPC work session next week and this is massing, not into window materials or patterns at this point; GS discussed cardboard model with parking commodity. GS established working budget of $350 square foot, at 31,000+ square feet = $9.5-11 million dollars; basement space under apparatus bays is $1.2-1.5 million dollars calculated at smaller than $350 as its unfinished space, yet more costly because it has to support loads of trucks above. Construction of AH would be three-quarters of a million dollars to a million dollars. Big picture budget numbers Going to talk about AH, street relationship (should two elements be close to street or pushed back to reinforce street line of apparatus bays), and talking about basement and back alley parking LL asked for questions about changes and Rich Walker asked if EOC and meeting room are part of agenda. GS responded it is open for discussion and with confirmation will move ahead. LL added to agenda for discussion after AH. James questioned if program without AH and without reinforced bays would be $9.5 - 11 million and GS corrected it does include full 32,000 square feet of program space. Jack Wilkie questioned if GS drawing represented full depth of bays requested 52 feet and GS confirmed 56 feet deep. Jack further inquired if AH required parking and GS confirmed there is a parking requirement for each unit per bedroom. Marcia confirmed yes for each bedroom but noted exceptions in cases. GS indicated they would be seeking mitigation to resolve off site parking FL VOYER Sam asked about commenting on architecture and GS stated that will be another agenda but confirmed there will be that opportunity. GS noted HPC has interest in that topic will have conceptual and final review. AFFORDABLE HOUSING Sam questioned if we were going to hear from DG and LL confirmed we are hearing from DG and GS DG stated at last meeting his reservations about mixing public use on top of emergency services facilities and raised concerns about involving programmatic security issues that are consequence of 911; DG cited FEMA and Office of Preparedness and Security and recognized strategic process is a plan. Programs are driven by plan and goal of FD is to enhance ability to provide life safety emergency operations. Vision articulated by Dr. Ritzi at the national level is to be successful for 15 years and over time will evolve into emergency services organization. Ellen might be able to speak about issue, specifically about vision for future and concerns about evolving facilities descriptions for emergency services in future and programs from federal and state level. Ellen discussed compatibility of emergency operation center or housing and consensus is times have changed to plan something useful for years to come personally and professionally they are not compatible uses. She mentioned Summit County just built EOC and facility is secure and housing could be putting citizens in harms way. DG stated he considers those elements and also considers visioning process beyond plan to deliver emergency services, but is this recognition as dwindling resource of opportunity to develop? DG restated North 40 facility front half will be developed to retain development of back portion of property against the needs for next FD to determine. Inclination and indicators are that North 40 space will wind up being employee housing for FD. DG speculates on evolving mission of fire district organizations and from a visioning standpoint DG would respect ability and opportunity to retain potential development opportunity at North 40 and headquarters. LL posed clarifying question about AH being in general community pool, strictly for staff, and dorm rooms in current proposal? DG responded shift quarters are common area for training, and to be successful over time, FD will move away from summoning volunteers to station because of increase in calls and risk bringing volunteer population in through traffic and crowds in commercial core and adjustment will be standing shifts. LL confirmed 2500 square feet are devoted to shift quarters as part of program. LL confirmed FD does not recommend AH for public, but that roof of 3rd floor be structural for future for FD staff housing or shift quarters. DG confirmed program includes roof engineered as a floor with utilities consolidated in a well that could be tapped into depending on needs. GS added that 4th floor space isn't part of program but design, structure, and mechanical systems will anticipate 4th floor. Amy Guthrie questioned would it be possible to design 4th floor and GS confirmed. Amy stated it would be nice to see the project. GS confirmed he could use CC zoning restrictions and maximum build out of site was going to be 32,000 square feet take he could take leftover through approval process, although it is PUD zoned, and if nothing changes in future there would be flexibility to consider a bigger development. DG conceded it as an excellent suggestion and show it as a maximum build out. If it evolved into less, it could be addressed at appropriate time. Jack Wilkie asked about cost figure and what that includes or potentially includes with 4th floor. GS stated figures included housing element, but if twice that size, then numbers aren't relevant. Jack further questioned still don't know if money is there for piece and DG responded the figure trying to arrive at with bond issue is based on plan and plan is a short term program about enhancing service. Money FD is working toward is all about enhancing FD ability to provide service and beyond that is visioning project and that is where Amy's maximum build out comes into play. Torre clarified the program sheet allocates 3,000 square feet of AH so figure of $9.5-11 million would include 3,000 square feet of AH on top and would include 4th floor. That individual AH component is estimated at three-quarters to one million dollars as part of the $9.5-11 million Marcia stated her intention was for AH to be for emergency workers and mentioned Housing Board discussed how to bump up ambulance drivers on priority list. On behalf of Housing Board she indicated they would support helping and trying to find a way for FD to pay for it. _____~'~_...A ,." ............~..._..___~_,~_'. John Keleher commented that design of 4th floor in year 2006 is counter productive if philosophy might change to a building we don't know what it will be in 20 years. Nancy questioned if AH on top of TS would that satisfy desire and GS responded the issue presented architecturally is providing access from street. Stairwells are shared by Theater and housing at ISIS. Separate stairwells eat up space and redundancy is not cost effective. Sam thinks it's a bad idea to have housing, other than dorm rooms, on top of fire station and stated his problems with housing above ISIS. Chris wanted to raise question AH above TS and believes worth exploring from design perspective because there are so few if any opportunities to provide housing for public or emergency workers, opportunity in the land of almost no opportunity. He remains intrigued with opportunity there even understanding operational logistical issues and safety concerns clearly paramount for this site but would like to collectively think about opportunity before taking out Ellen clarified her comments were about AH not shift quarters, her concern is shift quarters facility should be secure. 1. Is common general affordable housing appropriate above FS? THUMBS DOWN. Resolved. Off table. 2. Should GS explore opportunity of general AH housing above TS for general public? James questioned DG with security concerns with AH above TS next door? DG reserved comment but initial reaction is project parameters apply as a whole. TS might want to comment. SL added TS is only 24 feet wide, hallway and stair will compromise space. Nancy added shared elevator would be security issue and TS would not jump all over to have AH. Dylan stated at last meeting there was potential interest of expandability of facility for future needs which would include TS component and if still being considered we are back to issue of putting it directly over FS. Jason stated support of AH but inappropriate place especially after 9/11. Sam questioned if there is requirement to provide AH other than shift quarters and could it be done off site. James replied City Council could deem as essential public facility and there is possibility for waiver of em/ee housing mitigation, TS would expand sq footage through redevelopment and would be required to either show P&Z they are not expanding em/es or option of providing AH mitigation for additional sq footage either on site, through cash-in-lieu venue, or providing offsite unit. LL interjected this is a COWOP process and James concurred code is used as general guidelines, but City Council can waive AH mitigation ~ ". ,_~",__",--______"""~-,,.,.~_._,~_~v___._...,.~ requirements. LL stated it's important for COWOP to consider and weigh in because recommendations are given to City Council. Nancy stated they have no employees and James confirmed they are a nonprofit organization. Nancy further questioned she is confused by possibility of firehouse going into TS as space because they are paying for their building. LL stated that is further along agenda. 1. Expanding space above TS for general AH? THUMBS DOWN. Off table and recommendation and Council will consider recommendation. Marcia questioned if vote could state AH for just emergency services and not to general public? LL stated program structurally proposes design for ceiling of 3rd floor to accommodate staff AH in future. Ellen responded there is inherent difference between shift quarters where everyone who is in there should be there and having AH for families because you lose control of guests, children and is reluctant to say. LL questioned if that could be regulated by design of unit. Ellen responded it's a social thing and can solve architectural problems not social access. DG commented to maximize 4th floor potential for organizational needs in 20 years. LL asked from a structural design to we have a thumbs up? Torre questioned impact of costs? DG states achievable financially and is smart thing to do. Torre agrees, in light of Ellen's comments it would never be deemed appropriate for AH for families, but offices or other utilization might be incorporated. Sam states he has stressed 4th floor component before and it was negligible in scheme of things. LL concluded DG is stressing ability to plan for future legacy and could be additional shift quarters, housing, office space and would like to take housing question for 4th floor of firehouse off table and put in realm - can it be designed now and see what 4th floor looks like at this point for future COWOP and HPC review. DG thinks Amy's recommendation to look at massing is entirely appropriate. Jason commented as far as HPC, in 5 or 10 years if space is needed it will help with approval process for FD. Ellen confirmed yes is for massing now not with associated uses imposed, LL confirmed. Sam questioned not designing it but would go back for future review and just a block mass. Amy thought significant public buildings were one coherent beautiful piece of architecture and is concerned if we don't have idea right now what this might look like it ends an awkward 4th story down the road. SL responded design should address both 3rd and 4th floor. SL discussed function of 4th floor and stated traditionally buildings in downtown core are 1 lot wide, more significant buildings are wider. Will work with HPC for philosophy of designs and guidelines and be inventive in solution. GS questioned do we maximize footprint or design a building that will never see reality. DG stated his preference would be to maximize footprint and show community maximum impact of what mass would be. Could carry caveat with HPC and designers that specifies this is not a blanket approval and architectural components implemented in initial phase will be carried forward in some compatible fashion. 1. Design team to explore 4th floor maximum build out expansion and come back to COWOP review and utilized in HPC as well. (without a specific use) Torre questioned approvals at this point and stated in likelihood council would not tie a future council. DG stated point well taken. LL stated it could gain HPC approval at this point. Torre stated it could be folded into application but then eliminated at Council tables. Amy confirmed HPC could approve with condition that entitlements be granted in future. Sam commented Keleher's comments are right and by stressing it, it doesn't throw public in its mass without design. Amy questioned how it hurts fire station to get approval when it's only helping them in a way to preserve opportunities. Amy further confirmed HPC still wants it to maintain appearance and basic philosophies are going to be the same. James asked Amy if she feels future design (if not entitled now as part of HPC process with Council) will be disjointed design process if not designed at this point? Amy confirmed. Marcia stated the reason for 4th floor concept now is because she's seen it happen and it should be stated as possibility for future. THUMBS UP = 1 no, 6 maybes and 9 yes. LL addressed issue of housing over TS with emergency staff. SL stated it's a fire separation, two means of egress and an elevator. GS said it's more challenging than putting on bigger footprint and cost is not as efficient, but real issue is connection of ground to upper level. Without introducing two additional isolated stairs, we'll be using stair shared by fire station and something in back shared with TS, issue is how do you make vertical connection from ground to housing and maintain security that TS and FS have. Nancy commented TS issue of theft is enormous and would have concern with public access. Chris commented he understands applicability of AH for emergency services personnel and not public, but wants to know if FD thinks it should preserve (now or in the future) for additional space, future expansion and if so, it should be explored, or walk away if future program of FD space can be met elsewhere. DG responded that when TS was built this time, FD retained development right as part of the sublease in lease and reiterated that if possibility exists that potential exists for TS or FD, then should look at massing concept with HPC. DG thinks potential for additions should be looked at on top of short term 5 year plan and translate in some fashion to HPC with caveat that when it gets to Council, FD is retaining potential development 1. Design team explore another floor above thrift shop exterior fal;:ade perspective? Nancy suggested maybe they TS will need another retail floor and possibilities might be retail, office, and some form of housing. SL stated with additional office or TS space it would be easy without the separation of stairs and elevators, but housing component adds separation. LL questioned if ceiling was designed to structurally withstand another floor, GS was not anticipating that. Torre asked Ellen if proximity of any type of housing on top of TS would be issue of concern, and Ellen opined as inappropriate for general AH but could envision for Emergency Management Coordinator's office or Fire Chief, office not residential. She would vote on concept of how to capture volume of space with understanding it would be used for people with security clearance. Torre stated his concern is it would not be appropriate for staff AH. Ellen would not extend, Torre agreed. Amy questioned office space security with public visitation, maintenance, cleaning, how can you have any use with security issue? Ellen responded she deals with it on a daily basis and there is a big difference of people who are in the business and deal with security and the general public. Rich commented ambulance quarters include shift space for 2 medics on 24 hours a day and you can't tell them the can't have friend, relative, friend or wife come by and people are in and out of building not secured and thinks shift quarters on 3rd floor will have Same problem with people coming in and out DG commented sliding scale of security and in normal course of operations. Guidelines state when level of activity ratchets up, then so do security procedures and facility adapts. Ellen commented Summit County has implemented this at EOC with swipe card and as dispatch can change access in seconds. LL stated goal is to give FD an understanding of what program elements are they have to build into budget for this bond issue. 1. Explore possibility to utilize 3rd floor above TS for whatever future use it is determined works best for FD and/or TS, structurally designing that floor / ceiling to accommodate and for HPC review process 4th floor architectural design. (use to be determined in the future) General AH housing is NOT appropriate at this location. THUMBS have it, 2 sideways. Those sideways need to write up and will be included. No public comment. LUNCH. LL One item after AH is meeting room and potential museum incorporated in project. GS and SL talked about significant square footage on 3rd floor that could be CI room and museum piece. Rich commented thumbs up. Marcia questioned of museum component would be flexible for command center. DG's vision is in reception area cohabitating with children's educational component. Torre confirmed for lower area and supported. LL addressed it has been programmed and discussed at HPC. THUMBS UP? Jason commented to approach as educational piece versus museum James questioned as to whether DG and Ellen are comfortable with square footage in program for these elements. GS confirmed 1300 for community room and emergency ops 30x45, just community room/emergency ops room = multipurpose room. Ellen commented Breckenridge's new facility is 20x40 so she feels comfortable with space and heartedly agrees sense of history, perspective and opportunity for education and should be design so visitor and space is secure. Torre asked for more clarification from program sheet 2 columns museum/educational at 1500 sq ft then below community room / emergency opps at 1300 sq ft. DG stated historical aspect will be community room, not museum like Stallard House. Torre questioned ground floor on east side of building is educational and museum and DG confirmed as part of reception area. LL added that is 1500 sq ft and community/special opps is 1300, 2 separate. Amy asked if that is room on 2nd floor and DG confirmed. GS confirmed 3rd floor above bays. THUMBS UP. UNANIMOUS STREET RELATIONSHIP OF FACADE OF THRIFT SHOP AND CIRCULATION COMPONENT GS stated HPC guidelines encourage new construction to be built right at property line and reinforces street frontage and fabric of downtown core, but issue is apparatus bays because of way trucks turn. They need to be pushed back from sidewalk and everybody was in agreement that made sense of and other options didn't work from function and life safety point of view. Apparatus bays could stay where they are now and provide apron or pad that becomes public plaza. Circulation element and whether TS should be pulled up to street in compliance with HPC or be pushed back to align with Zele was issue. On Mill Street Le Chef's has pit of open space on corner. Zele's open space is functional. Plan presented to HPC reflected in model maintains existing configuration of open space and pulls elements out to maintain public space which experiences pattern. Difference in existing scheme steps back FD offices and green space with bell and rock are taken away. Three elements along Hopkins are maintained. If pushed back a large open space becomes continuous along Hopkins which becomes urban planning and HPC guidelines question. GS illustrated 2 images with apparatus bays back and one public area so continuous wall is created open space stretches from Galena to ISIS. SL added in the 2nd model the TS is two stories and imagine 3rd floor in mass and scale. Model shows three floors at FD and imagine 4th floor. One thought was amazing museum component with windows, conference table, glass, light element, overlooking plaza and TS has requested storefront. Architecturally they are looking at 2 or 3 different types of materials. GS added glass doors and nice lighting so fire trucks are visible from street. At other end of block, view shows elements proposed to street Zele space is enclosed and secluded and City Hall is visible in view. SL feels it's nice to have eroded fal(ade with interplay of light and shadows. Also HPC has asked to iook at components to make special plaza with plantings or lights when trucks are out being washed it, becomes public plaza. GS discussed stained concrete has been discussed to create plaza look. LL gives Amy or Jason opportunity to weight in on HPC, Jason stated discussion about urban planning problem was guidelines state to maintain streetscape and typically all buildings pulled up to front to maintain street line and it to pull it back to firehouse and Zele, that maintains streetscape, but Sara (HPC) stated that Zele could go away and then what? If something reclaims that corner then that's not compliant. Basically HPC would be making a special exception to pull back and match the fire house door; guidelines read to pull to street; it's a big community question as to how to interact with space, create a community plaza? Want to tie into existing pattern or historic pattern. Existing green space considered part of green space or not? Certainly gray area there and didn't see renderings at last meeting. From view accentuates bays and it looks like one humongous flat building. Undulating facade of upper image ties into historical aspects. Personal gut reaction is upper drawing ties in with scale. HPC didn't make any decision about it and wants to get read on this from COWOP. Amy agrees with Jason and that if one thing is important about downtown redevelopment to HPC it is building up to sidewalk. Torre thanked HPC position and agrees with top image that in context the top is more representative of what space could be best utilized for. Had question for small landscaping and block line where TS and office are. SL confirmed green space is counted abutted up to street and is opportunity for entrance to TS and FD and relocate bell. DG commented space in U does not see much activity and is always in the shade but bell and garden at TS has people there all the time. Marcia commented it doesn't show there would still be bell. If bumping buildings to streetscape knocks out, don't want to see that happen. GS replied that is important as HPC guideline would eliminate those elements if we complied fully. Chris is proponent of little open space, small but important to maintain. Concept of fire station as community and reality of post 9/11 and inability to bring community inside leads to solutions outside walls of fire station. He recognizes intent of HPC guidelines and exception to move away and maintain consistent street back from sidewalk seems to be good compromise. Sam echoed and feels strongly about functionality of fire department but likes idea of block party and community idea from Zele to ISIS. Bound by open space? James responded in PUD process Council has ability to waive or reduce open space requirements but in public zone district there is no specific open space requirement but surrounding properties have 25% requirement. Allowance has been put in code to review or reduce or provide value in another pedestrian manner. Torre stated it would be measured against a 25% requirement and some changes have been made to code to allow for flexibility. Ellen suggested keep in mind visual, social and sound implications. Undulating wall and coffee and fire trucks makes city exciting and dynamic and personally likes idea of surprise. Important that spaces encourage activities we want. Agrees FD is wonderful community asset and asks how big does area need to be and does it need big views. Overlay social and community service and gathering aspect of FD, how big a space do we need for that and would undulating give enough space? Ann commented on loss of trees. Understands relocation of bell but without trees and landscaping it would be very harsh without anything to soften or gather you in. GS commented opportunities still exist, would be a tree well like in front of ISIS. GS reminded there are increments with elements to provide best of both. Nancy suggests there should be some other creative solution as if pushed all the way back TS would lose retail footage space and TS would not be in favor of going all the way back. Jason stated HPC talked about keeping TS and bays part of needs for future and didn't know if that will affect turning radius. He sees issues as balance between green space, where future doors could be, creating urban space, satisfy HPC. Torre said large abutting block on that building didn't strike as historically in context or serving community plaza needs and reacted negatively. Jason added there was HPC discussion about cantilever and way to bring to form to ground or different architectural opportunity SL stated these drawings are to evoke discussion and are mo means solutions. GS responded by drawing horizontal component on Hopkins starting to pick up street patterns which HPC requirements discuss but this is very abstract and conceptual at this point. James added maybe the pattern could be picked up without using the cantilever method. Amy stated picture of old fire station that was a wooden building with tall fire tower really stuck out as an element and maybe this building could have same presence that people notice from a distance. DG stated good point and bell tower actually had bell in there. SL added fire tower at ABC is one they will be repelling and practicing bring their ladders up. DG added this is a marvelous suggestion and this has got to be significant 1. COWOP recommends design team explore a balance between pulling these 2 building elements up to street versus maintaining historic setback (meaning Zele building setback) and explore balance between two primarily to preserve and enhance public space and to be able to incorporate more landscaping that typical, including the bell. THUMBS UP. 2 maybes Public comment: Linda McCarthy form TS support DG comment that apron in front of FD is gathering place, but space in front of offices of FD between FD and TS is more of a gathering space in all other days and benches and shade - people eat lunch - would like to see this committee consider keeping that area as it's a day to day area where people gather if not sitting at Zele LL should we change language? Torre commented to add it. Nancy stated in some form a public space should be preserved for a function of gathering, waiting husbands, or dogs. THUMBS. You will see language again. Rich asked for clarification if you pulled up or moved back building is it still the same building size? GS stated square footage would be reduced with parking in the back and TS would be moving the front fac;:ade but not the back. FEASABIUTY OF BASEMENT DG prefaced two components to basement discussion, basement and alley parking. Structures required to support apparatus are exorbitant but if incorporate cantilever on second floor at alley side and covered parking for shifts will reduce load. Under circulation area the possibility is there. LL questioned if that is represented in the unfinished basement space 5,000 square feet in program: GS confirmed it is dotted area from front of apparatus bays to alley and ballparked partial basement size at 18 feet by 90 feet, 1800 square feet DG stated his board expressed reservations and no cost benefit to 5000 square feet basement program GS added the basement program identified is 1400 square feet and could happen underneath sliver next to alley or underneath circulation space; SL added it will be primarily mechanical and storage, and could excavate for light wells which is expensive downtown Sam stated having done this at ISIS it was time consuming and costly but believes you only have one shot empty site, so might seem expensive now but its only opportunity and would hate to lose space. John replied you could do soil digging and go back and excavate but precluding that is to build floor structure that will carry trucks. DG did say this is difficult issue and from programmatic standpoint and visioning standpoint, and he doesn't think board and department could justify it. It's relatively easy to speculate, but to excavate entire site against vague criteria, his board is not ready to go but does recognize need for underground components and align those potential uses against areas within structure to achieve in relatively financially sound way. Sam stated a developer looks at cost of developer foot and total FAR. So those 5,000 feet in "AAA" location are worth a million dollars and its good value once you are doing it and would hate to see developable square foot evaporate forever. LL stated we do have potentially in program is 1800 square feet for fire station. GS responded program right now is 1500 square feet of below grade space. Jason said can add 1800 if below parking LL: 1500 plus 1800. Recommendation from FD board is they want to do a partial basement under cantilevered space and office and circulation area but do not want to go with full basement. Ellen questioned if there is any thought to devote all space to parking for firefighters. DG responded with grades they couldn't get there. SL added it's extremely expensive. Jeremiah added $3000 a parking space. James asked if number of spaces turning radiuses were explored and SL responded never took it that far. Torre asked how many street surface spots does FD currently hold and DG responded 11 across the street and 3 from the corner. Torre's thought on dollar side is if FD could move parking needs underneath the City potentially could take some sense of revenue they would get back on 14 street side parking spaces. DG responded problem is way services are delivered but have to provide safe landing zone for firefighters and needs are set in stone. Sam asked DG if this wasn't a cost issue for FD and money was available from other exactions or was free would DG look at it slightly differently? If there was ability to have 18 parking spaces would FD think its possible to get a certain number of parking spaces, study and look at that, possibly Torre could look at money available or not? DG responded his board has reputation for being fiscally conservative but answer to that inquiry would be yes. Ellen would like to explore and mentioned how Europeans get parking in small subterranean spaces and maybe there are creative ways to finance it. Ellen suggested in 20-30 years deliver service of FD maybe different. DG responded caveat would still be subject to security concerns and emergency services. DG senses over time organization will modify way it delivers emergency services. Jack suggested to throw option of going under the ramp for space. GS stated footprint available for parking is all way under street, but not TS basement. LL: Does anybody not support ability for FD to put into their program the additional 1800 square feet of basement space (storage or mechanical) that DG said his board supports, underneath cantilever parking and includes office space which will not preclude access to rest of property. Is this a for? THUMBS. Does everyone support FD to continue to explore utilizing the entire property for below grade space? Particularly given Torre's comment about revenue sharing. Torre stated even if we were to build a parking garage under the structure today, it does not serve their program needs right now. Street side parking relies on that. Gated system for underground parking would not work. Possibility of future development and City revenue cost sharing and 14 spots might work. Does COWOP support FD exploring possibility of underground space, property line to property line, in conjunction with the City (not specific for parking) THUMBS UP. BACK ALLEY PARKING: Support cantilevered parking? THUMBS UP. GS stated anywhere from 7-8 spaces maximum. Sue Kolbe asked if that space goes to Zele wall. POSSIBLE USE OF TS SPACE AS APPARATUS BAY GS stated width is appropriate, but problem is 2 story TS would lose a floor in the future and floor would have to be strengthened. Ambulances can fit 10 foot clearance. DG's strategic vision sense is FD has ample apparatus for foreseeable future. Nancy stated TS is paying for that building and they can't be on bond issue so don't know exactly where they begin to pay for all this, where ownership and boundaries are. Marcia added when TS discussion took place they were looking at future safety needs and made sense to design, not that TS would go away. Nancy added issue is TS is paying for the building. Jason questioned if scheme is still 4 bays. GS confirmed. DG stated its how you arrange footprint of apparatus. DG's board said public education, circulation and reception component are required and can't see issues that would trump. LL questioned original 4 bay but now 3 and GS responded because of museum component the circulation might get wider, it's all in flux. DG stated department has developed facilities description and that was premise on which GS & SL brought to HPC and COWOP process. SL said with 3 bays ground floor becomes wider, entry, and look at museum interactive component. Trucks are tighter with 4 bay scenario. Fire trucks open with parts out and 3 bays make more spacious with grander entry. Input will evolve. Sam still thinks public space should be stressed as potential bay. Jason stated reason for voting on item is to see if could expand from lot line to lot line including TS and now we are talking 3 doors, where are we? GS stated it is more complicated than presented and by reducing bay count and adding space, we pull program around, not just museum space. James stated if we come to point where you push both circulation corridor and TS up to medium setback you will still have turning radius issues unless its for an ambulance where you don't need turning radius. Ellen commented for EOC you need to have a raise floor for wiring. Nancy would need to go to TS board to see if they want to be in if there is possibility they will be gone in 10 years. DG didn't think it would come to eviction. Nancy said TS can't afford that. DG responded that is understood and now circulation provisions are under discussion to possibly be converted to operational motif if need should arise. Linda commented historically OF has let TS know about change and they trust FD guarantees. Does COWOP support concept of TS space designed as a future bay apparatus? NO THUMBS. With regard to circulation corridor and education program space, should that be designed to accommodate a future bay? THUMBS UP HAS IT. James stated next step is architects will take information, come back and design, HPC conceptual review, and question for task force is do you want to see developed design before HPC for conceptual? THUMBS UP Next COWOP meeting Thursday, January 26th Aspen Fire Protection District COWOP Task Force Meeting January 26, 2006 Chris Bendon chaired meeting. James Lindt, Dwayne Romero, Rich Walker, Gilbert Sanchez, Darryl Grob, Jeremiah Dancy, Pat (Fenton Construction), John Keleher, Marcia Goshorn, Nancy Gensch, Cynthia Andrews, J.E. DeVilbiss, Anne Foster, Jack Wilkie, Jason Lasser, Dylan Johns, Sara Broughton, Amy Guthrie, Leslie Lamont present. Presentation of Updated Plans: Gilbert showed adjustment to program noting key change to 4th floor as future build out to retain potential for future (7500 square feet) and basement space from lot line to lot line (approx 7000 square feet). COWOP process added (underneath district office) museum educational component and community room emergency ops. Numbers now total gross area at 40,071 square feet and Gilbert asked for confirmation of programs today. Conceptual diagram represents 40,071 square feet to be further defined and adjusted. Gilbert showed diagrams with parking space underneath bays, without lower level parking but basement space; ground level 3 bays, circulation spine, thrift shop, parking spaces along back and loading drop off area for Thrift Shop; 2nd level has higher volume of apparatus bays and shift quarters behind, museum educational component and Thrift Shop and provides covered element over parking spaces; 3rd level accommodates district office, community room and emergency ops room; 3 levels accommodate current program and anticipated future needs would go on 4th level at 7000 square feet. Plaza COWOP discussion concluded some compromised location would provide best solution to retain street front, green space, rock and bell for generous public space. Gilbert showed he could provide textured pavement distinctive from sidewalk and street. Gilbert stated HPC desired front doors to face street. Location of Thrift Shop front door was changed to come off street. Gilbert indicated relationship with seating area in front of Zele, activity generated in fire station plaza, and ISIS plaza in front of stair tower addition. Gilbert studied 3 story and 4 story versions and asked for HPC comments. Jason commented 4 story issue was to think 10 years ahead and with no program going in there they asked Darryl's preference and Darryl indicated the smaller would be better. Jason stated HPC discussed what looked better and how plane of 4 story sat on top of second story and whether 4 story should sit stacked above cantilever 3rd story or back like ISIS does. Will that affect view plane? HPC didn't reach consensus as 4th story is make believe right now. Jason further stated HPC discussed urban space created below cantilever museum issue and people entry into new fire station and drawings today were different from last night. HPC discussed depth of doors and was that conforming to public space as COWOP desired. Looks like changes reflect 4 feet, and reduced depth of cantilever experience as you walk under museum piece entry. Thrift Shop door was moved in front and Jason thinks it's a good change and is successful solution. HPC discussed wall on ISIS and other side and no conclusion. HPC also discussed placing bell underneath cantilever inside museum. Sara added HPC open to idea of hitting middle ground with setback which is 100% against guidelines but were open to compromise. HPC looked at idea with 3 bays and band width of building narrower. Her personal feeling is (in terms of HPC guidelines) 4th story pulled out and aligned with cantilever is keeping with what HPC wants to see in urban historic core. If planning to structurally provide for the future, that is the direction she would like to see it go and that is what is represented in the model right now. Not impacted by any view plane. Gilbert concurred. 4th floor is 43 feet high and stair tower at back serves circulation, roof access and siren. Back comes up to 54 feet high. Another element is 3rd floor above Thrift Shop. Sara commented exterior stair could be used. Gilbert some structure would have to hold siren up. James asked if tower on 3 story scheme would be shorter. Gilbert concurred and stated if 4th story was ever built stair would have to be extended and question of support for sirens. Gilbert added there was discussion of whether it was appropriate to comply with 4th floor up to base of 3rd floor. His argument was 4th floor being smaller and set back would have no visual impact from street scape. Amy added you need to engineer so however resolved in 10 years, have shutdown options, to handle lined up or set back. Dwayne commented it is possible. Jason thought easy to stack up with garage door below. Darryl stated provisions could be made in point loading. Chris asked Gilbert for direction of whether 4th floor is in future. Darryl stated merit in awareness of potential for use of 4th floor, not asking for approval. Jason added if we engineer building to support we have to make the decision of where we are going to put it or have idea where it's going to go. James stated (entitlement issue) its important COWOP provide discussion now for potential 4th floor. Could be need for 4th floor in future if Fire District has need for space and identified use program; maybe we should take consensus vote acknowledging there is possibility for 4th floor in future, it should be structurally developed for three floors so that it could accommodate additional level JE asked if there was an argument against not engineering building taking to 4th 2 floor. Chris asked if anyone has concern about looking at 4th floor regardless if in middle or up to fayade of building? Bruce responded from an economic perspective, the inclusion of additional structural engineering and stress for building structure is a cost FD has to incorporate into estimating. Today they don't have program that requires or needs 4th floor and are willing to entertain what additional costs the structural install means. Its good for public and FD to have flexibility and put in record today, and FD would be comfortable trying to absorb engineering and costs for super structure for the future but are stressed and tapped financially. Gilbert showed images illustrating 3 story scheme view from Galena down Hopkins. Chris questioned should FD stress building for potential 4th floor as part of this approval? Is there of opinion about 4th floor being up to front or recessed? Gilbert and Bruce agreed with those questions. Gilbert wants to know if FD is intent on being prepared for some future development. With no direction they would pay for entire footprint of structure to accept 4th floor, but if opinion not to fill out footprint, then potential to save money and only structure part of building that 4th floor seems reasonable for. Chris mentioned the risk is any board has concern about binding future Council. Sam stated if COWOP voted to stress back half of building today but not apply for 4th story today and save money today, he would vote for stressing it back. If vote would be to stress whole floor today, he would vote not to stress whole thing today. Jason commented if COWOP doesn't know what future needs are we can't decide how much program and have to maximize area and accommodate future needs and be covered, if setback, we are making design decision, if to front we will maximize whole thing. Chris questioned if Jason is in favor of saying structure it for maximum flexibility. Jason said we don't know now, so go the whole distance to be covered. Dylan questioned what the actual cantilever distance is right now. Gilbert responded about 5 feet. Dylan commented it makes sense to get visual relief and line up with bay doors because extra load of 5 feet will add costs to 4th floor. Dwayne stated we have to overlay financial realities of today and pointing out surcharge expense of cantilever and nominal benefit, there is a bit of a trade off. Darryljikes concept of maximizing potential to align with legacy vision, but is not sure that losing 5 feet with added expense would be significant detriment. Dylan added you can cantilever roof structure out and fill in walls around it and have flexibility. James questioned if there is a cost estimate of what difference would be now if you just reinforced the back. Jeremiah stated COWOP has to plan for mechanical and electrical requirements right now and everything in beginning should be oversized. It's not just the structure. Chris questioned if that is a big 3 numbers decision. Jeremiah stated it's a bigger number if set out. Sam and Sara stated the numbers aren't that big of a deal. Sam would agree to compromise structure above bay doors and not all way up to front. He paid for ISIS to be held back for aesthetics. This has exemption. Pat commented ISIS setback was about 20 feet. As a citizen and neighbor Sam votes for setback as free market ISIS apartments are. Marcia disagreed with idea of pushing back to same as free market as future needs and flexibility of ISIS apartment and fire department are different. Amy commented that it makes her anxious for COWOP to take firm position about where 4th floor should be as it doesn't meet HPC guidelines. Should the Fire District strive to/ be enabled tol provide structure to accommodate a 4th floor in some independent configuration? THUMBS UP. Should this COWOP group limit where that structure is? THUMBS DOWN, Sam is Thumbs Up. Question rephrased - Should the structure be unlimited to provide for any configuration of a 4th floor? Keleher, Sam, and Rich are NO. Keleher commented his personal philosophy is he likes 3 story building a whole lot better than 4 story and HPC guidelines may be changed in 20 years and might not want buildings 20 feet tall. Rich feels it burdens fire department with having to structure 3rd story to come out over the bays and will cost extra money. From visual and cost standpoint he votes to move back 5 feet. Jason commented to change language to maximize within budget constraints and programmatic needs of fire department. Bruce added "today". Chris agreed that enables district to do entire footprint, but this group will not make that decision. Dylan added they may still be able to bring all the way out. Chris stated The district would be enabled to structure entire floor with no limitation with this issue. James asked for clarification about how difficult it is to reinforce something after its built and what the difference in cost is. Pat added to go back and restructure is costly and to make use of top floor, structure should be done now. Gilbert stated the process would have to remove walls to get to structural columns, add on elements, and dig down into foundation to expand footings to support all of that. Sam disagrees and states that bringing point loads up to fire bay doors and whole rest of back is not argued and should be done no matter what. Sam stated this is a back door way to come in to do this much quicker than it's going to happen. COWOP voted affordable housing is inappropriate but foresees pressure from community. Sam stated you don't have to take loads to front of 5 feet. Pat commented it's not cost effective to do the cantilever. Sam replied you could do it later. When 4th floor comes forward it would have to prove its own merit and go through its own entitlement process for design and land use. Should Fire District provide structure in building to accommodate a 4th floor in any configuration, this vote enables them to do so. THUMBS UP (SAM) JOHN and RICH comments noted) 4 James stated COWOP should give HPC recommendation about public space in front of Thrift Shop and circulation space. HPC discussed how dark area was and whether it was quality public space. Jason concurred feedback is great. As a HPC officer now he could argue that with it pulled back that plane by the apparatus doors should be one consistent fac;:ade and that third story should be projecting architectural elements. Gilbert balanced appropriate open space, reflecting image of park and program that Thrift Shop and Fire District require, compliance with HPC guidelines and COWOP meeting conversation for programs incorporated. Glass wall entry will have connection to pedestrian activity outside. Artifacts may be on main floor as introduction to educational components on upper floor. Hope to retain activity outside, congregate in public circulation, and provide generous access into building. Gilbert added Thrift Shop is not a true retail establishment and window display is not as important as retaining green space. Thrift Shop is more of a destination space. Nancy added it is important to recognize Thrift Shop as a store. They have dressed mannequins and wouldn't want it blocked with trees. Gilbert discussed low scale greenery. Nancy would want to have an inviting wide enough access with large windows as they have now so displays can be seen. Gilbert added they compromised based on conversations and modulated front to accommodate and seems to be good solution. Chris confirmed Gilbert wants guidance from COWOP to HPC about orientation of public space, setbacks, open space, green space. Gilbert added some agreement these are appropriate components to have (paved area, green space, generous entrance). Jason questioned the location of the bench underneath and where are people going to sit, sun or shade. HPC has purview over landscaping and Gilbert will continue dialogue with HPC. Is COWOP comfortable with concept, big picture? THUMBS UP James discussed seating wall on east side and discussion in HPC with its functionality and whether it would create issues with fire truck access. Darryl had no operational concerns at this point. Amy asked for clarification about green space to left or door as storage area which could theoretically be pulled forward. Jason clarified the point was to reduce overall length of apparatus door wall. Sara stated the plan shows storage closet but maybe it's a window. Chris asked HPC members if this is a big picture and response was no, it's a design for architects to look at. HPC didn't ask for direction from COWOP. HPC voted that they generally wanted open space and final formation is yet to be determined. Darryl concurred and COWOP can reconvene to fine tune design elements. James added the consensus was on general site plan and with street scape. Gilbert will have HPC conceptual review and approval about design on 5 -...,........---- February 8th and final review will detail elements. Sam thought previous conversation was that 4th bay was stressed so if it had to be apparatus bay it could be. Darryl said it will be addressed in fundamental engineering and have tremendous flexibility within those point loads. Gilbert stated it is narrow than full 22 foot bay. Leslie commented HPC and COWOP are informing each other in this process and firehouse is taking this to vote. What comes out of two groups is important and represents a variety of interests. Sara pointed out what was presented last night is in no way a 4th bay and questioned if we are planning for a 4th bay as it is narrow right now. Sam said first 2 meetings planned and voted yes. It would be a pity for all citizens if we didn't allow for that today and they need a totally separate site, so it should have preemptive right to get rid of the park. Darryl clarified 4 bays get awkward and have tried to make up space for what they need. Increasing depth to 56 feet gives tremendous flexibility in apparatus. Ambulances can access same egress diagonally through bay door. Fire District will always need a circulation area and have provided a maximum square footage front to rear'and then side to side to give huge amount of flexibility in large open space. Darryl is not absolutely sure station should be designed to tear a segment out and add a 4th bay. Gilbert added earlier scheme with 4 bays were 18 feet wide and 3 generous bays were more flexible and adaptable than 4 substandard bays. It was determined 3 bays met any foreseeable need. JE commented May election issues does not bind City Councilor suggest that he would vote the same way as he may be persuaded to vote in another fashion. Chris commented overhang above bay doors is issue for HPC conceptual review and overhang above pedestrian access is also an issue. Gilbert added circulation spine overhang issue was its effect on creating recessed entry and the response shown today addresses that. Sara would like COWOP feedback. Bruce commented it won't be cost effective. Darryl stated it serves program needs and he likes look of building. Bruce added aesthetics and program overrule and weight the costing of it. Chris added 2 overhangs should be different discussions and one doesn't dictate the other. Gilbert noted sections of guidelines and discussion of how does new building relate to historic building. Commercial Core typical building has identifiable store front and upper floors are generally distinguished from that lower floor in some way. Gilbert's modern interpretation of cornice line is to provide cantilever shadow line that is similar to deep cornice on ISIS and provides separation between street level (apparatus bays) and upper levels. Overhang is close to 18 feet as floor structure will cantilever out to support the floor. Over the pedestrian entryway right now are drawing 10 or 11 foot floors 6 and might relook at proportions. Sam stated that the cantilever of the upper public space is lower than a bay that would allow you to do anything in the future, and since future needs are unknown, stressing of 4th bay and possible 5th bay should be such that height is enough to accommodate future needs. Gilbert added there is some flexibility in approach which maximizes opportunity. Sam said it should be on record that the City, only based on the prompting of the Fire Department, should agree that condition understood is fire station has preemptive rights for future bays should they need it for community good. Chris summarized height, although lower than other bays, doesn't preclude the bay that would serve the smaller apparatus. Darryl confirmed and said that could be accommodated and respects point to have it on record. RECOMMENDATION OF SUPPORT TO HPC? THUMBS UP. Chris stated next item for discussion is feasibility of basements under fire apparatus. First half of COWOP process is giving competence for Fire Department that this program is what the program so they can put a number on it. Gilbert mentioned plan from alley lot line to front lot line and inserted parking in basement spaces below apparatus bays and below driveway which requires ramp in from alley down. Width limits parking location and slots have specific requirements. Space is taken out for stairs, mechanical space to accommodate ventilation equipment, and potential second means of egress along with ADA elevator makes maximum 14 to 15 spaces in 7000 square feet. In addition, negative impact on upper floor would have to carve away at support space and one of bays to provide head room for car or truck to come in or out. Contractor said $250 a square feet = $1.7 million. Darryl commented that parking spaces across street is currently landing zone for volunteer Fire Department and is a critical component of their ability to respond in timely fashion to emergencies. To eliminate that would require complete reorganization of department and eliminate need for volunteer to quickly access station to put apparatus or equipment into service. Darryl sees that discussion 20 years down the road with different department. Darryl can't argue against parking but difficulty is cost. Bruce added without accelerating or truncating discussion, this item hits budget constraints and what they can reasonably secure in what size bond to pursue. In analyzing bond size, they test to ensure volume is well supported and ties explicitly to Fire District mission. Candidly just like any public mission, there is concern about ability to succeed on mission, so it is a presented number with supporting evidence and purpose for the money. Bruce wants to ensure purpose is explicitly tied to and can be objectively supported in mission. It's clearly an order of magnitude difference of cost coupled with impact on base level program. It's discomforting what Gilbert stated about force of movement on apparatus bay area and head heights for ramping. He doesn't believe they have luxury to go to an open ended result with bond size. It's important not to overload community with perception of extravagance. Chris asked for commentary from Darryl about how trucks in alley affect 7 operation. Darryl confirmed that is service access to buildings. If parking is relied on, then people are "on shift" and that is different program. To eliminate immediate need for different landing zone, you have to have people on shift 24/7 and have luxury to park wherever you want. Sam and Torre spoke at last COWOP meeting that underground parking shouldn't be a burden of Fire District to finance if parking made sense. It shouldn't be part of bond issue. Sam thinks it should continue to be studied as you only get to go down once. Spots across street in small downtown are owned by City and to come up with financial solution may be beneficial. Other benefits are, if the City, who has easements under streets, agreed to extra bay under the street or alley, borders could grow under sidewalk and out. It's a rare opportunity here that might be a good idea not at Fire District expense. It might be a long term benefit to be able to have people parking underneath and to reclaim other spots. Marcia agrees with Sam's point. It's a missed opportunity if we don't dig down, but other concern is spaces out front need to stay for safety. To only have 4 parking spaces to take care of Thrift Shop and anybody in rooms upstairs doesn't cut it. City has always been short on parking spaces and won't ever find again, and agrees it doesn't need to be a part of the bond issue and there may be another way to help pay for it. This opportunity will never come again. Jason asked if elevator in garage was considered that goes down to basement and up to create parking space below and above. Marcia asked Ellen at last meeting about police and sheriff's cars parked in garage. If there are extra parking spaces they have problem of having to scrape windshields in emergency in unheated garage. From public safety point, it's a selling point for having additional space. Mike commented that being on the Fire Department he would never use spaces if he had parking across street. Alley is full 80% of time in a day and if emergency vehicles are down there and can't get out, by the time you can emergency could be done. He thinks parking is a waste of money. Jeremiah stated realistically 14-15 spaces and also losing 4 spaces up top, so really building for 12 spaces. Gilbert stated in current configuration they would not lose 4 spaces, but would lose program area. Darryl asked if function of preliminary COWOP is to establish working number, can he get a description or assurance of alternative funding sources. Chris responded that won't happen between now and when number is needed. Darryl's number was developed over time and think it is appropriate based on specific programs driven by desire to enhance ability to service mission. Darryl is struggling with merit to comments and how to integrate that to election calendar. 8 Chris responded from City's perspective there would be agreement with spaces freed up and become metered parking (value for the City) in exchange for spaces in garage. A metered space is approximately $4500 a year. If amortized, and you vacate that space, it's worth $25-30,000 to the City. Parking space in magnitude of 100-120,000 space gets 20% of parking space costs. Is that a luxury? Still have logistical issues. Darryl stated accessibility to spaces will be delayed because they are integral in way volunteer fire department delivers services. In order to vacate have to have different kind of fire department. Marcia asked where shift quarters will park since they can't park at night? Darryl agreed and said they will park in back. Dwayne said at Rio Grande presuming they are on station. Dwayne suggested with tight time line and no financial commitment for basement program, it can be added or considered later as their need is to keep scope tight with crisp definition. Darryl concurred. North 40 is built first and officers will develop program. Inventory will be moved to North 40 and may have shift arrangement with volunteers there with first due engine still in town. During construction process, fire district intended to turn attention to town with funds in hand to pursue final configuration of headquarters. J.E. questioned necessity for having bond election in Mayas opposed to November. Bruce responded substation must be built and time is of the essence. Darryl's concern would be operationally as one of the fundamental reasons for substation is difficulty trying to deliver services to other side of Castle Creek certain times of the day and year. One reality is Fire District is not comfortable providing emergency services from Highlands to Burlingame to North 40 from Hopkins. J.E. questioned if this election will determine bond issue to build North 40 and Hopkins, whole thing? Darryl agreed. There is an Option Agreement on property triggered by election and intent is to fund construction drawings for station on own dime to facilitate its construction should bond pass. Sam agrees 100% with Dwayne and Darryl and likes fact they are open to idea if there was way to explore something with alternative funding source. Jason thinks we could vote on crisp clean idea of what we are doing, with language that says in next couple of years if that program comes up we can do that and if the City gives us money, great. Motion, if parking not in the program now, it can come back later, although funding can be from outside source. If not in program now, could be come back later. THUMBS UP. Gilbert commented they are providing 1,500 feet of basement space. Is COWOP okay with partial basement, the 1500 square feet not under the apparatus (already part of the existing program)? THUMBS UP. Sam stated the design now, the space sets it back so if ramp was in location you would be able to...small parking space doesn't go back to allow ramp to go behind it. Gilbert stated the ramp doesn't affect them. 9 Darryl commented this process has been worked internally for years and expressed gratitude as reality is this is a community station. Nancy added she supports program, is grateful and happy, and this has been an amazing opportunity for Thrift Shop. Program areas from bottom of list up: Utility areas, common, basement 1500 square feet = check Future build out 7500 square feet - 3rd floor above Thrift Shop, 4th floor above Fire Station = not part of bond issue. When take out basement parking and future build out that number will go down. 5% Include Future Build out' ('not in bond issue now) Basement parking 7000 ' Program elements (Thrift Shop, District office, museum educational, community room emergency ops James asked if Fire District would be amenable for City to ask Council if they. would be willing to put money towards fitting out Ops and Conference room for nice public meeting space. Darryl concurred and thinks that has huge merit. Marcia questioned the security. Sam added subject to 100% security and Ellen being happy. Darryl responded there are areas which will not have public access and ultimately entire facility has ability to escalate security depending on circumstances. Jason questioned oversized accommodations and Gilbert responded Excel takes 5% gross of building and may still want to use number to use full build out. Nancy and Jack questioned, for bond issue purposes, should footage for Thrift Shop be in. Bruce responded it won't be when budget estimates are assembled. 4,000 feet would come out. Gilbert does want to include that in COWOP though. Everybody agree with Thrift Shop number in program? THUMBS UP. 3 elements considered as one item: COWOP support for Fire District Program? THUMBS UP. Chris stated this is end of first phase of COWOP review. James stated after conceptual HPC, COWOP may want to meet beginning of April so staff can draft up recommendations and go to City Council for conceptual application review. Vote on entire program and status as presented - UNANIMOUS THUMBS UP. Congratulations given to Gilbert and Darryl for all their hard work. Gilbert has responded in a phenomenal manner and this has been great to visualize. 10 Aspen Fire Protection District COWOP Task Force Meeting January 26, 2006 Chris Bendon chaired meeting. James Lindt, Dwayne Romero, Rich Walker, Gilbert Sanchez, Darryl Grob, Jeremiah Dancy, Pat (Fenton Construction), John Keleher, Marcia Goshorn, Nancy Gensch, Cynthia Andrews, J.E. DeVilbiss, Anne Foster, Jack Wilkie, Jason Lasser, Dylan Johns, Sara Broughton, Amy Guthrie, Leslie Lamont present. Presentation of Updated Plans: Gilbert showed adjustment to program noting key change to 4th floor as future build out to retain potential for future (7500 square feet) and basement space from lot line to lot line (approx 7000 square feet). COWOP process added (underneath district office) museum educational component and community room emergency ops. Numbers now total gross area at 40,071 square feet and Gilbert asked for confirmation of programs today. Conceptual diagram represents 40,071 square feet to be further defined and adjusted. Gilbert showed diagrams with parking space underneath bays, without lower level parking but basement space; ground level 3 bays, circulation spine, thrift shop, parking spaces along back and loading drop off area for Thrift Shop; 2nd level has higher volume of apparatus bays and shift quarters behind, museum educational component and Thrift Shop and provides covered element over parking spaces; 3rd level accommodates district office, community room and emergency ops room; 3 levels accommodate current program and anticipated future needs would go on 4th level at 7000 square feet. Plaza COWOP discussion concluded some compromised location would provide best solution to retain street front, green space, rock and bell for generous public space. Gilbert showed he could provide textured pavement distinctive from sidewalk and street. Gilbert stated HPC desired front doors to face street. Location of Thrift Shop front door was changed to come off street. Gilbert indicated relationship with seating area in front of Zele, activity generated in fire station plaza, and ISIS plaza in front of stair tower addition. Gilbert studied 3 story and 4 story versions and asked for HPC comments. Jason commented 4 story issue was to think 10 years ahead and with no program going in there they asked Darryl's preference and Darryl indicated the smaller would be better. Jason stated HPC discussed what looked better and how plane of 4 story sat on top of second story and whether 4 story should sit stacked above cantilever 3rd story or back like ISIS does. Will that affect view plane? HPC didn't reach consensus as 4th story is make believe right now. Jason further stated HPC discussed urban space created below cantilever museum issue and people entry into new fire station and drawings today were different from last night. HPC discussed depth of doors and was that conforming ~,~~~~._- to public space as COWOP desired. Looks like changes reflect 4 feet, and reduced depth of cantilever experience as you walk under museum piece entry. Thrift Shop door was moved in front and Jason thinks it's a good change and is successful solution. HPC discussed wall on ISIS and other side and no conclusion. HPC also discussed placing bell underneath cantilever inside museum. Sara added HPC open to idea of hitting middle ground with setback which is 100% against guidelines but were open to compromise. HPC looked at idea with 3 bays and band width of building narrower. Her personal feeling is (in terms of HPC guidelines) 4th story pulled out and aligned with cantilever is keeping with what HPC wants to see in urban historic core. If planning to structurally provide for the future, that is the direction she would like to see it go and that is what is represented in the model right now. Not impacted by any view plane. Gilbert concurred. 4th floor is 43 feet high and stair tower at back serves circulation, roof access and siren. Back comes up to 54 feet high. Another element is 3rd floor above Thrift Shop. Sara commented exterior stair could be used. Gilbert some structure would have to hold siren up. James asked if tower on 3 story scheme would be shorter. Gilbert concurred and stated if 4th story was ever built stair would have to be extended and question of support for sirens. Gilbert added there was discussion of whether it was appropriate to comply with 4th floor up to base of 3rd floor. His argument was 4th floor being smaller and set back would have no visual impact from street scape. Amy added you need to engineer so however resolved in 10 years, have shutdown options, to handle lined up or set back. Dwayne commented it is possible. Jason thought easy to stack up with garage door below. Darryl stated provisions could be made in point loading. Chris asked Gilbert for direction of whether 4th floor is in future. Darryl stated merit in awareness of potential for use of 4th floor, not asking for approval. Jason added if we engineer building to support we have to make the decision of where we are going to put it or have idea where it's going to go. James stated (entitlement issue) its important COWOP provide discussion now for potential 4th floor. Could be need for 4th floor in future if Fire District has need for space and identified use program; maybe we should take consensus vote acknowledging there is possibility for 4th floor in future, it should be structurally developed for three floors so that it could accommodate additional level JE asked if there was an argument against not engineering building taking to 4th 2 floor. Chris asked if anyone has concern about looking at 4th floor regardless if in middle or up to fac;:ade of building? Bruce responded from an economic perspective, the inclusion of additional structural engineering and stress for building structure is a cost FD has to incorporate into estimating. Today they don't have program that requires or needs 4th floor and are willing to entertain what additional costs the structural install means. Its good for public and FD to have flexibility and put in record today, and FD would be comfortable trying to absorb engineering and costs for super structure for the future but are stressed and tapped financially. Gilbert showed images illustrating 3 story scheme view from Galena down Hopkins. Chris questioned should FD stress building for potential 4th floor as part of this approval? Is there of opinion about 4th floor being up to front or recessed? Gilbert and Bruce agreed with those questions. Gilbert wants to know if FD is intent on being prepared for some future development. With no direction they would pay for entire footprint of structure to accept 4th floor, but if opinion not to fill out footprint, then potential to save money and only structure part of building that 4th floor seems reasonable for. Chris mentioned the risk is any board has concern about binding future Council. Sam stated if COWOP voted to stress back half of buirding today but not apply for 4th story today and save money today, he would vote for stressing it back. If vote would be to stress whole floor today, he would vote not to stress whole thing today. Jason commented if COWOP doesn't know what future needs are we can't decide how much program and have to maximize area and accommodate future needs and be covered, if setback, we are making design decision, if to front we will maximize whole thing. Chris questioned if Jason is in favor of saying structure it for maximum flexibility. Jason said we don't know now, so go the whole distance to be covered. Dylan questioned what the actual cantilever distance is right now. Gilbert responded about 5 feet. Dylan commented it makes sense to get visual relief and line up with bay doors because extra load of 5 feet will add costs to 4th floor. Dwayne stated we have to overlay financial realities of today and pointing out surcharge expense of cantilever and nominal benefit, there is a bit of a trade off. Darryl likes concept of maximizing potential to align with legacy vision, but is not sure that losing 5 feet with added expense would be significant detriment. Dylan added you can cantilever roof structure out and fill in walls around it and have flexibility. James questioned if there is a cost estimate of what difference would be now if you just reinforced the back. Jeremiah stated COWOP has to plan for mechanical and electrical requirements right now and everything in beginning should be oversized. It's not just the structure. Chris questioned if that is a big 3 numbers decision. Jeremiah stated it's a bigger number if set out. Sam and Sara stated the numbers aren't that big of a deal. Sam would agree to compromise structure above bay doors and not all way up to front. He paid for ISIS to be held back for aesthetics. This has exemption. Pat commented ISIS setback was about 20 feet. As a citizen and neighbor Sam votes for setback as free market ISIS apartments are. Marcia disagreed with idea of pushing back to same as free market as future needs and flexibility of ISIS apartment and fire department are different. Amy commented that it makes her anxious for COWOP to take firm position about where 4th floor should be as it doesn't meet HPC guidelines. Should the Fire District strive to/ be enabled tol provide structure to accommodate a 4th floor in some independent configuration? THUMBS UP. Should this COWOP group limit where that structure is? THUMBS DOWN, Sam is Thumbs Up. Question rephrased - Should the structure be unlimited to provide for any configuration of a 4th floor? Keleher, Sam, and Rich are NO. Keleher commented his personal philosophy is he likes 3 story building a whole lot better than 4 story and HPC guidelines may be changed in 20 years and might not want buildings 20 feet tall. Rich feels it burdens fire department with having to structure 3rd story to come out over the bays and will cost extra money. From visual and cost standpoint he votes to move back 5 feet. Jason commented to change language to maximize within budget constraints and programmatic needs of fire department. Bruce added "today". Chris agreed that enables district to do entire footprint, but this group will not make that decision. Dylan added they may still be able to bring all the way out. Chris stated The district would be enabled to structure entire floor with no limitation with this issue. James asked for clarification about how difficult it is to reinforce something after its built and what the difference in cost is. Pat added to go back and restructure is costly and to make use of top floor, structure should be done now. Gilbert stated the process would have to remove walls to get to structural columns, add on elements, and dig down into foundation to expand footings to support all of that. Sam disagrees and states that bringing point loads up to fire bay doors and whole rest of back is not argued and should be done no matter what. Sam stated this is a back door way to come in to do this much quicker than it's going to happen. COWOP voted affordable housing is inappropriate but foresees pressure from community. Sam stated you don't have to take loads to front of 5 feet. Pat commented it's not cost effective to do the cantilever. Sam replied you could do it later. When 4th floor comes forward it would have to prove its own merit and go through its own entitlement process for design and land use. Should Fire District provide structure in building to accommodate a 4th floor in any configuration, this vote enables them to do so. THUMBS UP (SAM) JOHN and RICH comments noted) 4 James stated COWOP should give HPC recommendation about public space in front of Thrift Shop and circulation space. HPC discussed how dark area was and whether it was quality public space. Jason concurred feedback is great. As a HPC officer now he could argue that with it pulled back that plane by the apparatus doors should be one consistent fac;:ade and that third story should be projecting architectural elements. Gilbert balanced appropriate open space, reflecting image of park and program that Thrift Shop and Fire District require, compliance with HPC guidelines and COWOP meeting conversation for programs incorporated. Glass wall entry will have connection to pedestrian activity outside. Artifacts may be on main floor as introduction to educational components on upper floor. Hope to retain activity outside, congregate in public circulation, and provide generous access into building. Gilbert added Thrift Shop is not a true retail establishment and window display is not as important as retaining green space. Thrift Shop is more of a destination space. Nancy added it is important to recognize Thrift Shop as a store. They have dressed mannequins and wouldn't want it blocked with trees. Gilbert discussed low scale greenery. Nancy would want to have an inviting wide enough access with large windows as they have now so displays can be seen. Gilbert added they compromised based on conversations and modulated front to accommodate and seems to be good solution. Chris confirmed Gilbert wants guidance from COWOP to HPC about orientation of public space, setbacks, open space, green space. Gilbert added some agreement these are appropriate components to have (paved area, green space, generous entrance). Jason questioned the location of the bench underneath and where are people going to sit, sun or shade. HPC has purview over landscaping and Gilbert will continue dialogue with HPC. Is COWOP comfortable with concept, big picture? THUMBS UP James discussed seating wall on east side and discussion in HPC with its functionality and whether it would create issues with fire truck access. Darryl had no operational concerns at this point. Amy asked for clarification about green space to left or door as storage area which could theoretically be pulled forward. Jason clarified the point was to reduce overall length of apparatus door wall. Sara stated the plan shows storage closet but maybe it's a window. Chris asked HPC members if this is a big picture and response was no, it's a design for architects to look at. HPC didn't ask for direction from COWOP. HPC voted that they generally wanted open space and final formation is yet to be determined. Darryl concurred and COWOP can reconvene to fine tune design elements. James added the consensus was on general site plan and with street scape. Gilbert will have HPC conceptual review and approval about design on 5 February 8th and final review will detail elements. Sam thought previous conversation was that 4th bay was stressed so if it had to be apparatus bay it could be. Darryl said it will be addressed in fundamental engineering and have tremendous flexibility within those point loads. Gilbert stated it is narrow than full 22 foot bay. Leslie commented HPC and COWOP are informing each other in this process and firehouse is taking this to vote. What comes out of two groups is important and represents a variety of interests. Sara pointed out what was presented last night is in no way a 4th bay and questioned if we are planning for a 4th bay as it is narrow right now. Sam said first 2 meetings planned and voted yes. It would be a pity for all citizens if we didn't allow for that today and they need a totally separate site, so it should have preemptive right to get rid of the park. Darryl clarified 4 bays get awkward and have tried to make up space for what they need. Increasing depth to 56 feet gives tremendous flexibility in apparatus. Ambulances can access same egress diagonally through bay door. Fire District will always need a circulation area and have provided a maximum square footage front to rear and then side to side to give huge amount of flexibility in large open space. Darryl is not absolutely sure station should be designed to tear a segment out and add a 4th bay. Gilbert added earlier scheme with 4 bays were 18 feet wide and 3 generous bays were more flexible and adaptable than 4 substandard bays. It was determined 3 bays met any foreseeable need. JE commented May election issues does not bind City Councilor suggest that he would vote the same way as he may be persuaded to vote in another fashion. Chris commented overhang above bay doors is issue for HPC conceptual review and overhang above pedestrian access is also an issue. Gilbert added circulation spine overhang issue was its effect on creating recessed entry and the response shown today addresses that. Sara would like COWOP feedback. Bruce commented it won't be cost effective. Darryl stated it serves program needs and he likes look of building. Bruce added aesthetics and program overrule and weight the costing of it. Chris added 2 overhangs should be different discussions and one doesn't dictate the other. Gilbert noted sections of guidelines and discussion of how does new building relate to historic building. Commercial Core typical building has identifiable store front and upper floors are generally distinguished from that lower floor in some way. Gilbert's modern interpretation of cornice line is to provide cantilever shadow line that is similar to deep cornice on ISIS and provides separation between street level (apparatus bays) and upper levels. Overhang is close to 18 feet as floor structure will cantilever out to support the floor. Over the pedestrian entryway right now are drawing 10 or 11 foot floors 6 and might relook at proportions. Sam stated that the cantilever of the upper public space is lower than a bay that would allow you to do anything in the future, and since future needs are unknown, stressing of 4th bay and possible 5th bay should be such that height is enough to accommodate future needs. Gilbert added there is some flexibility in approach which maximizes opportunity. Sam said it should be on record that the City, only based on the prompting of the Fire Department, should agree that condition understood is fire station has preemptive rights for future bays should they need it for community good. Chris summarized height, although lower than other bays, doesn't preclude the bay that would serve the smaller apparatus. Darryl confirmed and said that could be accommodated and respects point to have it on record. RECOMMENDATION OF SUPPORT TO HPC? THUMBS UP. Chris stated next item for discussion is feasibility of basements under fire apparatus. First half of COWOP process is giving competence for Fire Department that this program is what the program so they can put a number on it. Gilbert mentioned plan from alley lot line to front lot line and inserted parking in basement spaces below apparatus bays and below driveway which requires ramp in from alley down. Width limits parking location and slots have specific requirements. Space is taken out for stairs, mechanical space to accommodate ventilation equipment, and potential second means of egress along with ADA elevator makes maximum 14 to 15 spaces in 7000 square feet. In addition, negative impact on upper floor would have to carve away at support space and one of bays to provide head room for car or truck to come in or out. Contractor said $250 a square feet = $1.7 million. Darryl commented that parking spaces across street is currently landing zone for volunteer Fire Department and is a critical component of their ability to respond in timely fashion to emergencies. To eliminate that would require complete reorganization of department and eliminate need for volunteer to quickly access station to put apparatus or equipment into service. Darryl sees that discussion 20 years down the road with different department. Darryl can't argue against parking but difficulty is cost. Bruce added without accelerating or truncating discussion, this item hits budget constraints and what they can reasonably secure in what size bond to pursue. In analyzing bond size, they test to ensure volume is well supported and ties explicitly to Fire District mission. Candidly just like any public mission, there is concern about ability to succeed on mission, so it is a presented number with supporting evidence and purpose for the money. Bruce wants to ensure purpose is explicitly tied to and can be objectively supported in mission. It's clearly an order of magnitude difference of cost coupled with impact on base level program. It's discomforting what Gilbert stated about force of movement on apparatus bay area and head heights for ramping. He doesn't believe they have luxury to go to an open ended result with bond size. It's important not to overload community with perception of extravagance. Chris asked for commentary from Darryl about how trucks in alley affect 7 operation. Darryl confirmed that is service access to buildings. If parking is relied on, then people are "on shift" and that is different program. To eliminate immediate need for different landing zone, you have to have people on shift 24/7 and have luxury to park wherever you want. Sam and Torre spoke at last COWOP meeting that underground parking shouldn't be a burden of Fire District to finance if parking made sense. It shouldn't be part of bond issue. Sam thinks it should continue to be studied as you only get to go down once. Spots across street in small downtown are owned by City and to come up with financial solution may be beneficial. Other benefits are, if the City, who has easements under streets, agreed to extra bay under the street or alley, borders could grow under sidewalk and out. It's a rare opportunity here that might be a good idea not at Fire District expense. It might be a long term benefit to be able to have people parking underneath and to reclaim other spots. Marcia agrees with Sam's point. It's a missed opportunity if we don't dig down, but other concern is spaces out front need to stay for safety. To only have 4 parking spaces to take care of Thrift Shop and anybody in rooms upstairs doesn't cut it. City has always been short on parking spaces and won't ever find again, and agrees it doesn't need to be a part of the bond issue and there may be another way to help pay for it. This opportunity will never come again. Jason asked if elevator in garage was considered that goes down to basement and up to create parking space below and above. Marcia asked Ellen at last meeting about police and sheriff's cars parked in garage. If there are extra parking spaces they have problem of having to scrape windshields in emergency in unheated garage. From public safety point, it's a selling point for having additional space. Mike commented that being on the Fire Department he would never use spaces if he had parking across street. Alley is full 80% of time in a day and if emergency vehicles are down there and can't get out, by the time you can emergency could be done. He thinks parking is a waste of money. Jeremiah stated realistically 14-15 spaces and also losing 4 spaces up top, so really building for 12 spaces. Gilbert stated in current configuration they would not lose 4 spaces, but would lose program area. Darryl asked if function of preliminary COWOP is to establish working number, can he get a description or assurance of alternative funding sources. Chris responded that won't happen between now and when number is needed. Darryl's number was developed over time and think it is appropriate based on specific programs driven by desire to enhance ability to service mission. Darryl is struggling with merit to comments and how to integrate that to election calendar. 8 Chris responded from City's perspective there would be agreement with spaces freed up and become metered parking (value for the City) in exchange for spaces in garage. A metered space is approximately $4500 a year. If amortized, and you vacate that space, it's worth $25-30,000 to the City. Parking space in magnitude of 100-120,000 space gets 20% of parking space costs. Is that a luxury? Still have logistical issues. Darryl stated accessibility to spaces will be delayed because they are integral in way volunteer fire department delivers services. In order to vacate have to have different kind of fire department. Marcia asked where shift quarters will park since they can't park at night? Darryl agreed and said they will park in back. Dwayne said at Rio Grande presuming they are on station. Dwayne suggested with tight timeline and no financial commitment for basement program, it can be added or considered later as their need is to keep scope tight with crisp definition. Darryl concurred. North 40 is built first and officers will develop program. Inventory will be moved to North 40 and may have shift arrangement with volunteers there with first due engine still in town. During construction process, fire district intended to turn attention to town with funds in hand to pursue final configuration of headquarters. J.E. questioned necessity for having bond election in Mayas opposed to November. Bruce responded substation must be built and time is of the essence. Darryl's concern would be operationally as one of the fundamental reasons for substation is difficulty trying to deliver services to other side of Castle Creek certain times of the day and year. One reality is Fire District is not comfortable providing emergency services from Highlands to Burlingame to North 40 from Hopkins. J.E. questioned if this election will determine bond issue to build North 40 and Hopkins, whole thing? Darryl agreed. There is an Option Agreement on property triggered by election and intent is to fund construction drawings for station on own dime to facilitate its construction should bond pass. Sam agrees 100% with Dwayne and Darryl and likes fact they are open to idea if there was way to explore something with alternative funding source. Jason thinks we could vote on crisp clean idea of what we are doing, with language that says in next couple of years if that program comes up we can do that and if the City gives us money, great. Motion, if parking not in the program now, it can come back later, although funding can be from outside source. If not in program now, could be come back later. THUMBS UP. Gilbert commented they are providing 1,500 feet of basement space. Is COWOP okay with partial basement, the 1500 square feet not under the apparatus (already part of the existing program)? THUMBS UP. Sam stated the design now, the space sets it back so if ramp was in location you would be able to...small parking space doesn't go back to allow ramp to go behind it. Gilbert stated the ramp doesn't affect them. 9 Darryl commented this process has been worked internally for years and expressed gratitude as reality is this is a community station. Nancy added she supports program, is grateful and happy, and this has been an amazing opportunity for Thrift Shop. Program areas from bottom of list up: Utility areas, common, basement 1500 square feet = check Future build out 7500 square feet - 3rd floor above Thrift Shop, 4th floor above Fire Station = not part of bond issue. When take out basement parking and future build out that number will go down. 5% Include Future Build out * (*not in bond issue now) Basement parking 7000 * Program elements (Thrift Shop, District office, museum educational, community room emergency ops James asked if Fire District would be amenable for City to ask Council if they would be willing to put money towards fitting out Ops and Conference room for nice public meeting space. Darryl concurred and thinks that has huge merit. Marcia questioned the security. Sam added subject to 100% security and Ellen being happy. Darryl responded there are areas which will not have public access and ultimately entire facility has ability to escalate security depending on circumstances. Jason questioned oversized accommodations and Gilbert responded Excel takes 5% gross of building and may still want to use number to use full build out. Nancy and Jack questioned, for bond issue purposes, should footage for Thrift Shop be in. Bruce responded it won't be when budget estimates are assembled. 4,000 feet would come out. Gilbert does want to include that in COWOP though. Everybody agree with Thrift Shop number in program? THUMBS UP. 3 elements considered as one item: COWOP support for Fire District Program? THUMBS UP. Chris stated this is end of first phase of COWOP review. James stated after conceptual HPC, COWOP may want to meet beginning of April so staff can draft up recommendations and go to City Council for conceptual application review. Vote on entire program and status as presented - UNANIMOUS THUMBS UP. Congratulations given to Gilbert and Darryl for all their hard work. Gilbert has responded in a phenomenal manner and this has been great to visualize. 10 ~x~JJ\f "'& f March 6, 2006 Mayor Helen Klanderud Aspen City Council City of Aspen, Colorado Dear Mayor and Council: In our recent cover letter to the City of Aspen documenting our COWOP application we stated that, "We expect that the COWOP process will provide the ideal opportunity for interaction among all of the affected parties to arrive at a building solution that meets all of our needs and ensures our long term future presence in the downtown core." I don't think any of us fully appreciated how true that would be. Over the past few months the Aspen Fire Protection District and Volunteer Fire Department, along with our architectural, general contractor, and owner's representative team, have met regularly to monitor the progress being made in refining our strategic visions into achievable and desirable community assets. The District Board has been meeting in bi-monthly, posted meetings to facilitate their ability to act and react to the demands of our schedule. Our Team has been engaged, often two or three times a week, to pursue the assorted planning issues, approvals, and election calendar. My personal attention has been specifically focused on this program for the last several months. It is undeniable that the input and insight afforded by our community in both the HPC and COWOP conceptual approval processes have contributed positively and strongly to our progress. Thank you, Darryl Grob, Fire Chief Aspen Fire Protection District V"'a. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Ed Sadler, Asst. City Manager Date: March 1, 2006 Mtg. Date: March 13, 2006 RE: Lease extension for Fire Department Summary: The Fire Department plans to remain in its current location and this has been ratified by the Civic Center Master Plan Group and now the COWOP process. Based upon this, the Fire Department would like to make improvements to its current location and has advertised for architectural services to this end. The Fire Department will need to bond for this work and as such needs a lease for a term that justifies this investment. The current lease was entered into on December 8, 2000 and is set to expire in 2021. The attached lease extension will take the lease to June 15, 2046, or just under 40 years. I have attached a copy of the lease extension. Should you approve of their plans as set before you tonight, you may choose to also approve this lease extension. The lease extension has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorneys Office. Previous Council Action: In 2000, the City Council approved the extension of the lease to the Fire Department through June 15, 2021. Discussion: The City owns the location where the Firs Department and Thrift Shop is located. The Fire Dept. leases this from the City at a favorable rate in order to provide adequate fire protection for the City. There had been some discussions with the Isis about expansion of the Isis, however the Fire Department has rejected those proposals. There had also been some discussion about relocating the Fire Department to the Zupancis property, however with the new station at the AABC; the Fire Department has decided to stay in its current location. With this decision, the Fire Department has also decided to make improvements at its current location. To insure that the Fire Department gets appropriate value from its investment, the Fire Department would like a longer lease. The longer lease would also appear to be in the best interest of the City to insure adequate fire protection for City residents for a longer period of time. Financial Implications: The real financial implications seem to be for the Fire Department as they will be doing the improvements to the fire station. The indirect financial implications are the with a long term lease, the City would not be able to lease the land to another party or to sell the land for the term of the lease. Lease revenue for the property is minimal. Environmental Implications: There are no apparent environmental implications on the part ofthe City and without seeing final designs at this point. Recommendation: I recommend that the lease extension be approved. ~ ~,Clh-/""1e-j ~tf'-ne Sio---hTh aYfJJof ~. <"". f-,r.. Alternatives: The Council could choose to not approve the lease extension, however this could jeopardize the bond funding for the project. Council could also delay approving this lease extension contingent upon further information being received. (p-~\~~~I~ . Proposed Motion: I move to approve~to extend the lease for the Fire Department. City Manager's Comments: RESOLUTION NO. 10 Series of 2006 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A SECOND LEASE EXTENSION AGREEMENT FOR THE ASPEN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND THE ASPEN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AS LESSEE AND THE THRIFT SHOP INC AS SUBLESSEE, 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 second lease extension agreement for the Aspen Fire Protection District as Lessee and the Thrift Shop, Inc. as Sublessee, 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 lease extension "...... for the Aspen Fire Protection District and the Thrift Shop, Inc., between the City of Aspen and the Aspen Fire Protection District as Lessee and The Thrift Shop, Inc., as Sublessee, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the Mayor or City Manager to execute said lease agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the _ day of ,2006. 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 ofthe City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk TLO- saved: 2/22/2006-271-G:\tara\Resos\tire district lease extension.doc , SECOND LEASE EXTENSION AGREEMENT THIS SECOND LEASE EXTENSION AGREEMENT is made this _ day of 2005 by and among the CITY OF ASPEN, as Lessor (hereinafter "City"), a Colorado municipal cOIporation, the ASPEN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, a Colorado quasi-municipal corporation, as Lessee (hereinafter "Fire District"), and THE THRIFT SHOP, INC., a Colorado non-profit corporation, as Sublessee (hereinafter "Thrift Shop"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Fire District and the Thrift Shop are currently leasing and subleasing respectively Lots 0, P, Q and R, Block 87, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado pursuant to that certain Agreement dated December 8, 1982 (the "Agreement") between the City, the Fire District and the Thrift Shop; WHEREAS, in connection with the Agreement, the City, the Fire District and the Thrift Shop entered into that certain Lease Extension Agreement dated August 28, 2005 providing for the extension of the Term of the Agreement to June 15,202.1; AND WHEREAS, recognizing the importance and benefits these organizations provide to the citizens of Aspen and the surrounding community, the parties hereto desire to extend the lease period, and make certain other modifications to the Agreement as set forth below. NOW, THEREFORE, for a good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged and agreed, the parties agree as follows: 1. Extension of Lease Term. The term of the Agreement, as modified by the Lease Extension Agreement dated August 28, 2005, is hereby further extended by an additional period of time ending on June 15,2046. 2. No Exoress or Imolied Land Use Aoorovals. The City's execution and delivery of this Second Lease Extension Agreement does not, ipso facto, constitute the City of Aspen's approval of any modification or redevelopment of the Premises occurring after the date hereof. 3. Modification of Section 4.d of Lease. Section 4.d of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety, and is replaced with the following language: "Prior to any construction of improvements on the Premises which would require the City of Aspen Building Department's issuance of a building permit, the Fire District and Thrift Shop shall first obtain written authorization from the City for the construction of such improvements, provided that the City's written authorization shall not be umeasonably withheld." All other terms and conditions of the Agreement, as modified by the Lease Extension Agreement dated August 28, 2005, shall remain in full force and effect. All capitalized terms as used herein shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Lease, as modified by the Lease Extension Agreement dated August 28, 2005. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Second Lease Extension Agreement the date day and year first written above. CITY By: Helen Klanderud, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk ASPEN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT By: Attest: Secretary THE THRIFT SHOP, INC. By: , President Attest: Secretary