HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20060424
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
April 24, 2006
5:00 P.M.
I.Call to Order
II.RolI Call
a) Proclamation - Aspen Crime Victims Rights Week
III.Scheduled Public Appearances
IV.Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT on
the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes)
V.Special Orders of the Day
a) Mayor's Comments
b) Council members' Comments
c) City Manager's Comments
d) Board Reports
VI.Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
a) Resolution #25, 2006 - Contract COOT Maroon Creek Bridge Utility Crossing
b) Resolution #27, 2006 - ARClDurrant Settlement Agreement
c) Resolution #30, 2006 - Contract Wheeler Interior Marquee
Vll.First Reading of Ordinances
a) Ordinance #15,2006 _ Mother Lode Subdivision Amendment - 314 E. Hyman P.H.5/8
b) Ordinance #16,2006 - Hannah Dustin Subdivision - 300 S. Spring P.H.5/8
c) Ordinance #17, 2006 - Parking Fee Ordinance P.H. 5/8
d) Ordinance #18,2006 - Code Amendment - Political activities of City Employees P.H.5/8
VlIl.Public Hearings
a) Ordinance #2,2006 - 202 N. Monarch Blu Vic (Reconsideration)
b) Ordinance #9, 2006 - 410 S. West End Street (Continue to 5/8)
c) Ordinance #11 , 2006 - 920/930 Matchless Drive Subdivision PUD
d) Ordinance #14,2006 - Supplemental Appropriation
e) Resolution # 2006 - Holiday House Conceptual PUD (Public Hearing to be
adjourned. May be reconvened at a later date.)
IX.Action Items
a) Resolution #26, 2006 - Pay Station Purchase Contract
b) 616 West Main Historic Preservation Loan
c) Resolution #28, 2006 - Purchase of Aspen Mass
d) Resolution #29, 2006 -In support of Fire District Ballot Question
X.Executive Session
XI.Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting Mav 8, 2006
COUNCIL SCHEDULES A IS MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M.
.
1]: d.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Council
FROM:
Phil Overeynder, Utilities Director
CC:
Steve Barwick, City Manager
CC:
John Worcester, City Attorney
DATE:
April 18,2006
RE:
Reimbursement Utility Agreement - Maroon Creek Bridge
SUMMARY: Approval of this agreement with the Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT) would provide for construction of the reclaimed water
transmission main across the new Maroon Creek Bridge. It will also provide for a
potable water main crossing of Highway 82 necessary to provide service to the Bar/X
property, while improving water service to Burlingame Village and the water service area
west of Maroon Creek.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council reviewed plan for the Reclaimed
Water System and appropriated funding for construction of an 8 inch irrigation main
connecting the municipal golf course with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Plant near the Airport Business Center. A contract has been awarded for construction of
the reclaimed water system across the golf course with the completion of this element
expected in late spring. The Water Fund appropriations for the reclaimed water Maroon
Creek bridge crossing are included in the project budget at approximately $118,000. A
separate Housing Fund appropriation for the potable water line connection to Burlingame
Village from the Maroon Creek bridge is included in that project.
DISCUSSION: The reclaimed water system was planned to cross Maroon Creek on the
newly constructed Maroon Creek Bridge through a cost ofreimbursement agreement
with CDOT. Engineering plans for the bridge crossing have been completed. Also
included in the engineering drawings is a required 12 inch potable water line crossing of
Highway 82 in the immediate vicinity of the new bridge. Performing this latter project
component in conjunction with the bridge construction will avoid a much more costly
technique of boring under the highway, taking advantage of traffic re-routing during
bridge construction.
1
CDOT's bridge contractor reviewed both of the above elements and bid the work at a
higher cost than estimated by the City. Following negotiations with CDOT, staff is
presenting the CDOT proposal for Council approval and is requesting a supplemental
appropriation to cover the unanticipated expenses.
The proposed CDOT expenses are $414,257. The difference over the budgeted amount is
requested as a supplemental appropriation from the Water Fund. No additional
appropriations are required from the Housing Fund to cover the potable water line
crossing of Highway 82.
CURRENT ISSUES: The pending sale of the Bar/X project is likely to move up the
required completion ofthe potable water line crossing to the summer of2007. The
current CDOT schedule for completion of both crossings meet this requirement.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The cost of the work proposed by CDOT is higher
than budgeted for the reclaimed water line component. The potable water line crossing
will benefit the Bar/X and Burlingame Village projects and costs for this construction
will be reimbursed by the two projects under the forms of an existing water service
agreement. The increased cost of$194,000 will need to be appropriated from the Water
Fund in order to complete the reclaimed project. The cost of crossing over the bridge,
while higher than projected, is still substantially below a creek level crossing of the water
line.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: Utilizing the proposed water line crossing
over the bridge rather than at a grade crossing will protect sensitive wetland species in the
Maroon Creek riparian corridor. Special measures have been incorporated into the
design of the bridge crossing to prevent accidental discharge ofreclaimed water into
Maroon Creek.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval ofthe agreement with CDOT for
construction of the two water system elements described in this memo.
ALTERNATIVES: Alternative alignments using an at grade reclaimed water line
crossing of Maroon Creek would be both more costly and environmentally damaging
than the proposed construction utilizing a bridge crossing. Re-bidding the project as an
attempt to stay within the engineer's estimate ofproject costs is not possible since CDOT
will not permit another contractor to work on the bridge simultaneously. Constructing
the water line crossing after completion ofthe bridge is not possible because of design
features in the bridge.
2
..
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to adopt resolution ~ 6
2006.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: a~ ~ OJ ~s
!,p.~ "-"^~ ~ ""'- AJa_i.,.i wa-Z0> J~
e<..-c.M-H ~ ~c a..J fIe. ~ W~ ~
V-.IJS~ ~ ~.~~. ., . 1 .~. ~s ~ ..4.~.er
o.N: oYtk64~ ~U ~ CJ ~'C~ r U2~
~u<-"'~ {?(j^Y\.QeJ ~ w<Y> ~~ ~ Yo
c...~ ov '~~a- 'f"U eJ" ~~4~<..QA.1" o..<-J2 ~J-.f~
e..&-~ ,
3
RESOLUTION # ~5'
(Series of 2006)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, AND COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CDOT),
SETTING FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING 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 Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), 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 Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), would provide
for construction of the reclaimed water transmission main across the new Maroon Creek Bridge
and it will also provide for a potable water main crossing of Highway 82 necessary to provide
service to the Bar/X property, while improving water service to Burlingame Village and the
water service area west of Maroon Creek, 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
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
INCURRED COST (REIMBURSABLE) CONTRACT
Project Sub.Account # (Construction)
15155
Project Number
HB 0821-075
Location
Maroon Creek Bridge
THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into on this _ day of . 2006, is by and between the
State of Colorado for the use and benefit of the Colorado Department of Transportation ("CDOT", "the Department", or
"the State") and Citv of Aspen ("Owner").
WHEREAS:
1. The authority exists in the law and funds have been budgeted, appropriated and otherwise made available and a
sufficient unencumbered balance thereof remains available for payment in Fund Number 400, Appropriation Code
010, Contract Encumbrance Number (Construction Sub.Account#) 15155; and
2. The required approval, clearance and coordination has been accomplished from and with appropriate agencies;
and,
3. The State anticipates performance of construction Project No. HB 0821-075 for construction of Maroon Creek
Bridqe replacement at Mile Post 38.87 - 39.33 on SH 82, hereinafter referred to as "the highway project"; and
4. The highway project necessitates adjustment or relocation of the Owner's facilities, and/or affords the Owner with
the opportunity to construct improvements to its system, hereinafter referred to as the "Work", and is generally
described as follows: Installation. bv CDOT's Contractor on behalf of the Owner, of an 8 Inch reclaimed water
irriqation line to be constructed in accordance with the plans shown in Exhibit B: and
5. The Owner is responsible for the cost of the Work; and
6. The Owner is willing to reimburse the State for all expenses incurred in performance of the Work; and
7. The State's construction contractor can perform the Work in conjunction with construction of the highway project;
and
8. It is in the public interest for the State and the Owner to consolidate their respective responsibilities and activities
so as to lessen the impact of construction upon the general public; and
9. The State and the Owner desire to consolidate the performance of the Work with the construction of the highway
project, and set forth their respective obligations and responsibilities with respect to the Work and the funding
thereof; and
10. This contract is executed by the State under the authority of 9943.1.110 and 43.1.114, C.R.S. as amended
NOW THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENT AND THE OWNER AGREE:
1. The State will provide liaison with the Owner through the State's Region Transportation Director, Region ..,QL,
located at 222 South 61h Street- Room 301. Grand Junction, CO 81501. Said Director will also be
responsible for coordinating the State's activities under this contract.
2 The Work is described in detail in Exhibit A, "Cost Estimate" and Exhibit B, "Plan Sheets", attached hereto and
made a part hereof.
3. The plans and specifications for the Work, hereinafter referred to as the "highway construction plans", shall be
prepared by the State, shall include any bid items necessary for performance of the work, and shall be made a
part of this contract by reference.
COOT Form # Rev. 2/03
4. The State will award a construction contract for the highway project, including the Work, pursuant to the
provisions of ~24.92-101, et seq., C.R.S, as amended. The State shall be the sole authority for awarding said
construction contract.
5. After the State's highway project has been awarded, the Owner shall give written notification to the State if it
desires any revision of the Work. The State shall then incorporate any mutually acceptable revisions into the
Work, and the Owner shall be responsible for all costs of the revised Work and shall pay such costs in
accordance with the provisions of clause 8, which follows.
6. The State, through its construction contractor, shall perform and complete the Work in accordance with Exhibit
A, Exhibit B, and the highway construction plans. The State will supervise the performance of the Work, which
shall include, but not be limited to, field and office engineering, inspection and materials testing, and traffic
control through the project area.
7. The Owner shall cooperate and coordinate with the State in the performance of the Work. During
construction, a representative of the Owner shall periodically observe the performance of the Work to ensure
that the Owner's interests with regard to the Work are being fulfilled. Upon completion of the Work, the Owner
shall give the State written final approval of the Work, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld,
provided that performance of the Work has been done in accordance with Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and the plans,
shall be deemed approved. The Owner's inspector shall report only to the State's engineer and shall not be
involved with the State's construction contractor.
8. The Owner shall reimburse the State for the cost of the Work as set forth in Exhibit A. Total Work costs shall
include and be expressed as:
a. Physical construction costs, as derived from the lump sum cost quoted by the Contractor for the work.
b. Contingencies, expressed as 5.00% percent of the costs in a. above.
c. Construction engineering costs, and the State's indirect costs, expressed as 20.83% percent of the
sum of costs in a. and b. above.
The Owner's share of the Work lump sum cost shall be $414,257.02 ,as set forth in the attached Exhibit A,
and shall be the maximum amount of the Owner's obligation unless such amount is increased by a written
supplement to this contract.
9. The Owner has appropriated sufficient funds to pay for the costs of Work that will be completed within the
Owner's current fiscal year. For Work to be completed in subsequent fiscal years, if any, the Owner shall
make all necessary good faith efforts to effectuate the availability of funds. In the event funds are not so
appropriated by the Owner, the Owner shall promptly notify the State of such fact.
10. The State will bill the Owner for the total amount to be reimbursed after the work has been completed. The
Owner will pay the amount billed by the State not later than 60 days after the date such bill is sent.
11. Interim funds, until the State is reimbursed, will be payable from the Transportation Supplementary Fund
Number 400.
12. The State agrees to make all project records available to the Owner in the event the Owner desires to audit
same for cost verification purposes.
13. The term of this contract shall begin on the date first written above, and shall extend to the date which is three
months after the date of final payment or final audit, whichever is pertinent to this contract, unless earlier
terminated.
14. This contract shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties, their successors and assigns.
15. The State or the Owner may terminate this contract at any time upon reasonable notice for cause, or
convenience, or if funds become unavailable, provided that the Owner shall pay the State the incurred cost of
actual work performed to date of termination.
2
CDOT Form # Rev. 2/03
16. The Owner represents and warrants that it has taken all actions that are necessary or that are required by its
procedures, bylaws, or applicable law, to legally authorize the undersigned signatory to execute this contract
on behalf of the Owner and to bind the Owner to its terms.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed in triplicate by their
respective officials thereto duly authorized.
ATTEST:
STATE OF COLORADO
BILL OWENS, GOVERNOR
By
By
Chief Clerk
Executive Director
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OWNER
Citv of Aspen
By
Title:
3
CDOT Form # Rev. 2/03
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF ASPEN - REIMBURSABLE COST CALCULATIONS
8 INCH IRRIGATION LINE
SH 82 Maroon Creek Bridge Replacement
HB 0821-075
SA 15155
Category
Item Number
Description
584
900-00014
8 Inch Irrigation Line
Item cost
Contingencies @ 5%
Sub-Total
CE & Indirect @ 20.83 %
TOTAL LUMP SUM COST
$326,517.00
$15,325.85
$342,842.85
$71,414.17
$414,257.02
5/B/'Rm 73-005.07
---
~
()
-j
-<
0
'1
)> 0
(J)
-0 -
fT1 ;0 -l
z ;0 $:
G) )> -<
-0 )> ;0 ."
;0 -j 0 ~
0 0 Z
C- O z 0
fT1 Z n
() g
-j r () z '1
;0 :t
"l1::: Z fT1 n
fT1 fT1 ~
t.N ^ )>
I () i;
;0 OJ
t.N 0 ;0 0 (J)
I (J) 0
t.N (J) U
~ G)
I' z fT1
'1 G) fTl
i 0
;0 Z
()
~..... !~ 0
0
nn2~ -j
~.... S ~
m ~n:1 ~
E E I I "CI "'.'111 .
I; ~, >< ~~~5 1~"~la I
::c ,dllll I
'III" I
'; 'c - ~..~ 11"'11'
, ,<0 m
I :~ ~!il~ 1.'11'1
'I ;" - ~!!l .11'11
I .~ -I !!l ~II
i ,5
,0
, ;0, m .
II "
!',IIII !!!!!
!ioli IIII1
III i ,II
I IiI
II
'mil'
~.... ~f;'it t
....,
...~,'"tt>
~ .....
+'S~r ,~
"\ti>W.)
t"~ ,.,t",
'~it
~
~
o
"
8~
o
"~
"
ml>
~"
mO
~o
oZ
~o
m"
~m
8m
m"
~UJ
0"
~-
~o
GO
m
"11
!il
Ie
'1
o
,
~
om
~~
",
0r
>>
"Z
~
r
~
p,li
'IS'
in~
o.
o
i
!
,l
1j
N~
0:
-",
(J'J~
I"
,
o
"
,
o
~
.
w
"
m
z
"
~~6~'
z )>"
o r=-
~
m tV
"
OJ
'0
g
m
.
"
"
~s
" co
6=i
Z'
iii':: ~
"
'0
mO
m"
o
"
it
h 1J!1 i
j! i ! !
II .'
,~ I
!l!
I. 2
,
.
,
,,~
~ .
!~
~,
,,2:;;:;; II!~
~~~~ ~~~K
~~~~ i II
Ii"
> I,~i
:/
l ~l! i ,
~~ ii I
, !
~~ Iii ,
~ ! 0
II " ,
2
'"" l~i ~
0
" ~
c.n
~..:'c, ....
, .
1,.1
,1",
,', t
/i III
"i +',
,', 1'1
,~ l
~~~il\
____~ 't
I ~ ' ~
I II : It I
, ' It 1
~m i 1 i ~II
I: ,
~, ' -I
II ~
~I 'II
1~11
111
I'll'::: i!~..11
[' I . : i~11
, ,fW
.~ ~ iI!
............ /j 1,
-i,/\ ~I
\\i
\ \'r
\ "I
I
, i
,
, I
t
......21
t
u
!
~~.
9
,
I !
, I
~
-1
/1'
.J.
i
I
I
,
,
,
'"
Ii
"
"
o
m
-j
)> -.
r '
- "I
i ~ '
all
H!
I'
i 1
I ~
, I
l :
j, .
!I J
1~ '
'1
l!
~,
~~ ci
i,
~'1J'0
11 :
~1~ : I
!l~ i I'>,' I
~Rl ,. ,
i' '
. / I.i I
. i ! r
' I~
, 0
~ 'to
--..~. i .
~o[1
" '-I'
1\0 I
, ~"'.I
\ \\\,
I I,..,
""I'!
":,,11"'.,1
, II
\ I,'
""Ji.'
I '
, .
: 1, ~.
1'1,
~=~1
"~ '
1:].\
I' I
\::1
I"
::\
~ :1:1 !
Ii 1:li: ~
+
-:1"
,1'11"
~ I' I""
II" i
" I:
~I;I:~
,.
:\11:
"1' "I
I .--"'1 "I,. "~I
I r 101-1 "'
I ~ I .,'. ~:
, '
11; ~
!
II
B~
~
~
<;0
)>
AJ
o
o
z
\J !
Rl g,
7\ 1.-/'
1JJ
AJ
o
GJ
m
l~ ~
r )>
e m
~ ~>>t
G) c r
:t>::! <
"r m
6::;
z'
rm
~~
.~
~"
o
~
co
rn
"! :;
"I C
Irl<g.
'I'"
I'I<I~
'0,
~
,,<;'lii~
~~~~
~~~~
!~
!.i
...
o
."
'"
II
I!
r,
I'
1"1
Ill,
=11 r
i ,I
~ " I~
~ ~ i
o
,
,
L
1]
)>
n ;=
" m
,
0
~
, , 1 i
rn
~ .
z
1!
II
'!'I~ <
'd' 1"-.
. \'~1!1
!1~m'~Re
l~~~M'
e~
;;l ~1h
I ~~l
~r
~ Ii!
. ~l
~ ~
~ !
~ ~
I
.
,
i
I!.' /
'~I
~ Ii!
II l" III ~
'11 il i I!
.u !. p!
Ii -'li~ I
-i---.. ... ~~
Iii Ii! n
I!~
I
-. Ilii
II
*~llil !
ii!I~I~
~ti! Ii
-Ii . !ii
1
.~I
I
1
-~I
~I l h~
!I- 11 !ll
I, I f!
II ,Ii
II '1m
I
I
I
\-.
,
" iil!'
I~ ~ 2 .
~ 'I,i
I! i~!~'
i')> !1~11
~~ gJ 'I"
! 4 il :l
i:.$: (j
,m
z
4
, 0 ~
r
l ~ll lr ~ II
)>-
'm gJ;ti ~ ' ~ i~[)
...,
)> 4 , mil:
;= <;om j!
mo
Z4 i n; ill
"- 40
-oz , ~~I
m !
z
4 2~tc
m
AJ ,n
Z ,
GJ ,
1JJ
AJ
0 I
GJ
m
I
. , ; n n
/11
- ~
i~~ ~
;l~ I!
,~,
Iii
, , 16
,,, I
T
ii Ii I ,
~" I
<~I
! '
"
10,
!!!li!!!llllg I
i!1!!!!Illl!! il~ pi;
l'l.ill!-: ,l'l lJJ' P
il !II .1111 c, I ;
, i ill ~ I I
~~ ~ ~ 2
~ , '2 l
, iFi)>
~~ eii
I'l~~ m
~" 'l
l!I
~~~
!l!l
!Ili
ill,
l'Rl:!!
...,ll
)> m
F m
o
4
.J>.- 6
z
i>
OJ
4
~
Z
4
"
1
I
~ I
.
~
P
,
,
I II
i
I
I
,
ll~ )~~
illl ~ ~ '2l
~H ill I ~ lJ J
i ~Ii ~~~
, !~i
p ~,! J,
I
)
/
-....,~
Iq
tf ~
,
,
I I:~
ii'
I g~i
~ i
I !
i!~~~bj= ~(")
m{f)'--rm~ <\")Q
Cf)-IoCG)- m-'
,-m--;o1.JiV ~
l6~niz~-~ -~
m~;lJ~ 0 b'52
O""~ z ~
"11(1)0 'r rll~
-I 0 J!z (")
i'iiQ3mJ>(j)m jj -I
(fJgJ1J~-u ~8
~(1)2B~~ =!~
"'~ffiO::::!(1J ~-
mFCllf!l:s:!;; ~ e:
}J ilJ1Jf"iI nl-
~ffi~p(jo ~
z-lt:rI7iJ
G)!':~~Ui-:l
!:;~0~J>2j 2
.....m-l'=lOJ\l P
rOowO :::E_
mm . ~~ ~
()08~fn6 Ul
~f~~~1l ~
ii"~~~", ~
~i!I1l91'ij=B l'n
zm-lwmo
(j)-q;;PUl;>J
-uJJ(Il-l~nl
O-lSQ Ul-tJ 0
2':::;'0;"01]
:-l=ilJO~'ij
I2 ffi/\
" ~
!
1m
'~'
q
I i ~
. .
I!
I,
':''' "'
8:'" :-.
09 !
-----~....J
I
~
,
,
!
,
+
;~ ii'll;~i I ~
~~ ~~ I !I~III'III; u ~.!!
~~ I".., 1111 ti II; ~i::~l
~!I! ! ~~ lfilH G ~~I~I\ .llll': l~
'~;!~Ih I'" !~!r.~
~" i b I Ii: I'! i'I'I' 'I' ~ 'Ill
~ I ,II' I I: I ,;
" , "I ,..
I -. II
hi I :1
I ~~,,~~~~ f
; i ':111: ~:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I II ~~.. L ~ ~. ~ ~ Wi \i
III ",,'.1 t>1... ;;;I'.. t"l
l '~" ~.. _. ~ ~
l hl~ H""8tH i ~ F 0::>." ~
1(1111 . I 'I!l .....,
.'11......' It ,~ !!
11(11 ',..... ,. II! . ii'
I HI',,! : ~ ~',:. :: ',' ,t,,~ 9, ll"1'-~..l:
11'1 I .., _ . ~. I I t'\~~ ;
I I,. .:..,", I ~~~~ ~ "
[t . . ~ . ~ . , Iiil "l _ :'Ii ,~
r IQ' I., .. . ~ ""
I ' ~ ~ ~ . I'..:
~"".. ,.1 ~D::: ~(I ~--
t . ~ I . i; .. 't "'~ !I
I ,
~ '\ ", " ~ .. .. f
~ ninii~
~ u.nn I
~ ......11
rr:J 111...-
;t nun;. i
~ . I...". 1.1
~ ,I. .... 't
:;tJ ...""_'
[;j ~. I . . . . {
~ un..n I
~ t-n.u.11
I;:) '" I . <; ~ . .
.... ,",",<< .
>! .
e; dP~'. I.
al." I' .'
'"
i
i~
i
;~ ,.a ~ II
! ,l~ 2 '.
I ~I,! \1
: Ii ~II [;:l ~.... 0"
j iW ~!I' I
,
I
:J r !II I
I
I I
~~ ,
.
I
;~ ill -~
,lllil" '.
i~ ,1,111' .'
'!II"
'r'll
W!lli
III
,
"< I q'" I!
~~
00 i el I~
ZO
""
;C
oz i Iq
, ~ . II
Ii'
!' I .,_ I ~~
B'!'~
ili
H
bE
l~~ nn ~~
;
III ~ !II ;11
III
.1 i!li Iii
Um III IIi
"m ~U
~
III ,,; I 0 ~ ,,~ Ii~!l
IIJ. I
I ~ p) "~
I; "''''I ;~ ~
i~; ~ ~ \:!~i
II~ 0 I! III ~~"." " Iii! 't
o( ill ,"~l .
." "'~I
I~ I I " ;: ~
\I . I tl, i oti:! II >:~,
Ii I re I I:
~ II 1--1 I 3
I I'
II I'
~/1J/2OO> "~\7!\ao:;\0S2'''''''.''2.'''
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA nON
Glenwood Springs Residency
Region 3 Engineering East
202 Centennial Street
G1enwood Springs, CO 81601-2845
(970) 945-8187 I Fax (970) 945-6889
STATE OF COLORADO
or
PROJECT NUMBER: lIB 0821-075
PROJECT CODE: 15155
PROJECT NAME: Maroon Creek Bridge Const.
February 21,2006
Mr. Randy Ready
Assistant City Manager
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Randy,
The Contractor, BTE Concrete Formwork, LLC, has submitted a revised price quote of
$326,517.00 for the materials and insta1lation of the 8" irrigation line that will be placed in the
interior of the Maroon Creek Bridge. The quote is based on the plans prepared by Mc Laughlin
Rincon, dated June, 2005.
The revised price reflects the increased price of steel from the supplier. The supplier's new price
quote to the Contractor was made on February 13, 2006, and is good for 15-days or until
February 27, 2006.
The fina1 price, including normal CDOT add-ons, is shown below:
BTE Quote $326,517.00
Contingencies (5%) 16.325.85
Sub-Total $342,842.85
CE & Indirect (20.83%) 71.414.17
TOTAL................. ........ $414,257.02
Acceptance of this quote by the City will initiate preparation of the Contract between CDOT and
the City of Aspen for the additional work.
Sincerely,
By' I"IL~I ) lctli Ii
For: Peter L. Mertes
Resident Engineer
P.E., C/B
Cc: Elsen
Mertes
Burgess
Overeynder
Krueger
Metheny
Cullen File
McLaugh1in Rincon
D.
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Ed Sadler, Asst. City Manager
Date of Memo: April 17, 2006
Meeting Date: April 24, 2006
RE: ARC/DURRANT Settlement Agreement
SUMMARY: As you are aware, the City of Aspen initiated a civil action to recover
money from the design team for the ARC to recover damages from what was viewed as
incomplete plans for the facility that caused the City to incur additional costs. Attached is
a copy of the proposed Settlement Agreement to resolve those claims for your approval.
The City Attorney's Office has reviewed and approved this settlement agreement.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Previously, Council approved the initiation ofthis
claim and approved hiring specialized outside council to handle this matter.
DISCUSSION: Durrant Architects from Denver was hired by the City of Aspen to
complete the design work for the ARC. During the actual construction of the facility
during 2002 and early 2003, the City and its contractor (Shaw), discovered several issues
with the design drawings where the City felt they conflicted, were incomplete or were
incorrectly specified. These issues caused the project to incur additional costs, the most
significant of which was the repainting of the ARC in 2004 ($500,000 +). Once the dust
had settled, the City in its suit asked for damages in the range of $1.1 million. The
attached settlement agreement proposes settling all outstanding claims for $762,500.
Discussions and depositions have been ongoing for over two years on this matter. Going
into this process, based upon my previous experience, I felt that the City should recover
the cost of the painting and about half of the remaining amount for a total of about
$800,000. We are now scheduled for trial in August 2006. Counsel has provided us with
an estimate for the trial that indicates that it will cost an additional $343,000. Considering
where I felt we would end up in dollars on the settlement and considering the cost of a
trial in both direct and indirect costs (staff time), I am recommending the Council
approve this settlement offer. I do not believe that the City would recover enough
additional funds through a trial to warrant the expenses.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: This settlement offer would end up paying for the
painting costs and reimburse the City for some of the additional expenses it has incurred.
The funds should be deposited to the General Fund which is where the funds for the
painting came from.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: None.
RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that Council approved the attached settlement
agreement.
AL TERNA TIVES: The only real alternative is the not approve the settlement agreement
and proceed to the scheduled court date in August of this year in hopes of winning and
even larger settlement. This could work out to our advantage as the City could get more
of its costs paid for if the final settlement is over $800,000, which was our previous low
offer at an earlier date. This is due to the fact that we made this offer earlier and having
not accepted this offer, Durrant would have to cover so~e legal expenses incurred by the
City.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to accept and approve the proposed Settlement
agreement between the City of Aspen and the Durrant Group, Inc.
CITY ~,_,~~GER'~ C~M~~~~S~> " '"
-~~ ~"-vvc......~ 1 <rt2'!. ..s~dT diV'.e..r.
- I ~
RESOLUTION NO. dJ
Series of 2006
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING A MUTUAL RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT,
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND THE DURRANT GROUP, INC., AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR OR CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT SAID
AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council, a Mutual Release and
Settlement Agreement for the civil action in Pitkin County District Court case number
2003CV50, between the City of Aspen and The Durrant Group, Inc., 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 the Mutual Release
and Settlement Agreement for Pitkin County District Court case number 2003CV50,
between the City of Aspen and The Durrant Group, Inc., a copy of which is annexed
hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the Mayor or City Manager to
approve 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
G:\tara\RESOS\Durrant settlement.doc
MUTUAL RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement is entered into by and between the City
of Aspen, Colorado ("Aspen") and The Durrant Group, Inc. ("Durrant") and is effective this 12th
day of April, 2006.
RECITALS
A. Aspen is a Colorado municipal corpor!ltion.
B. Durrant is a Wisconsin corporation authorized to do business in Colorado with its
principal place of business in Dubuque, Iowa, and with offices located in Denver,
Colorado. It has done business in Colorado as Durrant Architects, Inc. Where Durrant is
referred to herein, the name is intended to refer to The Durrant Group, Inc., Durrant
Architects, Inc., and all related or affiliated entities.
C. On or about January 11, 2000, Durrant entered into a Professional Architectural Services
Agreement ("Agreement") with Aspen, pursuant to which Durrant undertook the
performance of certain professional architectural and engineering services with respect to
the design of the Iselin Pool and Ice Facility ("the Facility") for Aspen. The Agreement
was amended from time to time, and references to the Agreement herein encompass the
Agreement and all amendments thereto.
D. Durrant retained consultants to assist with various portions of the design of the Facility,
including Vic Davies Architect, Ltd. ("Davies") and Keen Engineering, Inc. ("Keen").
E. Following completion of the Facility, Aspen asserted various claims against Durrant.
Aspen claimed that the plans and specifications prepared by Durrant and its consultarits
for the Facility were incomplete or contained errors or omissions, that Aspen incurred
additional and/or excessive costs as a result thereof, and that certain remedial work had to
be performed following completion of the Facility. Durrant denied those claims.
F. Although Aspen and Durrant first attempted to resolve those claims through negotiation,
they were unable to do so. Aspen then commenced a civil action against Durrant based
upon those claims, that civil action being identified as City of Aspen v. The Durrant
Group, Inc., Pitkin County District Court, Case No. 03CV50, referred to hereinafter as
"the Civil Action."
G. In the Civil Action, Durrant asserted a counterclaim against Aspen for indemnification
based upon the terms of the Agreement.
H. Following further negotiations, Aspen and Durrant have now agreed to resolve all matters
in dispute between them under the terms and conditions set forth below.
TERMS OF AGREEMENT
1. For and in consideration of payment to it by or on behalf of Durrant of the sum of
Seven Hundred Sixty Two Thousand Five Hundred and no/l 00 Dollars ($762,500.00), the
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Aspen, for itself, its elected officials, officers,
employees, agents and insurers, hereby releases and forever discharges Durrant, its officers,
directors, shareholders, employees, agents, insurers and consultants, including, but not limited to,
DavieS and Keen, of and from any and all claims whatsoever, whether in tort, contract or
otherwise, for any and all damages of any kind whatsoever arising out of or in any way related to
the professional services performed by Durrant or its consultants with respect to the Facility.
This release is intended to include all claims asserted in the Civil Action, all other claims which
may be presently known to Aspen, and all claims which might arise in the future, but are
presently unknown to Aspen.
2. In consideration of the release given by Aspen in Paragraph 1, above, Durrant, for
itself, its officers, directors, shareholders, employees and agents, hereby releases Aspen, its
elected officials, officers, employees, agents and insurers of and from any and all claims arising
out of the design and construction of the Facility, including, but not limited to, those claims
asserted by Durrant in the Civil Action.
3. Upon execution of this Release and Settlement Agreement, the parties agree to
prepare and file, or cause to be filed, any necessary documents to accomplish the dismissal of the
Civil Action with prejudice, each of the parties to pay its own costs.
.
4. The parties acknowledge that the payment made and the obligations undertaken
hereunder are for the purpose of compromising and resolving contested claims between them,
and such payment and obligations are not to be construed as an admission of liability by either
party to the other and, in fact, each of the parties denies liability to the other.
5. In entering into this Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement, each of the
parties acknowledges that it is not relying upon any statements or representations of the other
party or the other party's consultants or attorneys, but is relying exclusively upon its own
knowledge, as well as the knowledge of its own consultants and attorneys with respect to the
condition of the Facility and the existence of any claims or potential claims against the other
party.
6. Should Durrant proceed in arbitration or litigation against any of its consultants
with claims for indemnification, contribution or otherwise, and should Durrant seek to engage
consultants or experts who have been retained by Aspen in the Civil Action, Aspen agrees that it
will not object to such retention, it being understood that any such engagement shall be a matter
between Durrant and any such expert or consultant on such terms as they may agree.
7. Aspen further agrees that it shall not communicate to third parties any disparaging
statements or remarks concerning Durrant or the services performed by Durrant and its
consultants, for the Facility and shall take such steps as are necessary to inform its elected
officials, officers and employees of this non-disparagement provision.
2
8. Aspen hereby confirms that no claim being released hereunder has been
transferred or assigned to any third party in whole or in part.
9. The parties acknowledge that this Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement shall
be binding upon each of the parties and its respective successors, assigns and insurers.
DATED this day of April, 2006.
CITY OF ASPEN
THE DURRANT GROUP, INC.
By:
Its:
By:
Its:
ATTESTATION:
'.
By:
Its:
3
c.*
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Council
FROM:
Gram Slaton, Wheeler Executive Director
THRU:
ACM Randy Ready; Wheeler Board of Directors
DATE OF MEMO:
18 April 2006
MEETING DATE:
24 April 2006
RE:
5280 Digital/Wheeler Interior Marquee Purchase
SUMMARY: Approval of this contract would complete the process for purchasing and
installing a new state-of-the-art interior marquee above the box office of the Wheeler Opera
House. 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 plan for marketing ofthe Wheeler
Opera House, which included a component involving completion ofthe electronic signage
originally planned for the 2004 First Floor Master Plan renovation of the box office lobby.
Council approved the marketing plan, and its attendant physical plant upgrades, in concept with
the understanding that individual components would be brought back at an appropriate time for
contract approval.
BACKGROUND: The comprehensive marketing plan was the result of many conversations
over the course of 2005 (and preceding years) concerning necessary repairs and improvements
for the Wheeler Opera House that would create a more desirable community venue. The 2004
renovation of the Wheeler box office lobby provided the infrastructure for support and execution
of an electronic marquee, but this purchase was deferred until later due to cost overruns
associated with the lobby renovation project.
DISCUSSION: It is the opinion of Wheeler staff and Board that, while not directly addressed in
the Genovese Vanderhoof & Associates organizational audit presented to Council in June 2005,
the addition of a thorough informational marquee (for both Wheeler and Aspen-area events) is
endorsed in the GV A report's recommendations for the box office, and would complete the
Wheeler box office's role as an information center for all residents and visitors to the Roaring
Fork Valley.
8. Agreement Made in Colorado. The parties agree that this Agreement was made in
accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and shall be so construed. Venue
is agreed to be exclusively in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado.
9. Attornev's Fees. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of the
provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and
reasonable attorney's fees.
10. Waiver ofPresumotion. This Agreement was negotiated and reviewed through the
mutual efforts of the parties hereto and the parties agree that no construction shall be
made or presumption shall arise for or against either party based on any alleged
unequal status of the parties in the negotiation, review or drafting of the Agreement.
11. Certification Regarding Debarment. Susoension. Ineligibility. and V oluntarv
Exclusion. Vendor certifies, by acceptance of this Agreement, that neither it nor its
principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared
ineligible or voluntarily excluded from participation in any transaction with a Federal
or State department or agency. It further certifies that prior to submitting its Bid that
it did include this clause without modification in all lower tier transactions,
solicitations, proposals, contracts and subcontracts. In the event that Vendor or any
lower tier participant was unable to certify to the statement, an explanation was
attached to the Bid and was determined by the City to be satisfactory to the City.
12. Warranties Against Contingent Fees. Gratuities. Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest.
Vendor warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to
solicit or secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission,
percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide
established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Vendor for the purpose
of securing business.
Vendor agrees not to give any employee of the City a gratuity or any offer of
employment in connection with any decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation,
preparation of any part of a program requirement or a purchase request, influencing the content
of any specification or procurement standard, rendering advice, investigation, auditing, or in any
other advisory capacity in any proceeding or application, request for ruling, determination, claim
or controversy, or other particular matter, pertaining to this Agreement, or to any solicitation or
proposal therefore.
Vendor represents that no official, officer, employee or representative of the City during
the term of this Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or
indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof, except those that may have been disclosed at
the time City Council approved the execution of this Agreement.
18. Authorized ReDresentative. The Wldersigned representative of Vendor, as an
inducement to the City to execute this Agreement, represents that helshe is an
authorized representative of Vendor for the plllposes of executing this Agreement and
that he/she has full and complete authority to enter into this Agreement for the tenus
and conditions specified herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The City and the Vendor, respectively have caused this
Agreement to be duly executed the day and year first herein written in three (3) copies, all of
which, to all intents and plllposes, shall be considered as the original.
FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN:
By:
City Manager
A ITEST:
City Clerk
VENDOR:
~;l8'O f),'c,,~.r:/ h ("
Name /"
? J 8'7 s: 1?~....,...... g~~ f"() /
Address
(~h~~"/e>~ C t:J ytJ // :2-
City, State, Zip
Implementation Plan (continued)
Coordination and Commitment from the City of Aspen
5280 Digital will coordinate with City personnel and contractors to schedule the space for
installauon. Communicauon with contractors can be through a general contractor, or 5280
Digital technicians can make direct contact with each sub-contractor as needed.
Coordination and delivery product delivery will be required, as well as confinnnalion and
sign off of installed equipment locations and project completion. Training will be
coordinated with City staff as needed.
Project Requirements and Exclusions
Electrical outlets and LAN connectivity provided by customer will be required at the display
wall, and server locations. Intemet connectivity will be required for remote operations and
updates. One electrical outlet will be required at the audio amplifier and PC.
5280 Digitai will require full access to the work space to complete the installation. This will
require a minimum of 2 full (not partial) days of access without conflicting work or
meetings.
5280 Digital does not provide electrical contract services, and does not provide electrical
wiring, or perfonnn tennninations or electrical installation services. In addition, 5280 Digital
does not provide conduit or conduit installation, junction boxes for electrical hardware, or
lighting system hardware or installation. Further exclusions are LAN and telephone wiring
connections, ceiling We or grid work, millwork, cabinetry, trim and finish work.
Contact Information and Confidentiality Statement
Your contact for proposal clarifications and modifications is:
Jonathan Pope
5280 Digital, Inc.
7388 South Revere Parkway
Suite 801
Centennial, CO 80112
Phone: 720.488-0980
Cell: 303-523-8664
Fax: 303-488-7553
CONFIDENTIAL: This proposal contains information that shall not be duplicated, used in whole or in
part for any purpose other than to evaluate the proposal provided. If a contract is awarded to this firm,
as a resuit of the submission of such information, owner shall have the right to duplicate, use or
disclose this information to the extent provided in the contract.
PAGE 4
CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORA nON
(To be completed if Contractor is a Corporation)
STATE OF CoLOIr'Acto )
fl.... )88.
COUNTY OF nnl!...p"..klo-e- )
.
On this I '{ day of ~ ~ L ,..2ll.El~, before
me appeared ' _ . /"'" .~~/~;---- /
B,v..LC2.- N\t.-e-h...... O~-/ C; _/ ~ ~ to me
personally known, who, being by me first dyly swom, Id say that s/he is
~dZ-S ~t of
~ Ro C)" ~ \ r--.u. } ...t:", c- . and that
the seal affixed to said instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation, and
that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by
authority of its board of directors, and said deponent acknowledged said
instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation.
WITNESS MY HAND AND NOTARIAL SEAL the day and year in this certificate
first above written.
~~~
Notary Public
~.cu
.-
.
AddrlelHDA POPE
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF COLORADO
My Commission Expires Feb. 23. 2009
My commission expires:
CC5-97I.doc
Page: IS
used in connection with or arising out of the Project, and shall obtain periodic releases
from all subcontractors and material suppliers supplying labor or materials to the Project
concurrently with Contractor's delivering any payment to such subcontractors and
material suppliers. Contractor shall indemnify and hold City and City's officers,
employees, agents, successors and assigns free and harmless against all expenses and
liability suffered or incurred in connection with the claims of any such subcontractors or
material suppliers, including but not limited to court costs and attorney's fees resulting or
arising therefrom; provided that Contractor shall be excused from this obligation to the
extent that City is in arrears in making the payments to Contractor. Should any liens or
claims of lien be filed of record against the Property, or should Contractor receive notice
of any unpaid bill or charge in connection with construction of the Project, Contractor
shall immediately either pay and discharge the same and cause the same to be released of
record, or shall furnish City with the proper indemnity either by title policy or by
corporate surety bond in the amount of 150% of the amount claimed pursuant to such
lien.
6. Releases. Contractor shall, if requested by City, before being entitled to
receive any payment due, furnish to City all releases obtained from subcontractors and
material suppliers and copies of all bills paid to such date, properly receipted and
identified, covering work done and the materials furnished to the Project and showing an
expenditure of an amount not less than the total of all previous payments made hereunder
by City to Contractor.
7. Bonds. Contractor shall furnish performance, payment and maintenance
Bonds, each in an amount specified. These Bonds shall remain in effect until the job is
advertised and closed except for the Maintenance Bond which shall remain in full force
and effect for One Year from the date of project closure, except as otherwise provided by
the Contract Documents.
8. Hierarchy of Project Documents. This Contract and the Proposal or Scope
of Work appended hereto as Exhibit "A" are intended to supplement one another. In
case of conflict, however, this Contract shall control both.
9. Changes in the Work. Should the City at any time during the progress of
the work request any modifications, alterations or deviations in, additions to, or
omissions from this Contract or the Proposal/Scope of Work, it shall be at liberty to do
so, and the same shall in no way affect or make void this Contract; but the amount thereof
shall be amortized over the remaining term of this Contract and added to or deducted, as
the case may be, from the payments set forth in Paragraph 3 above by a fair and
reasonable valuation, based upon the actual cost oflabor and materials. This Contract
shall be deemed to be completed when the work is finished in accordance with the
original Proposal or Scope of Work as amended or modified by such changes, whatever
may be the nature or the extent thereof. The rule of practice to be observed in fulfillment
of this paragraph shall be that, upon the demand of either City or Contractor, the
character and valuation of any or all changes, omissions or extra work shall be agreed
upon and fixed in writing, signed by City and Contractor, prior to performance.
CC5-97Ldoc
Page: 2
10. Contractor's Failure to Perform. Should Contractor, at any time during
the progress of the work, refuse or fail to supply sufficient material or workmen for the
expeditious progress of said work or fail to perform any other provisions of this Contract,
City may, upon giving notice in writing to Contractor as provided herein and upon
Contractor's failure to remedy any such failure within 3 days from receipt of such notice,
terminate this Contract and provide the necessary material and workmen to finish the
work and may enter upon the Property for such purpose and complete said work. The
expense thereof shall be deducted from the payments remaining under Paragraph 3
above, or if the total cost of the work to City exceeds the amount of such remaining
payments, Contractor shall pay to City upon demand the amount of such excess in
addition to any and all other damages to which City may be entitled. In the event of such
termination, City may take possession of all materials, equipment and appliances
belonging to Contractor upon or adjacent to the Property upon which said work is being
performed and may use the same in the completion of said work. Such termination shall
not prejudice or be exclusive of any other legal rights which City may have against
Contractor.
11. Extension of Time for Completion. Time is of the essence of this
Contract and Contractor shall substantially complete the work during the time provided
for herein. However, the time during which Contractor is delayed in said work by (a) the
acts of City or its agents or employees or those claiming under Contract with or
permission from City, or (b) the acts of God which Contractor could not have reasonably
foreseen and provided against, or (c) unanticipated stormy or inclement weather which
necessarily delays the work, or (d) any strikes, boycotts or obstructive actions by
employees or labor organizations and which are beyond the control of Contractor and
which it cannot reasonably overcome, or (e) the failure of City to make progress
payments promptly, shall be added to the time for completion ofthe work by a fair and
reasonable allowance. Contractor recognizes, however, that the site of the work is in the
Rocky Mountains at a high elevation where inclement whether conditions are common.
This fact has been considered by Contractor in preparing its Proposal and or agreeing to
the Scope of Work. Furthermore, Contractor shall have the right to stop work if any
payment, including payment for extra work, is not made to Contractor as provided in this
Contract. In the event of such nonpayment, Contractor may keep the job idle until all
payments then due are received.
12. Unforeseen Conditions. It is understood and agreed that Contractor,
before incurring any other expenses or purchasing any other materials for the Project,
shall proceed to inspect the work site and all visible conditions and that if, at the time of
inspection therefor, the Contractor finds that the proposed work is at variance with the
conditions indicated by the Proposal, Scope of Work, or information supplied by City, or
should Contractor encounter physical conditions below the surface of the ground of an
unusual nature, differing materially from those ordinarily encountered and generally
recognized as inherent in work of the character provided for in this Contract or inherent
in a work site located in the Rocky Mountains, Contractor shall so notify City, and City
shall at that time have the right and option to immediately cancel and terminate this
Page: 3
CCS-971.doc
Contract or to instruct Contractor to continue the work and add the additional amount
attributable to such unforeseen conditions to the payments due Contractor as set forth
above.
It is agreed that in the event of any cancellation by City in accordance with this section,
Contractor shall be paid the actual costs of the work done prior to the time of
cancellation. In computing such costs, building permit fees, insurance and such financing
and title charges as are not refundable shall be included; provided that supervision time,
office overhead and profit shall not be included in such costs to be refunded to Contractor
by reason of such cancellation.
13. Acceptance by City. No payment hereunder nor occupancy of said
improvements or any part thereof shall be construed as an acceptance of any work done
up to the time of such payment or occupancy, but the entire work is to be subject to the
inspection and approval of City at the time when Contractor notifies City that the Project
has been completed.
14. Notice of Completion; Contractor's Release. City agrees to sign and file of
record within five (5) days after the substantial completion and acceptance of the Project
a Notice of Completion. If City fails to so record the Notice of Completion within said
five (5) day period, City hereby appoints Contractor as City's agent to sign and record
such Notice of Completion on City's behalf. This agency is irrevocable and is an agency
coupled with an interest. Contractor agrees upon receipt of final payment to release the
Project and property from any and all claims that may have accrued against the same by
reason of said construction. If Contractor faithfully performs the obligations of this
Contract on its part to be performed, it shall have the right to refuse to permit occupancy
of any structures by City or City's assignees or agents until the Notice of Completion has
been recorded and Contractor has received the payment, if any, due hereunder at
completion of construction, less such amounts as may be retained pursuant to mutual
Contract of City and Contractor under the provisions of Paragraph 3 above.
15. Insurance.
a. The Contractor agrees to procure and maintain, at its own expense, a policy
or policies of insurance sufficient to insure against all liability, claims, demands, and other
obligations assumed by the Contractor pursuant to the terms of this Contract. Such insurance
shall be in addition to any other insurance requirements imposed by this contract or by law.
The Contractor shall not be relieved of any liability, claims, demands, or other obligations
assumed pursuant to the terms of this Contract by reason of its failure to procure or maintain
insurance, or by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance in sufficient amounts,
duration, or types.
b. Contractor shall procure and maintain, and shall cause any subcontractor of
the Contractor to procure and maintain, the minimum insurance coverages listed in the
Supplemental Conditions. If the Supplemental Conditions do not set forth minimum
insurance coverage, then the minimum coverage shall be as set forth below. Such coverage
CC5.971.doc
Page: 4
shall be procured and maintained with forms and insurance acceptable to City. All coverage
shall be continuously maintained to cover all liability, claims, demands, and other
obligations assumed by the Contractor pursuant to the terms of this Contract. In the case of
any claims-made policy, the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting periods shall
be procured to maintain such continuous coverage.
1. Workmen's Compensation insurance to cover obligations imposed by
applicable laws for any employee engaged in the performance of work under this
contract, and Employers' Liability insurance with minimum limits of FIVE
HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) for each accident, FIVE
HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - policy limit, and
FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - each
employee. Evidence of qualified self-insured status may be substituted for the
Workmen's Compensation requirements of this paragraph.
2. Commercial General Liability insurance with minimum combined
single limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and
ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) aggregate. The policy shall be
applicable to all premises and operations. The policy shall include coverage for
bodily injury, broad form property damage (including completed operations),
personal injury (including coverage for contractual and employee acts), blanket
contractual, independent contractors, products, and completed operations. The policy
shall include coverage for explosion, collapse, and underground hazards. The policy
shall contain a severability of interests provision.
3. Comprehensive Automobile Liability insurance with minimum
combined single limits for bodily injury and property damage of not less than ONE
MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION
DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) aggregate with respect to each Contractor's owned,
hired and non-owned vehicles assigned to or used in performance of the services.
The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision. If the Contractor has no
owned automobiles, the requirements of this Section 5.4.2.3 shall be met by each
employee of the Contractor providing services to the City under this contract.
c. Except for any Professional Liability insurance that may be required, the
policy or policies required above shall be endorsed to include the City of Aspen and the City
of Aspen's officers and employees as additional insureds. Every policy required above shall
be primary insurance, and any insurance carried by the City of Aspen, its officers or
employees, or carried by or provided through any insurance pool of the City of Aspen, shall
be excess and not contributory insurance to that provided by Contractor. No additional
insured endorsement to the policy required above shall contain any exclusion for bodily
injury or property damage arising from completed operations. The Contractor shall be solely
responsible for any deductible losses under any policy required above.
d. The certificate of insurance provided by the City of Aspen shall be
completed by the Contractor's insurance agent as evidence that policies providing the
Page: 5
CC5-971.doc
required coverage, conditions, and minimum limits are in full force and effect, and shall be
reviewed and approved by the City of Aspen prior to commencement of the contract. No
other form of certificate shall be used. The certificate shall identify this contract and shall
provide that the coverage afforded under the policies shall not be canceled, terminated or
materially changed until at least thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to the
City of Aspen.
e.
clauses:
In addition, these Certificates of Insurance shall contain the following
Underwriters and issuers shall have no right of recovery or subrogation against the
City of Aspen, it being the intention of the parties that the insurance policies so
effected shall protect all parties and be primary coverage for any and all losses
covered by the above-described insurance. To the extent that the City's insurer(s)
may become liable for secondary or excess coverage, the City's underwriters and
insurers shall have no right of recovery or subrogation against the Contractor.
Underwriters and issuers shall have no right of recovery or subrogation against the
City of Aspen, it being the intention of the parties that the insurance policies so
effected shall protect all parties and be primary coverage for any and all losses
covered by the above-described insurance. To the extent that the City's insurer(s)
may become liable for secondary or excess coverage, the City's underwriters and
insurers shall have no right of recovery or subrogation against the
Contractor.Underwriters and issuers shall have no right of recovery or subrogation
against the City of Aspen, it being the intention of the parties that the insurance
policies so effected shall protect all parties and be primary coverage for any and all
losses covered by the above-described insurance. To the extent that the City's
insurer(s) may become liable for secondary or excess coverage, the City's
underwriters and insurers shall have no right of recovery or subrogation against the
Contractor.
The insurance companies issuing the policy or policies shall have no recourse
against the City of Aspen for payment of any premiums or for assessments under
any form of policy. The insurance companies issuing the policy or policies shall
have no recourse against the City of Aspen for payment of any premiums or for
assessments under any form of policy. The insurance companies issuing the policy or
policies shall have no recourse against the City of Aspen for payment of any
premiums or for assessments under any form of policy.
Any and all deductibles in the above-described insurance policies shall be assumed
by and be for the amount of, and at the sole risk of the Proposer. Any and all
deductibles in the above-described insurance policies shall be assumed by and be for
the amount of, and at the sole risk of the Proposer.Any and all deductibles in the
above-described insurance policies shall be assumed by and be for the amount of,
and at the sole risk of the Proposer.
CC5-971.doc
Page: 6
Location of operations shall be: "All operations and locations at which work in
connection with the referenced project is done." Location of operations shall be:
"All operations and locations at which work in connection with the referenced
project is done."Location of operations shall be: "All operations and locations at
which work in connection with the referenced project is done."
Certificates of Insurance for all renewal policies shall be delivered to the Architect at
least fifteen (15) days prior to a policy's expiration date except for any policy expiring on the
expiration date of this Contract or thereafter.
e. Failure on the part of the Contractor to procure or maintain policies
providing the required coverage, conditions, and minimum limits shall constitute a material
breach of contract upon which City may immediately terminate this contract, or at its
discretion City may procure or renew any such policy or any extended reporting period
thereto and may pay any and all premiums in connection therewith. All moneys so paid by
City shall be repaid by Contractor to City upon demand, or City may offset the cost of the
premiums against moneys due to Contractor from City.
f. City reserves the right to request and receive a certified copy of any policy
and any endorsement thereto.
16. Damage or Destruction. If the Project is destroyed or damaged by any
accident or disaster, such as fire, storm, flood, landslide, earthquake, subsidence, theft or
vandalism, any work done by Contractor in rebuilding or restoring the work shall be paid
for by City as extra work under Paragraph 8 above. If, however, the estimated cost of
replacement ofthe work already completed by Contractor exceeds twenty (20%) percent
of the insured sum set forth in Paragraph 14 above, City shall have the option to cancel
this Contract and, in such event, Contractor shall be paid the reasonable cost, including
net profit to Contractor in the amount often (10%) percent, of all work performed by
Contractor before such cancellation.
17. Notices. Any notice which any party is required or may desire to give to any
other party shall be in writing and may be personally delivered or given or made by
United States mail addressed as follows:
To City:
City of Aspen
Wheeler Opera House
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
To Contractor:
5280 Digital
7388 South Revere Parkway
Suite 801
Centennial, CO 80112
CC5-971.doc
Page: 7
subject to the right of either party to designate a different address for itself by notice
similarly given. Any notice so given, delivered or made by United States mail, shall be
deemed to have been given the same day as transmitted by telecopier or delivered
personally, one day after consignment to overnight courier service such as Federal
Express, or two days after the deposit in the United States mail as registered or certified
matter, addressed as above provided, with postage thereon fully prepaid.
18. Inspections; Warranties.
(a) Contractor shall conduct an inspection of the Project prior to final acceptance
of the work with City.
(b) Contractor shall schedule and cause to be performed all corrective activities
necessitated as a result of any deficiencies noted on the final inspection prior to
acceptance. The costs of material and/or labor incurred in connection with such
corrective activities shall not be reimbursed or otherwise paid to Contractor.
(c) Contractor shall obtain, at City's expense, third party warranty contracts (to be
entered into by City).
19. Licensure of Contractor. Contractor hereby represents and warrants to
City that Contractor is duly licensed as a general contractor in the State of Colorado, and
if applicable, in the County of Pitkin.
20. Independent Contractor. It is expressly acknowledged and understood by
the parties that nothing in this Contract shall result in, or be construed as establishing an
employment relationship. The Contractor shall be, and shall perform as, an independent the
Contractor who agrees to use his best efforts to provide the Work on behalf of the City. No
agent, employee, or servant of the Contractor shall be, or shall be deemed to be, the
employee, agent or servant of the City. The City is interested only in the results obtained
under the Contract Documents. The manner and means of conducting the Work are under
the sole control of the Contractor. None of the benefits provided by the City to its employees
including, but not limited to, worker's compensation insurance and unemployment
insurance, are available from the City to the employees, agents or servants of the Contractor.
The Contractor shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of the
Contractor's agents, employees, servants and subcontractors during the performance of the
Contract.
THE CONTRACTOR, AS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, SHALL NOT BE
ENTITLED TO WORKERS' COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND SHALL BE
OBLIGATED TO PAY FEDERAL AND STATE INCOME TAXON ANY MONEYS
EARNED PURSUANT TO THE CONTRACT.
21. Assignment. This Contract is for the personal services of Contractor.
Contractor shall not transfer or assign this Contract or its rights and responsibilities under
this Contract nor subcontract to others its rights and responsibilities under this Contract,
and any attempt to do so shall be void and constitute a material breach of this Contract.
Page: 8
CCS-971.doc
22. Successors and Assigns. Subject to paragraph 22, above, this Contract
shall be binding on, and shall inure to the benefit of, City and Contractor and their
respective successors and assigns.
23. Entire Contract. This Contract contains the entire Contract between City
and Contractor respecting the matters set forth herein and supersedes all prior Contracts
between City and Contractor respecting such matters.
24. Waivers. No waiver by City or Contractor of any default by the other or
of any event, circumstance or condition permitting either to terminate this Contract shall
constitute a waiver of any other default or other such event, circumstance or condition,
whether of the same or of any other nature or type and whether preceding, concurrent or
succeeding; and no failure or delay by either City or Contractor to exercise any right
arising by reason of any default by the other shall prevent the exercise of such right while
the defaulting party continues in default, and no waiver of any default shall operate as a
waiver of any other default or as a modification of this Contract.
25. Remedies Non-Exclusive. No remedy conferred on either party to this
Contract shall be exclusive of any other remedy herein or by law provided or permitted,
but each shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy.
26. Governing Law. This Contract shall be governed by, and construed in
accordance with, the laws of the State of Colorado. Venue for any action at law or equity
shall be Pitkin County.
27. Attorneys' Fees. If either party to this Contract shall institute any action
or proceeding to enforce any right, remedy or provision contained in this Contract, the
prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to receive its attorneys' fees in connection
with such action from the non-prevailing party.
28. Severability. Any provision in this Contract which is held to be
inoperative, unenforceable or invalid shall be inoperative, unenforceable or invalid
without affecting the remaining provisions, and to this end the provisions of this Contract
are declared to be severable.
29. Nondiscrimination. During the performance of this Contract, the
Contractor agrees as follows: The Contractor will not discriminate against any employee or
applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, marital
status, sexual orientation, being handicapped, a disadvantaged person, or a disabled or Viet
Nam era veteran. The Contractor will take affirmative action to insure that applicants are
employed, and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race,
color, religion, sex, national origin, sex, age, sexual orientation, handicapped, a
disadvantaged person, or a disabled or Viet Nam era veteran. Such action shall include, but
not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer; recruitment
or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of payor other forms of
CC5-97Ldoc
Page: 9
compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The Contractor agrees to
post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices
to be provided setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.
30. Prohibited Interest. No member, officer, or employee of the City of
Aspen, Pitkin County or the Town of SnoWlliass Village shall have any interest, direct or
indirect, in this Contract or the proceeds thereof.
31. Warranties Against Contingent Fees, Gratuities, Kickbacks and
Conflict ofInterest:
a. The Contractor warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed
or retained to solicit or secure this Contract upon an Contract or understanding for a
commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingency fee, excepting bona fide employees or
bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Contractor for the
purpose of securing business.
b. The Contractor agrees not to give any employee or fonner employee of the
City a gratuity or any offer of employment in connection with any decision, approval,
disapproval, recommendation, preparation of any part of a program requirement or a
purchase request, influencing the content of any specification or procurement standard,
rendering of advice, investigation, auditing, or in any other advisory capacity in any
proceeding or application, request for ruling, detennination, claim or controversy, or other
particular matter, pertaining to this Contract or to any solicitation or proposal therefor.
c. It shall be a material breach of the Contract for any payment, gratuity, or
offer of employment to be made by or on behalf of a Subcontractor under a contract to the
prime Contractor or higher tier Subcontractor or any person associated therewith, as an
inducement for the award of a Subcontract or order. The Contractor is prohibited from
inducing, by any means, any person employed under this Contract to give up any part of the
compensation to which he/she is otherwise entitled. The Contractor shall comply with all
applicable local, state and federal "anti-kickback" statutes or regulations.
32. Payments Subject to Annual Appropriations. If the contract awarded
extends beyond the calendar year, nothing herein shall be construed as an obligation by the
City beyond any amounts that may be, from time to time, appropriated by the City on an
annual basis. It is understood that payment under any contract is conditional upon annual
appropriation of funds by said governing body and that before providing services, the
Contractor, if it so requests, will be advised as to the status offunds appropriated for
services or materials and shall not be obligated to provide services or materials for which
funds have not been appropriate.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties agree hereto have executed this Contract For
Construction on the date first above written.
CC5.971.doc
Page: 10
ATTESTED BY:
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
By:
Title:
A ITESTEP BY:
~-
......... -.....
CONTRACTOR:
By: tfAV([ -' /?;?/, L... /'
Title;;2: ~
Note: Certification of Incorporation shall be executed if Contractor is a Corporation. If a
partnership, the Contract shal1 be signed by a Principal and indicate title.
CCS-971,doo
PigO: 11
Exhibit "A"
The marquee will be installed on a 49" X 19' wall made up of 3/4" plywood facing on
2")(4" construction, supported bya 30" x 4" micro-Ianl beam. The contractor is to
provide all necessary materials for installation.
Work must be completed between May 8th and 19th, 2006.@
The installation costs of $5400 are included in the total purchase price of $67,885.00.
(see Supply Procurement Agreement between the City and 5280 Digital, Reso.f1 )
$> \>~J~:') ,\€-Ce-\~+ ~ e.'6-e':.cu..\e&) Co1v\-ro..c+. We-
o<f\.+\.c::?a-+e- c.e--mf'ta..~ "b -(V'-.;;,WOo,_~. 3:::>
~ s a-b-ter CO"\\-f-dc.+ 'l's \--eLelue62 !oj S Q.. 8D
0\_ ~L h&-.
.-
-"lOr
fXh~hir "A"
Implementation Plan (continued)
Coordination and Commibnent from the City of Aspen
5280 Digital will coordinate with City personnel and contractors to schedule the space for
installation. Communication with contractors can be through a general contractor, or 5280
Digital technicians can make direct contact with each sub-contractor as needed.
Coordination and delivery product delive/)' will be required, as well as confinmation and
sign off of installed equipment locations and project completion. Training will be
coordinated with City staff as needed.
Project Requirements and Exclusions
Electrical outlets and LAN connectivity provided by customer will be required at the display
wall, and server locations. Intemet connectivity will be required for remote operations and
updates. One electrical outlet will be required at the audio amplifier and PC.
5280 Digital will require full access to the work space to complete the installation. This will
require a minimum of 2 full (not partial) days of access without conflicting work or
meetings.
5280 Digital does not provide electrical contract services, and does not provide electrical
wiring, or perfonm tenminations or electrical installation services. In addition, 5280 Digital
does not provide conduit or conduit installation, junction boxes for electrical hardware, or
lighting system hardware or installation. Further exclusions are LAN and telephone wiring
connections, ceiling tile or grid work, millwork, cabinetry, lIim and finish work.
Contact Information and Confidentiality Statement
Your contact for proposal clarifications and modifications is:
Jonathan Pope
5280 Digital, Inc.
7388 South Revere Parkway
Suite 801
Centennial, CO 80112
Phone: 720-488-0980
Cell: 303-523-8664
Fax: 303-488-7553
CONFIDENTiAl: This proposal contains information that shall not be duplicated, used in whole or in
part for any purpose other than to evaluate the proposal provided. If a contract is awarded to this firm,
as a result of the submission of such information, owner shall have the right to duplicate, use or
disclose this information to the extent provided in the contract.
PAGE 4
Implementation Plan
Product Specifications and Delivery
5280 Digital's engineers and installation team will design, configure and install the LCD
Display system. The components for the project will include:
LCD Displays - The LCD displays will have a 1366 x 768 resolution and are 42" diagonal
displays. The outer dimensions for a single display are 29.5" x 39", and the overall
dimensions for a 2 x 4 video wall would be 59" x 156". The mullions are 1.25" on each side
and can be ordered without a manufacturer's logo for a clean look and uniform bezel.
Software Features - The software provides character generation, p1aylist development!
editing, and scheduling modules with very simple user interface. It features a buiit-in
character generator that enables creation, of graphic pages with advanced color box zone
layouts, text crawls, logos and CG texts for instant blending that requires no rendering
time.
The digital signage editor software enables sophisticated content blending and p1aylist
deveiopment by simply dragging multimedia clips or files from directory browsers and
dropping them on to one of the timelines. The scheduler allows multiple playlist to be
scheduled to play from days to months in advance.
Pricing is included for a separate computer to run the software that is described above. It
is also possible to use an existing computer that meets the minimum requirements of the
software.
Training - Training will be provided on site and supplemented with interactive web-based
training as needed for $75 per half hour.
Video Servers - A dual server system has been specified to provide video in a dual 2x2
configuration. A single server solution will increase the hardware cost, and significantly
increase the content manipulation costs. The content updates would need to be performed
by technical and design professionals. Updates will be time consuming and costly and
require an animation/graphics expert. The proposed system has simplified content
creation and update tools that can be leamed quickly without extensive training.
Audio System - Pricing is included for a commercial grade amplifier and four speakers
mounted on the display wall or ceiling for distributed stereo sound. The system is
expandable as additional inputs or speakers need to be added in the future.
Delivery: Overall time line from award of contract - 31 days from contract award to
installation. Our current installation schedule allows this to be completed between May 8th
and 19th.
PAGE 3
CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
(To be completed if Contractor is a Corporation)
STATE OF CoLC(('Ado )
II.... ) SS.
COUNTY OF rw-e<-p.,.k1.o-e.- )
.
On this \ '{day of ~ ~ l c2U.El"=:" before
me appeared .~. ;:cc? .~.. ....>--. /
'B,v-'" tJ\L.e-ho" 0 ~'//../ ";/~o me
personally known, who, being by me first duly swom, Id say that s/he is
pc-~ ~-t- . of
"" ~ Ro Q l~ 'd.......l.l.. 1 ..t:.", c.... . and that
the seal affixed to said instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation, and
that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by
authority of its board of directors, and said deponent acknowledged said
instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation.
WITNESS MY HAND AND NOTARIAL SEAL the day and year in this certificate
first above written.
~~
Notary Public
~.w
AddilelHDA POPE
NOTARY PUBLIC .
STATE OF COLORADO
My eommission Expires Feb. 23. 2009
My commission expires:
CC5-971.doc
Page; 15
Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council
Chris Bendon, Community Development DirectorQMM
Jennifer Phelan, Senior Long Range Planne(j\?
Mother Lode Subdivision (314 East Hyman Avenue) - Subdivision Amendment,
Growth Management Review for Minor Enlargement of a Historic Landmark for
Commercial, Lodge or Mixed Use Development, Growth Management Review for
Affordable Housing and Special Review - First Readine of Ordinance ~Series
2006
MEETING
DATE: April 24, 2006
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
...
ApPLICANT /OWNER:
Mother Lode, LLC
REPRESENTATIVE:
Stan Clauson, Stan Clauson Associates,
Inc.
LOCATION:
Lots N and 0, Block 81, City and
Townsite of Aspen, CO commonly
known as 314 E. Hyman Avenue
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Located in the Commercial Core (CC)
zone district and the Commercial Core
Historic Overlay, containing one
commercial Landmark building. The site
has approval for the development of two
free-market residential units and two
affordable housing units in addition to
the existing commercial component,
pursuant to Ordinance No. 25, 2005.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicant is requesting that the two
free-market units be combined into one
free-market residential unit and the two
affordable housing units be combined
into one affordable housing unit.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Denial.
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests amendment by the City
Council of Special Review to reduce the four off-
street parking spaces to three, Growth
Management Review for the development of one
Affordable Housing unit, Growth Management
Review for Minor Enlargement of a Historic
Landmark for Commercial, Lodge or Mixed Use
Development and Subdivision Amendment for an
amendment to the approved subdivision.
Picture of Subject Property
LAND USE REOUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval to redevelop the site:
. Subdivision Amendment for any other amendment provided that the proposed change is
consistent with the approved plat (land to be used for multiple dwelling units falls under
the definition of subdivision and the overall number of dwelling units is being amended)
pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480 (City Council is the final review authoritv
who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal).
. Growth Management Review for Minor Enlargement of a Historic Landmark for
Commercial. Lodge or Mixed Use Development pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.470.040 B.3. (Citv Council is the final review authoritv who may approve, approve
with conditions, or deny the proposal).
. Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing for the development or, in this
case, modification of approved affordable housing pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.470.040 C.7 (As a combined application the Planning and Zoning Commission
provides a recommendation to City Council. Citv Council is the final review authority
who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal).
. Special Review for a reduction in required off-street parking pursuant to Land Use Code
Section 26.430.040 (As a combined application, the Planning and Zoning Commission
provides a recommendation to City Council. City Council is the final review authority
who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal).
PROJECT SUMMARY:
In 2005, the Mother Lode Subdivision was approved by City Council. The approval allowed for
the development of two free-market residential units (2,060 s.f. and 3,839 s.f.) and two one-
bedroom affordable housing units (a total of 1,376 s.f.) along with 3,434 s.f. of net leasable
commercial floor area. The request to merge the units would result in one free-market unit of
5,899 square feet and Qill< affordable housing unit of 944 square feet (both of the numbers do not
include attributable floor area to the residential units for circulation within the building).
Additionally, the Applicant would like to reduce the off-street parking spaces from four to three
through the Special Review process which would allow for a reconfiguration of the off-street
parking and trash service area. At the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of April 4,
2006, the Commission reviewed the request for Special Review approval and the Growth
Management Review for the development of affordable housing. A resolution that recommended
approval of both requests failed at a five to zero (5 to 0) vote of the Planning and Zoning
Commission, resulting in a recommendation of denial.
STAFF COMMENTS:
SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT:
The Applicant is requesting subdivision amendment approval for a proposed amendment (in this
case a reduction in the approved number of multiple dwelling units) to an approved subdivision
that is consistent with the approved subdivision. This is considered a subdivision amendment in
the City's land use code.
In reviewing the subdivision amendment portion of the application, Staffbelieves that the
proposal meets many, but not all, of the applicable subdivision review standards established in
Land Use Code Section 26.480.050, Review Standards. In particular, the application does not
meet the intent of the M CP which encourages density in the urban core. Encouraging density in
the urban core reduces the pressure for sprawl outside the Community Growth Boundary, takes
advantage of existing transit infrastructure and operations, and ensures the continued vitality of
the downtown. By examining the philosophies and policies of Managing Growth, Transportation,
Economic Sustainability and Parks, Open Space and the Environment in the 2000 MCP, a clear
theme emerges regarding the promotion of density in the urban core.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR MINOR ENLARGEMENT OF A HISTORIC LANDMARK FOR
COMMERCIAL, LODGE OR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT:
Growth management review amendment is being requested for the enlargement of a historic
landmark for mixed use development. The enlargement includes the creation of one free-market
dwelling unit (from the previously approved two) and the creation of one affordable housing
dwelling unit (from the previously approved two). No change to the commercial net leasable
square footage is proposed.
As proposed, Staff believes the proposed units (one free-market unit and one affordable housing
unit) meet the review criteria as outlined in Exhibit A.
GMQS ApPROVAL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING:
Affordable housing amendment is being requested for the development of one (I) affordable
housing unit. As a combined review, City Council is the final approval body when an Applicant
proposes the development of affordable housing when an applicant is providing a new unit. The
request to consolidate both the free market units and the affordable housing units into one free
market and one affordable housing unit each falls under Minor Enlargement of a Historic
Landmark for Commercial, Lodge, or Mixed-Use Development under the Growth Management
Quota System and the affordable housing unit would not be necessary for mitigation, but is
considered a voluntary unit.
The Housing Authority reviewed the original proposal of two units and did not feel a need to
review the proposal again unless the current proposal did not meet the Employee Housing
Guidelines requirements. The single unit meets the guidelines. Staff believes the review criteria,
as outlined in Exhibit A, for the development of affordable housing are met except the standard
of consistency with the MCP as it relates to density. Staff would prefer the Applicant provide
two affordable housing units as was previously approved, as added density in the downtown
core contributes to the core's vitality. As mentioned previously, the MCP encourages density
in the urban core and a reduction in density does not meet the intent of the MCP.
SPECIAL REVIEW:
The Applicant is requesting Special Review amendment to establish the parking requirement for
the subject property. When the Mother Lode Subdivision application was first submitted to
develop the property as it has been approved, the City's off-street parking standards were
different than today's standards. Table I outlines the previous and current off-street parking
requirements.
The current approval granted to the Mother Lode waives all of the off-street parking
requirements except for four spaces. All four spaces are designated for residential use by the
Applicant and one of the spaces is required to be earmarked for the affordable housing units,
which was a requirement of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The parking standards in place today require only four spaces to be provided, although one
hundred percent of the parking may be provided through a payment-in-lieu. The Applicant is
seeking Special Review approval and not a payment-in-lieu. The Applicant is requesting that
only three spaces be required through the Special Review process. Two would be designated for
the proposed free-market unit and one would be designated for the affordable housing unit.
Commercial
Residential
(Multi-Family
within a mixed-
use building)
Affordable
Housing
Total Required
2 spaces 11,000 SF of net
leasable area, may be provided
via payment-in-lieu. The project
would require 6.868 spaces
rounded up to 7.
2 spaces per dwelling unit. I
space per dwelling unit is
required if the unit is a studio or
one-bedroom unit. The project
would require 3.
Established through Special
Review.
10 (not including any spaces
for the 2 A.H. units)
Current Standard
I space per 1,000 net leasable
square feet of commercial space.
100% may be provided through
a payment-in-lieu. The project
would require 3.434 spaces
rounded u to 4.
I space per unit. 100% may be
provided through a payment-in-
lieu. No requirement for
residential units in the CC and
C-I zone districts. The project
would not re uire an s aces.
Same as the standard for
Residential (Multi-Family
within a mixed-use building).
The project would not require
any s aces.
4
In reviewing the Special Review portion of the application, Staff believes that the proposal does
not meet the applicable Special Review standards established in Land Use Code Section
26.515.040, Special Review Standards. Stafffeels that the Applicant has shown in the approved
development plan that the site can accommodate the four off-street parking spaces. The
additional parking space could accommodate the commercial component of the property or
provide for guest parking in the busy commercial core.
SCHOOL LANDS DEDICATIONS FEE:
The 2005 ordinance that approved the Mother Lode Subdivision requires that the Applicant pay a
cash-in-lieu payment rather than a land dedication. The Applicant has proposed to pay a cash-in-
lieu payment pursuant to the fee schedule established in Land Use Code Section 26.630.
The original ordinance, as a condition of approval, required the Applicant to pay the School
Lands Dedications fee prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed development. This
condition has been carried over into the new ordinance.
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.
The original ordinance, as a condition of approval, required the Applicant to pay the Park
Development Impact Fee prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed development.
This condition has been carried over into the new ordinance.
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS:
As this application was reviewed by other departments previously, the current review affecting
the parking configuration and the affordable housing was referred to the Water Department,
Sanitation Department, and the Housing Department. None of the departments had comments on
the application.
RECOMMENDATION:
In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the overall project is not consistent with the goals
of the AACP as it reduces the overall residential density of the project. Staff recommends not
granting subdivision approval and special review approval to reduce the off-street parking.
Ordinance No. approves all of the Applicant's requests. If Council wishes to deny the request
Staff would recommend making a motion in the first and second to approve the ordinance at
which point Council would not affirm the ordinance in its vote.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
"I move to approve Ordinance NO.J.5:, Series of 2006, upon first reading."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A - Review Criteria and Staff Findings
EXHIBIT B - Housing Referral dated March 3, 2005, and email from Jennifer Phelan to Cindy
Christensen, dated February 7, 2006
EXHIBIT C - Floor Area Calculations of the Amended Proposal
EXHIBITD - Addendum to the Application (Special Review)
EXHIBIT E - Ordinance No. 25, Series 2005
EXHIBIT F - Application
ORDINANCE NO. J.5
(SERIES OF 2006)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING WITH
CONDITIONS, THE FIRST AMENDED PLAT - MOTHER LODE SUBDMSION, ON
THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 314 E. HYMAN AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel No. 2737-073-38-007
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Mother Lode Investors, LLC, requesting Special Review approval, Growth Management
Approval for the Development of Affordable Housing, Growth Management Review for Minor
Enlargement of a Historic Landmark for Commercial, Lodge or Mixed Use Development, and
Subdivision Amendment a mixed-use building known as 314 East Hyman Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned CC (Commercial Core); and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested a combined review for Special Review
approval to provide three rather than four off-street parking spaces, Growth Management
approval for the Development of Affordable Housing to construct one affordable housing unit,
and Growth Management Review for Minor Enlargement of a Historic Landmark for
Commercial, Lodge or Mixed Use Development; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered
the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified
herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director,
and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on April 4, 2006;
and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission failed to approve a
resolution that made a recommendation of approval for Special Review and Growth Management
approval for the Development of Affordable Housing finding that the development proposal is
inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 8, 2006, the City
Council opened the hearing, took public testimony, considered pertinent recommendations from
the Community Development Director, and referral agencies of the City of Aspen and adopted
Ordinance No. --' Series of 2006, approving with conditions, Special Review approval, Growth
Management Approval for the Development of Affordable Housing, Growth Management
Review for Minor Enlargement of a Historic Landmark for Commercial, Lodge or Mixed Use
Development, and Subdivision Amendment which would allow the consolidation of two free-
market dwelling units to one free-market dwelling unit, the consolidation of two affordable
housing units into one affordable housing unit, and reduce the off-street parking from four
spaces to three spaces on the property known as 314 E. Hyman Avenue; and,
Page 1 of6
.
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds
all the applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with
conditions, 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 OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City
Council hereby approves the Mother Lode Subdivision Amendment and associated land use
reviews to consolidate two free-market dwelling units to one free-market dwelling unit, to
consolidate two affordable housing units into one affordable housing unit, and reduce the off-
street parking from four spaces to three spaces on the property known as 314 E. Hyman Avenue,
with the conditions contained herein.
Section 2: Plat and Aereement
The Applicant shall record a subdivision amendment plat and agreement that meets the
requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of approval.
Section 3: Buildine Permit Application
The building permit application shall include the following:
a. A copy of the final Ordinance.
a. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set.
b. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District.
c. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil
Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a
ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly
size the facility. A 5-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage
improvements.
d. A construction management plan pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. The
construction management plan shall include an identification of construction hauling routes
for review and approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent.
e. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health
Department.
Page 2 of 6
f. A detailed excavation plan that utilizes vertical soil stabilization techniques for review and
approval by the City Engineer.
Section 4: Dimensional Requirements
The redevelopment of the Mother Lode building shall be in compliance with the dimensional
requirements of the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District, with the exception of off-street
parking, trash/utility service area, and open spacelpedestrian amenity requirements. Off-street
parking requirements shall be provided as represented in Section 5 below. The dimensions of
the trash/utility service area shall be a minimum of sixteen (16) feet wide by sixteen (16) feet in
depth as discussed in Section 6 below. The Applicant shall pay cash-in-lieu of providing open
spacelpedestrian amenity as represented in Section 13 below.
Section 5: Off-street Parkine
The project shall provide three (3) off-street parking spaces via Special Review approval, one of
which shall be designated for the use of the occupant of the one (1) affordable housing unit
pursuant to Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 12, Series of2005.
Section 6: TrashlUtilitv Service Area
A trash/utility service area of a minimum sixteen (16) feet wide by sixteen (16) feet long,
accessed from the alley, was approved by special review pursuant to Planning and Zoning
Commission Resolution No. 12, Series of 2005. The trash container shall be wildlife proof.
Section 7: Affordable Housine
The Applicant shall record a deed restriction on the affordable housing unit prior to the issuance
of a certificate of occupancy on the building classifying the unit as a Category 2 unit. If the
Applicant chooses to deed restrict the affordable housing unit as a rental unit, the Applicant shall
convey a l/10 of a percent, undivided interest in the units to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy on any portion of the building. The
unit may be deed-restricted as a rental unit, but the unit shall become an ownership unit at such
time as the owners would request a change to a "for-sale" unit or at such time as the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority deems the unit to be out of compliance with the rental
occupancy requirements in the Affordable Housing Guidelines for a period of more than year.
Section 8: Fire Mitieation
The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system and alarm system that meets the requirements
of the Fire Marshal.
Section 9: Water Department Requirements
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and
with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of
the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Each of the
units within the building shall have individual water meters.
Section 10: Sanitation District Requirements
Page 3 of6
The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and
regulations. No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter drains) to ACSD lines shall
be allowed. All improvements below grade shall require the use of a pumping station. If more
than one unit is to be served by a single service line, the Applicant shall enter into a shared
service line agreement.
Section 11: Electrical Department Requirements
The Applicant shall have an electric connect load summary conducted by a licensed electrician in
order to determine if the existing transformer on the neighboring property has sufficient capacity
for the Mother Lode Redevelopment. If a new supplemental transformer is required to be
installed on the Mother Lode property, the Applicant shall provide for a new transformer and its
location shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to installation.
The Applicant shall dedicate an easement to allow for City Utility Personnel to access the
supplemental transformer for maintenance purposes, if a supplemental transformer is installed.
Section 12: Exterior Liehtine
All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting.
Section 13: Payment-in-lieu of Open Space/Pedestrian Amenity
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.030, Open Space, the Applicant shall pay a cash in-
lieu fee of providing the required open spacelpedestrian amenity at the time of building permit
issuance. The amount due shall be calculated by the City Zoning Officer at the time of building
permit issuance using the methodology and fee schedule in place at the time of building permit
issuance.
Section 14: School Lands Dedication Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School lands dedication, the Applicant shall pay a
fee-in-Iieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen Zoning
Officer shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in
affect at the time of building permit submittal. The Applicant shall provide the market value of
the land including site improvements, but excluding the value of structures on the site.
Section 15: Park Development Impact Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee, the Applicant shall
pay a park development impact fee prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen Zoning
Officer shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in
affect at the time of building permit submittal.
Section 16: PM-I0 Mitieation
The Applicant shall mitigate for the air quality impacts expected for the generation of vehicle
trips per day by enacting the following measures:
I. Maintaining the amount of proposed off-street parking that equals three parking
spaces for two total residential units.
2. Providing covered and secured bicycle storage.
Page40f6
3. The Homeowner's Association and the Commercial Tenant shall join the
Transportation Options Program.
Section 17: Condominiumization
Condominiumization of the project to define separate ownership of the project is hereby
approved by the City of Aspen, subject to recordation of a condominium plat in compliance with
the current (at the time of condo plat submission) plat requirements of the City Community
Development Engineer.
Section 18: Vested Property Riebts
The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for
a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain
a development order as set forth in this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a
newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice
advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a
vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property right, 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 N and 0, Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen, by Ordinance
No._, Series of2006, of the Aspen City Council.
Section 19:
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 20:
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 21:
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 8th day of May, 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 24th day of April, 2006.
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
Page50f6
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of
Attest:
,2006.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
City Attorney
Page 6 of 6
EXHIBIT A
SUBDIVISION REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
Section 26.480.050 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for
Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements.
A. General requirements.
a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan.
Staff Findinfl
By examining the philosophies and policies of Managing Growth, Transportation.
Economic Sustainability and Parks, Open Space and the Environment in the 2000 AACP,
a clear theme emerges regarding the promotion of density in the urban core.
The Philosophy of Managing Growth states that, "The City agrees to accept greater
density within the boundary in exchange for the preservation of important open spaces in
the outlying County and key parcels in the City, maintaining the separation of between
communities and the prevention of sprawl. "
The Philosophy of Transportation states that, "New development should take place only
in areas that are, or can be served by transit, and only in compact, mixed-use patterns
that are conducive to walking and bicycling. "
The Policies of Parks, Open Space and the Environment states that the City should,
"Seek opportunities to discourage sprawl in order to preserve open space between
communities. Encourage infill projects that integrate more housing into the existing
urban fabric. "
The Philosophy of Economic Sustainability encourages "a lively, small-scale
downtown, " while the Policies in the same section states that the City should,
"Utilize our rJUblic and private infrastructure (transportation, parks, buildinfls.
businesses, etc.) to full capacity to ensure the maximum return on existing investments
"
Taken together, these statements from four different sections of the AACP encourage
density in the urban core for several reasons:
~ To reduce the pressure for sprawl outside the Community Growth Boundary;
~ To take advantage of existing transit infrastructure and operations;
~ To ensure the continued vitality of the downtown.
These goals and policies of the AACP were subsequently reflected in changes to the Land
Use Code in 2005. Among those code changes were the elimination of the requirement
for a minimum lot size per dwelling unit (1,000 square feet for each bedroom) in the
Commercial Core and C-] Zone District, with the intent of encouraging density in these
downtown areas. Therefore, a reduction in the density of the project does not meet the
intent of the AA CP and does not meet this review standard.
b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land
uses in the area.
Staff Findinf!
The use of the property with both residential and commercial uses proposes atypical mix
of uses seen in the downtown. Stafffinds this criterion to be met.
c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of
surrounding areas.
Staff Findinf!
The surrounding properties are close to fully developed. All development associated
with this application is internal to the site and will not encroach onto the public right-of
way or alijacent properties. Therefore, Staff does not believe that the proposal will
adversely affect the future development of the surrounding properties. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable
requirements of this Title.
Staff Findinf!
The proposed development is in compliance with the Commercial Core zone district
requirements and meets all other land use regulations. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. Suitability of land for subdivision.
a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable
for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow,
rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or
other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents
in the proposed subdivision.
b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to
create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension
of public facilities and unnecessary public costs.
Staff Findinf!
Staff believes that the property is suitable for subdivision. Staff believes that there will
not be a duplication or premature extension of public facilities because the property to
be subdivided is already served by adequate public facilities. Therefore. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for
the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See,
Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met:
1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the
subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals
of the community.
2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and
provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations
by professional engineers as necessary.
Staff FindinJl
The Applicant has consented in the application to meet the applicable improvements
pursuant to Section 26.580 and no variations are requested. Stafffinds 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 FindinJl
The standards of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program, are not applicable
because this application does not include the demolition of multi-family residential buildings.
Under the current Land Use Code regulations, the proposed development (one free-market
dwelling unit in a historic landmark) does not require the provision of affordable housing.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set
forth at Chapter 26.630.
Staff FindinJl
The proposed subdivision amendment is not required to meet the School Land Dedication
Standards pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630 since the cash-in-lieu related to the
original subdivision has been paid. Thus, staff finds this criterion to be met.
F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to
applications for which all growth management development allotments have been
granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter
26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable
Housing Planned Unit Development (AH-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, ~ 2)
Staff Findinf!
The Applicant's project, proposed for one free market unit and one affordable housing unit
has received its development allotments. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Growth Manaeement Review for the Minor Enlareement of a Historic Landmark for
CommerciaL lodee. or mixed use development
Minor enlargement of a Historic Landmark for commercial, lodge, or mixed-use development.
The enlargement of a property, structure, or portion of a structure designated as a Historic
Landmark for commercial, lodge, or mixed-use development shall be approved, approved with
conditions, or denied by the Community Development Director based on the following criteria:
a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the
expansion pursuant to Section 26.470.030(0), Annual Development Allotments.
Staff Findinf!
The Applicant's project, proposed for one free market unit and one affordable housing unit
has received its development allotments. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
b) If the development increases either Floor Area or Net Leasable space/lodge units,
but not both, then no employee mitigation shall be required.
Staff Findinf!
The request does not increase floor area or net leasable, therefore no employee mitigation is
required. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
c) If the development increases both Floor Area and Net Leasable spacellodge units,
up to four (4) employees generated by the additional commercial/lodge shall not require
the provision of affordable housing. An expansion generating more than four (4)
employees shall not qualify for this administrative approval and shall be reviewed
pursuant to 26.470.040.C.1.
Staff Findinf!
The request does not increase floor area or net leasable, therefore no employee mitigation is
required. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
d) No more than one free-market residence is created. This shall be cumulative and
shall include administrative GMQS approvals granted prior to the adoption of
Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2005.
Staff Findinf!
Only one free-market residence is proposed. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
e) All necessary approvals are obtained, pursuant to Section 26.415, Development
Involving the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures.
Staff Findinz
If Special Review is granted the alley elevation on the first floor may be modified slightly.
Any exterior change must be reviewed either administratively if considered a minor
alteration or would be reviewed by the HPC. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
f) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such
additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project.
Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment,
energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid
waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services.
Staff Findinz
As proposed, the density of the project would be reduced, resulting in the reduction in the use
of basic services. Staff finds this criterion to be met
GMOS AFFORDABLE HOUSING REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS
Section 26.470.040 C.7., Affordable Housing provides that the development of affordable
housing deed restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and zoning
Commission based on the following criteria.
a. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the new
units, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.C, Development Ceiling Levels.
Staff Findinz
The Applicant's project, as proposed, does not require additional allotments. Therefore, staff
finds this criterion to be met.
b. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff Findinz
The AACP notes that affordable housing should be developed within the city limits to
enhance the city's economic viability and reinforce and enhance the community. Added
density to the downtown commercial core encourages a lively downtown. An affordable
housing unit provides the opportunity for year-round working residents in the downtown.
The project provides affordable housing within the city limits which meets one of the AA CP 's
housing policies. Staff would prefer the Applicant provide two affordable housing units as
was previously approved, as added density in the downtown core contributes to the core's
vitality. As analyzed previously under Review Standard 26.480.050 A.a. (first page of Exhibit
A), the AACP encourages density in the urban core.
c. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority. A recommendation from The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall
be required for this standard. The AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority may choose
to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors.
Staff Findinf!
As outlined in the memo dated March 3, 2005, from the Housing Office, the Housing Board
recommended approval of the two affordable housing units as Category 2 units. The current
proposal of one affordable housing unit at 824 square feet will be in excess of the minimum
600 square feet required for a Category 2 unit. Thus, staff finds this standard to be met.
d. Affordable Housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual
newly built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City of
Aspen city limits. Units outside the city limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City
Council, pursuant to 26.470.040 D.2. Provision of affordable housing through a cash-in-
lieu payment shall be at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning commission upon a
recommendation from the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority. Required
affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods.
Staff Findinf!
With the proposal to only have one free-market residential unit, the affordable housing unit
is not required for mitigation purposes under the current growth management standards of
the land use code. Stafffinds this requirement to be met.
e. The proposed units shall be deed restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to
qualified purchasers according to the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines. In the alternative, rental units may be provided if a legal instrument, in a
form acceptable to the City Attorney, ensures permanent affordability ofthe units.
Staff Findinf!
The applicant has requested that the deed restricted unit be a rental unit rather than a "for
sale" unit. The Housing Office originally recommended approval of both units, with
conditions. as rentals.
SPECIAL REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS
Section 26.515.040, Special Review Standards 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 of the project
have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic
generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected 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.
Staff Findinf!
The three spaces proposed will accommodate the parking needs of the residential component
of the mixed-use project. The fourth parking space could accommodate the commercial
component of the property or provide for guest parking in the busy commercial core.
2. An on-site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results
in an undesirable development scenario.
Staff Findinf!
The Applicant has shown that it is possible to provide the required four off-street parking
spaces through previous site plan layouts and provide an adequate, although not expansive,
trash/ utility service area.
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 Findinf!
As proposed, the three parking spaces would only serve the residential component of the
project. The commercial component would not be provided any off-street parking. The
availability of on-street parking is tight, as Aspen has a busy commercial core. The fourth
parking space which has been previously approved will help accommodate additional
parking needs for the building.
~f'\\\b\\ "3
MEA10RANDUM
TO:
James Lindt
FROM:
Cindy Christensen
DATE:
March 3, 2005
RE:
MOTHER LODE SUBDIVISION LAND USE REVIEW
Parcel ID No. 2737-073-38-007
ISSUE: The applicant is requesting approval to construct a three-story addition on the Mother
Lode Restaurant site located at 314 East Hyman.
BACKGROUND: The following is being proposed:
.
.
Ground Floor: The front of the existing building will remain; the back portion of the
existing building will be demolished and reconstructed.
.
Basement: A basement will be constructed under the back half of the building for storage.
.
2nd Floor: The second floor is to contain tllIee units - two one-bedroom affordable housing
units and a one-bedroom free-market unit.
3 ,d Floor: The third floor is to contain a three-bedroom free market unit.
.
The structure currently exists of a total 3,804 net leasable square feet. The applicant is proposing to
preserve tlle historic portion of the existing Mother Lode and to incorporate a larger mixed-use
commerciaVresidential structure. Ascording to Section 26.4 70.070D3 of the City Land Use Code,
the existing net leasable commercial area located within a designated historic structure may be
demolished and re~onstructed exempt from growth management and affordable housing mitigation.
This section of the Code also permits the floor area of the replacement structure to .exceed that of
tlle demolished structure provided that tllere is no increase in commercial net leasable area and tlle
replacement stlUcture complies with the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district.
Approxinlately 3,259 square feet of the Mother Lode building's 3,804 square feet will be located on
the expanded ground floor. Any portion:' ciftlle project's net leasable area not utilized on the ground
floor will be located in the basement. The remainder of the basement will be utilized for tenant
storage.
Pursuant to Section 26.4 70.070D2a of tlle City Land Use Code, the expanded structure may contain
one free-market residential unit that is also exempt from growth management and affordable
housing mitigation. Section 26.470.070D5(a)(1) requires that affordable housing be provided
commensurate Witll that which would otllerwise be required if an additional free market unit were
1
time, the units will be listed for sale with the Housing Office as specified in the deed
restriction at the Category 2 maximum sales price.
4. The deed-restriction shall be recorded at the time of recordation of the Condo Plat and prior
to Certificate of Occupancy.
5. APCHA or the applicant shall structure a deed restriction for tlle units such that 1/10th of
I percent of the property is deed restricted in perpetuity to the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority; or until such time the units become ownership units; or the applicant
may propose any other means that the Housing Authority determines acceptable.
3
~
z
o
"
~
~
u
~
~
u
=
~
~
~
w
>
w
~
".
<:C ~
'"
.1
--~
~
z
o
;;;;
"
OJ
-<
u
=
~
~
~
w
>
w
~
"
w
".
9~
- ~
t::-11t\b\\ C,
l.J...l.J... "l..L.
Cf) Cf) Cf)
<Xl lD '"
lD.-< "-
O'l_ r--._ I...D
N N lD
<(
W
0:
<(
0:<(
Ow
00:
c;:<(
-,0:
~8
U-,
0:lL.
w 0: -'
::::: w <(
::::: I f-
Of- 0
U 0 f-
lL.lL. lL.
Cf)Cf) Cf)
lD '"' '"
'" <Xl '"
<Xl '"'_ <Xl_
'" lD
<(
W
<(0:
w<(
0:0:
<(0
0:0
0-'
0lL.
-'I
lL.U
-,w
<(:::::
-~
Uw
O:CJ
w<( -'
::::: 0: <(
::::: 0 f-
Of- 0
U Cf) f-
Cf)
Cf)
W
0:
CJ
W
o
z
<(
z
o
f-
<(
-'
::>
U
0:
U
Cf)
f-
Z
w
:::::
WCf)
-'f-
WlL.
w<(
Cf)I
::>Cf)
zO::
O~
:::::<(
:::::[;j
0-,
Uw
Cf)~
w-'
0<(
..:::JU
-'z
U<(
~I
<(U
WW
0::::::
<(0
o:z
0<(
0Cf)
-'f-
"-z
O::W
ww:::::
f-IW
Of--,
ZOW
~ \u-\'2.
~;<{\\~ (YD
STAN CLAUSON AsSOCIATES, INC
PIannil1g . Urban Design
Landscape Architecture
Transportation Studies
Project Management
200 EAST MAIN STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE: 970.925.2323
FAX: 970.920.1628
E-MAIL info@scaplanni.ng.com
WEB: www.scaplan~ing.COm
31 January 2006
Ms. Jennifer Phelan, Senior Planner
City of Aspen
Community Development Department
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Mother Lode, 314 East Hyman Avenue
Dear Jennifer:
In response to your request, we are submitting an addendum to our application requesting
for Special Review to reduce the number of required parking spaces. This additional
information is intended to complete this application requesting I )approval for
Subdivision Amendment; 2)Growth Management Review for Minor Enlargement;
3)Affordable Housing; and 4) associated reviews to provide for a reduction of the
approved two free-market residential units and two affordable housing units to one unit
each.
The HPC parking waiver was granted pursuant to the HPC Resolution No. 31 (Series of
2004) allowing a reduction in parking and a waiver of payment- in-lieu fees. The HPC
reduced the project's on-site parking requirement to four spaces and waived the cash-in-
lieu payment for any additional required spaces. Under current code, the 3,804 s. f. of
net lease-able commercial area would require 3.8 parking spaces.
The applicant proposes a site design with three (3) off-site parking spaces rather than the
originally proposed four (4). Per Community Development/Building Department's
suggestion, a generous egress of at least four (4) feet wide was designed as part of the -
service yard. As seen on the architectural plan G-121, Stair 2 which leads to the back of
the building is intended to be a part of the service yard. The better organization of the
building egress, service area, and parking will result in a 0.8 decrease in off-street
A-
. ~'i\
.~~
n. ""H"'- .,...... TlTC"'''-~' ('n>TT,'''''', J:;nD rnUl\A'7nJTTTI=" ANn PRrVATF c;FrTOR C-=UENTS
Jennifer Phelan, Aspen Community Development Department
31 January 2006
Page 3
The information above should respond to all the requirements as required by the City of
Aspen Land Use Code. We eagerly await to present this project and its benefits at the
public hearings.
Very truly yours,
~~
Tanya Stevens
STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, INC
Attachments:
1. North Elevation, A-203
2. Main Level Code Plan, 0-121
.
.
~
.
cn~
cni
Ct~
=-
IiiI
!:
i~
~;:
i:
I ~ C') ftii!i
z
Ww I ~
0" ~~
, o~ N . "
'I ~o ] ~ I~i",
l~ E5G:l ! II ,
~[:; II 'l:I~ ~ (!:l
III ~o i~ l".m
Ow Ii.! !.in'
"'=
r r y
.. .. !.
II l II l II
. . "
!
ffi
<
~
w
D
0
U
w
~
<
;;:~
"
, -
l l
""~,":.~'~:~ -
mlllll~---+-" I i/
: ! \. If
I "'~ '\ I I I
: ! "ilL I
~-t,~-~n\- ~,
7-----1! / II "I
r :: / I '1
~~ i\ ./
~!i _ I'
~~ 3, :: I N-'~
. I' ~fiil~,
t-* ~I:l \
,I I D
.,
._t'
1---- \:
~i ::
~~~ ::
llE~ ,I
~~~ ::
. .'
.'
~ -~
~.,
"
.'
.'
.'
"
.'
:\1
"
"
.'
"
.'
.'
.,
"
III
::1
.,
n
::t
!! l~
.'
"
::l
.'
::l'
~l
1:1;'~.l'- ;/11: B
.'l!.'!."~~---.J.
a", c~ I
~~i II
~~~ a
I
i
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
,
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
I .
/: ____m\_
1.1 I
~~
,I .
,. I
G~..."mz:lm j
~, I
G "'""::;' ...-----~~^ ~
ffi
9
Ii-
i~
j
j'
8
!
!
.-J
~I~
~i
~
~l
!
~~
11
,
,
8
-----%::g... G
~
.
O~_ -8
-~
I
. ,.
I
I
,
I
,
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
,
I
.
I
o
!
!!
!,
~I! il
'I'"
,
'l'I
,-
j
B
o
f-------------r---------
.
.
.
.
:
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
, ,
Jmmmj
.
.
.
'.
!
i
Ii
"
cb
,I
;
!
)
I I' I
!i-b"~ ~ rmn_m
~ i "'_'___
1.'..._.....-lllnlllll\/I_IW~_...."'I"".n(\1I~DoC~WI""""'1.l"J
I ~
! WW I
I 0:>; j M
o~ ,
,'" " ~o 0 ~
'" '! ~~ ) ~ N
Cl I. ~~ ,
J H ~w II I.!i, <l:
c.. 00 . ,
:>;~ 1m Ii
8--
8--
8--
8-
I
h
,
i
~~
, t
~_m__m_j
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
z
o
C
~
i'
".
0,
Z<
-~
Ii
:
j
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
I !
f nnm____m~
""'_,_nOlV-lIIlor;!\''''..>W_...l.....'''''''\''",,~'':'.J.::;,.;;
---.-.--..-- ..._..._._.G=x~hB\\ G
\ \11\\\ 11\\\ 11\\11 \\1\1\ 11\1 1111 \\\\1111\\ 11111 \\1\ 111\ :;;~~;~;~ ~8. 56~
51LV1R DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 36.00 00.00
ORDINANCE NO. 25
(SERIES OF 2005)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING WITH
CONDITIONS, THE MOTHER LODE SUBDIVISION AND A GMQS
EXEMPTION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO
CONSTRUCT A THREE STORY EXPANSION TO THE MOTHER LODE
BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 314 E. HYMAN AVENUE, CITY
OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Pf!rcel ID: 2737-073-38-007
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Regent Properties, Inc, represented by Vann Associates, requesting approval of
Subdivision, various GMQS Exemptions, Special Review to pay cash-in-lieu of
providing the required pedestrian amenity, Special Review to establish the trash and
utility service area size, Special Review to establish affordable housing parking
requirements, and condominiumization to construct a three-story addition to the Mother
Lode Restaurant Building located at 314 E. Hyman Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned CC (Commercial Core); and,
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed and approved the
Conceptual HPC design and off-street parking waiver for the proposed development
pursuant to HPC Resolution No. 31, Series of 2004; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards,
the Community Development Director approved an administrative GMQS exemption for
the enlargement of a property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.070(D)(3)(a) and a GMQS exemption
for the addition of one residential dwelling unit to a property listed on the Aspen Inventory
of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.470.070(D)(2)(a); and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards,
the Community Development Department recommended approval, with conditions, of the
proposed subdivision and associated land use requests; and,
WHEREAS, upon rcview of the application, and the applicable code standards,
the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a special review request to pay cash-in-
lieu of providing the required open space/pedestrian amenity, special review to establish
the affordable housing parking requirements, special review to establish the dimensional
requirements for the trash/utility/recycling area, and a GMQS exemption for the
construction of more tban one free market dwelling unit on a historically designated
property pursuant to Resolution No. 12, Series of2005; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards,
the Planning and Zoning Commission also recommended that City Council approve with
,
....
.' _....~..."._~.,._,.......-,~-_........"....-_...~--_...._-~---_. ,. ..."'--', ~_...---""'..
11\\\1\ \\111 \\11" IIIIII "II II" 1111"1 III "11\ 1\\1 1\\1 :;;~~;:~ 0~8 .56'
SILVHl MVlS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 36.00 D 0.0
conditions, the Mother Lode subdivision and a GMQS exemption for the development of
affordable housing pursuant to Resolution No. 12. Series of2005; 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 Conunission, the
Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and
considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noted public hearing on May 9, 2005, the Aspen City
Council reviewed the proposed Mother Lode Subdivision and GMQS Exemption for the
development of affordable housing and approved Ordinance No. 25, Series of 2005,
approving with conditions, the Mother Lode Subdivision and a GMQS exemption for the
development of affordable housing to construct a three-story addition to the Mother Lode
building at 314 E. Hyman Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds
all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal,
with conditions, is consistent with the goals and clements of the Aspen Area Community
Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
City Council hereby approves the Mother Lode Subdivision and GMQS Exemption to
provide on-site affordable housing in order to construct a three-story addition to the
Mother Lode Restaurant Building located at 314 E. Hyman Avenue, 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: Buildine Permit Application
The building permit application shall include the following:
a. A copy of the final Ordinance and recorded P&Z Resolution.
a. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page ofthe building permit set.
b. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District.
c.
A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed
Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after
. "._"____~...,,'_.,_,,__.>~_..,.~_.,."'._...."'.."___~__..._oO_~'..'.~_'_"'~'
- ~: :~~)
.1-" " ..
. .
\jt(,UD,
11111\\ 11111111111 \\111111\\ 1I11 \\\11111111111111\\ 111I :;;~~;~;~ ~8 56~
SILVIQ DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 36.00 0 0,00
construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will
be required to correctly size the facility. A 5-year storm frequency should be used
in designing any drainage improvements.
d. A construction management plan pursuant to the Building Department's
requirements. The construction management plan shaH include an identification of
construction hauling routes for review and approval by the City Engineer and
Strcets Department Superintendent.
e. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental
Health Department.
f. A detailed excavation plan that utilizes vertical soil stabilization techniques for
review and approval by the City Engineer.
Section 4: Dimensional Requirements
The redevelopment of the Mother Lode building shaH be in compliance with the
dimensional requirements of the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District, with the exception
of off-street parking, trash/utility service area, and open space/pedestrian amenity
requirements. Off-street parking requirements shaH be provided as represented in Section
5 below. The dimensions of the trash/utility service area shaH be sixteen (16) feet wide
by sixteen (16) feet in depth as discussed in Section 6 below. The Applicant shall pay
cash-in-lieu of providing open space/pedestrian amenity as represented in Section 13
below.
Section 5: Off-street Parkine
The project shall provide four (4) off-street parking spaces, one of which shall be
designated for the use of the occupants of the two (2) affordable housing units pursuant to
Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 12, Series of 2005. The Historic
Preservation Commission waived the remainder of the parking requirements pursuant to
HPC Resolution No. 31, Series of2004.
Section 6: Trash/Utility Service Area 1&)( I::'
A trash/utility service area of sixteen (16) feet wide by sixteen (16) feet long, accessed
from the alley, was approved by special review pursuant to Planning and Zoning
Commission Resolution No. 12, Series of 2005. The trash container shaH be wildlife
proof.
Section 7: Affordable Housine
The Applicant shaH record a deed restriction on each of the affordable housing units prior
to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy on the building classifying the units as
Category 2 units. Ifthe Applicant chooses to deed restrict the affordable housing units as
rental units, thc Applicant shall convey a 1/10 of a percent, undivided interest in the units
to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy on any portion of the building. The units may be deed-restricted as rental
units, bul the units shall become ownership units at such time as the owncrs would
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ~;;~~:;~ ~a 56~
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 36.00 D 0.00
request a change to "for-sale" units or at such time as the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority deems the units to be out of compliance with the rental occupancy
requirements in the Affordable Housing Guidelines for a period of more than year.
Section 8: Fire Mitieation
The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system and alarm system that meets the
requirements of the Fire Marshal.
Section 9: Water Department ReQuirements
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title
25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing
Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water
Department. Each ofthe units within the building shall have individual water meters.
Section 10: Sanitation District ReQuirements
The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and
regulations. No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter drains) to ACSD
lines shall be allowed. All improvements below grade shall require the use of a pumping
station. If more than one unit is to be served by a single service line, the Applicant shall
enter into a shared service line agreement.
Section 11: Electrical Department ReQuirements
The Applicant shall have an electric connect load summary conducted by a licensed
electrician in order to determine if the existing transformer on the neighboring property
has sufficient capacity for the Mother Lode Redevelopment. If a new supplemental
transformer is required to be installed on the Mother Lode property, the Applicant shall
provide for a new transformer and its location shall be approved by the Community
Development Department prior to installation. The Applicant shall dedicate an easement
to allow for City Utility Personnel to access the supplemental transformer for
maintenance purposes, if a supplemental transformer is installed.
Section 12: Exterior Liehtine
All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code
pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting.
Section 13: Pavment-in-lieu of Open Space/Pedestrian Amenitv
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.030, Open Space, the Applicant shall pay a
cash in-lieu fee of providing the required open spacelpedestrian amenity at the time of
building permit issuance. The amount due shall be calculated by the City Zoning Officer
at the time of building permit issuance using the methodology and fee schedule in place
at the time of building permit issuance.
'-
Section 14: School Lands Dedication Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School lands dedication, the Applicant shall
pay a fee-in-lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen
Zoning Officer shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee
._~..._ti_''''_~____'_''''''~'''__~''' .-._-~~_..~,'-.""
\ 11111\1111111111111111\ 11111111111111\ III 1111\ 1\11111\ ~;;~~:;~;8. 56'
SILVIR DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 36.00 0 0,00
schedule in affect at the time of building permit submittal. The Applicant shall provide
the market value of the land including site improvements, but excluding the value of
structures on the site.
Section 15: Park Developmept Impact Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee, the Applicant
shall pay a park development impact fee in the amount of $9,994 prior to building permit
issuance. Thc fee is assessed based on the following calculation:
Proposed Commercial:
3,804 SF minus 3,804 SF of existing net leasable = 0 new net leasable square feet
$0 due on commercial space
Proposed Residential
I (three-bedroom) Free Market Residential Unit multiplied by $3,634 per unit= $3,634
3 (one-bedroom) Residential Units multiplied by $2,120 per unit= $6.360
Total: $9,994
Section 16: PM-I0 Mitieation
The Applicant shaH mitigate for the air quality impacts expected for the generation of 25
vehicle trips per day by enacting the following measures:
I. Maintaining the amount of proposed off-street parking that equals four
parking spaces for four total residential units.
2. Providing covered and secured bicycle storage.
3. The Homeowner's Association and the Commercial Tenant shall join the
Transportation Options Program.
Section 17: Condominiumization
Condominiumization of the project to define separate ownership of the project is hereby
approved hy the City of Aspen, subject to recordation of a condominium plat in
compliance with the current (at the time of condo plat submission) plat requirements of
the City Community Development Engineer.
Section 18: Vested Property Riehts
The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan
vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order.
No later than fourteen (14) days foHowing 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:
,""
.
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111I :;;~~:;1 ~b: 56'
SILVIA D~VIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 36.00 D 0.00
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan. and the creation of a vested property right, pursuant to the Land
Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes.
pertaining to the following described property: Lots. N and 0, Block 81, City and
Townsite of Aspen, by Ordinance No. 25, Scrics of2005, of the Aspen City Council.
Section 19:
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 20:
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 21:
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 9th day of May, 2005, in the City
Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. fifteen (15) days prior to which
hcaring 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
C,""" 0""" c;'y of A",~"" ili, ,,' my of April, 2005. ~
/~... ~ .L.
Ifelen Kalin an e ayor
c
Attest:
~~~~
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 9th day of May, 2005.
'.-'.---".. .-.-,"
- .''''.''-'' .-_..,~.,."
-,....._..~----
Attest:
~itv..lJ~ rri,/ifL/ .
f1tathryn S. Koch. eity Clerk '-"'-~
Approved as to form:
. .~~/l~
fohn P. orcester, City Attorney
1\\\\11 \\1\1 \\1\\\ 11'1\\ \\11 '1\\ \111"1 III "\11 1\\\ 1\\1 :;~~~:~ ~8: 56>
5H.VIPI oMlS PITKIN cOUNTY CO R 36.00 0 0,00
'--
MEMORANDUM
ml>o
TO:
Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
Joyce Allgai~~~munity Development Deputy Director
Hannah-Dustin Building Subdivision, 151 Reading of Ordinance No.ji, Series
of 2006. (Growth Management Review, Commercial Design Review,
Commercial Design Review Variance, and Special Review handled and
approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission)
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
March 21,2006
ApPLICANT IOWNER:
Hyman A venue Holdings, LLC
REPRESENTATIVE:
Stan Clauson Associates, LLC
LOCATION:
Hannah-Dustin Building, 300 S. Spring
Street
CURRENT ZONING:
Mixed-Use (MU) Zone District
PROPOSED LAND USE REQUEST:
Subdivision and associated land use
requests to expand the Hannah-Dustin
Building
STAFFIP&Z RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval with conditions.
The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval of the subdivision
and approved the applicable growth
management, design review and special
review components of the application.
PHOTO ABOVE: Existing Hannah-Dustin Building
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests subdivision and associated
land use approvals to expand the Hannah-Dustin
building to add approximately 2,440 square feet of net
leasable space, two (2) free market residential units
and three (3) deed-restricted affordable housing units.
LAND USE REOUESTS:
The Applicant has requested the following land use actions to expand the Hannah-Dustin
Building:
. Subdivision for the construction of multi-family residential units in a mixed use
development pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480 (City Council is the final
review authoritv after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
Commission on this land use request).
. Commercial Design Review because the building is a mixed use building that
contains commercialloffice space (Planning and Zoning Commission is the final
review authority on this land use reauest).
. Commercial Design Review Variance: A variance from the Commercial Design
Review Standards is required because the first floor of the residential portion of the
addition is more than two (2) feet above the adjacent sidewalk grade. (Planning and
Zoning Commission is the final review authoritv on this land use reauest).
. Growth Management Review: Expansion of Mixed Use Development for the addition
of 2,440 square feet of net leasable space pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.470.040(C)(2), Growth Management Review: Expansion of Mixed Use
Development (Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority on this
land use reauest).
. Growth Management Review for the construction of free-market residential units
within a Mixed Use project pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(C)(6),
Growth Management Review: Free-Market Residential Units within a Mixed-Use
Project (Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority on this land
use reauest).
. Growth Management Review for the construction of affordable housing pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(C)(7), Growth Management Review: Affordable
Housing (Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority on this land
use reauest).
. Special Review to vary the size of the UtilitylTrash/Recycling area (Planning and
Zoning Commission is the final review authority on this land use reauest).
. Condominiumization (Condominium plat to be reviewed by the Community
Development Director upon substantial completion of construction).
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
A development application for subdivision shall be approved, approved with conditions, or
denied by City Council after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the Community Development Director pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.480.040, Subdivision. The Applicant has also requested various growth management
reviews, all of which were reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
And finally, the Applicant requires Commercial Design Review and a variance from the
Commercial Design Review Standards, which were also reviewed and approved by the
Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412, Commercial
Design Review.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The Applicant, Hyman Avenue Holdings, LLC, has requested approval to construct several
additions to the existing Hannah Dustin office building located at 300 S. Spring Street.
Specifically, the Applicant would like to add approximately 2,440 square feet of
officelcommercial space and one subgrade affordable housing unit in an addition to the
northwest portion of the property. The application also proposes an addition on the eastern
portion of the property that is to contain two (2) free-market residential units and two (2)
more sub grade affordable housing units. The two (2) free-market residential units are
proposed to be approximately 4,500 square feet each and all three (3) of the affordable
2
housing units are proposed to be two bedroom units, containing between 850 and 870 square
feet each. (The affordable housing units are sub grade, however; the application was
submitted prior to the most recent requirements adopted regarding the placement of AH units
above grade.)
As part of the residential addition, the Applicant has proposed two (2) parking garages to
contain two (2) parking spaces each, which are to be accessed from the alley. All of the
parking spaces to be provided in the garages are to be allocated for the use of the free-market
residential units. The Applicant has proposed to pay cash-in-lieu of providing parking for the
three (3) affordable housing units. The Applicant has also proposed two (2) parking spaces
for use of the officelcommercial space and has proposed to pay cash-in-lieu for six (6) of the
officelcommercial parking spaces pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.515.030, Required
number of off-street parking spaces.
In conjunction with the proposed development, the Applicant is proposing to construct a
concrete sidewalk along E. Hyman Avenue abutting the property to provide a missing link in
the sidewalk from the eastern property line to the comer ofE. Hyman Avenue and S. Spring
Street. The Applicant is also proposing an enhancement of the streetscape by providing a
pedestrian bench structure in a location to the west of the main building as part of the
Applicant's pedestrian amenity requirement, instead of open space. This amenity was
relocated by the applicants (at Staff and P&Z's recommendation) to a more suitable, sunny
and publicly accessible location on the site.
The following chart compares the proposed dimensional requirements with the dimensional
requirements of the Mixed Use Zone District in which the property is located:
l)iD1~tlsi~~l1'. . .. Pl'opose~ . UI1!ler~llgJ\tixedUse
.
It~qllirel!'lellt .... DilD.ellsiollsl ~Il;c'~.~i'i~t
..... RequireiJIents ReqlJir~Dteats ... .
Minimum Lot Size 12,000 SF 3,000 SF
Minimum Lot Width 120 Feet. 30 Feet.
Minimum Lot Area/DweIIing NA No Requirement for multi-
family residential units or
conanaercialsoace.
Minimum Front Yard 10 Feet for new 10 Feet, which may be reduced
Setback development along S. to 5 Feet through Special
Snrinq Street. Review.
Minimum Alternative Front 6.7 Feet for new 2/3 of Front Yard SetbaclP 6.7
Yard Setback (For Comer development along E. Feet.
Lots pursuant to Land Use Hyman Avenue.
Code Section 26.575.040(C),
Corner Lots.
Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 Feet for new 5 Feet.
develooment.
Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5 Feet for new 5 Feet.
development.
Maximum Height 32 Feet for new 32 Feet.
develooment.
Pedestrian Amenity Approximately 10% 25% of Lot Area, off-site
Requirement of Lot Area plus a pedestrian improvements; cash-
bench improvement in-lieu, or an alternative method
prooosed on northwest of oedestrian improvement
3
corner of the property equal to the monetary value of
and adjacent right-of- cash-in-lieu may be approved
way. through Commercial Design
Review.
Allowable External FAR Approx. 1.4: I 2:1
Commercial Uses .63:1 (5,157 SF) .75:1 (9,000 SF)
Free Market Residential .75:1 (9,000 SF) .75:1 (9,000 SF)
Affordable Housing 2,628 Net Livable No Limitation
Sauare Foota.e
Minimum Off-Street Parking . 2 for Commercial. . 8 Spaces for Commercial.
. 6 for Commercial . 2 for Free Market
will be bought out Residential Units.
through cash-in- . 3 for Affordable Housing
lieu. Units.
. 4 for Free Market
Residential Units.
. 3 for AH will be
bought out through
cash-in-lieu.
STAFF COMMENTS:
SUBDIVISION:
The Applicant has requested subdivision approval because the development of multi-family
dwelling units in a mixed use building requires approval of subdivision pursuant to the
definition of subdivision in the City's land use code. In reviewing the subdivision portion of
the application, Staff believes that the proposal meets the applicable subdivision review
standards established in Land Use Code Section 26.480.050, Subdivision Review Standards.
Staff feels that the proposal is consistent with the infill development goals established in the
2000 Aspen Area Community Plan. Additionally, the Applicant has applied for sufficient
growth management allotments for the development rights needed to construct the proposed
project.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS: ApPROVAL GRANTED BY THE P&Z FINDING THAT
THE REQUlRMENTS OF EACH REVIEW HAS BEEN MET.
The Applicant has applied for three (3) separate growth management reviews to obtain
sufficient development rights to construct the proposed project when the growth management
allocations are used in concert with each other. A listing of the requested growth
management reviews are below and the Planning and Zoning Commission found that the
proposal was in compliance with each.
. Growth Management Review: Expansion of Mixed Use Development. The
Applicant has requested this review for the construction of the additional
commercialloffice space to the building pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.470.040(C)(2), Expansion/New Commercial, Lodge, or Mixed Use
Development. The review standards for granting approval of this request are
geared towards whether there are sufficient growth management allotments
available to allow for the net leasable space being proposed and whether the
application sufficiently mitigates for sixty (60) percent of the employees that
are anticipated to be generated.
4
. Growth Management Review: Free-Market Residential Units within a Mixed
Use Project. The Applicant has requested this review for the construction of
the free-market residential units that are to be constructed in the building
pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(C)(6), Free-Market
Residential Units within a Mixed Use Project. The review standards for
granting approval of this request are geared towards whether there are
sufficient growth management allotments available to allow for the free-
market residential units being proposed and whether the application
sufficiently mitigates for affordable housing by providing affordable housing
equal to or greater than thirty (30) percent of the additional free-market
residential floor area being provided in the development.
The two (2) free-market residential units to be constructed contain about
4,500 square feet of floor area (including garage space) and the three (3)
affordable housing units contain 2,544 square feet of floor area.
Therefore, the affordable housing units comprise about 52% of the floor
area to be included free-market residential units that well exceeds the
30% floor area requirement described above.
. Growth Management Review: Affordable Housing. The final growth
management review requested by the Applicant is to construct the three (3)
affordable housing units pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.470.040(C)(7), Growth Management Review: Affordable Housing. The
requirements for granting approval of this review are primarily that there are
enough allotments available and that the units are in compliance with the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's Guidelines.
ON-SITE PARKING: FOUND TO BE COMPLIANT BY THE P&Z AND STAFF.
The Applicant has proposed a total of six (6) parking spaces to be maintained on the site. Of
the six (6) parking spaces to be maintained on the site, two (2) are to be allocated for the
commercial space, four (4) are to be allocated for the free-market residential units.
Additionally, the Applicant is proposing to pay cash-in-lieu of providing the remainder of the
required parking as is allowed by Land Use Code Section 26.515.030, Required number of
off-street parking spaces. The parking proposal is in compliance with the land use
regulations by paying cash in lieu at the owner's option. The P&Z Commission expressed
concern over the matter of parking with this proposal, however the special review for parking
no longer exists and the applicants can choose their option for parking.
The total number of parking spaces that would be required on this property upon constructing
the development being proposed would be approximately 13 parking spaces (3 for the AH
Units, 2 for the free-market residential units, 2.4 spaces for the new commercial/office space,
and 5.2 spaces for the existing commercialloffice space). Therefore, the Applicant would be
required to pay cash-in-lieu for six (6) of the commercial spaces parking spaces at $30,000
per space, equaling an amount of $180,000.00. The Applicant has also proposed to pay cash-
in-lieu of the three (3) spaces required for the affordable housing units totaling another
$90,000.00. Staff has provided a condition of approval in the proposed resolution requiring
that the Applicant pay a cash-in-lieu fee of $270,000.00 at the time of building permit
issuance.
5
COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS: VARIANCE APPROVED BY THE P&Z FOR THE FIRST
FLOOR BEING MORE THAN 2 FEET ABOVE STREET GRADE. THEY COMMISSION FELT THAT THIS
DESIGN GUIDELINE WAS INTENDED TO APPLY TO THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENT, NOT THE
RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT, OF A MIXED USE BUILDING.
The proposed additions are subject to the Commercial Design Standards pursuant Land Use
Code Section 26.412, Commercial Design Review. In evaluating the proposal's compliance
with the commercial design standards, Staff finds that the development proposal satisfies all
of the commercial design standards with the exception of the standard that requires a
commercialloffice building to be developed with a first floor at or within two (2) feet of the
adjoining sidewalk, or right-of-way if no sidewalk exists. The variance to this was granted
by the P&Z.
SPECIAL REVIEW TO VARY TRASH AND UTILITY AREA WIDTH: ApPROVED BY THE P&Z
WITH CONDITIONS.
The Applicant requires special review approval to vary the trash and utility area width from
the standard that is established in Land Use Code Section 26.575.060, Utility/Trash/Recycle
Service Areas. Land Use Code Section 26.575.060 set forth that a utilityltrash area is
required to have a linear width of 20 feet and the Applicant has proposed a utilityltrash area
that is approximately 14 feet wide. Staff has proposed a condition of approval requiring that
the Applicant provide a trash compactor.
HYMAN AVENUE SIDEWALK: ApPROVED BY P&Z AS A SEPARATED SIDEWALK.
The Applicant has proposed to install an attached (immediately to curb) sidewalk along E.
Hyman Avenue. The Applicant has verbally expressed that the sidewalk along E. Hyman
Avenue was proposed as an attached sidewalk simply because it matched the type of
sidewalk that exists in front of the neighboring Benedict Commons building. Staff and P&Z
would like to the see the sidewalk make a mid-block transition to a detached sidewalk with a
landscaping island between the curb and the sidewalk. Staff believes that an attached
sidewalk adjacent to head-in diagonal parking is seriously narrowed by the front bumpers of
cars extending over the curb. The City Engineer has also expressed his displeasure with
people parking on attached sidewalk during the winter when the adjacent curbs freeze,
creating a ramp onto an attached sidewalk. Staff has included a condition of approval in the
attached resolution requiring that the E. Hyman Avenue sidewalk be detached from the curb.
SCHOOL LANDS DEDICATION FEE:
Given that the proposed development constitutes a full subdivision review, Land Use Code
Section 26.630, School lands dedication, requires that the Applicant either dedicate lands for
school function or pay a cash-in-lieu payment. The Applicant has proposed to pay a cash-in-
lieu payment pursuant to the fee schedule established in Land Use Code Section 26.630.
Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed resolution requiring that the
Applicant pay the School Lands Dedication Fee prior to issuance of a building permit for the
proposed development.
PARK DEVELOPMENT IMP ACT FEE:
The Applicant is required to pay a Park Development Impact Fee for additional bedrooms
and additional net leasable square footage added to the site pursuant to Land Use Code
Section 26.610, Park development impact fee. In the application, the Applicant calculated
what the thought the Park Development Impact Fee would be. However, the application
6
incorrectly excludes the proposed affordable housing units from the calculation. The Park
Development Impact Fee for this project shall be assessed based on the following
calculation:
Proposed Commercial:
2,440 SF of new net leasable square feet multiplied by $1,530.00 per 1,000 SF= $3,733.20
Proposed Residential
2 (four-bedroom) Free Market Residential Unit multiplied by $3,634 per unit = $7,268.00
3 (two-bedroom) Units multiplied by $2,725 per unit = $8.175.00
Total: $19,176.20
Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed resolution requiring that a Park
Development Impact Fee of$19,176.20 be paid at prior to building permit issuance.
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS:
The City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Water Department, Aspen Sanitation District, Streets
Department, and the Parks Department have all reviewed the proposed application and there
requirements have been included as conditions of approval when appropriate.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the subdivision finding that the proposal
meets with the review standards of the Land Use Code. Condition of approval are
contained within the proposed ordinance.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
"I move to approve Ordinance No. lltz, Series of 2006, approving with conditions, the
requested Hannah Dustin Subdivision for several additions to the building at 300 S. Spring
Street, consisting of 2,440 square feet of new net leasable space, two (2) free market
residential units, and three (3) affordable housing units."
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings
EXHIBIT B -- Application
EXHIBIT C -- Referral Comments
EXHIBIT D - P &Z Resolution and Minutes
7
Exhibit "A"
Subdivision
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
Subdivision. Section 26.480 of the City Land Use Code provides that development
applications for Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements.
1. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed subdivision is consistent with many aspects of the infill goals
and objectives established in the 2000 AACP. Additionally, Staff feels that the proposal
upgrades a commercial space that is in need of improvements, which is consistent with the
City's goals of stimulating commercial redevelopment as the application points out. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing
land uses in the area.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed mixed use development is consistent with the land uses in the
immediate vicinity. Mixed use buildings are common and encouraged throughout the
commercial core and surrounding zone districts, including the Mixed Use zone district in
which the subject property is located. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development
of surrounding areas.
Staff Finding
As the application indicates, the surrounding properties are close to fully developed.
Therefore, Staff does not believe that the proposal will adversely affect the future
development of the surrounding properties. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable
requirements of this Title.
Staff Finding
The proposed development appears to be in compliance with the Mixed Use Zone District's
allowable dimensional requirements. Additionally, the Applicant has requested and attained
the necessary growth management allotments to develop the property as is being proposed.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. Suitability of Land for Subdivision
a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land
unsuitable for development because of jlooding, drainage, rock or soil creep,
mudjlow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural
hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of
the residents in the proposed subdivision.
8
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 property is suitable for subdivision. The site contains no steep
topography and no known geologic hazards that may harm the health of any of the
inhabitants of the proposed development. In addition, Staff believes that there will not be a
duplication or premature extension of public facilities because the property to be subdivided
is already served by adequate public facilities. The subdivision is proposed to simply allow
for multi-family residential units in a mixed use development. Therefore, Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for
the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter
26.430) if the following conditions have been met:
1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the
subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals
of the community.
2. The applicant shall specifY each design standard variation requested and
provide 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 improvements pursuant
to Section 26.580. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling
units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements
of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of
new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the
requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System.
Staff Finding
The Applicant has concurrently applied for the required growth management reviews. In
conjunction with the growth management requests, the Applicant has proposed to mitigate
for both the proposed free market residential units and the commercial addition by
providing three (3) 2-bedroom affordable housing units on the site. As is described in the
memorandum, the two (2) free-market residential units to be constructed contain about 4,500
square feet of floor area (including garage space) and the three (3) affordable housing units
contain 2,544 square feet of floor area. Therefore, the affordable housing units comprise
about 52% of the floor area to be included free-market residential units that well exceeds the
30% floor area requirement.
9
The number of employees that are anticipated to be generated by the new net leasable space
is about ten (10) full-time employees (2,440 square feet of new net leasable multiplied by
3.7 employees per 1,000 square feet of new net leasable space). Since the Applicant is
only required to mitigate for 60% of those employees generated, the Applicant is required
to mitigate for six (6) full-time employees. The three 2-bedroom affordable housing units
to be constructed would provide affordable housing credit for 6.75 full-time employees (3
units multiplied 2.25 FTEs per unit), thereby satisfying the mitigation requirements for the
new net leasable space. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
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, which will be paid prior to building permit issuance. Thus, staff finds this
criterion to be met.
F. Growth Management ApprovaL Subdivision approval may only be granted to
applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted
or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470.
Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing
Planned Unit Development (AH-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, ~ 2)
Staff Finding
The Applicant has concurrently applied for growth management approvals. Please see Staffs
response to Review Standard "D" for Staff s response to this criterion.
10
ORDINANCE NO. ~
(SERIES OF 2006)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING
WITH CONDITIONS THE HANNAH DUSTIN BUILDING SUBDMSION TO
ADD 2,440 SQUARE FEET OF NET LEASABLE SPACE, TWO FREE MARKET
RESIDENTIAL UNITS, AND THREE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS TO THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 300 SOUTH SPRING STREET, CITY OF ASPEN,
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
ParcelID: 2737-182-27-001
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Hyman Avenue Holdings, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, LLC,
requesting approval of subdivision, various growth management reviews, commercial
design review, and condominiumization to add 2,440 square feet of net leasable space,
two (2) free-market residential units, and three (3) affordable housing units to the
Hannah-Dusting Building located at 300 S. Spring Street; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property contains 12,000 square feet and is zoned MU
(Mixed Use); and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards,
the Community Development Department recommended approval, with conditions, of the
proposed subdivision and associated land use requests; and,
WHEREAS, during a public hearing on April 4, 2006, the Planning and Zoning
Commission approved Resolution No. 09, Series of 2006, by a six to zero (6-0) vote,
approving a growth management review for expansion of mixed use development, a growth
management review for free-market residential units within a mixed use development, a
growth management review for affordable housing, commercial design review, a
commercial design standard variance, special review to vary the utilityltrash/recycling area,
and recommending that City Council approve with conditions, the proposed Subdivision
and condominiumization to add 2,440 square feet of net leasable space, two (2) free-
market residential units, and three (3) affordable housing units to the Hannah-Dusting
Building located at 300 S. Spring Street; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development
proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen 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 Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY
COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, (and whereas the Planning and Zoning Commission approved with
conditions, a growth management review for expansion of mixed use development, a
growth management review for free-market residential units within a mixed use
development, a growth management review for affordable housing, commercial design
review, a commercial design review variance, and special review to vary the
utilityltrash/recycling area dimensions), the City Council approves, the proposed
Subdivision and condominiumization to add 2,440 square feet of net leasable space, two
(2) free-market residential units, and three (3) affordable housing units to the Hannah-
Dusting Building located at 300 S. Spring Street, with the conditions contained herein.
Section 2: Plat and Aereement
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: Buildine Permit Application
The building permit application shall include the following:
a. A copy of the final City Council Ordinance and P&Z Resolution.
b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set.
c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District.
d. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed
Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after
construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will
be required to correctly size the facility. A 5-year storm frequency should be used
in designing any drainage improvements.
e. A construction management plan pursuant to the Building Department's
requirements. The construction management plan shall include an identification of
construction hauling routes for review and approval by the City Engineer and
Streets Department Superintendent.
f. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering
Department.
g. A detailed excavation plan that utilizes vertical soil stabilization techniques for
review and approval by the City Engineer.
Section 4: Dimensional ReQuirements
The Hannah-Dustin building shall continue to be in compliance with the dimensional
requirements of the Mixed Use (MU) Zone District. The City of Aspen Zoning Officer
shall verify compliance with the allowed dimensional requirements at the time of
building permit submittal.
Section 5: Off-street Parkine
The project shall provide six (6) off-street parking spaces, four of which shall be
designated for the use of the free market residential units, and two (2) of which shall be
designated for the use of the commercial space. The Applicant shall also pay cash-in-lieu
for six (6) ofthe required officelcommercial parking spaces for a total fee of$180,000.00
($30,000 per parking space pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.515.050, Cash-in-lieu
for Mobility Enhancements). Additionally, the Applicant shall pay cash-in-lieu of three
(3) of the required affordable housing parking spaces for a total fee of $90,000.00
($30,000 per parking space pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.515.050, Cash-in-lieu
for Mobility Enhancements). The Applicant shall pay the total cash-in-lieu fee of
$270,000.00 in full prior to building permit issuance.
Section 6: Sidewalk and Landscapine Improvements
The Applicant shall install a sidewalk detached from the curb with a parkway strip along
East Hyman Avenue for the length of the property frontage that meets the City
Engineer's standards prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on any portion of the
development. Appropriate street tree plantings shall occur in the parkway strip along the
property frontage on both East Hyman Avenue and South Spring Street. The Applicant
shall submit a landscaping plan for plantings in the right-of-way for review and approval
by the City Parks Department prior to installation of right-of-way plantings.
Section 7: TrashlUtilitv Service Area
A trash/utility service area with a linear footage of fourteen (14) feet and a depth of ten
(10) feet shall be provided between the existing building and the alleyway. A trash
compactor shall be installed to justify the reduction in the trash/utilitylrecycling area.
Section 8: Affordable Housine
The Applicant shall record a deed restriction on each of the affordable housing units prior
to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy on the building classifying the units as
Category 2 units. If the Applicant chooses to deed restrict the affordable housing units as
rental units, the Applicant shall convey a 1/10 of a percent, undivided interest in the units
to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy on any portion of the building. The units may be deed-restricted as rental
units, but the units shall become ownership units at such time as the owners would
request a change to "for-sale" units or at such time as the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority deems the units to be out of compliance with the rental occupancy
requirements in the Affordable Housing Guidelines for a period of more than year.
Section 9: Fire Mitieation
The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system and alarm system that meets the
requirements ofthe Fire Marshal in the entire building, including existing spaces.
Section 10: Water Department Requirements
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title
25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing
Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water
Department. Each of the units within the building shall have individual water meters.
Section 11: Sanitation District Requirements
The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and
regulations. No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter drains) to ACSD
lines shall be allowed. All improvements below grade shall require the use of a pumping
station. If more than one unit is to be served by a single service line, the Applicant shall
enter into a shared service line agreement.
Section 12: Electrical Department Requirements
The Applicant shall have an electric connect load summary conducted by a licensed
electrician in order to determine if the existing transformer on the neighboring property
has sufficient capacity for the Hannah-Dustin Redevelopment. If a new supplemental
transformer is required to be installed on the Hannah-Dustin property, the Applicant shall
provide for a new transformer and its location shall be approved by the Community
Development Department prior to installation. The Applicant shall dedicate an easement
to allow for City Utility Personnel to access the supplemental transformer for
maintenance purposes, if a supplemental transformer is installed.
Section 13: Exterior Liehtine
All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code
pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting.
Section 14: 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 prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen
Zoning Officer shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee
schedule in affect at the time of building permit submittal. The Applicant shall provide
the market value of the land including site improvements, but excluding the value of
structures on the site.
Section 15: Park Development Impact Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee, the Applicant
shall pay a park development impact fee in the amount of $19,176.20 prior to building
permit issuance. The fee is assessed based on the following calculation:
Proposed Commercial:
2,440 SF of new net leasable square feet multiplied by $1,530.00 per 1,000 SF=$3,733.20
Proposed Residential
2 (four-bedroom) Free Market Residential Unit multiplied by $3,634 per unit= $7,268.00
3 (two-bedroom) Residential Units multiplied by $2,725 per unit= $8.1 75.00
Total: $19,176.20
Section 16:
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 17:
This ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 18:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 19:
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held ont eh 8th day of May, 2006, in the City
Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen days prior to which, 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 24th day of April, 2006.
Helen Kalin KIanderud, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _day of
Attest:
.2006.
Kathrn S. Koch, City Clerk
Helen Kalin KIanderud, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
, City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 09
(SERIES OF 2005)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A GROWTH
MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR EXPANSION OF MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT,
A GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR FREE-MARKET RESIDENTIAL
UNITS WITHIN A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, A GRWOTH MANAGEMENT
REVIEW FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, A
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW VARIANCE, SPECIAL REVIEW TO VARY
THE UTILITYITRASH/RECYCLING AREA, AND RECOMMENDING THAT
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS, THE HANNAH DUSTIN
BUILDING SUBDMSION TO ADD 2,440 SQUARE FEET OF NET LEASABLE
SPACE, TWO FREE MARKET RESIDENTIAL UNITS, AND THREE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 300
SOUTH SPRING STREET, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
ParcelID: 2737-182-27-001
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Hyman Avenue Holdings, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, LLC,
requesting approval of subdivision, various growth management reviews, commercial
design review, and condominiumization to add 2,440 square feet of net leasable space,
two (2) free-market residential units, and three (3) affordable housing units to the
Hannah-Dusting Building located at 300 S. Spring Street; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property contains 12,000 square feet and is zoned MU
(Mixed Use); and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards,
the Community Development Department recommended approval, with conditions, of the
proposed subdivision and associated land use requests; and,
WHEREAS, during duly noticed public hearing on February 21, 2006, the Planning
and Zoning Commission continued the review of the application until March 21, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on March 21, 2006, the Planning
and Zoning Commission continued the review of the application until March 28,2006; and,
WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on March 28, 2006, the Planning
and Zoning Commission continued the review of the application until April 4, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on April 4, 2006, the Planning and
Zoning Commission approved Resolution No.--, Series of2006, by a six to zero (6-0) vote,
approving a growth management review for expansion of mixed use development, a growth
management review for free-market residential units within a mixed use development, a
growth management review for affordable housing, commercial design review, a
commercial design standard variance, special review to vary the utilityltrash/recycling area,
and recommending that City Council approve with conditions, the proposed Subdivision
Exh,loll b
and condominiumization to add 2,440 square feet of net leasable space, two (2) free-
market residential units, and three (3) affordable housing units to the Hannah-Dusting
Building located at 300 S. Spring Street; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and
considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code
as identified herein; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development
proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development 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 Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves with conditions,
a growth management review for expansion of mixed use development, a growth
management review for free-market residential units within a mixed use development, a
growth management review for affordable housing, commercial design review, a
commercial design review variance, special review to vary the utility/trash/recycling area
dimensions, and recommends that City Council approve, the proposed Subdivision and
condominiumization to add 2,440 square feet of net leasable space, two (2) free-market
residential units, and three (3) affordable housing units to the Hannah-Dusting Building
located at 300 S. Spring Street, with the conditions contained herein.
Section 2: Plat and Aereement
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: Buildine Permit Application
The building permit application shall include the following:
a. A copy of the final Ordinance and P&Z Resolution.
b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set.
c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District.
d. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed
Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after
construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will
be required to correctly size the facility. A 5-year storm frequency should be used
in designing any drainage improvements.
e. A construction management plan pursuant to the Building Department's
requirements. The construction management plan shall include an identification of
construction hauling routes for review and approval by the City Engineer and
Streets Department Superintendent.
f. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering
Department.
g. A detailed excavation plan that utilizes vertical soil stabilization techniques for
review and approval by the City Engineer.
Section 4: Dimensional Requirements
The Hannah-Dustin building shall continue to be in compliance with the dimensional
requirements of the Mixed Use (MU) Zone District. The City of Aspen Zoning Officer
shall yerifY compliance with the allowed dimensional requirements at the time of
building permit submittal.
Section 5: Off-street Parkine
The project shall provide six (6) off-street parking spaces, four of which shall be
designated for the use of the free market residential units, and two (2) of which shall be
designated for the use of the commercial space. The Applicant shall also pay cash-in-Iieu
for six (6) of the required officelcommercial parking spaces for a total fee of$180,000.00
($30,000 per parking space pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.515.050, Cash-in-lieu
for Mobility Enhancements). Additionally, the Applicant shall pay cash-in-lieu of three
(3) of the required affordable housing parking spaces for a total fee of $90,000.00
($30,000 per parking space pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.515.050, Cash-in-lieu
for Mobility Enhancements). The Applicant shall pay the total cash-in-lieu fee of
$270,000.00 in full prior to building permit issuance.
Section 6: Sidewalk and Landscapine Improvements
The Applicant shall install a sidewalk detached from the curb with a parkway strip along
East Hyman Avenue for the length of the property frontage that meets the City
Engineer's standards prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on any portion of the
development. Appropriate street tree plantings shall occur in the parkway strip along the
property frontage on both East Hyman Avenue and South Spring Street. The Applicant
shall submit a landscaping plan for plantings in the right-of-way for review and approval
by the City Parks Department prior to installation of right-of-way plantings.
Section 7: TrashlUtilitv Service Area
A trash/utility service area with a linear footage of fourteen (14) feet and a depth often
(10) feet shall be provided between the existing building and the alleyway. A trash
compactor shall be installed to justifY the reduction in the trash/utilitylrecycling area.
Section 8: Affordable Housine
The Applicant shall record a deed restriction on each of the affordable housing units prior
to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy on the building classifying the units as
Category 2 units. If the Applicant chooses to deed restrict the affordable housing units as
rental units, the Applicant shall convey a 1/10 of a percent, undivided interest in the units
to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy on any portion of the building. The units may be deed-restricted as rental
units, but the units shall become ownership units at such time as the owners would
request a change to "for-sale" units or at such time as the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority deems the units to be out of compliance with the rental occupancy
requirements in the Affordable Housing Guidelines for a period of more than year.
Section 9: Fire Mitieation
The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system and alarm system that meets the
requirements of the Fire Marshal in the entire building, including existing spaces.
Section 10: Water Department Requirements
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title
25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing
Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water
Department. Each of the units within the building shall have individual water meters.
Section 11: Sanitation District Requirements
The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and
regulations. No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter drains) to ACSD
lines shall be allowed. All improvements below grade shall require the use of a pumping
station. If more than one unit is to be served by a single service line, the Applicant shall
enter into a shared service line agreement.
Section 12: Electrical Department Requirements
The Applicant shall have an electric connect load summary conducted by a licensed
electrician in order to determine if the existing transformer on the neighboring property
has sufficient capacity for the Hannah-Dustin Redevelopment. If a new supplemental
transformer is required to be installed on the Hannah-Dustin property, the Applicant shall
provide for a new transformer and its location shall be approved by the Community
Development Department prior to installation. The Applicant shall dedicate an easement
to allow for City Utility Personnel to access the supplemental transformer for
maintenance purposes, if a supplemental transformer is installed.
Section 13: Exterior Liebtine
All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code
pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting.
Section 14: 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 prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen
Zoning Officer shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee
schedule in affect at the time of building permit submittal. The Applicant shall provide
the market value of the land including site improvements, but excluding the value of
structures on the site.
Section 15: Park Development Impact Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee, the Applicant
shall pay a park development impact fee in the amount of $19,176.20 prior to building
permit issuance. The fee is assessed based on the following calculation:
Proposed Commercial:
2,440 SF of new net leasable square feet multiplied by $1,530.00 per 1,000 SF=$3,733.20
Proposed Residential
2 (four-bedroom) Free Market Residential Unit multiplied by $3,634 per unit= $7,268.00
3 (two-bedroom) Residential Units multiplied by $2,725 per unit= $8.175.00
Total: $19,176.20
Section 16:
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 17:
This resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 18:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 4th
day of April, 2006.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
City Attorney
Jasmine Tygre, Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
m
~.
To:
Mayor and City Council
Through:
Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager
From:
Tim Ware, Director of Parking
Date:
April 17, 2006
RE:
Parking Fee Ordinance Changes
Summary:
The Transportation and Parking Department has presented to council the paid parking
expansion plan and the service vehicle parking program changes. These two items are
scheduled for council discussion at the April 24, 2006 regular meeting. If the changes are
approved, there will need to be amendments to the current fee ordinance.
Also for review and approval, are the current towing fees. The contract with Ajax Towing
has expired and there is a need to adjust the tow fees to reflect the terms of the new
contract.
Discussion:
The residential zones currently allow two hours of parking at no charge for vehicles
without a valid residential parking permit. Ifthe proposed paid parking expansion is
approved, the residential parking zone regulations will need to be amended as follows.
Current
Two hour free parking
Proposed
$1.00 per hour $5.00 maximum per day
Within residential paid parking zones
The service vehicle permit program has been proposed to be converted to an in-ear-meter
system. This will allow users to pay for the cost of their actual use rather than a flat fee.
Current
$100.00 per year
Proposed
$50 meter deposit (refundable)
$25.00 administrative fee
$1.00 for the first hour $2.00 each additional hour
($15 daily maximum)
The towing contract between the City of Aspen and Ajax Towing expired in February of
this year. The contract had been in place for five years with very little change to the
towing fees. There are two different types of tows: 1) In-town, for delinquent tickets and
snow removal. 2) Abandoned vehicles that are towed to the landfill. The tow fees in the
new contract are as follows:
Current
In-town $100.00
Landfill $120.00
Proposed
In-town $120.00
Landfill $150.00
Previous Council Action:
Council has previously reviewed and approved the paid parking expansion within a 3-
block radius of the commercial core, and the service vehicle parking changes on two
different occasions at its February 14,2006 and February 28,2006 work sessions.
There has been no council action regarding the tow contract changes other than approval
of previous tow fees in the fee ordinances.
Financial Implications
While this paid parking expansion into residential neighborhoods is intended to be in
place year-round, using a very conservative revenue calculation formula of25%
occupancy during only peak seasons at $5.00 per day, staff estimates additional revenue
of about $350,000 per year from the meters and citations. When the current revenue of
about $90,000 per year from day pass sales is netted out, net new revenues from this
option would be approximately $260,000 per year. All start-up costs would be paid off
within three years and there are no anticipated increases in labor necessary to implement
this option.
The $40,000 cost for the additional in-ear-meters would be reimbursed. Once the
program gets up and running it would generate approximately $75,000 annually in new
revenue.
The tow contract is a break -even program and is only designed to pay for the costs
involved.
Alternatives:
Council could elect to approve all, part or none of the proposed fee ordinance changes.
Recommendations:
The Transportation and Parking Department recommends that the entire proposed fee
ordinance changes be approved.
City Manager Comments:
/}. "y U\ r-63.s J= O-r-.t<flC1.N<<...<L (i-a4'~tR~
(~v..j. ~-; ~ ot~~ ~ WtlYk S"eShd-,<o
c.,~~J4Ct ~r-r;... CAU U 0 .
~~ Y~')-o...J- ~ 1 n;US'dR4/\-.
J
ORDINANCE NO.
Series of 2006
/'1'
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
AMENDING SECTION 2.12.060 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN TO AMEND FEES RELATING TO PARKING.
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a policy of requiring consumers and users
of the miscellaneous City of Aspen programs and services to pay fees that fairly
approximate the costs of providing such programs and services; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that certain fees currently in effect for
parking on City streets need to be revised as part of the . City's overall Transportation
Demand Management Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section I
That Section 2.12.060 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section
sets the applicable fees for paid parking, is hereby amended to
2.12.060 Parking fees.
The Transportation and Parking Department shall charge the following fees for parking:
I. Rio Grande Parking Plaza Fee Options.
A. Hourly parking rates
Maximum daily fee
Validation stickers
Unlimited use monthly pass
Night Owl Special (4 to 7 p.m.)
Lost Ticket Fee
Special Events Pass
Access Replacement Card
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
$1.25/hour
$12.50/day
$ 4.00 per visit
$150.00/month
$1. 001 on entry
$12.50
$4.00/day
$10.00
II.
Commercial Core Pay Parking Fees.
Between the hours of7 a.m. and 6 p.m.
First hour $1.00
Second hour $2.00
Between the hours of 6 p.m. and 3 a.m.
Third hour $2.00
Fourth hour $3.00
Free
III. Residential Permit Parking Program Fees.
Residential Day Pass Fee $5.00
Residential Paid Parking Fees $1.00/hour $5.00/day max.
Space Rental Fee Per Day $10.00 per day
Outside of Residential Paid Parking Zone Up to 2 hours free
Resident Permits: First 2 permits for residence and guest is free.
Third permit: $25.00
Fourth permit: 50.00
Fifth permit: 100.00
(No more than five permits shall be issued per residence)
Resident Guest Permit free
Lodge Guest Permit $1.50/permit
High Occupancy Vehicle Permit Free
Business Vehicle Permit $300.00/6 month period
Host Guest Permit Fee $25.00/replacement
The Residential Permit Parking Program restrictions shall be in effect from 10 a.m.
until 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, (official holidays excepted), unless otherwise
specified.
Two 6-month periods are established for the Business Vehicle Permit: Winter
Season, November I through April 30, and Summer Season, May 1 through October
31.
IV.
Miscellaneous Parking Fees.
Delivery Vehicle Permit
Service Vehicle Meter Fees
Construction Vehicle Permit
In Residential Permit Parking
Commercial Core
Handicapped Parking
Permit Replacement Fee
Tow Truck Cancel Fee
Boot Fee
In-car meter fee
Ticket Late Fee
Towing Fee (including processing)
$ 100.00/yr.
$50.00 deposit/meter
$25.00 admin feelmeter
$1. 00 first hour
$2.00 each additional hour
($15 daily maximum)
$20.00/month
$20.00/day
Free
$25.00
$25.00
$35.00
$75.00
$1O.00/each
$120.00
Towing Fee (to impound)
$150.00
Neighborhood Electric Vehicles*
Free
* Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs) are defined as follows: A low speed
electric vehicle that does not exceed speeds of 20-25 mph. The vehicle must have
seat belts, headlights, windshield wipers, safety glass, tail lamps, front and rear turn
signals and stop lamps. These vehicles must have a vehicle identification number
(VIN) and be state licensed. NEVs are only permitted within the City of Aspen
limits and on roads that have speed limits less than 40 mph.
Section 20
The effective date of this ordinance shall be June 8, 2006.
Section 21
This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 22
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
hereof.
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 8th day of May 2006, in the City Council
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of
the City of Aspen on the 24th day of April 2006.
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this 8th day of May 2006.
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
JPW-4/18/2006-G:\john\word\ords\fees03.doc
Helen Kla'nderud
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Fonda Paterson [fondapaterson@mac.com]
Monday, April 24, 20064:36 PM
Helen Klanderud
paid parking
Dear Helen,
In case I'm unable to attend city council meeting tonight, I want to express some thoughts
regarding the proposed expansion of paid parking.
From consulting the maps, it appears Waters Avenue will be excluded from the expanded
streets for paid parking. The pressure for day parking on Waters Avenue, will increase as
we become a pocket of one isolated street close to the core where cars could park all day.
Through years of observation, we are aware of how many locals daily use
Durant Avenue from Original Street to the Chateaux. Due to the
density of Waters Avenue and the lack of, or under parking at several projects, the street
has tight parking now just serving residents and resident guests.
Currently several downtown businesses routinely park their service vehicles on West End
Street and Waters, including overnight.
Is there a positive solution? I'm not certain. But I know that patrolling by parking
officers will need to be greatly increased.
Waters Avenue will become an isolated one street free parking zone.
This concerns us.
Regards,
Fonda
1
Page 1 of 1
Helen Klanderud
From: Gary Feldman [gmf@rof.net]
Sent: Monday, May 08,200610:31 AM
To: Helen Klanderud
Subject: Parking changes
Mayor,
I have been critical of Aspen's paid parking program for years. Ever since it was initiated in 1995, the City has
had a plan in place to incrementally decrease the number of available parking spaces while raising the fees to use
the remaining spaces. To what end? This is nothing more than a smokescreen to bilk the public out of more
money with nothing in return. Next on the agenda will most likely be more employees to write more tickets and
more supervisors to supervise the ticket writers. How long before the annual budget to run this small town
reaches $200,000,000?
5/8/2006
Helen Klsnderud
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sheldon [sheldon@sopris.net]
Monday, May 08, 2006 2:15 PM
Helen Klanderud
Paid parking
Helen,
In my opinion, expanding paid parking will only serve to move what council perceives as a
problem three blocks away to another location. It will not force more drivers onto the
bus, and will place a minor hardship on the neighborhoods where paid parking is
implemented.
While I live in the city and mostly walk to town, I'm tired of the city using its "carrot
and stick" approach to beat commuters over the head with a stick and offer little in the
way of carrots.
Sheldon Fingerman
70 Williams Ranch Dr.
Aspen
sheldon@sopris.net
925-4639
1
-"^'---"-~~"-'"'~-'~"""--'-""""'" -- ._-~._,_.._,.,-",",.
Page 1 of 1
Helen Klanderud
From: Lee Cassin
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 3:20 PM
To: City-Council
Cc: Steve Barwick; Randy Ready
Subject: comments on expanded paid parking
Hello,
I just received a call from a citizen who can't come to tonight's meeting but asked that
I pass along her comments.
1. Instead of expanding paid parking we should either have a toll for all SOV cars
coming into town and use that money to pay for added bus service or
2. Instead of expanding paid parking, we should close the whole core to cars,
make it pedestrian and bike lanes, then have a zone of paid parking but where
you just put in your money and can't move your car or park for 4 hours, and
then the outlying areas stay as they are now.
Lee
Lee E. Cassin
Environmental Health Director
. (970) 920-5075
www.aa.penalobalwarmin1l.&Qm
www.as.nenDitkin.com/deJH.~
5/8/2006
Page 1 of 1
Helen Klanderud
From: Rebecca Hodgson
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 2:11 PM
To: Helen Klanderud
Subject: Citizen Comment
Gary Goldstein, E. Hopkins, is unable to make the meeting and had the following comments to make regarding
paid parking in residential areas.
He often has visitors use guest permits; will they become void now? Paid parking is forcing residents out of
parking. He understands the issue, but feels there must be a better way. It is unfair to the residents who pay
taxes unless they exempt residential and guest parking permits.
5/8/2006
05/05/2006 04:16 9709205407
KID5 FIRST
MClljj, 200G
DeClr MClljOr ClIII-c\ COl,{III-c'~L Mew..bers:
I Clw.. wr~t~~ ~III- Sl,{-p-povt oftVie -pCl~c\ -pClrk>.~~ exteIll-S~OIll-,
s-pec'LfLc'ClLLlj ClrwIII-01 tVie yeLLoW"BrLc'~ "Bl,{LLo1L~. I O'perClte
Cl -presc'ViooL frow.. tViLs LOC,CltLOIII-, wLtl-1 32 -pLl,{S fClw..~L~es
LeClvLv.,g tVieLr c'Vi LLo1 reIII- for c,Clre eClc,Vi o1Cllj. It ~s vert!
r;{LffLc'l,{Lt for Ol,{r fClw..~L~es to c\rD-p off tVieLr c'l-1LLo1relll- ClS tl-1e
streets. Clre oc'c'l,{-p~eo1 wLtl-1 pClr~ec\ c'ows, Olll-c,e tl-1e Sill-OW
c,ow..es, ~t ~s V\..ot oV\..Lt! o1LffLc,l,{Lt, Lt Ls vert! o1CllI\..gerol,{S for
pClrell\..ts to cross Cl 11I-01 elll-ter tl-1e bl,{~Lc\Lv.,g. 1i1e streets
o1epClvtw..elll-t C,ClII\..II\..Ot -pLow 011\.. 01 eOlll-sLsteV1.-t bClSLs, ClS tViere
Clre ClLwClljS eMS pClr~eo1 ClLoV1.-g tVie street.
I Sl,{Fpovt tl-1e w..otLOII\.. to w..Cl~e tl-1e streets Sl,{rrol,{lI\..o1LlI\..g tl-1e
YeLLoW"BrLc~, Cl pLc,~ l,{p 0111\..01 o1rD'p offZOIl've. I tViClII\..~ Tl.w..
WClre ClV1.-o1 l-1~s stClff for ClLLow~~ tl-1e teClcl-1ers to l-1Clve
Clppro-pr~Clte -pOlr~Lv.,g pClsses. 'PleClse IMte, we Clre reql,{Lreo1
blj LClW to l-1Clve Cl veVi~de OV\.. sLte for ew..ergell\..clj pl,{rposes.
stClff ClLs.o cOlI' pooL Dr tCl~e tv,e bus..
SLV\..CereLlj,
M.'~ llZ"beHl~:J:-
'PLOl Ijg rol,{-p, 11I\..c,.
yelLow 1>r~e~ -g,l,{~Lc\LlI\..g
.w'~~St.
__4",$
~CXJ 8l6U
PAGE 01
Page 1 of 1
Helen Klanderud
From: SheepCamp@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 11: 16 AM
To: Helen Klanderud
Subject: (no subject>
I live in the 3 block area and I'm definitely in favor of expanding the paid parking perimeter. My only question is
how does will this affect guest parking passes?
Fred Ayarza
4/24/2006
.4,
Page 1 of 1
'Helen Klanderud
From: Bill Seguin [BILLSEGUIN@msn.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 9:08 AM
To: Helen Klanderud
Subject: Bill Seguin
Hi Helen, thanks for publishing your address. I live at the comer of Aspen St and Hallam St. Parking,
yes, I am in total favor of the expanded program. A couple of other quickies. Those ugly plastic
barricades which are used to block traffic at the S curves need to be improved. Crested Butte does a nice
job in the summer with their street barricades. They are constructed out of 8 inch square beams and are
planted with a small tree. They are constructed in a way that a fork lift can easily move them.
Here is the big one for me. I stood on the street the other day and looked at the fire station. It destroys
the vitality of the entire block. I think we have a historic opportunity to move it. The new rendering
leaves me cold. Sell the property and allow a combination commercial/residential building to be
developed. Include a bunch of employee units.
Main Street seems to make more sense for a fire station. The trucks exit the current location and have to
go left, left or right, right and proceed through heavily congested areas. I have to leave town next week
but will vote absentee [ No ] at the fire station. I think some people will find it intimating to walk into
the fire station and vote no. The vote should have been conducted elsewhere.
Thanks for you work as Mayor, Bill Seguin
4/24/2006
Helen Klanderud
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Robert Millman [robmillman@hotmail.com]
Monday, April 24, 2006 1 :28 PM
Helen Klanderud
Vote no on parking extension
Hi Helen
Please vote no on the parking expansion of Aspen. A positive move in this direction will
effectively kill any semblance to Aspen being a friendly ski town. It is expensive enough
without this added to it.
Locals are having a hard enough time making ends meet without this addition, PLEASE VOTE
AGAINST THIS BILL.
best regards-
Robert Millman
1
Helen Klanderud
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
The bird family [mireland@rof.net]
Monday, April 24, 2006 12:48 PM
Helen Klanderud
Parking
Dear Helen,
I am writing you today in my capacity as the chairman of the Administrative Board of the
Aspen Community United Methodist Church. I am responding to your public invitation for
comment on the proposed extension of paid parking in the city.
The Community Church is one of the two remaining original churches left downtown, and
while our board is taking no position on the pros and cons of this program, we want to
register our concern that our staff will still be able to continue to use the parking
permits that they currently obtain annually. We also have to express a concern about the
limited availability of parking for those doing church business or who are simply
accessing our building.
Thank you for the invitation to comment.
Don Bird
1
Page I of I
Helen Klanderud
From: Mary Ellen Sheridan [mes2696@msn.com]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:03 PM
To: Helen Klanderud
Subject: parking and historic lot split
Dear Helen:
Here are my comments on two issues at hand:
Paid Parking
As an individual that lives and owns property within the city of Aspen, does not work within the
downtown core and does not abuse the Aspen downtown paid parking system, I think the present system
is working well. Having paid parking extended into the areas that are more residential seems to be an
infringement on the people that are presently living there.
Historic Lot Split
As a local realtor that stands to benefit from the present historic lot split, think that ordinance should be
taken away or revisited, possibly voted upon.
One of the beauties of our west end neighborhood are the large flowing lawns and gardens adjacent or
surrounding the historic homes. Splitting the lots and allowing a new home to be built next to the
historic home takes away most of the charm and historic beauty of the property.
I feel very strongly about this, and most residents that I speak with have similar feelings.
Thanks for all your hard work on all these issues. I apologize, but I am not able to make the meeting
tonight.
Mary Ellen Sheridan
Aspen resident
4/24/2006
Page 1 of 1
Helen Klanderud
From: Lucy Nichols [Iucy.nichols@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:44 AM
To: Helen Klanderud
Subject: parking
Dear Mayor:
This seems a costly way to go about further limiting our parking situation. With the traffic issues and cost of gas, I
believe those people who can take public transportation or ride bikes are doing so. Some people simply must
have their cars to do their jobs each day.
It might be worth noting that by extending the limited parking district, people will most likely just park further out of
the core. Case in point, my neighborhood (King Street, off Neale Street) - several people show up reliably every
work day, park their car for the entire day and walk into town. These crafty people have figured out this is an
under-the-radar-free-zone where there is no penalty for parking all day/night long!
Happy to discuss further if you'd like.
Lucy
LlJcy Nichols
Lorrie B. Aspen & Associates
601 E. Hopkins Ave. #201
Aspen, CO 81611
970-920-0020 phone/970-920-001 0 fax
970-379-1587 cell
lucv@lbaspen.com /1Ji9t~ntghQll!@col1lcast.net
4/24/2006
Helen Klanderud
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mitzi Rapkin
Monday, April 24, 2006 10:14 AM
JE DeVilbiss (jed@cLaspen.co.us); Torre; Jack Johnson; Rachel Richards; Helen Klanderud
FW: Message from Contact Us form
Phone:
Message:
I want to express my disapproval of your proposed expansion of paid parking in the
downtown area. The small town atmostphere of Aspen will continue to be eroded by such a
change. Meters are the sign of a big city. I cannot imagine how you plan to place meters
in the residential areas. Have you considered the easement problems? In addition, where
will the snow go?
If you go ahead with this project, do you plan an audit of the success or failure of it?
Any program such as the bus lane on Main Street needs review after a period of time.
As I have written before, the traffic in Aspen will
as it is in every other city in the United States.
always cause a back-up.
continue to be conjested at rush hour,
The merging of two lanes to one will
By the way, have you noticed the reduction in traffic as the ski season ended?
Construction has not decreased. I would attribute the change to two factors: tourists
have dropped and the employees in local businesses have gone on vacation. The former don't
tend to drive to town but apparently the latter do.
And also, when you talk about a construction moratorium, don't forget that the city is one
of the big developers--Burlingame, the new middle school, the proposed fire stations, and
so on.
***************************************************************************
End of Message
***************************************************************************
1
Helen Klanderud
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cyndy Love [cldesigns@hotmail.com]
Monday, April 24, 2006 9:45 AM
Helen Klanderud
Paid Parking
Dear Helen,
I am writing
Aspen areas.
Cyndy Love
to strongly oppose expanding paid parking into the outlying
Please do not do this!!!! PLEASE!
1
Page 1 of 1
Helen Klanderud
From: Gail Olle [gdolle@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 8:25 AM
To: Helen Klanderud
Cc: Torre; J.E. DeVilbiss; Jack Johnson; Rachel Richards forward
Subject: RE: expanding paid parking
Dear Mayor Klanderud & Council Members,
I am NOT for expanding paid parking. People will not stop using their cars---you are making it very
difficult for the workers of this town. I ride the hunter creek bus---but also drive into town and park and
run errands---it is not always convenient to take the bus. I go to the gym in town and park in the
residential area for less then 2 hours...if! have to walk or take the bus---probably would not go work
out. If! go to the ARC---I would drive and not take the bus---most of my neighbors all drive into town-
--it is just more convenient to drive. Curious as to how often you drive into town...where you park? I
am not sure on the reasoning behind this---do you really think it will stop people from driving???? We
will start to lose our work force if you continue to take away parking... Do you know how frustrated the
commuters from downvalley are??? They are not taking the bus and will not take the bus...Have you
spent any time in the am upvalley traffic----CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC is also a problem.... Please
stop this nonsense---- What we need is more parking structures! ! !! How about under Rubey Park.
Thank you for your time.
G. Otte
4/24/2006
Page 1 of 1
Helen Klanderud
From: snowkingls@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 6:35 AM
To: Helen Klanderud
Hi Helen,
I do have a few of my own ideas on the parking in the downtown core.
# 1 I think the allowed parking time should be reduced to 2 or no more
than 3 hours.
#2 I think Sundays should have restricted parking just as other days.
#3. I think the paid parking time should begin at 11 :OOam and last til 7:00pm
If you extend restricted parking into the residential core I think you need to provide owners and their
guests with permits.
I'm on my way to Jury duty in a little while so I will keep this short. I appreciate your considering my
ideas.
Best Regards,
Larry Slater
4/24/2006
Page 1 of 1
. Helen Klanderud
From: Lorraine Ohanesian [Iorraine.o@earthlink.net]
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 8:05 PM
To: Helen Klanderud
Subject: parking input
Hi Helen -
This is Lorraine - from the gym!
Regarding the more restrictive parking, it seems so unfair to those of us that have to run quick
errands about town that we can't get any free short-term parking. My needs are for business, and
all those parking charges would add up for me. I typically will park in the 2-hour, do my errands
by foot and be gone within the hour. Somehow there should be some way to get a limited amount
of free parking and I don't mind walking the extra blocks to do that. As I office in Highlands,
certainly I could take the bus in and it will take more time to do my town errands, but that may be
what I have to do for at least "green" purposes - although not for efficiency!
I know the few have ruined it for the rest of us, so good luck coming up with a reasonable
solution. See you in the a.m.!
Lorrt.ltlll-e OVtt.llll-tstt.l1ll-
po Box 4128
Aspen, CO 81612
l01L?l~ne .o@l~a rthUO..K".net
970.920.0905 home
949.246.1016 cell
970.920.3613 office
720.228.2399 fax.
4/24/2006
Helen Klsnderud
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Robert Limacher [Iimacher@sopris.net]
Sunday, April 23, 2006 7:09 PM
Helen Klanderud
Parking
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am responding to the extention of new metered parking surrounding the city of Aspen. I
feel this will cause a negative effect on the vitality of the city. I thought we were
trying to welcome people to the town to shop, dine and attend functions within the core of
Aspen. By adding metered parking further out Aspen is saying "donlt come and stay longer
than an hour. Don't go up the Gondola, don't have lunch and wander and shop, don't linger
with the new chairs and tables around the town, do what you have to do and run before you
get a ticket," It will also hamper the locals to continue visits to their doctors,
banks, city and county business, insurance companies, lawyers, drugstores, shopping, going
to the Red and Yellow Brick, the Given Institute, let alone friends one might have that
live in the extended core area. I will have to pay to visit them, that does not
seem right!! This proposal will only hurt the people you are trying
to help. I do not live in an area with access to a bus so I have no choice but to drive.
Should the workers who move their cars every 2 hours be dictating this whole proposal, I
think not. Are you trying to make the workers pay to work in town, or should the
employers be offering something to their workers? It may be you will be forcing many
businesses out of town. This proposal will only help the city get more money, and is not
addressing the whole problem of traffic and parking. When you have twice as many workers
in a square block as 10-15 years ago you have a problem. When was the last survey done
asking how many employees businesses have? Think of the difference that will occur where
the new Obermeyer building is going up as to what was there before( will that building
have enough parking for the employees,the business owners and clients?), think of the Ritz
and what the number of employees there are now versus what was required in that space
before. The bigger the buildings, the more employees you will have working there. One or
two employee units in these places will not meet the demand for the increase in that
building alone. All this causes more problems with the parking and traffic.
Please study the parking problem along with the traffic problem, they go hand in hand.
The extended metered parking is only a band-aid that will cause more problems.
Thank you for your consideration.
Crispen Limacher
1
Page I of I
. Helen Klanderud
From: RChorbajia@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 10:31 AM
To: Helen Klanderud
Subject: expanded paid parking
D ear Hellen; My name is Roy Chorbajian. I lived in Aspen full time from 1970 till1997, and now live
in Basalt. I urge you not to implement this paid parking plan. While I use the bus most of the time there
are times that I need to use my car. I still regularly go to aspen for dental and medical needs. The
question becomes, "who is being hurt by the present 2 hour free parking in residential areas?". The
statement that 500 cars are constantly being rotated is bogus. Even if a large number of cars are being
rotated, who are the victims. I have a friend who comutes to a teaching job at the early learning center in
aspen and partakes in the 2-hour parkong shuffle. She has indicated to me if this proposal passes she no
longer will teach in aspen. You have and will not hear from the large silent majority who are most
affected by this ill-coceived proposal These are the down-valley workers who will have one more
needless hassle in their lives. Idon"t know how this bad idea got started but i assume some disgruntled
retailer was looking to blame someone for their troubles. They are looking in the wrong place. Please
make life in aspen more enjoyable and stop sterileizing this nice town. Remember that this parking
shuffle goes on in many towns in America and they are no worse off because of it. If you would like to
discuss this further please call me at 927-2050. I will try to attend the city council meeting on
monday,however ifI am not there I would be grateful if you read this E-mail at the meeting. Many
Thanks,
4/24/2006
------..".....--_.._"-.~-- .._--,_.,~_.
Page 1 of 1
Helen Klanderud
From: AELLlSNYC@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 20068:48 AM
To: Helen Klanderud
Subject: New Paid Parking in Aspen
Dear Mayor Klanderud:
I am a local with a family living and working in Aspen. I wanted to express my opposition to the expansion of the
paid parking zone in the core, The incentives for people to not drive into town have to be far greater than having
to spend a few bucks to park in the newly extended core. Most of the people we know who live down valley and
commute we have talked to have said although inconvenient it will not stop them from commuting here via car. I
do not believe it will stop anyone from driving into town for work or recreation but will just generate more
revenue for the city.
The result is to make it more difficult/expensive and inconvenient again for the locals who are living and working
here and are the infrastructure of the towns economy. It is in direct opposition to the goal of keeping people
living in working in town.
In addition I want to point out that the loading zones around the Yellow Brick and Red Brick are not sufficient at
this time to accommodate the activity at the beginning and end of day and are part of the new zone. As someone
who drops off 2 children at the Yellow Brick at daycare five days a week I will now have to pay for parking twice
a day. I realize that the expansion of the paid zones is a done deal at this point, but I would ask that loading
areas around these facilities be expanded to support local working families.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
Audrey Ellis
4/24/2006
-o.."_H~.____
Page 1 of 1
Helen Klanderud
From: Geraldine [gbwaspen@comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 6:42 PM
To: Helen Klanderud
Subject: Fw: parking changes
----- Original Message -----
From: Geraldine
To:
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 200612:07 PM
Subject: Re: parking changes
Dear Helen, I really don't know if changing the paid parking areas is a good idea or not. Will it affect the "IN
CAR" meters as far as the price of parking?
Will the rate be the same as parking at the current meters?
A far bigger concern is cars or no cars in Aspen. I believe we are fighting a losing battle with trying to keep autos
out of Aspen.
Americans love their cars and we are not going to change that. A far better approach., and one which would
REALLY put Aspen on the map for environmental activism would be to make Bio Fuels available at our local gas
stations. Many new cars are already adapted for Bio Fuel use, and it they are not, adapting your car is very
inexpensive. Dan Richardson should make this his top priority. I'm absolutely sure local residents and tourists
would use Bio Fuel if we could get it at our local gas stations. I have asked a number of local residents if they
would use Bio Fuel if it were available, and they all responded," ABSOLUTELY, when are we getting it?" If the
current gas stations won't do it, lets get one here that will. Brazil uses almost exclusively Bio fuels in their autos
now, if they can do it, we can. Aspen could be an example to all of the US in this. I believe if you accomplished
this, it would be the most remembered part of your legacy as Mayor.
Where will we put all the cars if people are using responsible fuel and feeling OK about driving? We need an
additional, or bigger, municipal parking garage, and we need to make a Major Adjustment to the entrance to
Aspen ( which I believe will happen some time in the future, its just a matter of time) .Face it, people love the
independence of driving their own cars. If we can make them almost totally non poluting, why not do it? This
doesn't exclude public transportation, they could use Bio Fuel also, and people could have the option of using
public transportation if it is convenient ( convenient and environmentally friendly being the key words here ).
Local Hotels are giving fuel vouchers to tourists this Summer, think how proud Aspen could be if we offered
vouchers for Bio Fuel. It would also be a great promotional tool for Aspen tourism.
Geraldine Whitman, Aspen Resident
email: g!:>y.lasDe.n((jJ.comcasJ~ne.t phone # 925-4458
4/24/2006
I ~__M~""_"'_~"_____~~'_
Page 1 of 1
Helen Klanderud
From: RBLEV@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 1:27 PM
To: Helen Klanderud
Subject: Parking etc.
I am a resident of West Bleeker Street and while I am not directly impacted by the proposed expanded paid
parking area I do not think it is a plan that will help the traffic problem. We need more underground parking in
the downtown area. I think you should seriously reconsider the "straight shot". That would solve a lot of the
congestion problem for people entering and leaving town.
Ron Blevins
4/24/2006
Page I of I
Helen Klanderud
From: jereofaspn@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 8:55 AM
To: Helen Klanderud
Subject: Parking
Dear Helen (Madame Mayor):
Years ago I won a Ms. Knockwurst contest, Octoberfest time, with a slogan
"Locals, the backbone of Aspen" ....still think it is true.
Re: Parking...the easier you can make it for locals/workers to park near their jobs,
near downtown, the better...ifthe two hour shuffle is only a block away..greaLdon't
push it three blocks away.
After 33 years ofliving here, I am fairly certain that our town will survive economically,
I would for one like to move ahead to no paid parking...open up the whole town for everyone, first come
first serve. That probably not going to happen, go for the parking garage(s) underground...i. e. Wagner
Park.
Love ya
Jere Rood
4/24/2006
Page I of I
Helen Klanderud
From: michael behrendt [michaelbehrendt@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:55 AM
To: Helen Klanderud
Helen:
No, to extending paid parking.
While we're at it:
Yes, to saving Shadow Mountain.
No, to infill, except for housing.
No, to raising height limits -- they need lowered.
Yes, to light rail, but not on main st; bring it down the midland.
Yes, to the straight shot.
No, to Aspen Club's hotel.
Yes, to bringing lift I further down.
Aren't the next elections going to be fun?
Michael Behrendt
4/24/2006
TIC d.
L!iJ
lVIellll1o:r~d", ......
llleCilYoIluea
CiIY lllDlaey'lllllce
TO:
Mayor and Members of Council
FROM:
John P. Worcester
DATE:
April 24, 2006
RE:
A Proposed Ordinance to amend Municipal Code - City Employees Seeking
Elected Office.
Attached for your consideration and review is a proposed ordinance that, if approved, would
repeal subsection (c) of Section 2.24.070 of the Aspen Municipal Code. Subsection ( c) reads as
follows:
(c) A person employed by the City of Aspen may hold elected public office providing he
takes a leave of absence without pay during the period of campaign and while service,
with the exception that a person employed by the city of Aspen may hold public elected
office in a special district which does not serve the City of Aspen or any portion thereof
without taking a leave of absence during the period of the campaign or while serving.
If approved, the ordinance would amend the Municipal Code by repealing the section that
currently requires City employees to take a leave of absence without pay during the period of the
campaign and the period of time the City employee would serve in the elected position.
Chapter 2.02.100 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Chapter dealing with the Ethical Rules of
Conduct, currently regulates the political activities of City employees and would not be affected
by this proposed ordinance. That section states that a City employee may seek election to
political office, but if elected, the City employee must terminate his or her duties with the City if
such elected office is clearly inconsistent, incompatible, or in conflict with his or her duties as a
City employee.
REQUESTED ACTION: This item has been placed on your Consent calendar for First Reading
of the Ordinance. Approval of the ordinances on the First Reading portion of your agenda will
approve the proposed ordinance on First Reading.
Ja;::=~.~?\co~Camend-citYemp.dOC
ORDINANCE NO. ----lfL
(Series of 2006)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
AMENDING SECTION 2.24.070 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE
DELETION OF SUBSECTION (c) TO PERMIT CITY EMPLOYEES TO CAMPAIGN FOR
ELECTED OFFICE WITHOUT HAVING TO TAKE A LEAVE OF ABSENCE WITHOUT
PAY DURING THE PERIOD OF THE CAMPAIGN FOR SAID OFFICE.
WHEREAS, Subsection (c) of Section 2.24.070 of the Aspen Municipal Code currently
authorizes City employees to hold elected office providing the City employee takes a leave of
absence without pay during the period of the campaign and during the period of service; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.020.100 of the Aspen Municipal Code authorizes City
employees to seek election to political office and to serve in a political office provided such
service is clearly not inconsistent, incompatible, or in conflict with his or her duties as a City
employee; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is not good public policy to
prohibit City employees from seeking elected office unless the employee takes a leave of
absence without pay from his or her City employment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
That Section 2.24.070 of the Aspen Municipal Code which section regulates political
activities of City employees, is hereby amended by repealing sub-section (c) of said section
2.24.070.
Section 2.
This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as
an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of any ordinance
repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under
such prior ordinances.
Section 3.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for
any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 4.
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the _ day of , 2006,
at 5:00 o'clock pm in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, 130 S. Galena St. Prior
to such hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general
circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ANDIOR
POSTED ON FIRST READING ON THE DAY OF , 2006.
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
INTRODUCED and FINALLY ADOPTED AFTER PUBLIC HEARING on the
day of , 2006.
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
JPW - saved: 4/ 19/2006-445-G: \john\word\ords\codeamend-cityempl.doc
2
MEMORANDUM
4..
TO:
Mayor Klanderud and City Council
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director Ch W\
James Lindt, Senior Plannei~l~__
Reconsideration of Ordinance No.2, Series of 2006, 202 North Monarch
Street Subdivision- Continued from April 10th
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
April 24, 2006
BACKGROUND:
City Council approved the subdivision of the property located at 202 N. Monarch Street into
two (2) parcels of land pursuant to Ordinance No.2, Series of 2006 (attached as Exhibit
"A"), on March 13th after several public hearings were held. Included in this approval were
provisions for vehicular access to the two (2) parcels of land that were created as a result of
the subdivision. Vehicular access to Lot 1 of the subdivision was approved by means of
opening and improving the unopened, but platted alleyway from Monarch Street. Vehicular
access to Lot 2 of the subdivision was granted by means of opening and improving the
platted, but unopened alleyway from Mill Street to access the rear of Lot 2.
During the March 27th City Council meeting, Councilman DeVilbiss made a motion to
reconsider Ordinance No.2, Series of 2006, citing that he had misunderstood the motion that
Councilwoman Richards had made earlier in the March 13th meeting (before the ordinance
was adopted) that would have granted access to Lot 1 of the subdivision from Bleeker Street
rather than opening the alley from Monarch Street as was finally approved. City Council
voted by a three to two (3-2) vote to reconsider the ordinance.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff has attached the staff memorandum and findings from the March 13th meeting as
Exhibit "A" and the adopted ordinance as Exhibit "B". If Council would like to change
the amended ordinance to provide access from to Lot 1 of the subdivision from East
Bleeker Street as was shown on the alternative access plan presented at the March 13th
meeting, Council could strike Section 7 in the approved ordinance and replace it with
the following text:
Section 7: Vehicular Access and Allevwav Imorovements
Vehicular access to Lot 1 shall be provided by a new curb cut on East Bleeker
Street meeting the City Engineer's standards. The single curb cut on East
Bleeker Street shall be used to serve all existing and future structures on Lot 1
of the Subdivision. Vehicular access to Lot 2 shall be provided by opening and
improving approximately the easternmost 145 feet of the Block 78 alleyway.
Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on any new development on Lot
1 of the subdivision, the Applicant shall have provided the new curb cut on
East Bleeker Street to provide vehicular access to Lot 1. 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
145-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.
The recommended motion that was made and approved on March 13th is located on the fifth
page of the Staff Memo that is attached as Exhibit "A". City Council should amend the
recommended motion accordingly if Council wants to change the vehicle access points that
were previously adopted in Ordinance No.2, Series of2006.
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -March 13, 2006 Staff Memo
Exhibit B -Ordinance No.2, Series of2006
Exhibit C -Previous Council Meeting Minutes
2
MEMORANDUM
&hl h,'1 1)4 (j
V'\a
TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council
THRU: Cluis Bendon, Community Development Director ~
FROM: Janles Lindt, Senior Planner ~
RE: Second Reading of Ordinance No.2, Series of 2006,202 North Monarch
Street Subdivision - Continued Public Hearing
DATE: March 13,2006
ApPLICANT IOWNER:
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).
Photo Above: Property as seen from
E. Bleeker Street.
Lots N and 0 are zoned Mixed Use (MU).
PROPOSED LAND USE REQUEST:
Subdivision to split the existing parcel into
two parcels ofland.
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.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the attached
ordinance, approvmg the proposed Photo Above: Property as seen from N.
subdivision request witll 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 bas approved tile 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 theeastemmost 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
UNCERT AINTV 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 Council 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 1 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 (0 look into the possibility of establishing transferable development rights (TDR)
to sell off from the property to preserve the existing single-family residence as the only
residence on Lot I of tbe 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. TIle 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 I to maintain the area on the parcel that is not covered by the existing histori(: 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 off 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. TIle 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
,
o
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 alternative access proposal
represented. It also seemed apparent that tlle 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 1 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 RECOMMENDA nON:
The Plarming 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 tltis 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
RECOMMENDEP MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE MAPE 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
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.
Subdivision
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 Conununity Plan. The properties to be subdivided are located close to the core area
of town, which should encourage the residents to use alternative 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 tlle 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 Land for Subdivision
a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land
unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep,
mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural
hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of
the residents in the proposed subdivision.
b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to
create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension
of public facilities and unnecessary public costs.
Staff Finding
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 setforth 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 tllis 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 dcvclopment 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
Tbe 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 tbis 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, tl1e 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 criterion to be met.
F. Growth Management Approval Subdivision approval may only be granted to
applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted
or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470.
Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing
Planned Unit Development (AH-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 grov,1h 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
Ex-iiJ k rf I!jJJI
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: 2737-073-17-005
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 1 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 1 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 lIj; 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 three to two (3-2) vote, approving with conditions,
the 202 N. Monarch Street Subdivision, the opening of the westernmost 90 feet of Block
78 AlJey to access Lot I and opening of the easternmost 145 feet ofthe Block 78 AlJey 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 I:
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 Aereement
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 Relluirements
Development on Lot I of the Subdivision shalJ conform to the dimensional requirements
of the R-6 (Medium Density Residential) Zone District. Development on Lot 2 of the
Subdivision shalJ conform to the dimensional requirements of the Mixed Use (MU) Zone
District.
Section 4: Growth Manaeement 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 alJocations prior to submitting for a building permit.
Section 5: Historic Preservation Review on Both Lots
Any development on either Lot 1 or Lot 2 of the subdivision shall be subject to review
and approval pursuant to Chapter 26.415, Development Involving the Aspen 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 ImDrovements
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 easternmost 145 feet of the Block
78 alleyway. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on any new development on
Lot 1 of the subdivision, the Applicant shall have opened lInd improved with gravel 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 145-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 detennine 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 pennit 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 pennit submission as set forth in Land Use Code Section
26.630.030, School Lands Dedication: Dedication Schedule.
Section 9: Park Development Impact Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee, the Applicant
shall pay a park development impact fee at the time of building pennit issuance for any
construction within the subdivision that adds new residentiaVlodge bedrooms and/or
commerciaVoffice square footage. The City Zoning Officer shall calculate the amount
due using the fee schedule in effect at the time of building pennit submission as set forth
in Land Use Code Section 26.610.030, Park Devetopme7l/ 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 pennit submittal on Lot 2.
Section 11: Fire Sprinklers
Development on Lot 2 shall contain fire sprinklers and a fire alann system meeting the
requirements of the Fire Marshall.
Section 12: Landscapine
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 pennit application for new
development in the subdivision.
Section 13: Lot 2 Deed Restriction Aeainst Future Lot Split
The Applicant offered to deed restrict Lot 2 of the Subdivision against further subdivision
(except for condominiumization) 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 Riehts
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 I and
2, of the 202 N. Monarch Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, by Ordinance
No.2, Series of 2006, 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 9th day of January, 2006.
Attest:
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 13th day of March, 2
Attest:
Approved as to form:
~//i:>.b..
. ore ter, City Attorney
Rel!:ular Meetinl!:
Asoen City Council
E;;:h hh\f- ~
March 13. 2006
,
this site. Councilman Johnson said his concems were directed at architectural
representations in the plan.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #2. SERIES OF 2006 - 202 N. Monarch, Blue Vie Subdivision
James Lindt, community development department, reminded Council this is a subdivision
request on property with two different zone categories. At the last public hearing,
Council requested the applicant study the possibility ofTDRs for lot 1 and approaching
the neighbors to buy down the excess development rights on lot I.
Stan Clauson, representing the applicant, told Council the applicants explored TDRs as
well as an open space purchase involving the neighbors. The results are summarized in a
letter to Council dated March 3. Clauson said nothing works from a financial feasibility
standpoint to either acknowledge the value of the property or to cover the cost of
rehabilitating the existing house. Clauson said Council requested the alley and
driveway locations be staked. The edge of the alley was staked, both at 16' and 20'. 20'
is the width of the right-of-way. The concept is to open the alley from Monarch to where
the slope falls away and have it be 16' wide. The proposed driveway off Bleeker street
was also staked. The existing curb cut would be closed and a new 12' curb cut would be
installed at the east end of lot I on to Bleeker street. Clauson noted having the curb cut
on Bleeker moved to the west is at a flatter spot.
Clauson reminded Council the original application requested an alley off Monarch be
opened to provide access to lots I and 2 and the curb cut on Bleeker would be closed and
a sidewalk installed. After P&Z mc<etings, the applicants developed a split access
between residential and mixed use. The residential access would be off Monarch and the
mixed-use access would be off Mill street. The applicants met with HPC in a work
session, which supported that concept. Clauson noted the applicants presented another
plan with no access off Monarch and a paved access to the residential off Bleeker street
and the mixed-use access from Mill street. The existing house would have to be moved
forward to accommodate a driveway off Bleeker street. Clauson said opening the alley
off Monarch street would allow for access to neighboring parcels without having a curb
cut for a driveway. Clauson said any of the access alternatives is acceptable to the
applicant.
Clauson said this subdivision application meets the appropriateness of subdivision
regarding the review standards. Clauson said the review standards are direct and
straightforward and state the proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen
Area Community Plan. This subdivision does not contravene that plan. The proposed
subdivision will be consistent with the existing land uses. The subdivision proposed a
mixed-use lot adjacent to existing mixed uses and a residential lot adjacent to residential
uses. The plan is consistent with the character of existing land uses. Clauson said
regarding future development of surrounding areas, there is no adverse affect; there is
nothing that will prohibit additional residential development or rehabilitation of
5
Rel!:ular Meetinl!:
Asoen City Council
March 13, 2006
~
residential properties; nothing that will prevent rehabilitation of adjacent mixed-use
properties. The proposed subdivision is in compliance with all applicable provisions of
the subdivision title of the code.
Tim Semrau, applicant, stated regarding using TDRs, there have been no TDRs sold in
the city. There are some under contract and the current value is about $75,OOO/TDR.
There is a possibility of 7 TDRs on this property. Semrau said all neighbors except
Hodgson declined to participant in purchasing this to preserve it as open space. Semrau
noted there are 4 access points to the property, upper and lower alleys, Monarch and
Bleeker. Semrau said the Mill street alley is the best option to serve the commercial
property and has many benefits. This access would open up the circulation for the KSNO
building and puts cars underground, out of sight. This will lead to one alley in the future.
Semrau agreed the Monarch street is a wonderful corridor. The Bleeker access
diminishes the historic asset, with which HPC agreed, and it makes on site parking a little
more difficult but it is an acceptable altemative. Semrau said if Council decides to close
the Monarch alley, he would like some assurances made that it will remain closed.
David Eisenstein, representing Tim Semrau, noted any encroachments or agreements
with the neighbor to the north should be cleared up. Eisenstein said Tom Smith stated the
subdivision should be denied because architectural drawings have not been submitted.
Eisenstein stated there is no requirement for plans to be submitted for subdivision
approval. Staff certified this application complete. Eisenstein said Council made no
decision about the access or whether to close Monarch alley. Eisenstein reiterated this is
property with split zoning, which zoning is adopted after site planning. This property has
been zoned the way it is for some time and it is appropriate that part of it should be used
as mixed use and part of it for residential. To north and west are residential uses and to
the south and east are commercial uses. A mixed-use designation is a buffer between
residential and commercial and a transition to the historic structures.
Councilwoman Richards asked the maximum height in the mixed-use zone. Lindt said it
is 32'. Councilwoman Richards asked the rear setback. Lindt said it is 5' .
Councilwoman Richards pointed out there will be a building to the east of the historic
building within 5' of the property line that is 32' high. This will change the perception of
the historic building from Monarch. Semrau noted HPC has review over the mixed-use
building and a building cannot be 5' away and 32' by right; it is up to HPC.
Councilwoman Richards agreed with Tom Smith about presentation of new materials at
the beginning ofthe second public hearing. The materials were not available for the
public to review and analyzc.
Councilman Johnson asked if the alley on the west side of Monarch is paved. Staff said it
is dirt. Councilman Johnson asked the city's policy for paving alleys in the west end.
Amy Guthrie, community development department, said the preference is to leave alleys
unpaved unless the neighbors get together and request this. Councilman Torre asked if
access off Bleeker could work for both parcels. Semrau said it would take two curb cuts,
one lower for the mixed-use building and a driveway curb cut for the residential.
6
Rel!:ular Meetinl!:
Aspen City Council
March 13. 2006
Mayor Klanderud said she would like to have a public hearing limited to the new
information presented at the last meeting. Mayor Klanderud said Council had consensus
on the Monarch alley at the first meeting but did not take formal action. Councilwoman
Richards noted her motion at the first meeting that the Monarch street access was no
longer part of the discussion and the applicants were to bring back opening up a Mill
street access. Councilwoman Richards said she feels this public hearing should be open
to all discussion. Council agreed this should be a complete public hearing.
Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing.
Ruth Harrison said opening up Monarch and making it a driveway makes no sense. The
access should be through places that are more commercial. Ms. Harrison said it is
premature to judge an alley opening with new owners of the Hodgson house as they will
probably own it for years and years. Ms. Harrison said it does not make sense to open an
alley for the good of one or two people when hundreds of people walk by and appreciate
the beauty of the open space.
Tom Smith, representing the Hodgsons, said he submitted a letter dated March 3. Smith
reiterated this alley is not like most alleys because the alley runs perpendicular to the
street and the alley is a dead end and will not serve a public purpose. This would be a
driveway, not an alley. Smith noted the parking pad will be removed; the Hodgsons are
not asserting any permanent rights. Smith said statements have been made that alleys are
a requirement and his letter refutes that stating alleys are not required if there are other
provision for access. Council has the discretion to decide among the options for the
access. Smith noted the grade is non-existent in the area in which the curb cut is
proposed on Bleeker street. Smith agreed the subdivision regulations do not require a
detailed plan; however, there are circumstance in which these plans are not critical for
Council's decision. Smith stated it is their position that a mixed use commercial building
and with a potential for a further subdivision oflot I, Council does not have enough
information to determine whether the alley should be open or whether the subdivision
application is appropriate because one cannot tell the ultimate use of the property. Smith
said it is common in development applications for access to be undetermined until there
is an approval.
Phil Hodgson said he submitted a letter to Council. He also submitted a bird's eye view
map showing the Blue Vie and the alley running all the way down and stopping at
Monarch street where it is closed now. Hodgson said there was an 1890 photo, and 1892,
a deed about the alley. Hodgson said the alley should remain closed as it would be open
space and breaking up the mass of construction. There is an HPC guidelines, revisions or
additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the site, which
is it should stay the same. Hodgson told Council he went through the 9 examples of
alleys brought up at an earlier meeting and submitted pictures in the packet. Hodgson
said he and his family intend on staying in this property; this is a home. Hodgson
reiterated he will remove the parking pad off Monarch. Hodgson noted moving a historic
house is discouraged unless it is the only viable option. The only viable option for
moving 202 North Monarch would be to accommodate the driveway off Bleeker street.
7
Re!!:ular Meetin!!:
ASDen City Council
March 13. 2006
Hodgson said he sent pictures of the tree, which protrudes 5' into the alley. The Hodgson
house is II' feet from the alley. Hodgson told Council he did make a cash offer to
Semrau for the open space.
Bob Limacher said if the city uses this alley as a driveway to this property, the applicant
will drive in and make a right turn and park. Limacher asked ifthere is a buildable
parcel. Semrau said there is. Limacher said the guidelines state the goal is to have the
parking behind the structures but another primary concerns is where it states "to
minimize the impacts of that parking". Limacher said he cannot see how that plan would
minimize the parking. It would minimize the parking to use Bleeker and pull in behind
the houses.
Joe Krabacher, Jerome Professional Building east of the new lot, said his preference
would be not to develop the mixed-use lot; however, it is zoned mixed use and is
developable. Krabacher said the issue is whether to approve subdivision of this lot; some
of the comments pertain to HPC on the residential lots. Krabacher said from personal
observation is that Bleeker does not get much sun; it is a slick street; traffic backs up
trying to get onto Mill street. Krabacher said trucks have run into and hit the Jerome
Professional Building. Krabacher said his concem is putting too much access off
Bleeker. Residential access may be acceptable with one access point.
Sara Kuhn told Council she attended school at the Red and Yellow Brick schools and has
worked at ACES. Ms. Kuhn said this is a beautiful area and she would not like to see an
alley there. Ms. Kuhn said she hopes Council chooses not to open it up. Junee Kirk said
Council needs to look at preserving this area of the west end which serves as a gateway to
the Victorians and is one of the most beautiful areas of the west end. It would ruin the
integrity of the west end by developing this lot. It there is a development allowed, it
should be small Victorians to fit in with the size and scale of the west end. Ms. Kirk said
this is the last place that can be considering as saving the town.
David Hyman said most compelling issue is that both interested parties prefer not to open
the alley. Hyman noted there are various alternatives for access and both neighbors
would prefer not to open the alley. Helen Palmer said she has not found on any historic
maps or photographs of Aspen that show this alley has eVer been open. Ms. Palmer said
the platted end of the alley has never been used as an alley and there is no need to open it
now because there are alternatives. Hayley Pace said she is concerned about safety of
children using this area and Monarch street. Children going from the Red and Yellow
brick buildings to ACES and to the library use this street. Opening the alley will
introduce more traffic onto Monarch street and will compromise safety of pedestrians and
bicyclists.
Dennis Cyrus, caretaker of house on northwest corner of Bleeker and Monarch, said if the
access is behind the house off Bleeker, it could be used to access the lots to the north
without interrupting the historic aspects of Monarch street. It makes more sense to have
the alley between the residential and commercial lots. Walt Madden said if the alley is
opened, it becomes the responsibility of the taxpayers' to maintain for a private driveway.
8
Re2:ular Meetin2:
ASDen City Council
March 13. 2006
Madden said it makes more sense that the driveway come off Bleeker and that is be the
responsibility of the property owner. Bert Myrin said there were discussions over the last
two weeks that the alley owned by the city be turned into a public park, a 20' wide
pocket park not using any of the private property. Myrin said the community can
continue to pursue TDRs or raising money to see if more can be preserved as green
space. Myrin said there are a lot of development rights for the mixed-use parcel. If the
land is subdivided it can no longer be used as a tool to preserve the house and the open
space. M yrin requested Council not foreclose the possibility of making this a pocket
park.
Matt Pace said it would be great to leave the alley green. The city could purchase a
portion of the property and leave this area open. The city prides itself on leaving the
environment open and green and this should be left green not asphalt. Lisa Markalunas
said the access off Bleeker street is far superior to the rear of the historic buildings. It is
less impacting and gives more of an alley access. Toni Kronberg said the subdivision
being requested involves a historic landmark. Ms. Kronberg said there is contradiction in
the zoning, the Aspen Area Community Plan and HPC. Council has looked at an
ordinance regarding which set of rules a developer follows; subdivision, HPC, design
review standards. Ms. Kronberg said subdivision approval is premature when Council is
looking at access and the driveway and creating a development right. Ms. Kronberg said
the historical significance of this property has to be reviewed by HPC before subdivision.
Ms. Kronberg said streetscapes, landscapes and community character should be
addressed. Ms. Kronberg submitted a Sanbom map and read from the HPC guidelines
about moving historic structures.
Wyley Hodgson told Council before Nick Adeh left the city, he stated his concerns about
the driveway off Bleeker were its location, not the proposed location to the west.
Hodgson noted the Sandborn map submitted at the last meeting was a 1904 map and he
submitted a Sandborn map of a different year. Hodgson presented photographs of
pictures taken in the west end of unopened alleys, which are shown as open on the
Sanbom map. These photos also show the value of this land as open space. Hodgson
said this alley has value for turning this area into a park. Hodgson said he has concerns
about the tree, which has a large root system, and if the alley is opened it may kill the
tree. The tree has been in this location since the tum of the century.
Lindt entered letters from Bill Stirling, James and Hensely Peterson, John Markalunas
and Julie and Marshall Hall for the record.
Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing.
Semrau read from the AACP, item 5 in the action plan, allow easier subdivision of
properties in the historic townsite and allow for infill development. Clauson reiterated
the applicant is happy to use the altemate access off Bleeker street. The staking on site
shows that access to be possible. Clauson said any movement of the historic house would
be subject to HPC review; any lot split would be subject to HPC and Council review.
The development of the mixed-use site would require a growth management approval,
9
r.
Relwlar Meetinl!
ASDen City Council
March 13. 2006
subject to P&Z and Council review. Clauson stated for the subdivision, the requirements
of the code have been met. Eisenstein stated this application is for a subdivision to
subdivide the 5 lots into two lots, lot] with 3 lots zoned residential and lot 2 with 2 lots
-that is zoned mixed use. Council has to make a decision on where they think the access
for this subdivision is appropriate. Eisenstein said there has been no evidence presented
to Council showing that the subdivision should not be approved. Staff as well as P&Z
have indicated the subdivision meets all the criteria.
Mayor K1anderud asked ifthe city attomey agreed the subdivision could be approved
without a decision on the access. John Worcester, city attorney, told Council the alleys
are intertwined with the subdivision regulations. One cannot subdivide property and
create new lots if there is no access to the lots. The applicant is requesting subdivision of
land into 2 lots. The city's regulations require before the property is subdivided, the
remaining parcels have access. If Council subdivides the properties, the applicant is
entitled to legal access to the properties.
Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #2, Series of 2006, on second
reading changing Section 7 to eliminate the sentence regarding the Monarch street access
inserting a sentence stating "vehicular access to lot I shall be provided by a new
driveway off of Bleeker street as submitted by Stan Clauson and associates"; seconded by
Councilman DeVilbiss.
Councilman Torre said he prefers a shared access for both lots offB]eeker. Councilman
Torre said a hardship for access does not seem justification to open an alley that is not
currently in use. Councilman Torre stated he would not support vacation ofthe Monarch
alley. Councilman Torre stated he supports maintaining that alley as green space.
Councilman Torre said opening this alley is a long length for the city to provide a more
desirable access when sufficient access can come offB]eeker. Councilwoman Richards
said her support of the Mill street access for the mixed use is because of the level of
activity. Councilwoman Richards said she is familiar with Bleeker street and she would
support residential access off Mill street because of the proximity to all locations in town.
Councilman DeVilbiss said if Council does not approve access off Monarch, the
applicant has requested some guarantee that the alley will remain closed. Councilman
DeVilbiss said he does not think Council can make that guarantee. Councilman
DeVilbiss stated the alley has been used by the Hodgson with a parking pad. The sign on
Monarch says "no parking in driveway" and that is not a driveway. Councilman
DeVilbiss said both the alley off Monarch and the alley off Mill street are being used by
adjacent property owners and these are city property. Councilman DeVilbiss stated the
city should reclaim public property.
Mayor K1anderud agreed those are public property and any existing encroachments on
either of these alleys should be removed. Mayor Klanderud said a 20' green space does
not make a pocket park and does enhance the neighborhood for residents. Mayor
Klanderud said she does not support using city open space money for this green space.
10
Re!!ular Meetin!!
Aspen City Council
March 13. 2006
Mayor Klanderud pointed out there are garages, curved parking areas and curb cuts
across the street for these properties so it is not completely pedestrian friendly.
Councilwoman Richards said she would support the city retaining the alley easement and
not opening the alley. In the future both parties may agree they want the alley opened for
access to each property. Councilwoman Richards agreed the parking pad should be
removed; however, that is not a determination for the best access. Councilwoman
Richards said she does not see the alley opened as a public benefit. Opening up this alley
will make a funny view plane from the east. Leaving it closed makes it a green buffer.
Councilwoman Richards stated this discussion shows how important small places are to
residents. Mill street is a mixed-use corridor and access off there for the commercial
building is reasonable. Councilwoman Richards said without more information, she
cannot tell whether this is in keeping with the residential character or not.
Mayor Klanderud asked if the house is moved to accommodate the access from Bleeker,
will there be a problem with the setback requirements. Clauson said there will not be.
Lindt told Council on a corner lot, one has a front yard setback and the applicant gets to
choose which side is the front yard setback of 10' and an alternative front yard setback
which is 2/3 of the required front yard setback. Clauson noted the renderings show the
blue Victorian moved to the west to line up with the house to the north. Clauson said it is
possible not to move the house as far to the west. None of this would happen without
HPC approval.
Mayor Klanderud asked about the condition in Section I3 and deed restriction against
further subdivision. Mayor Klanderud said she would prefer not to have the lot be less
than 6,000 square feet because someone may argue in the future that the lot can still be
subdivided. Clauson said the applicants are amenable to a deed restriction against further
subdivision with the addition of "except for condominiumization", which is a subdivision
process. Mayor Klanderud noted the entire parcel could have been condominiwnzed
without this process. Lindt said condominiumization would not have allowed
development of parcel 2. Mayor Klanderud said she would have liked the applicant to
come forward with the entire development outlined, showing what ultimately could have
occurred. Mayor Klanderud said she is a proponent of keeping the historic building
where it is located.
Councilman Johnson asked if there is a minimwn width for an access. Lindt said the fire
marshal has concems about a minimwn width for access to the rear of lot 2. The fire
marshal said he feels he cannot serve a larger mixed-use building from the Mill Street
alley because of the grade change. The minimwn width is 12'. The preference of the fire
marshal would have been access to both parcels from North Monarch.
Councilman Johnson said his preference is to preserve as much as possible what exists on
the site right now, including the alley remain closed and the open space remain
undeveloped and that the house not be moved. Councilman Johnson said purchasing
portions of this property would be the most expensive open space in the city.
Councilman Johnson said he would work with the neighbors and the city if there were to
II
II
Re2ular Meetin2
Aspen City Council
March 13. 2006
.,
be an effort to purchase the property. Councilman Johnson said Council has to follow the
land use code. Councilman Johnson said through letters and public testimony, Council is
being asked to preserve the prerogatives of one landowner by denying the prerogatives
and rights of another landowner. Councilman Johnson stated the issue is noi whether the
alley has ever been opened but whether it should be. Councilman Johnson said he has
looked at 3 pieces of evidence, one of which is the 1890 to 1904 Sandborne maps which
may not show an opened alley but do show a pattern of development on the Elder
property which indicates the expectation an alley would be opened. Another is the letters
from Smith and Hodgson stating in the 1990' s there was a request for parking on the
Hodgson property and the city giving approval of parking on that alley, which seems to
be recognition if there is to be a curb cut it should happen on the alley. Councilman
Johnson said this seems to be a recognition the alley could be open. The photo of a sign
"Do Not Park in Driveway" seems to acknowledge the parking pad is a driveway and the
alley is in some use.
I
Councilman Johnson said the purpose of alleys is to decrease the number of curb cuts,
which is a public benefit. Councilman Johnson stated alleys provide access, not open
space, which is why alleys were platted. Councilman Johnson said not opening the alley
may have been a result of the economic devastation of the failure of silver. Councilman
Johnson said if Council approves opening this alley, it should remain dirt or not paved,
which may eliminate the tree issue as the surface will be pervious to water.
Councilwoman Richards noted no one has spoken in favor of opening the alley; the
applicant stated they would be satisfied with the Bleeker street access. Councilwoman
Richards said she would not want to vote for a situation that created conflict in the
neighborhood. Councilwoman Richards said the best way to preserve the open space is
to leave the alley undeveloped and leave the neighborhood time to work on a solution.
Councilwoman Richards said this is a significant piece of property with moving pieces,
historic structures, possible lot split, that Council should see the entire plan to determine
whether the access decision would negatively impact future development potential and
negatively affect the character of the neighborhood.
Councilman DeVilbiss stated he supports Councilman Johnson's logic as well thought
out and well stated. Mayor Klanderud agreed Council does not know if this is consistent
with the neighborhood because they do not know the entire development. Mayor
Klanderud stated she supports access for the mixed-use parcel from Mill street. Mayor
Klanderud said keeping the Monarch street a public alley protects property on both sides
because of the setbacks to either side. Mayor Klanderud said she does not feel this
property would be used by the public as a park. It does not make sense for the city to
purchase TORs and bold them for the benefit of private property owners.
Councilwoman Richards said she does not support the ordinance as written because she
does not support the Monarch street access. Councilwoman Richards said the
subdivision will be approved or not based on the motion on the floor.
12
Rel!:ular Meetinl!:
Aspen City Council
March 13, 2006
Councilwoman Richards withdrew her motion and moved to amend the ordinance to have
a Monarch street access to the residential lots if they go forward.
Roll call vote; Councilmembers Torre, no; Richards, no; Johnson, no; DeVilbiss, no;
Mayor Klanderud, no. Motion NOT carried.
Mayor Klanderud asked if the applicant is willing to come back with a more
comprehensive application. Semrau said he would like Council to be specific because
everything has to go through several layers of review. Semrau said he has done
everything required by the code. Mayor Klanderud asked if the applicant were willing to
deed restrict lot I to further lot split. Semrau said there is 4,080 FAR allowed on the
residential lot and one can expand the historic house or make two houses. Semrau said
one large house would diminish the historic resource and two houses of 2,040 square feet
would be preferable. Semrau outlined on the rendering where access, driveway, garage
and houses could be located using the Monarch access or the Bleeker access.
Councilwoman Richards said she is concemed about granting the subdivision without a
master plan for the site and without moving the historic house, the open space aspect
from the back will be gone because it will have a mixed use building on it.
Councilwoman Richards said she would like to see how far to the west the historic house
would move to retain the open space. The garages could block some of the negative
aspect of the mixed-use building. Councilwoman Richards stated she supports the
Bleeker street access and the applicants have stated they would be comfortable with that
access. Councilwoman Richards said she does not want to see the historic building
pushed back on the site. Looking at all the pieces on a complex parcel makes sense not
to foreclose better planning.
Councilman DeVilbiss said he does not feel there is a fair basis to deny a subdivision
application. Councilwoman Richards said criteria numbers 2 and 3, the proposed
subdivision shall be consistent with existing land uses in the area, Council does not know
this will be consistent with the historic west end neighborhood. #3 states the proposed
subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding area and
Council does not know that. Councilman Johnson said he is willing to look at changing
the subdivision code in thc future.
Councilman Johnson moved to adopt Ordinance #2, Series of 2006, amended to delete
the paving aspect in Section 7 of the alley portion from Monarch so that it is pervious and
access to lot 2 off Mill street should be paved; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss.
Mayor Klanderud asked if this requires a sidewalk on Monarch. Lindt said the ordinance
requires the applicant to sign a curb and gutter agreement to put a sidewalk in the future.
Councilwoman Richards amended the motion to eliminate the access on Monarch street
alley and have the curb cut on Bleeker street only for the residential units; seconded by
Councilman Torre. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Johnson, no; Torre, yes; Richards,
yes; DeVilbiss, no; Mayor Klanderud, no. Motion NOT carried.
13
II
Re2:ular Meetin2:
Aspen City Council
March 13. 2006
Councilwoman Richards said this motion would open an alley, eliminate green space and
gardens. The applicant has not asked for this and the public does not support it.
Councilwoman Richards said this is going forward with an incremental subdivision and
determining accesses that will make the automobile access cover Y, the site rather than
less than v.. This will determine where future historic lot split will end up and the
movement of the historic house. Councilman Johnson reiterated he would prefer nothing
happen on this site but if something is to happen, it should follow the way the town was
developed, for access to come off alleys, not increasing curb cuts. Councilman Torre
brought up alleys not being on the side of historic properties and this block does not run
according to the traditional development pattem; the houses are west facing, which
makes the alley different. Councilman Torre said this may be an opportunity to make
better decisions than the code outlines, then change the code rather than adopting them
backwards. Councilman Torre said it is Council's charge to make a better decision.
Mayor Klanderud stated an applicant has the right to rely on the code and not have the
rules changed in the process. Councilman Torre stated Council c!lll exercise the option
they see fit.
Councilwoman Richards said this alley runs to the side of the houses, not behind them,
which is different. The access off Bleeker street behind all the houses would fit the
pattern. Councilwoman Richards said she would grant a driveway access off Bleeker
street for the residential units. Councilwoman Richards said opening the alley would
require city plowing to the end of a bluff. This would be following a set paUem that is
not appropriate for today. Councilman DeVilbiss said the motion on the floor follows
the law.
Mayor Klanderud said this has been a difficult process and the real issue is bigger than
the alley, which is a preference to do nothing on this property. A property owner does
have certain property rights. Mayor Klanderud agreed there are unknowns about the
future development. Mayor Klanderud said at the first hearing it was stated that any
future development will have to go through HPC and Council. Councilwoman Richards
said this is a mistake; no one in the room has argued for opening the alley. Councilman
Torre agreed this is a bad decision from all sides. Councilwoman Richards stated she is
not interested in denying this applicant the right to proceed. Councilwoman Richards
said she has reservations about not seeing the entire plan but would approve
the applicant not using the Monarch street access. Councilwoman Richards urged
Council to vote against this motion and to keep Monarch street alley green with trees and
not to have an access for V, of the property for automobiles.
Roll call vote; Councilmembers Torre, no; Johnson, yes; Richards, no; DeVilbiss, yes;
Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried.
Councilman Torre moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to II p.m.;
seconded by Councihnan DeVilbiss. All in favor, motion carried.
14
Ret!ular Meetioe
Aspen City Council
February 27.2006
Gram Slayton, director Wheeler Opera House, said lbis formalizes Council's direction
from lbe January 24 work session for lbe formal marketing plan, lbe physical
improvements and the co-promotion arrangements. The finances have not changed since
January.
Mayor K1anderud opened lbe public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor
Klanderud closed lbe public hearing.
Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #8, Series of 2006, on second
reading; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. Roll call vote; Counciimembers Johnson,
yes; Richards, yes; Torre, yes; DeVilbiss, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #2. SERIES OF 2006 - Blue Vie, 202 North Monarch Subdivision
J ames Lindt, community development department, reminded Council this was continued
from the last meeting. The property is to the north oflbe Hotel Jerome and contains two
different zone districts. The 9,000 square feet to the west is zoned R-6 and the 6,000
square feet to the east is zoned MU (mixed use). The applicant is requesting a
subdivision to split off the eastern portion of the parcel.
Lindt said access to the parcel was the main issue at lbe last meeting. The applicants
originally proposed to open the alley from Monarch street to aceess both parcels, which
COIUleil did not favor. The applicants offered an alternative of opening lbe alley off Mill
street to access lot 2 and to have a curb cut off east Bleeker street to access lbe residence
on lot I. Lindt stated staff continues to recommend access off Monarch street as the best
access.
Amy Guthrie, historic preservation officer, gave Council a photograph from 1890
showing a pathway where this proposed alley is. Ms. Guthrie also presented a 1904
Sanborn map, which is documentation of exact conditions in town for fire insurance
purposes. Ms. Guthrie noted on the Sanbome map this property with outbuildings that
are oriented against the alley suggesting alley use. Ms. Guthrie said at the last meeting, it
was brought up that this lot was unusual because the house is oriented towards the side
street and it would be awkward to have an alley. Ms. Guthrie pointed out at least 8 other
lots where houses face the side street. Ms. Guthrie said the property to the north, 2] 2 N.
Monarch, has head in parking and does not have a garage. HPC would prefer if there
were a garage in the future that access be offan alley. It would be difficult for 2]2 N.
Monarch to have a garage without an alley. Ms. Guthrie noted the city cannot deny
someone to have some access to his or her property.
Chris Bendon, commWIity development department, said if Council decide they do not
want to open this alley, they may find there is no public purpose for the alley and will get
a request to vacate that alley. This alley land would go to property owners on each side
of the vacated alley. Bendon noted one of the purposes of alleys is that they break up
mass on blocks and the development on North Monarch could be 20 feet closer together
by virtue of moving the property line. Bendon reiterated the city code allows one access
4
Ret!:ular Meetinl!
AsDen City Council
February 27. 2006
per residence in residential areas and there could be an access permit off North Monarch
for this structure.
Ed Sadler, assistant city manager, reminded Council they adopted a sidewalk plan, which
indicated a sidewalk along North Monarch to the Red Brick was appropriate. Sadler
noted Bleeker street has a fairly steep slope and is shaded by the Hotel Jerome. The
proposed access is right on that slope,
Lindt said CoUncil had asked iflot I could be further subdivided; it could through a
historic lot split. Lindt gave Council letters from Tom Smith indicating disagreemenl
with that. Councilwoman Richards asked if this would allow reconfiguration of the lots.
Lindt said it depends on whether and to where the historic house would be moved.
Councilman Torre asked if this is one or two development rights. Lindt said it would
only allow one single-family house. A regular lot split would not be possible because
there is a review standard in the regular lot splits stating one cannot further split a lot and
this would be a historic lot split. That is not being proposed in this application.
Lindt said another issue was whether the development rights for the Jerome Professional
building would be affected by opening the Mill street alley. Lindt told Council the
Jerome Professional building would receive no additional FAR; however, they may be
able to use more of their site but it would not change the dimensional requirements.
Lindt stated this application meets the review standards for subdivision. Staff prefers the
Monarch street access. The alternative of opening the Mill street alley and using Bleeker
street for the residential lot is acceptable.
Stan Clauson, representing the applicant, said there is agreement that splitting off the
mixed-use parcel from the residential makes sense. The applicants have proposed several
accesses. The first was opening up the alley off North Monarch and using it for both
parcels. There was opposition about increased traffic in the neighborhood. The
applicants proposed a split access with alley off North Monarch, which would serve only
the residential property, and an alley off North Mill, which would serve the commercial
property. The neighborhood still opposed that plan. The 3'd alternative was to have the
commercial traffic access off North Mill and the residential access from a curb cut on
east Bleeker.
Clauson noted there has been beneficial use of the alley off North Mill without any
official approvals from the city. Clauson said the windows of the Moss building look out
on to the alley and there is a patio in the alley. Clauson told Council there is 20 feet from
building to building and the fire department will support a 16.foot wide access. This
wOuld allow 4' on Ihe Moss building side, which will accommodate Ihe existing air
conditioners and the foundation and will provide some landscaping to soften the alley.
Rather Ihan concrete, the plan is to use interlocking pavers. This will result in two access
points 20' apart on Mill street. Clauson said if the access for the residential lots is
approved on Bleeker, the applicants would request vacation of Ihe alley off North
Monarch. Clauson noted vacation of alleys does not lead to increased floor areas.
5
Ret!nlar Meetinl!
ASDen City Council
February 27. 2006
Clauson told Council the 9,000 square foot parcel with the historic house on it could be
the subject of a historic lot split, which would have to be reviewed by HPC and Council.
Because of the size of the 101, it could have a duplex on it and it would not need to be
attached. A conventional lot split would not be allowed. The maximum development
that would be allowed is two residences on the 9,000 square foot parcel. Ms. Guthrie told
Council the commercial lot could be split under the historic lot split; however, one lot
would have to contain a residence. The historic lot split does not create more square
footage, it allows different ownership. Clauson noted the rendering shows the existing
house moved forward on the property; however. nothing has been approved.
Tim Semrau, applicant, told Council he contacted a representative of the Jerome
Professional building and told him support of opening this alley meant the Jerome
Professional building would have to use Ihis alley if they were to redevelop.
Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing.
Tom Smith, representing the Phillip Hodgson, said it seemed like at the last meeting,
Council gave direction not to open the North Monarch alley. Staff is arguing Council
should reconsider that. Smith noted 6 P&Z members thought it was a bad idea 10 open
the Monarch alley. Smith stated that is an alley in name only and does not go through to
Mill street. This would be a dead end alley and it would be nothing more than a
driveway. The Bleeker street alley has been moved to the wesl and improves the
situation. Smith told Council P&Z recommended against opening the Monarch alley
because they do not know what is going 10 be developed on this property. Smith told
Council this applicant is trying to accomplish something they cannot do directly under
the Municipal Code. Smith said if this were reviewed as a subdivision, they applicant
could not come back and apply for a lot split. Smith stated the applicant knows how
many lots they plan. Smith said lhis applicant has not shown consistency with the
comprehensive plan or the surrounding uses to gain subdivision approval.
Smith stated the purpose of the historic lot split is to take a single historic lot, allow it to
be split once for. an additional single-family house. Smith said these lots are merged into
one ownership and this parcel is what is subject 10 the historic landmark lot split, not a
further subdivided piece.
Chris Faison said he uses the west end pedestrian way and this section is a passageway to
the west end and sets the tone for the walk. Council should be careful to keep this a
residential area Phil Hodgson said he thought the decision about access was made althe
last meeting. Hodgson said important VictOrian houses had a lot of land surrOunding
them, Hodgson said these large houses and their yards should be preserved.
Perry Michaels, representing the KNSO building, said when this building was built in
1978, it was allowed to be buill with no setbacks. It is not a secret that this building
encroaches on city property. Ms. Michaels stated she is opposed to having the city
contribute fmancially to a private development. This seems to be a driveway, not an
6
Rel!ular Meetlnl!
ASDen City Council
February 27. 2006
alley. Ms. Michaels asked who will pay the landscaping, maintenance and snow
removal. There will be relocation costs of electric transformers and landscaping. Ms.
Michaels asked if this city will have money in escrow to make sure these improvements
are complete.
Bert Myrin, 218 North Monarch. said he supports the access off Monarch, that alley
spaces break up massing between buildings. Myrin said he is not supportive of the notion
of vacating the alley because of more massing. Myrin said TORs might be used to
preserve the large lot Lisa Markalunas noted there has been not HPC approval of this
proj ect but an informal work session about what might happen on the propeny. Ms.
Markalunas said Aspen is losing settings for the historic buildings. Walt Madden,
Monarch street, said Council does not know what will happen to this property after the
subdivision approval. There are no limitations to what the businesses on the commercial
lot may be.
Lindt entered into the record letters from Perry Michaels and Bill Parsyback.
Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing.
Councilman Torre asked about the existing patking pad. Lindt said the patking pad for
212 North Monarch is in the alley and staff could find no city license to allow that
parking pad. Councilman Torre asked about possible vacation of the alley off North
Monarch. Lindt answered Council is not required to vacate that alley; however, the main
reasons for alleys is for access and for service. If the alley is not opened, staff suggests it
be vacated.
Councilwoman Richards asked about the allowable size for the commercial building.
Clauson said the allowable FAR is .75: I and it could go to 1:1 with special review. The
building could be 4500 square feet or 6,000 square feet with special review.
Councilwoman Richards asked if there will be affordable housing requirements for the
mixed-use building. Clauson said the mixed-use proposal would have to go through
growth management. which process looks at affordable housing mitigation.
Councilwoman Richards asked the maximum number of employees generated by a 6,000
square foot mixed use building. Lindt said the maximum would be 13 employees.
Councilwoman Richards said years ago. Council determined adjacent lots in same
ownership should be merged into a single lot John Worcester, city attorney, said if
these lots were held in common ownership by 1977, they are automatically merged into
one parcel. Councilwoman Richards said the intention of that was to maintain growth
control in the west end. Worcester agreed the intent was to limit the number of
development rights and at the same time Council developed the lot split concept to allow
these lots to be unmerged. Over the years the city has appreciated that smaller house are
better even if that means two houses, so the system of lot split was allowed.
Councilwoman Richards asked what size house would be allowed on a 15,000 square
foot lot. Lindt said 4,020 square for a single-family house. The existing house is 2.050
square feel.
7
Rel!ular Meetiul!
AsDen City Council
February 27. 2006
Councilwoman Richards asked if subdivision is a discretionary act of Council.
Worcester said there are standards in the land use code. If Council finds those standards
have been met, the discretion has been removed. Council does have discretion
determining if those standards have been met. The first standard listed in the
memorandum talks about cousistency with the Aspen Area ContmWlity Plan. Worcester
stated this is a subjective standani and Council may use discretion to detennine whether
an applicant has met that standard. If an applicant meets all the standards for subdivision,
the discretion is gone.
Councilwoman Richards said criteria 3, the proposed subdivision shall not adversely
affect the future development of surrounding areas. Councilwoman Richards said the
surrounding areas are lots K, L, and M and Council does not know what the historic lot
split will be and its configuration may be driven by the access allowed in this approval.
COWlcilwoman Richards said she does not like the incremental approach of this.
COWlcilwoman Richards stated she supports the Mill street access fOr the mixed-use
building but it could affect where the affordable housing would be for this building. The
subdivision will drive design and future development of surrounding areas.
Councilman DeVilbiss asked about the statemenllhat the application will relocate the
existing above grade utilities in the alley and if there is a license for those utilities. Lindt
said there is no requirement for utilities to have a license. Semrau said there are 3
transformers and they can be moved onto the applicant's property or elsewhere.
Mayor Klanderud agreed at the last meeting there was a consensus to not open the
Monarch alley. Mayor Klanderud said infonnation presented at this meeting has caused
her to rethink that position. Mayor K1anderud said alleys do create a break between
buildings. For future planning, if the property to the north were to redevelop opening the
alley for access to that property would be a public benefit. If there were no alley, there
could be two curb cuts off North Monarch. Mayor Klanderud said she, too, is concerned
about incremental lot splitting. Mayor Klanderud said she prefers history in context and
the historic value of that house is its setting. Mayor KIanderud said she would agree to
opening the alley off North Monarch and ending it so that it cannot be a thoroughfare to
Mill.
Councilman DeVilbiss said Bleeker is an icy street and he does not favor using that as
access. Councilman DeVilbiss asked if the city could open only a portion of an alley.
W oreester said the city does not need to open the entire alley and there is a grade change
in this alley. COWlcilman DeVilbiss said there is already a use ofthe unopened alley with
a paved parking pad. Councilman DeVilbiss stated opening North Monarch for access to
the residential building is preferable to accessing off Bleeker with access to the mixed-
use building off Mill street.
Councilman Johnson said the maps provided by staff are helpful and persuaded him the
alley has been opened at sometime. COWlcilman Johnson said unopened alley is a dead
end driveway now. COWlcilman Johnson agreed the access decisions can affect future
8
Re2ular Meetinl!:
Asoen City Council
Februarv 27. 2006
land development for the subdivided parcel. Councilman Johnson agreed large lots need
to be preserved. COlDlcilman Johnson stated his preferred outcome is access to lot 2 from
the Mill street alley. Councilman Johnson said if something could be worked out
between the applicant and the adjacent property owner and the city to preserve the large
open space, he would like to see that. Iftbat cannot be achieved, the alley on North
Monarch should be opened for access.
Councilman Torre said the historic picture shows a pathway, not an alley. Councilman
Torre agreed the assessment of the mixed-use parcel is appropriate. Councilman Torre
stated he cannot support the opening of either alley and would support using Bleeker as
access as less obtrusive and impacting. Both parcels could get access off Bleeker.
Councilman Torre said moving the historic house and taking up a smaller parcel deters
from its historic value and he does not favor that. Opening the alley would be against the
pattern set in this neighborhood. Allowing development to encroach into that space
would change the historical context.
Semrau reiterated aU that is allowed on lot I is 4,080 square feet ofF AR whether it is in
one house, two houses or a duplex. Semrau said a house attached to this historic structure
would be inappropriate and two smaller houses would be more appropriate. Semrau said
this meeting is the first time he learned the mixed-use lot could be eligible for a lot split.
Semrau stated he would be willing to reduce the size of the lot so that it could not be split
again or to put a deed restriction on lot 2 so that there is no further subdivision. JOM
Worcester, city attorney, asked the applicant if they would agree to a condition this that
there would be no further subdivision. Semrau said he would. Semrau pointed out that
HPC has complete control over the siting of the historic house. Ms. Guthrie noted if this
were to be a historic lot split, that would need Council approval. Council may also call
up an HPC decision. Semrau said if the access is by a driveway off Bleeker, the house
will have to be moved to the west in order to accommodate the driveway.
Clauson stated the reason the code provides for incremental possibilities in subdivision is
to have the assurance a subdivision is possible and that the access is known. Clauson
said the applicant could not have presented plans for a building on lot 2 because there are
3 possibilities of access and they each generate a different building. Clauson said the
alleys off Monarch and off Mill arc the public rights-of-way for pwposes of access and
for utilities and they should be restored to those uses. The only lot that is under
possibility for a future split is lot I. Mayor Klanderud said a dced restriction on parcel 2
would address hcr concerns about future development.
Councilwoman Richards urged Council 10 vote no on this subdivision application.
Councilwoman Richards noted Council is addressing little issues forgetting this is
incremental. Councilwoman Richards said she would like to know where a second
residence On lot I would be before she approves this application. A subdivision would
allow up to a 6,000 square foot building on lots N and 0, which would not currently be
allowed. This approval would increase the developability of this parcel without a
complete set of plans. Councilwoman Richards said a mixed use building may be
appropriate on lots No and 0 but she would like to know how a lot split will affect lot I,
9
Rev:ular Meetinl!
AsDen City Council
Februarv 27. 2006
where the affordable.housing for the commercial building will go. Councilwoman
Richards noted approving this subdivision will be driving the design of the. commercial
building. Councilwoman Richards said this does not meet the review criteria that the
proposed subdivision be consislent with the character of the existing land uses in the area
Councilwoman Richards noted the existing uses are historic houses and a historic
neighborhood. Councilwoman Richards stated it is not known what a future lot split will
do to the character of the existing land uses in the neighborhood and whether it will
adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Councilwoman Richards
said she would like to see more refinement of the plan.
Councilman Torre noted Council is looking at making the Mill street corridor h more
pedestrian friendly as part of the civic master plan. Councilman Torre stated opening the
Mill street alley goes against the years of the civic master planning process. Councilman
Torre said he can only support a single curb cut off Bleeker. Councilman Torre said he
favors keeping the alley off Monarch as a green space as it currently enhances the
neighborhood.
Mayor K1anderud said she cannot support a Bleeker access; that is one ofthe worst hills
in town during the winter. Mayor Klanderud reiterated a lot split on lot I would have to
be approved by Council. Mayor K1anderud stated if the applicant is willing to deed
restrict lot 2 and the development confollllS to the land use code, she could support that.
Mayor Klanderud said approving this ordinance would designate access and would allow
subdivision between the residential and the mixed-use parcel. Mayor K1anderud stated
she would not support a sidewalk along Monarch street. Mayor K1anderud said she can
support opening the alley for use for the residential parcels only with design and
assurance that there is a break and that the alley does not go through to Mill street.
Mayor K1anderud supports opening the alley from Mill street to parcel 2.
Councilman DeVilbiss agreed. Councilman DeVilbiss pointed out the public alley way
has been appropriated by the property owner to the north for private use. Smith said
there are agreements with the city. Couricilman DeVilbiss stated it is a public right-of-
way and there is no reason not to open is. Councilman DeVilbiss emphasized Bleeker is
an icy mess in the winter.
Councilman Johnson said any future. resident of the historic house would benefit from the
property remaining undeveloped, as would any adjacent property owner. Councilman
Johnson said there should be a dollar amount to pay for the benefit of this open space and
that the city would also benefit from this property being undeveloped. Semrau said he
would pursue whether the neighbors will participate financially in buying the lots and
keeping them open. Councilman Johnson said he favors Monarch for residential access
and Mill for commercial access; however, he would vote no at this meeting because the
proposed subdivision does not meet the criteria that it is consistent with the existing land
uses in the area. Councilman Johnson stated he feels the proposed subdivision could
adversely affect fulure development of surrounding areas. Councilman Johnson said this
subdivision does not meet several criteria in the code.
10
Retrular Meetinl!
Aspen City Council
Februarv 27. 2006
Mayor Klanderud said it is unfair and unreasonable to ask a private landowner to
preserve their property as a park. Clauson showed an illustration of the house as it would
be historically restored. Clauson said the reality of restoring a house in poor condition to
its original look takes economic resources. Restoration of this property would require an
economic engine to make that happen. Clauson slated there is nothing automatic about
this development; not the development on lot I nor the development on lot 2. Lot 2 will
need growth management allocations from P&Z and review by HPC. Clauson pointed
out this discussion about access has illustrated how different the building on lot 2 would
be depending on from where it is accessed.
Councilman DeVilbiss noted the city set up the zoning and the subdivision is appropriate.
Councilwoman Richards said the city also set up the merger of ownership of lots into one
lot if they are owned that way prior to 1975 and then allowing subdivision if Council felt
it was appropriate. Councilwoman Richards said when people purchase a historic
property, they know what it would take to restore it. Councilwoman Richards said she
does not think purchase of the parcel that may be subdivided off would be appropriate for
the city's open space fund. Councilwoman Richards said she does not see a public gain
by opening the alley off north Monarch. Councilman Torre reiterated the opening ofthe
alley is not a necessity for the development or for access of the residential off Monarch;
the owners could do a private drive.
Councilman Jolmson said he would like to know the cost of giving up development
rights, the cost of returning the housing to its original historic condition, the interest of
the neighbors to participating in purchasing the green space because of the added value to
them, and whether TDRs and/or open space funds can be used.
Councilman DeVilbiss moved to continue Ordinance #2, Series of2006, to March 13;
seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #5. SERIES OF 2006 - Castle Creek Road Lot SplitIPUD
Chris Bendon, community development department, told Council this is located at 488
Castle Creek road. Bendon showed the location of the property, Castle Creek road,
Marolt Ranch and the Aspen Valley Hospital. Bendon said the request is for a PUD
amendment and a Jot split. There is no PUD plan for this property. The property was
annexed in 1980. This property is zoned R-15A with a PUD overlay. The property is
35,800 square feet. The R-15A zone allows duplexes when one side is deed restricted as
affordable housing. Bendon told Council when the city considered the initial zoning on
this property after annexation, the records indicates with the slope reduction it would
reduce the net area below that which would allow a lot split. Bendon said lot area is what
derives the density, floor area, ability to do a lot split. When a PUD is applied to a
property, it implements the slope reduction and eliminates the potential for a lot split.
In 1999 the property owner requested a rezoning to remove the PUD overlay, which was
reviewed by staff and P&Z. Both staff and P&Z recommended against the rezoning
because it did not represent a community benefit. Bendon said the property has
II
Rel!ular Meetinl!
Aspen City Council
Februarv 13. 2006
public information campaign on the water and electric rate increase before second
reading so that the public are aware. Phil Overeynder, public works, told Council the
ordinance will be published in full and a press release will go out this week.
Roll call vote; Councilmembers DeVilbiss, yes; Torre, yes; Richards, yes; Mayor
Klanderud, yes. Motion carried.
Councilwoman Richards moved to continue Ordinance #3, Series of2006, to March 13,
2006; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #2. SERIES OF 2006 - 202 North Monarch, Blue Vic Subdivision
Chris Bendon, community development department, showed Council where this property
is located and said it consists of 5 original town site lots, 15,000 square feet. The east
two lots are zoned MU, mixed use, and the west 3 lots are zoned R-6. There is a single-
family residence on the west lots and the property is historically land marked. Bendon
told Council the proposal is to divide the parcel into a 9,000 square foot lot with the
historic house and a 6,000 square foot lot on the east, which parcel is vacant. The
applicant requests the platted alley to the north of the property be opened to access the
lots from the rear of the parcel. Bendon pointed out the parcel slopes to the east and it is
not feasible to have an alley that continues through to Mill street. There is a curb cut on
North Monarch, which accommodates parking of the neighbor to the north. This curb cut
is located in the public right-of.way. Bendon noted a curb cut on East Bleeker servicing
a parking pad. There is no sidewalk along the property; however, the applicants propose
a sidewalk along East Bleeker to the corner at Monarch.
P&Z recommends approval of the subdivision as does staff. Much ofP&Z's discussion
was about the opening of the alley. P&Z recommends the alley not be opened. P&Z was
concerned about the development on the parcel and suggested access off East Bleeker.
HPC reviewed this and stated they preferred access from North Monarch, which is
tradition in the west end. Bendon noted the city's design standards require access from
alleys if they exist. The city engineer agreed the alley should be opened either from
Monarch street or from Mill street. Bendon pointed out the alley off Mill street and told
Council there are some improvements in the public right-of-way. Bendon said ifthat
alley were used, one would enter the property subgrade. The city engineer noted the
entry otTEast Bleeker is the worst choice as East Bleeker street has congestion as well as
icing which would complicate that access. The fire marshal prefers the access off
Monarch street for fire protection.
Bendon told Council the HPC jurisdiction is on the entire parcel so creation of the vacant
lot and any development is within their jurisdiction. Bendon said statTreceived notes
from the parks department regarding a tree on the north of this parcel and some steps for
preservation of that tree. Councilwoman Richards asked where the alley off Mill street
would be located. Bendon showed the location with regards to the Jerome Professional
building and there would need to be coordination in order to use one curb cut for the alley
and the Jerome professional building.
9
Rel!ular Meetinl!
Aspen City Council
February 13. 2006
Stan Clauson, representing the applicant, told Council the code states if an alley exists the
access would not be an issue. This alley is platted but it has never been opened. Clauson
noted section 14.20 of the HPC design guidelines, which states off street driveways
should be removed, iffeasible, ifparking can be placed on the alley. Clauson said the
initial application was designed to access the entire project from the alley off North
Monarch street. Clauson pointed out some encroachments into the North Monarch alley
as well as the Mill street alley. None of these encroachments have approval from the city
engineer's office. Clauson presented photographs of the encroachments and the proposed
alleys.
Clauson said the P&Z bad concerns about all access to this development from North
Monarch. The applicant requested an amendment to their applications with split access;
residential access from North Monarch and commercial access from Mill street. This
would not be a through access because the grade separation is 15 to 20'. The split access
should reduce the amount of traffic on the North Monarch access. Clauson told Council
the applicants took the split access to HPC for their reaction. HPC agreed the split access
would be the first choice with all access off North Monarch as their second choice.
Tim Semrau, applicant, told Councillhis property has everything in place for subdivision;
it meets all city rules; it will enable the applicants to restore the historic holise; it is
located in two zone districts. Semrau said at P&Z the neighbors noted there would be
commercial traffic using this alley. Semrau said that was reasonable and the application
was amended for a split access. Semrau told Council the grade separation in the Mill
street alley in insurmountable. Semrau stated this is a by right subdivision and what can
be built reverts to the city's land use code. The maximum commercial build out is 4500
square feet with 4.5 parking spaces; 4500 square feet for residential use plus affordable
housing requirement, which is 40% of the FAR of the residential building. The allowable
height is 32'.
Councilwoman Richards asked if there is a waiver of any affordable housing requirement
on the mixed-use building or the residential building because this is a historic landmark.
Clauson said there is not. Councilwoman Richatds asked if there would be commercia)
uses in the residential building. Clauson said that building is located in the R-6 and
would not have commercial uses. Semrau noted the historic building needs a foundation.
HPC has commented when the building is picked up, they would like it moved closer to
Monarch street. Councilwoman Richards asked if the house could be moved far enough
to the west that the access could be off Bleeker. Clauson said that is feasible; however.
cily staff and HPC were opposed to that solution. P&Z felt it might be appropriate.
Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing.
Tom Smith, representing the Hodgsons, said this alley is unique to most alleys in the city.
This alley is between two houses, not an alley going through the rear of lots. Smith said
another unique feature of the alley is not it would nOI be a Ihrough alley. This would be a
driveway with only one property benefiting from the alley. Smith stated the neighbor to
10
-'--
Rellular Meetinll
Aspen City Council
Februarv 13. 2006
the north is willing to eliminate the parking pad if that is the city's desire. Smith said the
P&Z voted against this request because they did not know what will happen to the
property, what the commercial development would look like. Smith noted this is a
subdivision application and it is premature to decide on access to the lots before there is a
development application. Smith said he does not think the Bleeker access has been
explored thoroughly enough. Smith noted this alley would have a great impact and
change the historic neighbor because of its orientation. Opening the alley is inappropriate
and certainly premature before seeing a development application
Bert Myrin, 218 North Monarch, submitted a GIS map o[the area and a letter [or the
record. Myrin noted section 26.480.050 requires a proposed subdivision be consistent
with the character of existing land uses in the area. The entire block of North Monarch is
residential and if this driveway were abandoned, there would be a block flow without
curb cuts. Myrin said he supports access for the commercial project from Mill street.
The residential use will be low impact and access off Bleeker would be appropriate.
Phil Hodgson. Monarch street, told Council the city originally suggested he put his
parking in the alley, which was not being used. Hodgson said this was not done legally.
Hodgson said if the curb cut is a hindrance to Council's decision, he will remove it.
Hodgson quoted from Aspen's Early Days, a walking tour, which describes North
Monarch street as 3 large Victorians standing close together on the edge of the hill and
facing west on Monarch street and fanning a protective border for the residential
neighborhood.
Walt Madden, Monarch street, said this block of Monarch street is one of the few in the
west end where the houses are oriented east and west rather than north and south. Alleys
in the rest of the city are on the backs of buildings. Opening this would be creating a
driveway not an alley. Madden said a 9,000 square foot lot would be a result of this
subdivision and it seems like it would be available for a lot split. Madden noted this
street becomes a historic walkway in the swnmer in order to reduce traffic and is a refuge
from Main street. Bill Stirling said this alley should not be opened; it is unique; it
contains a hillside. This alley is like that of the Paepcke house and the Given Institute
which alleys are not open and are landscaped and help retain the historic feeling of the
neighborhood. Stirling noted this has never been an alley.
Hayley Pace said she is concerned about opening this alley; it is a unique alley. Having
this become an open alley would change the street scape of Monarch. Ms. Pace said
opening this alley would only benefit the applicant. Ms. Pace said there would be no turn
around in the alley; trucks and fire trucks would have to back out onto a residential street.
Ms. Pace said it would be historically devastating to the neighborhood to open the alley.
This is one of the few untouched blocks left in the west end. Lisa Markalunas said she
was on the HPC when the guidelines were developed. This is a very historic
neighborhood and an additional access driveway will have an adverse impact on the .
historic properties. Ms. Markalunas said section 14.22 of the historic guidelines
advocates locating driveways away from the primary fatade to maintain the importance
IJ
Rl!2ular Meetinl!
Aspen City CouncD
Februarv 13. 2006
of the structures. Ms. Markalunas encouraged Council to look at access off Bleeker
street.
.
Bill Seguin, neighbor, said this area is a gateway to the west end. Seguin said there is an
alternative to opening this alley. David Hyman said it will be an amenity to the
neighborhood to have the historic house returned to its glory. Hyman noted there is
heavy pedestrian and bicycle use on this street and Council should resist adding more
traffic onto North Monarch. Hyman said the AACP has a goal of promoting a standard
of design that is of the highest quality and is compatible with the historic features of the
community. Hyman contended the opening of the alleys is not compatible with the
historic features of the neighborhood. Hyman said the green space between the two
buildings is important and gives some relieffrom the commercial district.
Jim Markalunas presented a W.H. Jackson photograph illustrating the bluff line.
Marklaunas said the purpose of an alley is to serve interior lots and there are no interior
lots in this case. Markalunas said the aesthetic quality ofthe streetscape is the most
important issue. North Monarch street is a refuge from Main street. Crispin Limacher
said if the city opens this alley, they are giving the developer of a driveway so he will not
have to take it away from his property. This alley opening only benefits the developer.
This alley has not been open for 100 years. Ms. Limacher said it is a property owner's
responsibility to provide access to his property, not the city's.
Perry Michaels asked Council to consider the traffic implications if the alley is opened
into Mill street. There are already two driveways and a large amount of traffic and this
will add to the congestion of Mill street. Toni Kronberg said this application highlights
the contradictions with a historic landmark property, underlying zoning, what is allowed
and what is not. Ms. Kronberg said opening this alley will destroy the historic
landscapes. Wyley Hodgson, 212 North Monarch, said the parking off east Bleeker is
historic parking. Hodgson presented letters from Robert Ryan and M. 1. Elisha regarding
the historic use of the parking on Bleeker. Hodgson said he feels the access for the
commercial property from Mill street to be a good suggestion, and access for the
residential property could be off Bleeker street. Mayor K1anderud asked if the remaining
parcel on the residential site could be fiuther subdivided. Bendon said that 9,000 square
foot parcel would be eligible for 2 houses or a duplex. As a historic property, it could be
lot split. Bob Limacher asked Council whether the applicant wants an alley or wants
access to his development so he can maximize the size. Limacher said he hopes the city
will not help a developer by giving away public land to a private developer.
Bendon entered into the record letters from Walter Madden, Steve and Karen Brelllla,
Matthew Pace, Hayley Pace, Phillip Hodgson and an e-mail from Ed Van Walraven, fire
marshal.
Mayor K1anderud closed the public hearing.
Clauson told Council the applicants followed the code and followed staffs
recommendations; both of which supported opening the alley for all access. Clauson
12
Rel!ular Meetinl!
Aspen City Council
Februarv 13. 2006
noted after the P&Z meetings and the public testimony, the applicants offered a split
access. Semrau told Council the owners of the Jerome Professional building support
opening the Mill street alley and would like to use it and close their access. Semrau said
staff insisted the projcct use North Monarch alley for their access; HPC insisted the North
Monarch alley be used; the engineering department regulation states subdivision
improvements require paved alleys. P&Z wanted the Bleeker street access; the neighbors
favor the Bleeker street alley. Semrau noted Council has control over the curb cuts and
he had no ability to access the property from Bleeker. Semrau stated he is willing to put
not opening North Monarch is the decision, he requests that alley be vacated with the
property being split between him and the Hodgsons.
Mayor Klanderud noted the geological report states the soils are acceptable. Mayor
Klanderud said this property may have been used as a dump site. Semrau said at building
permit stage they will have to have soils test, which is normal procedure. Mayor
K1anderud said the landmark designation applies to the entire property and HPC will
have purview over any development. Councilman Torre asked about the possibility of
more residential development on the west parcel. Semrau said 4,080 square feet of FAR
is allowed on a 9,000 square foot lot. Semrau said this can be accomplished in one
structure, two small structures or a duplex. Semrau stated he could get a lot split but the
amount of square footage would not change. Semrau said adding the additional FAR on
the existing house would historically inappropriate. Mayor K1anderud said splitting this
property again seems to run counter to the code. Bendon reminded Council there was a
code amendment to allow historic lot splits within existing subdivision. Bendon said the
9,000 square foot parcel would allow for a certain amount of FAR in one structure, a
duplex or 2 detached structures. The lot split does not increase development rights only
the method of ownership.
Councilman Torre asked if the city has evidence of support from the Jerome Professional
building for sharing the alley off Mill streets. Councilman Torre asked if access could be
obtained through the Jerome Professional or KSNO buildings parking structures. Semrau
said he tried that to no avail. Councilman Torre said he does not support the alley off
Monarch and is hesitant about using the alley off Mill. Councilman Torre said he would
rather see all access off Bleeker. Councilman Torre requested staff look into making Mill
and Blecker a 4-way stop.
Councilman Torre moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 10 p.m.;
seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman
DeVilbiss. Motion carried
Councilwoman Richards stated she does not support opening the alley off Monarch;
historically it has been closed. Councilwoman Richards said she does not want to
approve this subdivision because of the piecemeal nature. Councilwoman Richards said
she would like to know where the house is going to go and more about the commercial
building before making a decision about the access. Councilwoman Richards said she
might agree to access off Bleeker to the relocated house and with the N and 0 lots.
Councilwoman Richards noted there are already two accesses off Mill street and none off
13
Rl!2ular Meetinl!
Asoen City Council
February 13. 2006
Bleeker and this would split the traffic. Councilwoman Richards said she would like
more thorough analyses of future potential on this land. Councilwoman Richards said
she would be prefer to continue this in order to see an overall plan for the 15,000 square
lots, the open space, the setbacks.
Councilman Johnson asked if the applicant had a proposal for the remainder of the
property. Semrau said it is not required; what is required is that the development meet
the setbacks and dimensional requirement of the zoning code. Semrau stated he needs to
know which access is approved so that he can design the project. Councilman Johnson
asked if applicants have looked at one access offBJeeker for the entire development.
Semrau said that would be the least desirable for the development and for Bleeker street.
Councilman Johnson noted leaving the Monarch alley closed is a benefit to the neighbors
to the north.
Councilman Johnson stated opening the Mill street alley is all right with him; mixed use
on lot 2 is all right; well designed access from Bleeker ill all right; vacating the Monarch
alley is all right. Councilman Johnson stated the parking pad in the right-of-way should
be eliminated. Mayor Klanderud agreed not to support opening the Monarch alley and
she could support vacaling the alley. The encroachments on the Monarch and the Mill
alleys need to be taken care of by staff. Mayor K1anderud said she can support the Mill
street access to the mixed use lots. Mayor Klanderud said she would like staff to look at
increased FAR for the Jerome Professional building if access were shared off Mill street.
Mayor K1anderud stated she does not want to see a sidewalk on Monarch street; the west
end does not have sidewalks. Mayor Klanderud noted there is already a curb cut on
Monarch and this house could have a driveway with a curb cut. Mayor K1anderud stated
she, too, is having trouble with what can happen on this property. The Mill street access
makes sense for the mixed use; however, the Bleeker access has problems.
Councilman DeVilbiss asked if the city could covenant against future lot split on this
property. John Worcester, city attomey, stated the current regulations allow a historic
property a historic lot split. The applicant has applied under the subdivision section of
the land use code and should be judged based on the standards in the code. Councilman
DeVilbiss asked if jacking the house up to put it on a foundation alters the historic
character. Semrau said the HPC requires when digging a new foundation, the house be
replaced so it looks the same. Councilman DeVilbiss asked what the applicant is
requesting from Council at this meeting. Semrau stated he has met every requirement for
subdivision, which does not require plans. This is not a PUD; the applicant is not asking
for variances. Semrau noted the city's subdivision rules require use of the alley. If
Council does not want use of this alley on Monarch, then he requests access off Bleeker.
Semrau said using the Mill street access is fine with one curb cut on Bleeker to access the
9,000 square foot lot. Semrau said ifaccess off Mill street is not allowed, he would
request two curb cuts on Bleeker. This application meets every requirement for
subdivision; there is no requirement for a design or for architectural drawings.
Worcester said another issue is whether this is consistent with the Aspen Area
Community Plan, which is one of the most subjective decisions Council can make.
14
Reeular Meetlnl!
Asoen Cltv Council
Februarv 13. 2006
Councilwoman Richards asked if this application meets all the requirements for
subdivision, does that compel Council to approve it. Worcester said if one meets all the
standards, there is no discretion; however, some of the standards provide for some
discretion, like finding whether this is consistent with AACP and with the existing
character of the area.
Councilwoman Richards supports sidewalks because this is a major pedestrian access to
the Red Brick school. Councilwoman Richards supports the 4-way stop sign at Monarch
and Bleeker. Councilwoman Richards said she is concerned about approving an access
without knowing where additional FAR would be located. COWlCilwoman Richards said
she would not object to the historic building moving west on the lot and having a Bleeker
street curb cut behind the house where the hill flattens out. Councilwoman Richards said
she is amenable to looking at opening the Mill street alley. Councilwoman Richards said
she does not want 10 see the access issue drive where the other house will got on the
parcel. Semrau reiterated the 9,000 square foot parcel has building rights for 4,080 FAR
and the lot split is irrelevant. Semrau pointed out the ultimate siting of any house would
be a decision ofthe HPC. The mixed use building is also under HPC's purview.
Councilman Torre said he needs to know more about sidewalk recommendations,
information about the shared access off Mill street. Councilman Torre said he leans
towai-d sidewalks on Bleeker and not Monarch. Councilman Torre agreed the
encroachments along the two alleys need to be addressed. Councilman Torre said he
would prefer the Mill street access but it looks narrow and difficult.
Councilwoman Richards moved to continue Ordinance #2, Series of 2006, to February
27,2006, requesting the applicant to come back with detailed use of a reopened alley off
Mill street, how this would work with the Jerome Professional Building and KSNO, the
question about new development potential about shifting access in the areas, also a
direction to develop access for the residential portions off Bleeker street with a potential
siting of where the new foundation ofthe existing historic structure would go and
denying the potential of opening the alley off Monarch; seconded by Councilman
Johnson.
Councilman Torre said he would like information about the sidewalk, about ending at the
corner of Bleeker and Monarch. Councilman DeVilbiss said Bleeker is an icy street with
people walking in the street in this area. Councilman DeVilbiss stated he supports the 4-
say stop signs; he said the alley should either be opened or be vacated. Councilman
DeVilbiss stated he would like a site visit, especially the access off Mill street.
Councilman DeVilbiss said he would like to see the letter from the Jerome Professional
building regarding this access.
All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Torre moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to II p.m;.
seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried.
15
.---.. -----'.._--_....
Rel!ular Meetinl!
Asoen City Council Februarv 27. 2006
Gram Slayton, director Wheeler Opera House, said this formalizes Council's direction
from the January 24 work session for the formal marketing plan, the physical
improvements and the co-promotion arrangements. The finances have not changed since
January.
Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor
Klanderud closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #8, Series of2006, on second
reading; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Jolutson,
yes; Richards, yes; Torre, yes; DeVilbiss, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #2. SERIES OF 2006 - Blue Vie, 202 North Monarch Subdivision
James Lindt, community development department, reminded Council this was continued
from the last meeting. The property is to the north of the Hotel Jerome and contains two
different zone districts. The 9,000 square feet to the west is zoned R-6 and the 6,000
square feet to the east is zoned MU (mixed use). The applicant is requesting a
subdivision to split off the eastern portion of the parcel.
Lindt said access to the parcel was the main issue at the last meeting. The applicants
originally proposed to open the alley from Monarch street to access both parcels, which
COWlcil did not favor. The applicants offered an alternative of opening the alley off Mill
street to access lot 2 and to have a curb cut off east Bleeker street to access the residence
on loti. Lindt stated staff continues to recommend access off Monarch street as the best
access.
Amy Guthrie, historic preservation officer, gave Council a photograph from 1890
showing a pathway where this proposed alley is. Ms. Guthrie also presented a 1904
Sanbom map, which is docwnentation of exact conditions in town for fire insurance
purposes. Ms. Guthrie noted on the Sanborne map this property with outbuildings that
are oriented against the alley suggesting alley use. Ms. Guthrie said at the last meeting, it
was brought up that this lot was unusual because the house is oriented towards the side
street and it would be awkward to have an alley. Ms. Guthrie pointed out at least 8 other
lots where houses face the side street. Ms. Guthrie said the property to the north, 212 N.
Monarch, has head in parking and does not have a garage. HPC would prefer ifthere
were a garage in the future that access be off an alley. It would be difficult for 212 N.
Monarch to have a garage without an alley. Ms. Guthrie noted the city cannot deny
someone to have some access to his or her property.
Chris Bendon, community development department, said if Council decide they do not
want to open this alley, they may find there is no public purpose for the alley and will get
a request to vacate that alley. This alley land would go to property owners on each side
of the vacated alley. Bendon noted one of the purposes of alleys is that they break up
mass on blocks and the development on North Monarch could be 20 feet closer together
by virtue of moving the property line. Bendon reiterated the city code allows one access
4
Rl!2ular Meetinl!
Asoen City Council
Februarv 27. 2006
per residence in residential areas and there could be an access permit off North Monarch
for this structure.
Ed Sadler, assistant city manager, reminded Council they adopted a sidewalk plan, which
indicated a sidewalk along North Monarch to the Red Brick was appropriate. Sadler
noted Bleeker street has a fairly steep slope and is shaded by the Hotel Jerome. The
proposed access is right on thaI slope.
Lindt said Council had asked iflot I could be further subdivided; it could through a
historic lot split. Lindt gave Council letters from Tom Smith indicating disagreement
with that. Councilwoman Richards asked if this would allow rcconfiguration of the lots.
Lindt said it depends on whether and to where the historic house would be moved.
Counci1man Torre asked if this is one or two development rights. Lindt said it would
only allow one single-family house. A regular lot split would not be possible because
there is a review standard in the regular lot splits stating one cannot fiuther split a lot and
this would be a historic lot split. That is not being proposed in this application.
Lindt said another issue was whether the development rights for the Jerome Professional
building would be affected by opening the Mill street alley. Lindt told Council the
Jerome Professional building would receive no additional FAR; however, they may be
able to use more of their site but it would not change the dimensional requirements.
Lindt stated this application meets the review standards for subdivision. Staff prefers the
Monarch street access. The alternative of opening the Mill street alley and using Bleeker
street for the residential lot is acceptable.
Stan Clauson, representing the applicant, said there is agreement that splitting off the
mixed-use parcel from the residential makes sense. The applicants have proposed several
accesses. The first was opening up the alley off North Monarch and using it for both
parcels. There was opposition about increased traffic In the neighborhood. The
applicants proposed a split access with alley off North Monarch, which would serve only
the residential property, and an alley off North Mill, which would serve the commercial
properly. The neighborhood still opposed that plan. The 3m alternative was to have the
commercial traffic access off North Mill and the residential access from a curb cut on
east Bleeker.
Clauson noted there has been beneficial use of the alley off North Mill withoul any
official approvals from the city. Clauson said the windows of the Moss building look out
on to the alley and there is a patio in the alley. Clauson told Council there is 20 feet from
building to building and the fire department will support a 16-foot wide access. This
would allow 4' on the Moss bnilding side, which will accommodate the exisling air
conditioners and the foundation and will provide some landscaping to soften the alley.
Rather than concrete, the plan is to use interlocking pavers. This will result in two access
points 20' apart on Mill street. Clauson said if the access for the residential lots is
approved on Bleeker, the applicants would request vacation of the alley off North
Monarch. Clauson noted vacation of alleys does not lead to increased floor areas.
5
Rl!2ular Meetinl!
Aspen City Council
Februarv 27. 2006
Clauson told Council the 9,000 square foot parcel with the historic house on it could be
the subject ofa historic lot split, which would have to be reviewed by HPC and Council.
Because of the size of the lot, it could have a duplex on it and it would not need to be
attached. A conventional lot split would not be allowed. The maximum development
that would be allowed is two residences on the 9,000 square foot parcel. Ms. Guthrie told
Council the commercial lot could be split under the historic lot split; however, one lot
would have to contain a residence. The historic lot split does not create more square
footage, it allows different ownership. Clauson noted the rendering shows the existing
house moved forward on the property; however, nothing has been approved.
Tim Semrau, applicant, told Council he contacted a representative of the Jerome
Professional building and told him support of opening this alley meant the Jerome
Professional building would have to use this alley if they were to redevelop.
Mayor K1anderud opened the public hearing.
Tom Smith, representing the Phillip Hodgson, said it seemed like at the last meeting,
Council gave direction not to open the North Monarch alley. Staff is arguing Council
should reconsider that. Smith noted 6 P&Z members thought it was a bad idea to open
the Monarch alley. Smith stated that is an alley in name only and does not go through to
Mill street. This would be a dead end alley and it would be nothing more than a
driveway. The Bleeker street alley has been moved to the west and improves the
situation. Smith told Council P&Z recommended against opening the Monarch alley
because they do not know what is going to be developed on this property. Smith told
Council this applicant is trying to accomplish something they cannot do directly under
the Municipal Code. Smith said if this were reviewed as a subdivision, they applicant
could not come back and apply for a lot split. Smith stated the applicant knows how
many lots they plan. Smith said this applicant has not shown consistency with the
comprehensive plan or the surrounding uses to gain subdivision approval.
Smith stated the purpose of the historic lot split is to take a single historic lot, allow it to
be split once for. an additional single-family house. Smith said these lots are merged into
one ownership and this parcel is what is subject to the historic landmark lot split, not a
further subdivided piece.
Chris Faison said he uses the west end pedestrian way and this section is a passageway to
the west end and sets the tone for the walk. Council should be careful to keep this a
residential area. Phil Hodgson said he thought the decision about access was made at the
last meeting. Hodgson said important VictOrian houses had a lot of land surrounding
them, Hodgson said these large houses and their yards should be preserved.
Perry Michaels, representing the KNSO building, said when this building was built in
1978. it was allowed to be built with no setbacks. It is not a secret that this building
encroaches on city property. Ms. Michaels stated she is opposed to having the city
contribute financially to a private development. This seems to be a driveway, not an
6
Reeular Meetinl!
ASDen City Council
Februarv 27. 2006
alley. Ms. Michaels asked who will pay the landscaping, maintenance and snow
removal. There will be relocation costs of electric transformers and landscaping. Ms.
Michaels asked if this city will have money in escrow to make sure these improvements
are complete.
Bert Myrin, 218 North Monarch, said he supports the access off Monarch, that alley
spaces break up massing between buildings. Myrin said he is not supportive of the notion
of vacating the alley because of more massing. Myrin said TDRs might be used to
preserve the large lot. Lisa Markalunas noted there has been not HPC approval efthis
project but an informal work session about what might happen on the property. Ms.
Markalunas said Aspen is losing settings for the historic buildings. Walt Madden,
Monarch street, said Council does not know what will happen to this property after the
subdivision approval. There are no limitations to what the businesses on the commercial
lot may be.
Lindt entered into the record letters from Perry Michaels and Bill Parsyback.
Mayor K1anderud closed the public hearing.
Councilman Torre asked about the existing parking pad. Lindt said the parking pad for
212 North Monarch is in the alley and staff could find no city license to allow that
parking pad. Councilman Torre asked about possible vacation of the alley off North
Monarch. Lindt answered Council is not required to vacate that alley; however, the main
reasons for alleys is for access and for service. If the alley is not opened, staff suggests it
be vacated.
Councilwoman Richards asked about the allowable size for the commercial building.
Clauson said the allowable FAR is .75:1 and it could go to 1:1 with special review. The
building could be 4500 square feet or 6,000 square feet with special review.
Councilwoman Richards asked if there will be affordable housing requirements for the
mixed-use building. Clauson said the mixed-use proposal would have to go through
growth management, which process looks at affordable housing mitigation.
Councilwoman Richards asked the maximum number of employees generated by a 6,000
square foot mixed use building. Lindt said the maximum would be 13 employees.
Councilwoman Richards said years ago, Council determined adjacent lots in same
ownership should be merged into a single lot. John Worcester, city attorney, said if
these lots were held in common ownership by 1977, they are automatically merged into
one parcel. Councilwoman Richards said the intention of that was to maintain growth
control in the west end. Worcester agreed the inlent was to limit the number of
development rights and at the same time Council developed the lot split concept to allow
these lots to be unmerged. Over the years the city has appreciated that smaller house are
better even if that means two houses, so the system of lot split was allowed.
Councilwoman Richards asked what size house would be allowed on a 15,000 square
foot lot. Lindt said 4,020 square for a single-family house. The existing house is 2,050
square feet.
7
Reeular Meetin2
Asnen City Council
Februarv 27. 2006
Councilwoman Richards asked if subdivision is a discretionary act of Council.
Worcester said there are standards in the land use code. If Council finds those standards
have been met, the discretion has been removed. Council does have discretion
determining if those standards have been met. The first standard listed in the
memorandwn talks about consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan. W oroester
stated this is a subjective standard and Council may use discretion to determine whether
an applicant has met that standard. If an applicant meets all the standards for subdivision,
the discretion is gone.
Councilwoman Richards said criteria 3. the proposed subdivision shall not adversely
affect the future development of surrounding areas. Councilwoman Richards said the
surrounding areas are lots K, L, and M and Council does not know what the historic lot
split will be and its configuration may be driven by the aCCess allowed in this approval.
Councilwoman Richards said she does not like the incremental approach of this.
Councilwoman Richards stated she supports the Mill street access for the mixed-use
building but it could affect where the affordable housing would be for this building. The
subdivision will drive design and future development of surrounding areas.
Councilman DeVilbiss asked about the statement that the application will relocate the
existing above grade utilities in the alley and if there is a license for those utilities. Lindt
said there is no requirement for utilities to have a license. Semrau said there are 3
transformers and they can be moved onto the applicant's property or elsewhere.
Mayor K1anderud agreed at the last meeting there was a consensus to not open the
Monarch alley. Mayor Klanderud said information presented at this meeting has caused
her to rethink that position. Mayor KJanderud said alleys do create a break between
buildings. For future plalllling, if the property to the north were to redevelop opening the
alley for access to that property would be a public benefit. If there were no alley, there
could be two curl> cuts off North Monarch. Mayor Klanderud said she, too, is concerned
about jncrementallot splitting. Mayor K1anderud said she prefers history in context and
the historic value of that house is its setting. Mayor Klanderud said she would agree to
opening the alley off North Monarch and ending it so that it cannot be a thoroughfare to
Mill.
Councilman DeVilbiss said Bleeker is an icy street and he does not favor using that as
access. Councilman DeVilbiss asked if the city could open only a portion of an alley.
Worcester said the city does not need to open the entire alley and there is a grade change
in this alley. Councilman DeVilbiss said there is already a use of the unopened alley with
a paved parking pad. Councilman DeVilbiss stated opening North Monarch for access to
the residential building is preferable to accessing off Bleeker with access to the mixed-
use building off Mill street.
Councilman Johnson said the maps provided by staff are helpful and persuaded him the
alley has been opened at sometime. COWlcilman Johnson said unopened alley is a dead
end driveway now. Councilman Johnson agreed the access decisions can affect future
8
Rl!2ular MeetInl!
Aspen City Council
Februarv 27. 2006
land development for the subdivided parcel. Councilman Johnson agreed large lots need
to be preserved. Councilman Johnson stated his preferred outcome is access to lot 2 from
the Mill street alley. Councilman Johnson said if something could be worked out
between the applicant and the adjacent property owner and the city to preserve the large
open space, he would like to see that. Ifthal Call1lot be achieved, the alley on North
Monarch should be opened for access.
Councilman Torre said the historic picture shows a pathway, not an alley. Councilman
Torre agreed the assessment of the mixed-use parcel is appropriate. Councilman Torre
staled he call1lot support the opening of either alley and would support using Bleeker as
access as less obtrusive and impacting. Both parcels could get access off Bleeker.
Councilman Torre said moving the historic house and taking up a smaller parcel deters
from its historic value and he does not favor that. Opening the alley would be against the
pattern set in this neighborhood. Allowing development to encroach into that space
would change the historical context.
Semrau reiterated all that is allowed on lot I is 4,080 square feet of FAR whether it is in
one house, two houses or a duplex. Semrau said a house attached to this historic structure
would be inappropriate and two smaller houses would be more appropriate. Semrau said
this meeting is the first time he learned the mixed-use lot could be eligible for a lot split.
Semrau stated he would be willing to reduce the size of the lot so that it could not be split
again or to put a deed restriction on lot 2 so that there is no further subdivision. John
Worcester, city attorney, asked the applicant if they would agree to a condition this that
there would be no further subdivision. Semrau said he would. Semrau pointed out that
HPC has complete control over the siting of the historic house. Ms. Guthrie noted if this
were to be a historic lot split, that would need Council approval. Council may also call
up an HPC decision. Semrau said if the access is by a driveway off Bleeker, the house
will have to be moved to the west in order to accommodate the driveway.
Clauson stated the reason the code provides for incremental possibilities in subdivision is
to have the assurance a subdivision is possible and that the access is known. Clauson
said the applicant could nol have presented plans for a building on lot 2 because there are
3 possibilities of access and they each generate a different building. Clauson said the
alleys off Monarch and off Mill are the public rights-of-way for purposes of access and
for utilities and they should be restored to those uses. The only lot that is under
possibility for a future split is lot I. Mayor Klanderud said a deed restriction on parcel 2
would address her concerns about future development.
Councilwoman Richards urged Council to vote no on this subdivision application.
Councilwoman Richards noted Council is addressing little issues forgetting this is
incremental. Councilwoman Richards said she would like to know where a second
residence on lot I would be before she approves this application. A subdivision would
allow up to a 6,000 square foot building on lots N and 0, which would not currently be
allowed. This approval would increase the developability of this parcel without a
complete set of plans. Councilwoman Richards said a mixed use building may be
appropriate on lots No and 0 but she would like to know how a lot split will affect lot I,
9
Rel!ular Meetinl!
Aspen City Council
Februarv 27. 2006
where the affordable)lousing for the commercial building will go. Councilwoman
Richards noted approving this subdivision will be driving the design of the commercial
building. Councilwoman Richards said this does not meet the review criteria that the
proposed subdivision be consistent with the character of the existing land uses in the area.
Councilwoman Richards noted the existing uses are historic houses and a historic
neighborhood. Councilwoman Richards stated it is not known what a future lot split will
do to the character of the existing land uses in the neighborhood and whether it will
adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Councilwoman Richards
said she would like to see more refinement of the plan.
Councilman Torre noted Council is looking at making the Mill street corridor h more
pedestrian friendly as part of the civic master plan. Councilman Torre stated opening the
Mill street alley goes against the years of the civic master planning process. Councilman
Torre said he can only support a single curb cut off Bleeker. Councilman Torre said he
favors keeping the alley off Monarch as a green space as it currently enhances the
neighborhood.
Mayor K1anderud said she cannot support a Bleeker access; that is one of the worst hills
in town during the winter. Mayor Klanderud reiterated a lot split on lot I would have to
be approved by Council. Mayor K.1anderud stated if the applicant is willing to deed
restrict lot 2 and the development conforms to the land use code, she could support that.
Mayor K1anderud said approving this ordinance would designate access and would allow
subdivision between the residential and the mixed-use parcel. Mayor K1anderud stated
she would not support a sidewalk along Monarch street. Mayor Klanderud said she can
support opening the alley for use for the residential parcels only with design and
assurance that there is a break and that the alley does not go through to Mill street.
Mayor K1anderud supports opening the alley from Mill street to parcel 2.
Councilman DeVilbiss agreed. Councilman DeVilbiss pointed out the public alley way
has been appropriated by the property owner to the north for private use. Smith said
there are agreements with the city. Councilman DeVilbiss slated it is a public right-of-
way and there is no reason not to open is. Councilman DeVilbiss emphasized Bleeker is
an icy mess in the winter.
Councilman Johnson said any future. resident of the historic house would benefit from the
property remaining undeveloped, as would any adj scent property owner. Councilman
Johnson said there should be a dollar amount 10 pay for the benefit of this open space and
that the city would also benefit from this property being undeveloped. Semrau said he
would pursue whether the neighbors will participate financially in buying the lots and
keeping them open. Councilman Johnson said he favors Monarch for residential access
and Mill for commercial access; however, he would vote no at this meeting because the
proposed subdivision does not meet the criteria that it is consistent with the existing land
uses in the area. Councilman Johnson stated he feels the proposed subdivision could
adversely affect future development of surrounding areas. Councilman Johnson said this
subdivision does not meet several criteria in the code.
10
Rel!ular Meetinl!
Aspen City Council
February 27. 2006
Mayor K1anderud said it is unfair and unreasonable to ask a private landowner to
preserve their property as a park. Clauson showed an illustration of the house as it would
be historically restored. Clauson said the reality of restoring a house in poor condition to
its original look takes economic resources. Restoration of this property would reqnire an
economic engine to make that happen. Clauson stated there is nothing automatic about
this development; not the development on lot I nor the development on lot 2. Lot 2 will
need growth management allocations from P&Z and review by HPC. Clauson pointed
out this discussion about access has illustrated how different the building on lot 2 would
be depending on from where it is accessed.
Councilman DeVilbiss noted the city set up the zoning and the subdivision is appropriate.
Councilwoman Richards said the city also set up the merger of ownership oflots into one
lot if they are owned that way prior to 1975 and then allowing subdivision if Council felt
it was appropriate. Councilwoman Richards said when people purchase a historic
property, they know what it would take to restore it. Councilwoman Richards said she
does not think purchase of the parcel thallIlay be subdivided off would be appropriate for
the city's open space fund. Councilwoman Richards said she does not see a public gain
by opening the alley off north Monarch. Councilman Torre reiterated the opening of the
alley is not a necessity for the development or for access of the residential off Monarch;
the owners could do a private drive.
Councilman Johnson said he would like to know the cost of giving up development
rights, the cost of returning the housing to its original historic condition, the interest of
the neighbors to participating in purchasing the green space because of the added value to
them, and whether TORs and/or open space funds can be used.
Councilman DeVilbiss moved to continue Ordinance #2, Series of2006, to March 13;
seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #5. SERIES OF 2006 - Castle Creek Road Lot SplitIPUD
Chris Bendon, community development department, told Council this is located at 488
Castle Creek road. Bendon showed the location of the property, Castle Creek road,
Marolt Ranch and the Aspen Valley Hospital. Bendon said the request is for a PUD
amendment and a lot split. There is no PUD plan for this property. The property was
annexed in 1980. This property is zoned R-ISA with a PUD overlay. The property is
35,800 square feet. The R-15A zone allows duplexes when one side is deed restricted as
affordable housing. Bendon told Council when the city considered the initial zoning on
this property after 3Illlexation, the records indicates with the slope reduction it would
reduce the net area below that which would allow a lot split. Bendon said lot area is what
derives the density, floor area, ability to do a lot split. When a PUD is applied to a
property, it implements the slope reduction and eliminates the potential for a lot split.
In 1999 the property owner requested a rezoning to remove the PUD overlay, which was
reviewed by staff and P&Z. Both staff and P&Z recommended against the rezoning
because it did not represent a community benefit. Bendon said the property has
II
Rl!2ular Meetinl!
Aspen City Council
Februarv 13.2006
public information campaign on the water and electric rate increase before second
reading so that the public are aware. Phil Overeynder, public works, told Council the
ordinance will be published in full and a press release will go out this week.
Roll call vote; Councilmembers DeVilbiss, yes; Torre, yes; Richards, yes; Mayor
K1anderud, yes. Motion carried.
Councilwoman Richards moved to continue Ordinance #3, Series of 2006, to March 13,
2006; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #2. SERIES OF 2006 - 202 North Monarch, Blue Vie Subdivision
Chris Bendon, community development department, showed Council where this property
is located and said it consists of 5 original town site lots, 15,000 square feet. The east
two lots are zoned MU, mixed use, and the west 3 lots are zoned R-6. There is a single-
family residence on the west lots and the property is historically land marked. Bendon
told Councillhe proposal is to divide the parcel into a 9,000 square foot lot with the
historic house and a 6,000 square foot lot on the east, which parcel is vacant. The
applicant requests the platted alley to the north of the property be opened to access the
lots from the rear of the parcel. Bendon pointed out the parcel slopes to the east and it is
not feasible to have an alley that continues through to Mill street. There is a curb cut on
North Monarch, which accommodates parking of the neighbor to the north. This curb cut
is located in the public right-of-way. Bendon noted a curb cut on East Bleeker servicing
a parking pad. There is no sidewalk along the property; however, the applicants propose
a sidewalk along East Bleeker to the comer at Monarch.
P&Zrecommends approval of the subdivision as does staff. Much ofP&Z's discussion
was about the opening of the alley. P&Z recommends the alley not be opened. P&Z was
concerned about the development on the parcel and suggested access off East Bleeker.
HPC reviewed this and slated they preferred access from North Monarch, which is
tradition in the west end. Bendon noted the city's design standards require access from
alleys if they exist. The city engineer agreed the alley should be opened either from
Monarch street or from Mill street. Bendon pointed out the alley off Mill street and told
Council there are some improvements in the public right-of-way. Bendon said if that
alley were used, one would enter the property subgrade. The city engineer noted the
entry off East Bleeker is the worst choice as East Bleeker street has congestion as well as
icing which would complicate that access. The fire marshal prefers the access off
Monarch street for fire protection.
Bendon told Council the HPC jurisdiction is on the entire parcel so creation of the vacant
lot and any development is within their jurisdiction. Bendon said staff received notes
from the parks department regarding a tree on the north of this parcel and some steps for
preservation of that tree. Councilwoman Richards asked where the alley off Mill street
would be located. Bendon showed the location with regards to the Jerome Professional
building and there would need to be coordination in order to use one curb cut for the alley
and the Jerome professional building.
9
TO:
.
WI,.
MEMORANDUM
Mayor Klanderud and City Council
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director C1vlrvJ
FROM: James Lindt, Senior Planner -,J L-
THRU:
RE: Cooper Apartments Condominiums (410 S. West End Street) Subdivision, Special
Review to Vary Parking Requirements - Second Reading of Ordinance No.9,
Series of2006- Continued Public Hearing
DATE: April 24, 2006
ApPLICANT IOWNER:
John R. Provine and Ronald E.
Soldering, Trustee - Soldering Living
Trust
REPRESENTATIVE:
Vann Associates, LLC
LOCATION:
410 S. West End Street
Lots A and B, Block 118, of the City and
Townsite.
CURRENT ZONING:
Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Zone
District
EXISTING LAND USE:
Five (5) Unit Multi-Family Residential
Building.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicant has amended the
application to request the development
of five (5) residential units, three (3) of
which are to be deed-restricted
affordable housing units.
PHOTO: Existing structure.
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests subdivision and
associated land use approvals to raze the existing
five (5) unit multi-family residential complex and
construct a new multi-family residential structure
containing two (2) free-market residential units
and three (3) affordable housing units.
A special review request to vary the affordable
housing parking requirements has now been
requested to establish the parking requirements
for the affordable housing as two (2) parking
spaces for the three (3) proposed affordable
housing units.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Continue the public hearin to May 8th.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The Applicant has revised the design to include an additional affordable housing unit per
City Council's concerns expressed at the last meeting on this matter, but providing the
additional affordable housing unit has spawned a request for a special review to vary the
parking requirements for the additional unit. Therefore, the Applicant has requested a
continuance of the public hearing on this application until May S'h so that the Applicant
can complete the proper public noticing for the additional special review that was not part
ofthe original application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that City Council continue the public hearing on 410 S. West End Street until
May 8th so that the Applicant and Staff can complete the proper public noticing for the special
review request pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.304.050(E), Public Notice.
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to continue the review of the 410 S. West End Street Subdivision application until May
8,2006."
2
MEMORANDUM
c..
TO: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development DirectorC,M VvJ
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Long Range Planner&
RE: Dodaro Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Amendment (920 & 930
Matchless Drive) - Second Readin2 of Ordinance 2006 - 11. Series 2006
MEETING
DATE: April 24, 2006
ApPLICANT /OWNER:
Christine Dodaro, Peter Dodaro, and Shirley
Peterson, Trustee - Shirley H. Peterson Living
Trust
SUMMARY:
The Applicants request Subdivision and Planned
Unit Development Amendment to subdivide the
one lot into two lots and set the minimum or
maximum dimensional re uirements. PHOTO: 920/930 Matchless Drive
REPRESENTATIVE:
Kim Raymond, Kim Raymond Architects
LOCATION:
920 and 930 Matchless Drive, Condominium Units
I and 2, Alpine Acres Townhouse Condominiums
No.5 (formerly known as Lot 5, Alpine Acres
Subdivision)
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district
with a Planned Unit Development Overlay,
consisting of two detached residential dwellings on
the lot. Both structures are Historic Landmark
Properties.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
920 Matchless is proposed to accommodate two
detached residential dwellings, while 930
Matchless is proposed to accommodate a detached
residential dwelling and a voluntary accessory
dwelling unit.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval with conditions.
LAND USE REOUESTS:
The Applicants have asked the Community Development Director to combine the review
procedures for the multiple land use requests (Land Use Code (LUC) Section 26.304.060 B.l.,
Combined Reviews). Also, the Applicants are requesting to consolidate Conceptual/Final
Planned Unit Development (LUC Section 26.445.030 B.2., Consolidated Conceptual and Final
Review). Staff believes that the combination ofreviews will reduce duplication in the amount of
review time and will ensure the clarity of the final decision. Therefore, the Community
Development Director has allowed for the combining of reviews and a two-step consolidated
Planned Unit Development (PUD) process on this particular proposal. The Applicants are
requesting the following land use approvals for the site:
. Subdivision for the division of land into two lots pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.480 (Citv Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation
from the Planning and Zoning Commission).
. Planned Unit Development Amendment to establish the mlrumum or maximum
Dimensional Requirements for the minimum side yard setback, minimum front yard
setback, and the maximum Allowable Floor Area for each lot pursuant to Land Use Code
Section 26.445, Planned Unit Development. (Citv Council is the final review authority
after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission).
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The Applicants (Peter and Christine Dodaro, owners of 930 Matchless and Shirley Peterson,
owner of920 Matchless) have requested approval to subdivide the existing lot into two lots (Lot
5A - 930 Matchless and Lot 5B - 920 Matchless) so that each existing detached dwelling is
located upon its own lot. Both buildings are designated Historic Landmarks and as such are
allowed certain reduced dimensional standards in the underlying Medium-Density Residential
(R-6) zone district for minimum lot size, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and minimum lot
width.
Lot 5A (930 Matchless) is proposed as an 8,636.5 SF lot to be developed with an addition to the
existing residence and a detached garage with a voluntary accessory dwelling unit (ADU) above
the garage. Any development involving designated historic property requires review and
approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. (HPC). The design of the addition to the
existing residence and the detached garage/ADU building has been reviewed and approved by
the Historic Preservation Commission with recommendations for granting variances to the
minimum required side yards. Dimensional variances from the underlying zone district shall be
set through the PUD Amendment. Additionally, the HPC granted a 500 SF floor area bonus for
an "outstanding preservation effort" for 930 Matchless which mayor may not be necessary to
apply on proposed Lot 5A depending on the allowable floor area allowed for the lot.
Lot 5B (920 Matchless) is proposed as a 7,756.7 SF lot containing the existing residence and be
developed in the future with a second detached residence.
The following table compares the proposed development dimensions with the dimensional
requirements of the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district. Shaded cells indicate a
variation from either the underlying zone district or from Ordinance 35 (Series 1987):
Page 2 of8
Minimum Lot
Size
Minimum Lot
Width
Minimum Lot
ArealDwellin
Minimum Front
Yard Setback
Minimum Side
Yard Setback
52 Feet
31.85 Feet
30 Feet
8,636.5 SF
3,878.35 SF
3,000 SF
Minimum Off-
Street Parking
25 Feet
Minimum Rear
Yard Setback
Maximum Hei t
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR)
10 Feet and
5 Feet
25 Feet
3,485.9 SF
Lot 5A Lot 5B
Min. Side Yard: 10 Feet Min. Side Yard: 5 Feet
Total Side Yards3: 28.18 Total Side Yards3: NA
10 Feet - Principal bldg.
5 Feet - Accesso bId.
25 Feet
A maximum of 2,486 SF per dwelling unit
3 Spaces
(2 for free
market unit
& I for
ADU
Notes: Shaded blocks indicate a difference from the underlying zone district or Ordinance 35 (Series
1987) and where the PUD Amendment would allow deviation, if approved.
I - For Historic Landmark Properties.
2 - Conditions imposed upon the property by ordinance 1987-35.
3 - The R-6 zone district requires a total side yard setback of both side yards in addition to a minimum
for each. Additionally, two detached residential units on one lot (as proposed for Lot 5B) are not
required to meet the total side yard setback, provided there is a minimum often (10) feet between the
two detached buildings.
4 - Total floor area for multiple detached dwelling units on a lot less than nine-thousand square feet
listed on the Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall not exceed the floor area
allowed for one detached residential dwellin .
4 Spaces
(2 each for
free market
units)
Residential- Single-familv and duplex: lesser of
one space per bedroom or two spaces per unit
Residential- Accessorv Dwelling Units and
Carriage Houses: One space per unit
In order to create the two lots as proposed by the owners of 930 Matchless and the owner of 920
MatcWess, the PUD needs to be amended in the following ways:
I) The minimum setbacks for the side yards will need to be allowed to be less than
what is allowed in the R-6 zone district; and,
2) The existing PUD minimum front yard setback should be amended to accommodate
the existing location of both historic structures; and,
Page 3 of8
3) The PUD will need to allow the floor area to be calculated using the underlying (R-6)
standards for 920 Matchless and to set the floor area of 930 Matchless at 3,486 square
feet (less than what the underlying R-6 zone district would allow); and,
4) Finally, with the future development of Lot 58, the Applicants would like to request
that the PUD ordinance allow for the HPC to grant any necessary variances from
required minimum setbacks or parking standards and to have the ability to allow Lot 58
to be eligible for a 500 SF floor area bonus if the future development proposal is deemed
an outstanding preservation effort by the HPC in the future.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the subdivision of the lot into
Lots 5A and 58 with the passage of Resolution 6 (Series 2006). With regard to the PUD
Amendment, the Commission recommended approval in setting the minimum front and side yard
setbacks as requested by the Applicants. The Commission recommended that the allowable floor
area for Lot 5A (930 Matchless) be set at 2,486 SF with the ability to land the 500 SF HPC
bonus and for the allowable floor area of Lot 58 (920 Matchless) to be set at 3,485 SF.
Additionally, the Commission recommended that with the future design and redevelopment of
Lot 58, the HPC be allowed to grant any additional variances from required setbacks or parking
waivers.
History of Alpine Acres Subdivision and the effect of Ordinance 1987- 35
To better inform the City Council of the land use history on the subject property, the following
summary is provided:
. The City annexes Alpine Acres Subdivision, Block I, Lots 1-5 in 1976 (Ordinance 33).
Three of the lots (I, 4, & 5) have a duplex building on them. 80th Lots 4 and 5 have two
small Victorians on each lot that are connected by a garage, therefore considered a
duplex. Two lots are unimproved (Lots 2 & 3). Ordinance 1976-69 zones the annexed
land Moderate-Density Residential (R-15).
. As part of the annexation, a domestic well is conveyed to the city that serves Lots I, 4,
and 5 as part of an annexation agreement. The agreement allows the lots within the
subdivision to use the well water for irrigation/decorative purposes once Lots I, 4, and 5
connect to city water. The well is currently located on Lot 5 and due to its close
proximity to the proposed addition to 930 Matchless, is proposed to be abandoned or
relocated.
. In 1977 Lots 1,4, and 5 are condominiumized.
. In 1986, the owners of condominiumized Lot 4 (8ishop& Dunn) which contains two
detached residential buildings, submit a request for subdivision exemption for a lot split
to subdivide Lot 4 into two separate lots. During review of the application Staff
determines that there is a clerical error on the Official Zone District Map as Alpine Acres
Subdivision is shown as Medium-Density Residential (R-6) rather than Moderate-
Density Residential (R-15), as it was originally zoned.
The minimum lot size requirement in 1986 for the R-15 zone district does not allow Lot
4 to be subdivided into two lots. As a result, all of the lot owners in Alpine Acres apply
Page 4 of8
for rezoning to R-6 and Lot 4 requests a lot split. The property owners within the
subdivision propose a voluntary allowable floor area cap of 2,500 per dwelling unit,
which is similar to the per dwelling unit allowance for a duplex in the R -15 zone district
for the existing lot sizes within Alpine Acres. The number is negotiated to a maximum of
2,486 SF per dwelling unit in Ordinance 35 (series 1987).
In conjunction with the rezoning of the property from Moderate-Density Residential (R-
15) to Medium-Density Residential (R-6), a PUD overlay is placed upon Lots 4 and 5
which sets the minimum front yard setback for Lot 4 (subsequently Lot 4A and 4B) and
Lot 5 at twenty-five (25) feet. The PUD overlay also sets the minimum lot width for Lots
4A and 4B.
. In 2002, a PUD Amendment is submitted by the owner of Lot 4A to allow his property to
be eligible for a 500 SF floor area bonus for an outstanding preservation effort. The
amendment is approved which allows Lot 4A a maximum floor area of2,986 SF.
STAFF COMMENTS:
SUBDIVISION:
The Applicants are requesting subdivision approval to create two lots (Lots 5A and Lot 5B) from
one lot (Lot 5) which requires approval of subdivision.
In reviewing the subdivision portion oj 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 i!oals
established in the 2000 Aspen Area Communitv Plan (AACP).
PUD Amendment:
A Planned Unit Development is a process in which a site specific development plan is created
which encourages flexibility and innovation in the development of the land and promotes
objectives outlined in the LUC and goals of the 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 minimum setbacks and
allowable floor area be varied.
Minimum Setbacks: The Applicants have requested to reduce the minimum side yard setback
requirement for proposed lot 5A and 5B. Due to the existing location of the two residences, an
amendment to the required minimum front yard setback should also be considered.
Based upon the proposed lot size, the underlying zoning requires Lot 5A (930 Matchless) to have
a minimum side yard setback of ten 10 feet and a combined setback of 28.18 feet. Both the ·
proposed addition to the single-family residence and the new detached garage/ADU have been
reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and the HPC is
recommending approval of the reduced setbacks. As approved by the HPC, the single-family
residence requires a 2'- 6" minimum setback from the proposed west property line and a
minimum combined setback of 17'-7". The detached garage/ADU requires a 5'- 4" minimum
setback from the proposed west property line and a 6'-2" minimum setback from the east
property line. A combined minimum setback of 11'-7" is necessary for the garage/ ADU.
Additionally, the existing PUD overlay requires a minimum front yard setback of twenty-five
Page 5 of8
feet rather than ten feet as allowed by the underlying zone district. The present building sits at
23.8'.
Lot 58 (920 Matchless) requires a minimum side yard setback of five (5) feet, based upon the
proposed lot size, but will not require a combined setback if developed with two detached
residential dwellings as long as the buildings are a minimum of ten feet apart. The existing
structure is proposed to be 3-11" from the proposed property line. The current PUD overlay
requires a minimum front yard setback of twenty-five feet which is not met by the existing
structure which sits at 21.6'.
Staff feels that the historic desifmation of both existinf! buildinf!s and the reQuired review and
approval of anv exterior alterations bv the Historic Preservation Commission to maintain the
historic intef!/"ity of the property warrants the f!/"antinf! of the proposed setbacks and any future
setback variances f!/"anted bv the HPC.
Allowable Floor Area: As noted previously, Ordinance 35 (series 1987) restricts the floor area
allowed per dwelling unit in the subdivision. The ordinance states that, "Each Dwelling Unit in
Alpine Acres shall be restricted to a maximum countable floor area of 2,486 square feet." It is
Staff's interpretation that the language in the ordinance imposes a maximum floor area of 2,486
square feet per dwelling unit. When determining the floor area, if the calculated floor area is less
than 2,486 square feet per dwelling unit, the floor area allowed would be the lesser number. If, in
calculating the floor area, the number is greater than 2,486 square feet per dwelling unit, the
allowable floor area would be capped at 2,486 square feet per dwelling unit. The Applicants are
requesting that the City Council grant the allowable floor area for Lot 58 (920 Matchless, owned
by Shirley Peterson) be in conformance with the underlying Medium-Density Residential (R-6)
zone district, which is also in conformance with Ordinance 35 (Series 1987). With regard to Lot
SA (930 Matchless, owned by the Dodaros), the Applicants are requesting the allowable floor
area be set at 3,486 SF, which is greater than what Ordinance 35 (series 1987) allows but less
than what the underlying R-6 zone district would permit.
There are a number of options that the City Council may consider in determining the allowable
floor area for both lots. Two options, at either end of the spectrum, are identified below:
I) The Council may determine that the allowable floor area voluntary cap included in the
rezoning ordinance (1987-35) should continue to run with the land. In 1987, there was
concern over the larger floor area that would be allowed with rezoning the property to R-
6 and its impact on the existing Victorians. The property owners at the time of the
rezoning voluntarily offered and agreed to the cap.
Under this scenario, Lot SA's allowable floor area for the single-family residence would
be capped at 2,486 SF. The HPC approved design for the residential addition and
detached garage/ADU requires an allowable floor area of 2,986 SF. If the Council
determines that Lot SA be limited to 2,486 SF of allowable floor area, the Applicants (in
this case the Dodaro's) will need to secure the 500 SF floor area bonus granted by the
HPC for Lot SA. Only one HPC bonus can be granted from a parent parcel. Lot 58 (920
Matchless) which is owned by Shirley Peterson is proposed to have two free market units
on it at some point in the future. With a 7,756.7 SF lot, the underlying zoning would
allow a floor area of 3,485.9 SF (which also meets the requirement of Ordinance 35,
Series 1987).
Page 6 of8
2) The Council could determine that the proposed allowable floor areas for the lots be
detennined by the underlying zone district requirements. In establishing the dimensional
requirements of a PUD, Land Use Code Section 26.445.050 B. notes: "the dimensional
requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the
appropriate dimensions for the PUD."
By using the underlying zone district standards as a guide, the floor area allowed by the
underlying zoning for Lot 5A (930 Matchless) developed with the HPC approved single-
family residence would be 3,609 SF. If the Applicants, in this case the Dodaros are
allowed to have a floor area that is slightly below what the R-6 zone district would allow,
it will not be necessary for them to land the 500 SF floor area bonus on Lot 5A because
the underlying floor area is 500 SF in excess of what is necessary to build the
development plans that the HPC has approved. The excess floor area could be turned
into two transferable development rights, which the Dodaros have stated that they are
interested in creating.
Lot 5B, with the two free market units would have an allowable floor area of3,485.9 SF.
As mentioned earlier, only one 500 SF bonus granted by the HPC is allowed for a
designated property and/or fathering parcel. If the City Council allows both lots to meet
the underlying zone district standards with regard to allowable floor area, the one bonus
could be available to Lot 5B in the future.
Staff recommends followinll Option 1. reauirinll that the intent of Ordinance 35 (series 1987) be
maintained with ref!ard to allowable floor area. as all other properties within the Alpine Acres
Subdivision are subiect to the floor area cap. Lot 5A would need to land the HPC floor area
bonus to maximize the allowable floor area of the lot to 2.986 SF. allowinf! for the development
of the HPC approved addition. The floor area for Lot 5B would be 3.485.9 SF.
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 Applicants either dedicate lands for
school function or pay a cash-in-lieu payment. The Applicants have proposed to pay a cash-in-
lieu payment pursuant to the fee schedule established in Land Use Code Section 26.630.
Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed ordinance requiring that the
Applicants pay the School Lands Dedications fee prior to issuance of a building permit for the
proposed development.
PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE:
A property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures is not
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.
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS:
The City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Water Department, Aspen Sanitation District, Housing
Department, and the Parks Department have all reviewed the proposed application and their
requirements have been included as conditions of approval when appropriate.
Page 7 of8
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the project is generally consistent with the goals of
the AACP as well as the applicable review standards in the City's Land Use Code. Staff
recommends supporting the minimum setback requests, but recommends that the allowable floor
area meet the intent of Ordinance 35 (series 1987). Additionally Staff recommends approval of
landing the 500 SF HPC bonus on Lot 5A. Any future development on Lot 5B will necessitate
review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. Staff recommends allowing the
HPC to grant any future setback and parking waivers as it deems appropriate.
The proposed resolution is worded in the affirmative, reflecting a scenario where all of the
Applicants' requests (including the floor area) are granted. If the Council were to deny any of
the Applicants' requests, the ordinance would be amended to reflect the actual approvals.
By way of example, if the Council were to deny the floor area request, the following changes
would have to be made to the resolution:
1. Section 5 of the ordinance would need to amend the allowable floor area for Lot 5A to
read, "2,486 SF with the ability to land a 500 SF HPC floor area bonus as granted by the
HPC."
2. Section 5 of the ordinance would need to amend the allowable floor area for Lot 5B to
read, "3,485.9 SF."
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
"I move to approve Ordinance No. II, Series of2006, upon second reading."
MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A - Review Criteria and Staff Findings
EXillBIT B - Referral Comments
EXillBIT C - Alpine Acres Annexation Plat (1976)
EXillBIT D - Existing and Proposed Conditions for Lot 5
EXillBIT E - Planning and Zoning minutes of 2/28/06
EXillBIT F - Ordinance No. 35 (Series 1987)
EXillBIT G - Planning and Zoning minutes of 7/21/87
EXillBITH-City Council minutes of7/2l/87
EXillBIT I - City Council minutes of7/21/87
EXillBIT J - Application (please bring bound application from the Council packet of March 27,
2006)
Page 8 of8
ORDINANCE NO. 11
(SERIES OF 2006)
A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL CITY APPROVING WITH
CONDITIONS THE DODARO SUBDIVISION (LOTS 5A AND 58) AND PUD
AMENDMENT TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING DETACHED
DWELLING AND VOLUNTARY GARAGE/ADU ON LOT 5A AND TO ALLOW THE
DEVELOPMENT OF TWO DETACHED DWELLINGS ON LOT 58 ON THE
PROPERTY KNOWN AS 920 AND 930 MATCHLESS DRIVE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN
COUNTY. COLORADO.
ParcelID: 2737-074-22-01 and 2737-074-22-02
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Christine Dodaro, Peter Dodaro, and Shirley Peterson, Trustee - Shirley H. Peterson Living
Trust, represented by Kim Raymond, requesting a combined review and approval of Subdivision
and consolidated POD Amendment, for the development of two lots, Lots 5A and 5B; and,
WHEREAS. an addition to the existing detached residential dwelling unit and a new
garage/ADU is proposed for Lot 5A and a total of two detached dwelling units is proposed for
Lot 5B; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned Medium-Density Residential (R-6) 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 and
a consolidated two-step review of the POD Amendment; and,
WHEREAS. during a duly noticed public hearing on February 28, 2006, the Planning and
Zoning Commission reviewed the application, and took public comment; and,
WHEREAS. on February 28, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved
Resolution No.6, Series of 2006, by a four to zero (4-0) vote, recommending that City Council
approve with conditions, the proposed subdivision and consolidated POD Amendment for the
development of two lots with an addition to the existing detached residential dwelling unit and a
new garage/ADU proposed for Lot 5A (930 Matchless) and a total of two detached dwelling
units proposed for Lot 5B (920 Matchless); and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 24, 2006, the City Council
opened the hearing, took public testimony, considered pertinent recommendations from the
Community Development Director, and referral agencies of the City of Aspen and adopted
Ordinance No. _, Series of 2006, approving with conditions, the subdivision and consolidated
POD Amendment for the development of two lots with an addition to the existing detached
residential dweliing unit and a new garage/ ADU proposed for Lot 5A (930 Matchless) and a total
of two detached dwelling units proposed for Lot 5B (920 Matchless); and,
Pagelof8
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
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 RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL 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 Council approves with conditions the Dodaro Subdivision and
consolidated PUD Amendment for the development of two lots with an addition to an existing
detached residential dwelling unit and garage/ADU on Lot SA (930 Matchless Drive) and
allowing an additional dwelling unit on Lot SB for a total of two detached dwelling units on Lot
SB (920 Matchless Drive).
Section 2: Plat and A!!:reement
The Applicants shall record a subdivisionIPUD plat and agreement that meets the requirements of
Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of approval. The Applicant shali also
enter into a sidewalk agreement to install a future sidewalk adjacent to Matchless Drive 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.
Section 3: Buildin!!: Permit Application
The building permit application shall include the following:
a. A copy of the final Ordinance and recorded P&Z Resolution.
b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set.
c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District.
d. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil
Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a
ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly
size the facility. A S-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage
improvements.
e. An excavation stabilization plan, construction management plan, and drainage and soils
reports pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. The construction
management plan shall include an identification of construction hauling routes for review
and approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent.
Page 2 of8
f. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health
Department.
g. A detailed excavation plan that utilizes vertical soil stabilization techniques for review and
approval by the City Engineer.
h. The Applicants shall comply with Ordinance No. 2S, Series of 1994 regarding the handling
of any contaminated soils within the former Smuggler Superfund Site prior to any
excavation on and/or prior to the application for building permits on both lots. All soils on
Lots SA and SB shall be considered contaminated unless determined otherwise through
testing that adheres to the protocols that were established by the Environmental Protection
Agency pursuant to Ordinance No. 2S, Series of 1994. If, pursuant to said testing
protocols, the soils are found to be uncontaminated, the following requirements shall not
apply. However, to the extent that any contaminants are discovered, the following
requirements shall apply:
I) All contaminated soils that are removed from the site shall be transported to the Pitkin
County Landfill and disposed of at the Smuggler repository. Any disturbed soil or
material that is to be temporarily stored above ground or remain on site shall be
securely contained on and covered with a non-permeable tarp or other protected
barrier approved by the Environmental Health Department so as to prevent leaching
of contaminated material onto or into the surface soil and to prevent windblown dust
from disturbed dirt.
2) The owner and general contractor of any development on Lots I and 2 of the South
and Gibson Subdivision shall submit a letter to the City of Aspen Environmental
Health Department stating that they have read, understood, and will comply with the
regulations for handling contaminated soils within the former Smuggler Superfund
Site as set forth in Ordinance No. 2S, Series of 1994 prior to any excavation and/or
issuance of building permits for the property.
3) The owner shall complete a Soil Removal Permit and Affidavit for excavation prior
to any excavation or disturbance of dirt and prior to any issuance of building permits
for the properties.
Section 4: Permitted Use ofthe Property
As outlined in the Applicants' development application, Lot SA (930 Matchless) shall be
developed with an addition to the existing detached residential dwelling and a detached
garage/ADU, the design having been reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation
Commission. Lot SB (920 Matchless) will contain the existing detached residential dwelling and
an additional detached residential dwelling for a total of two detached residential dwellings. The
design and alteration of the existing building and new building or structures shall be reviewed
and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission.
Page 3 of 8
Section 5: Dimensional Requirements
The redevelopment of the lots as presented will vary the dimensional requirements of the
Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district. As a PUD Amendment, the dimensional
requirements shall be set as follows:
Lot SA - PUD Dimensional Lot 5B - PUD Dimensional
Requirements Requirements
(930 Matchless) (920 Matchless)
Minimum Lot Size 3,000 SF 3,000 SF
Minimum Lot Width 30 30 Feet
Minimum Lot ArealDwelling 3,000 SF 3,000 SF
Minimum Front Yard Setback 23.8 Feet 21.6 Feet
Minimum Side Yard Setback 2.5 Feet from west property line 3.92 Feet from the east property
15 Feet from east property line line as along as existing structure
is not demolished or if an HPC
variance is granted
5 Feet from the west property line
unless an HPC variance is granted
Total Side Yards 17.58 Feet NA - as long as there is ten feet
between the two detached
dwelling units
Minimum Rear Yard Setback 10 Feet - Principal Building 10 Feet - Principal Building
5 Feet - Accessory Building 5 Feet - Accessory Building
(unless a waiver is granted by the
HPC)
Maximum Height 25 Feet 25 Feet
Allowable Floor Area 3,486 SF 3,485.9 SF with the ability to
land a 500 SF HPC floor area
bonus granted by the
Commission
Section 6: Of[- Street Parkinl! Requirements
As part of the PUD Amendment the parking requirement for Lot 5A shall meet the off-street
parking requirement for the use of the property containing a detached dwelling unit and an
accessory dwelling unit which requires three (3) off-street parking spaces. Lot 5B shall meet the
off-street parking requirements for the use of the property, unless a parking waiver is permitted
by the Historic Preservation Commission.
Section 7: Engineerinl!
A CMP plan meeting the requirements of the City will be required as part of the approval
process. Submission of this report should be before any building permit application to allow
open discussion of phasing and traffic impacts. The Staff can provide a list of those CMP
requirements inclusive of: construction traffic routing, erosion BMP's, soil stabilization,
drainage impacts, and construction phasing plan for use in development of that plan.
Page40f8
Section 8: Fire Mitil!:ation
The Applicants shall install a fire sprinkler system and alarm system that meets the requirements
of the Fire Marshal if a building is over 5,000 square feet in area.
Section 9: Water Department Requirements
Individual lots need separate services. If there is more than residence on a lot a common service
agreement may be allowed. The Applicants shall vacate the city water well on Lot 5A. Any
development shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and
with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of
the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department.
The City must be presented an option acceptable to the State and City by the Applicants prior to
the existing well on Lot 5A being abandoned or relocated.
Section 10: Sanitation District Requirements
The Applicants shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and
regulations. No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) to ACSD
lines shall be allowed. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. Old service line connections
must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to ACSD requirements.
Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each
building. Shared service line agreements will be required where more than one unit is served by a
single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways.
Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact
public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. It is recommended that the old 6" clay
sanitary sewer service line be replaced by a new 8" PYC main line with two manholes, thereby
allowing 920, 930, 940, and 950 to have their own service line tied directly into a district
maintained sewer line.
Section 11: Exterior Liehtinl!:
All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting.
Section 12: School Lands Dedication Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School lands dedication, the Applicants shall pay a
fee-in-lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen Community
Development Department shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and
fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. The Applicants shall provide the
market value of the land including site improvements, but excluding the value of structures on
the site.
.
Section 13: Impact Fees
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.420.020. B.4, Waiver of Fees, the Park Dedication Fees
may be waived. All other impact fees, as applicable at the time of submission, shall be paid prior
to the issuance of the building permit.
Section 14: Parks
Page 5 of8
An approved tree removal permit is required prior to submitting the building permit. The Parks
Department sign off will be contingent on the approved tree permit. A detailed tree protection
plan is required as part of the building permit set and should include fence details and fence
locations as well as the following language, "A construction fence shall be installed at the drip
line of each individual or grouping of trees remaining on site. No excavation, storage of
materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, and foot or vehicle traffic will
be allowed within the tree protection fence. Contact the City of Aspen Parks Department for
inspection of the fence, 920-5120 before any construction activities commence. After inspection
and approval of the fence location the fence cannot be moved or removed without permission
from the Parks Department or until the project receives the Certificate of Occupancy." Utility
connections need to be designed in a manner that does not encroach into the tree protection
zones. Root Pruning: The Applicants will need to contract with a tree service, and have them on
call in order to address all roots greater than 1.5 inches in diameter. Root trenching will be
required around all trees with excavation under the drip line or next to the drip line. This can be
accomplished by an experienced tree service company or trained member of the contractor's
team.
Section 15: Vested Ri2hts
The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested
for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any
failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the
forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to
properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180
days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said
vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section
26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development
plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain
a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a
newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice
advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a
vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant
to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised
Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: Lot 5A and 5B, Dodaro Subdivision
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and
approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of
Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval.
Page 6 of8
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the
period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the
date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section
26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado
Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
Section 16:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicants pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be
complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 17:
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 18:
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.
The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in
the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 19:
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 24th day of April, 2006, at a meeting of the
Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall,
Aspen, Colorado, fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in
a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 27th day of March, 2006.
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Helen K. K1anderud, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of
.2006.
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Helen K. K1anderud. Mayor
Page 7 of8
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Page 8 of8
Exhibit A
SUBDIVISION REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
Section 26.480.050 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for
Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements.
A. General Requirements.
a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan.
Staff Finding
The future land use map in the AACP shows this property to be residential. The proposed use is
in compliance with the fi/ture direction of the AACP. Applicable policies and goals of the AACP
that the subdivision meets are.' locating residential development within the city boundaries and
locating development close to the commercial core and transit stops. Additionally, the historic
resources will be rehabilitated. Staff finds this criterion to be met. .
b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses
in the area.
Staff Finding
There are many residential uses within the area including mobile homes, single1"amily
residences, duplex residences. and multi1"amily residential development. Staff finds this criterion
to be met.
c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of
surrounding areas.
Staff Findinz
As the application indicates, the surrounding properties are close to fully developed. All
development associated with this application is internal to the site and will not encroach onto the
public right-of-way or adjacent properties. Therefore. Staff does not believe that the proposal
will adversely affect the future development of the surrounding properties. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of
this Title.
StaffFindinz
The proposed development is in compliance with the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone
district requirements and meets all other land use regulation except for where the Applicants are
requesting to vary from a standard. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. Suitability of land for subdivision.
a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for
development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep. mud flow, rockslide,
avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other
condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the
proposed subdivision.
b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create
spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public
facilities and unnecessary public costs.
Staff Findinz
Staff believes that the property is suitable for subdivision. The site contains no steep topography
and no known geologic hazards that may harm the health of any of the inhabitants of the
proposed development. However, there may be contaminated soils and the resolution requires
mitigation if contaminated soils ate found. In addition, Staff believes that there will not be a
duplication or premature extension of public facilities because the property to be subdivided is
already served by adequate public facilities. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the
proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter
26.430) if the following conditions have been met:
1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the
subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of
the community.
2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide
justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by
professional engineers as necessary.
Staff Findinz
The Applicants have consented in the application to meet the applicable improvements pursuant
to Section 26.580. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units
shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of
Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new
dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the
requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System.
StattFindinz
The Applicants are not providing replacement dwellings units and are not subject to the
Replacement Housing Program. Stafffinds this criterion is not applicable to the proposal.
E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set
forth at Chapter 26.630.
Staff Findinz
The proposed subdivision is required to meet the School Land Dedication Standards pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26630. The Applicants have proposed to pay cash-in-lieu of providing
2
land, which will be paid prior to building permit issuance. Thus, staff finds this criterion to be
met.
F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to
applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted
or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470.
. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing
Planned Unit Development (AH-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, ~ 2)
Staff Findinz
The Applicants' project, as proposed, is exempt from GMQS. Staff finds this criterion not to be
applicable.
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.
Staff Findinz
The future land use map in the AACP shows this property to be residential. The proposed use is
in compliance with the fi/ture direction of the AACP. Applicable policies and goals of the AACP
that the development meets are: locating residential development within the city boundaries and
locating development close to the commercial core and transit stops. Additionally, historic
resources will be rehabilitated as the lots are redeveloped. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land
uses in the surrounding area.
StaffFindinz
There are many residential uses within the area including mobile homes. single-family
residences. duplex residences. and multi~family residential development. Staff finds this criterion
to be met.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the
surrounding area.
Staff Findinr!.
3
As the application indicates, the surrounding properties are close to fully developed. All
development associated with this application is internal to the site and will not encroach onto the
public right-ot:way or adjacent properties. Therefore, Staff does not believe that the proposal
will adversely allect the fiLiure development of the surrounding properties. Stall finds this
criterion to be met.
4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt
from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD
development plan review.
StaffFindinl!
The Applicants' project, as proposed. is exempt from GMQS. Staff finds this criterion not to be
applicable.
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 natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such
as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms.
d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the
surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking,
and historical resources.
Staff Findinl!
The proposed dimensional requirements, with regard to proposed setbacks. complement and
help maintain the integrity of the historic s!ructures. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity
of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the
proposed PUD and of the surrounding area.
Staff Findinl!
Staffbelieves the massing and scale of the proposal on 930 Matchless is appropriate for the site
and the historic resource since it has received approval by the HPC. Any future development of
920 Matchless will need to be reviewed for a Certificate of Appropriateness which will create a
scale and massing appropriate to the neighborhood and the historic resource. Stafffinds this
criterion to be met.
3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based
on the following considerations:
4
a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development
including any non-residential land uses.
b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is
proposed
c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including
those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile
disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general
activity centers in the city.
Staff Finding
Proposed Lot 5A (930 Matchles!>) meets the underlying zone district requirements with regard to
ojfstreet parking The development of an additional residence has not been designed and is
expected to meet the ojfstreet parking requirements unless granted a waiver by the HPC. Staff
finds 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 PUD
may be reduced if:
a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to
service the proposed development.
b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road
maintenance to the proposed development.
Staff Findinz
Staff believes that sufficient infrastructure capabilities exist to accommodate the proposed
development The adjacent public right-of way on Matchless Drive and the access easement at
the rear of the lots are sujjicientto accommodate the requiredfire protection, snow removal, and
road maintenance for the proposed development. The City of A!>pen Fire Marshal, Utilities
Director. and a representative from the A.\pen Consolidated Sanitation District have reviewed
the proposal and have proposed conditions of approval to mitigate for any insufficiencies. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
5. The maximum allowable density within a pun 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 mudtlow, rock falls or avalanche dangers.
b) The effects ofthe proposed development are detrimental to the natural
watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution.
c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the
surrounding area and the City.
d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in
the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful
disturbance to critical natural features of the site.
Staff Findinz
5
Staff believes that the site is suitable 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 ofthe 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.
StaffFindinf!
The Applicants are 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 subject
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:
1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide
visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the
town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
Staff Findinf!
Both existing structures on the property are designated historic landmarks. Any new structures,
additions, or alterations are required to be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission
(HPC) which will ensure the integrity of the existing structures. The proposed setback variations,
recommended by the HPC, will also contribute to maintaining the integrity and setting of the
historic structures. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces
and vistas.
Staff Findinf!
As infill development. there are no significant open spaces to be preserved. However, any
placement of buildings have, or will be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission to
preserve the integrity of the historic resources. Stafffinds this criterion to be met.
6
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.
StaffFindinz
The existing historic resources are appropriately oriented towards Matchless Drive. Staff finds
this criterion met.
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and
service vehicle access.
Staff Findinf!
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 both a public rights-oi-way (Matchless
and Heron Drive) and an access easement that acts like a service alley at the rear of the
property. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
Staff Findinz
The Applicants have proposed to provide units that meet the building department's accessibility
requirements. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and
reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties.
StaffFindinz
The Applicants will be required to submit a site drainage plan that was prepared by a licensed
engmeer. The proposed development shall not increase historic flows of the property. Staff
finds 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.
Staff Findinz
The Applicants are not proposing to construct any non-residential structures on the site. Staff
.finds 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 of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and
proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply
with the following:
1. The landscape plan exhibits a well 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.
StaffFindinz
7
The Applicants are proposing to maintain the significant trees that exist on the property. The
Applicants shall submit a landscaping plan for review by the Parks Department with regard to
tree protection. removal and planting prior to issuance of a 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 Findinf!.
Mature trees are required to be preserved. The historic resources will be preserved and any
future development must be designed in a way to maintain the integrity of the resources. Staff
finds 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. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
D. Architectural Character:
It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character,
and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting
efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a
building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed
massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of
materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the
proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan
and architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the
proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall:
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 Findinf!.
As historic landmarks, any changes to the property with regard to buildings are required to be
reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission. The Commission is required to review
projects so that new structures, additions, and alterations complement the historic structures.
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.
Staff Findinf!.
8
The Applicants have stated that passive solar and natural venting!cooling will playa significant
part in the design of the building as well as efficient fixtures. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. Accommodate the storage and shielding of snow, ice, and water in a safe an
appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance.
Stafl"Findinf!
The proposed parcels have adequate areasfor snow storage. Stafffinds this criterion to be met.
E. Lighting:
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted
in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic
concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished:
1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of
any king to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and
access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner.
Staff Findinf!
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 building 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 PUD documents. Up-lighting of
site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention
to the property is prohibited for residential development.
Staff Findinf!
The development shall meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code requirements and the Applicants
shall submit a lighting plan for the Zoning Officer to review at the time of building permit
submittal. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area:
If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area
for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed pun, the following criteria
shall be met:
1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or
recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering
existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property,
provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual
benefit of the various land uses and property users of the pun.
Staff Findinf!
The Applicant is not proposing any common park, open space, or recreation area. Therefore,
staff 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 PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner.
9
Staff Findinz
The Applicant is not proposing any common park, open space, or recreation area. Therefore.
stafffindl. that this criterion is not applicable.
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. Therefore,
staf/finds 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.
StaffFindinz
Staff believes that adequate public facilities exist to accommodate the proposal. Stajj/inds 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.
StaffFindinz
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.
Staff Findinz
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 pun
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:
10
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 ji-om Matchless and Heron Drive and has
additional access to the lots via an access easement. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement
do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed
development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to
accommodate the development.
Staff Findinz
Staff believes that the access easement at the rear of the properties is appropriate for access.
Stafffindl' 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 is
proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The
phasing plan shall comply with the following:
1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a
complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases.
2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical,
occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases.
3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate
improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu,
construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction
of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized
concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase.
Staff Findinz
The Applicant is proposing to redevelop Lot 5A (930 Matchless) with an addition to the existing
residence. Lot 5B (920 Matchless) may be developed at a later date. However, no joint facilities
or infrastructure is required and the proposal is not a phased project. Therefore, Stafffinds this
criterion not to be applicable.
11
.'
.
84\ If:, \T.\3
~
MEMORANDUM
To: Development Review Committee
From: Alex Evonitz, Com. Dev. Engineer
Date: November 2.2005
Re: 920 & 930 Matchless. Lot 5, Alpine Acres Subdivision
Parcel #'s 2737-074-22-001 & 2737-074-22-002
Attendees; Alex Evonitz. Com. Dev. Eng.; Nick Adeh, Engineering; Jennifer
Phelan. City Planning; Phil Overeynder, City Water; Brian Flynn. City Parks; Kim
Raymond, Owners Representative <
The Development Review Committee has reviewed the Subdivision Request at
their November 2, 2005 meeting and has compiled the following comments:
General:
The Applicant would like to subdivide Lot #5 of the Alpine Acres Sub/PUD
. into two lots. Currently the lot contains two detached residential dwellings both
of which are historic landmarks. The proposal would allow One lot (930 Matchless)
to contain an existing historic single-family residence and a voluntary accessory
dwelling unit and .the .other lot (920 Matchless) would contain the other existing
single-family residence and be large enough to develop an additional
detached residential dwelling. .
In order to develop the lots as proposed the existing PUD needs to be
amended, The Applicant is requesting that the FloorArea Ratio.fFAR) allowance
be in compliance with the underlying Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone
district. rather than being limited to 2.486 SF per dwelling unit. At a minimum, the
applicant will need to land a 500 SF HPC bonus for 930 Matchless if the Applicant
is not allowed to adhere to the underlying zoning with regard to FAR. .
Additionally. as a site specific development plan, the Applicant will need to .
amend the PUD to allow for an additional detached dwelling unit on 920
Matchless.
Building Department - No Attendance;
Fire Protection District - No Attendance;
.
Engineering Department - Nick Adeh;
. Matchless Drive needs to be wide enough for two-way traffic.
. Easements will be required for lot access.
. All encroachments need to be corrected.
Housing Office - No Attendance;
Lty
.
.
Page 3 of 4
November 2. 2005
920 and 930 Matchless Drive
. Ingress /egress will need to be maintained at all times for the City.
. The Owners need to present an option acceptable to 'the State and City
before change in the existing well location and access is undertaken.
Community Development Engineer - Alex Evonitz;
. No comments at this time until the water issues are resolved.
. All standard permit requirements must be met for issuance of building
permits.
Aspen Consolidated Waste District - T6m Bracewell; .
. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules. regulations,
and specifications. which are on file at the District office.
.
ACSD will review the approved Drainageplans to assure that clear water
connections (roof. foundation, p-erimeter, patio drains) are not connected
to the sanitary sewer system.
On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary
sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements.
Currently, 920,930,940 and 950 lV1atchJess are served by a comrrlon old 6"
Clay sanitary seWer service line. ACSD would recommend that this old line
be replaced by 6 approximately] 70 feet of new 8" PVC main line with
two manholes. thereby allowing each resident to have its own service line
tied directly into a district maintained sewer line.
Where main sanitary sewer lines are required to serve this new
development or the existing publicly owned sewer system requires
modification or adjustment, a line extension request and collection system
agreement ore required. Both are ACSD Boord of Director's action items.
Applicant will be required to deposit funds with the district for engineering
fees. construction observation fees, fees to clean and televise the new
main sewer line extension into the project.
The Applicant will have to pay 40% of the estimated tap fees for the
anticipated building stub outs before building permit. .
Below grade. development may require installation of a pumping system.
One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may
be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line.
Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of
ways. Landscaping plans wi!! require approval by ACSD where soft and
hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be
dedicated to the district.
All ACSD fees must be paid before the issuance of a building'permit. Peg
in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans
have been made avaiJable to the district.
Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed
the planned reserve capacity of the exis~ng system (collection system
and or treatment system) an additional propo'rtionate fee will be assessed
to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity
constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
c
.Vv - ~
~~~'S
d~~
lJ
l
.
~',"",:;II.J .9<;-
,''v,..
k---------- '
It t -----~
II Q !
"
..lN~h'J
, ,
9;~:OViO!MJJW
I
" I
I
t I
" . I
~ " I
". .
~ ~, I
'1i I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
,
,
f
.
,
~~
<< I,
~" 1
:LI.llia SS:nH::lJLVI\!
e "
.""
;C .'::
" .
:<1:
~
;a
.
en .
Z.
ON
~'4'
IS
Zo
o '::;
u Z
."
C ';n ~
z~"E
- ?; >
~._ 0
H a A
x" :>
w,,~
'" ijg ~
.!!llle E
o '"
o ~,:,
:~:q .!! bO
~.l:;;.<:= '$'~
~~:3~-g .~s
.s 0 -B 3'~
i3 0 ~ n ~o
t C '-'~ :5!'Jl}
~ a'-:! 0 -
~ ....J "'C 'a ~ ~ ~
.[ "~ ~ ~ "'C ~
:<~~i'B g"'C
'0 :s~8~:~
s:: IU .... U -0
.....r;:o:aBi"i]
......-..-g.;! ...:9
3:::8:U5~.z
u
"
Jl ~ l:l gj g
,,~-2.8a
]~~u6
:t6~~]
....:~-g ~
~ eo :G E
E '1...c '" a
g.~~ 5b.:=
"0 0 '-'.~ :>
.g g ~ ~"2
8 ., ="'0
-.a ';;1 ~.8 @
I:: s.f: U-;;
g,g ","E~;'
e:-n:g gO... -a .
5: 2 0l"'C i'i (Ii 00
'" ~ 10 0..0"'C ~
~ ~ 2'~'2~3~
oj 0 ~:..... ::l '" o-S
. ~
... .
.9.-8
~
d ~ ~ ~ H ~ 1l ~ niJ q n 02 ; ~_J=:)<*\ \ ts ftD
=E g]-g,="'-....;l:~ ~.~ e 6.g--=8 ~~2~J
....\C "'C~::l-<;Il o.2.)"?~E <:10-;;1 "'n
:;i 32'fteJg ~;;~o::; u-= '3~ 2.o~ 8~13~
~ g-E~~""' J~ <;; on-5t=:'...;O~.(Jl]: ~~]
~_ a~;;tO"\"'" v~~~tiZ;;:CI},t"02~::c~~5
'" .;: '" 0.> "'C N "'C ",::: 0 _ :> - \0 ..0 g::J \0 ... "'.= '" ....
~c :=-~C,!!l~ "~':~~:G~.U;:;;i:l.g;:~6"'2..2g:
c~sj'~8a@ ~~~gj'~N~~~~3~OUU
.. <<l v ~, 0I.l III -0 <II OJ 0 OJ'- .... '" 0 :;; p.., c
E: a:l1ll2..c:: tj'l1u g.-;;:s OJ~~~-; 1Jj..l..'o e ~ ~ 0.0:::1::'
S=~$~<Il-o~ ~~~~:~~~:t'~~~~~~
z 0 ~ ~ cu ~ u ~ III 0 .... ~ 00 <II III =..-, ....
O ._ ~ g .2 s .a.. III 5 .~ ,- - C5 ~ OJ 0 <:::"""" 0..... g i'J ~ g -0
",~~_go::~~s~~~~u~~~~~~"" ~~
u= -j..l..~-o-o2'~~~IIl"'&IIl~~ '~~f~lIl~
Q III <II ~ (fl :> ~ ~ a ..<:: III ~ g'::.a::C 0.'3 ~ .... ::l 0.".. E. 2
f;l;lQ'5o.n'O<<li2 .......-gdlU'O....~<:(3 ~~Ee..-::-o
~ .iaG~t~g"'e~l~o3!~~.a:~]~~
~~~~~~<<l<ll~~-o~f:.a.5-;;~~B~E.~~~~
C~:E
g:,~ :5
""'-,
"''''.<1"..
,
!
r !;-----------~--
I ' .
,-
J I lJ'" ~ .<1,'".
--........-.........,
1\1 ~-==~-""l, ------
\I: : I ,\,',,~,
t rnnn~,! ""'ii'
? \11 :L-----O,.'t! ~-<t
ot! !J;\'il{)
~;:j ! l.~ .! Ul ~ -t
IJ-,J :1:('()z..:.1
, 1 i.J! \r '-..J
, t , '
, : , '
i ! i ~
,! "U : I
, ,
I '1--
: I ',y" I
, "
, ,
L_ 'I
-" ,
, :
,
,
,
,
,
:
,
,
,
,
,
,
600
fil
..
..
..
..
8
II
~, -
,
,
,
,
!
,
,
,
! D
, 1\
1"-"..<1"...
I
,.
"-"
:ilJ\Hla SSa:1H::J>L'dW
"
~ ~
:c
o
-<>
::E~
'"
~=
"'
~ ~
2]-2
t:~~
" Q
~E@
u . ""
Z "
""'"
r::l .-::
~ e ~
"" . 0
;o:;'C
I.... 1Il<::::
... <;j 0 :8"'''' "" -0.... .... ....-0-0 . III Oll .::>....0
~~ ~~o~E.~-~2~~g&lUc8~= ~~N
.., ......,~E.-og;:~CIll~~C ~<IIc -0 ~~~
s."'5! 0~:g:;a"",clllbl),,;,.,a1ll~5Ojj~s;"'8ii=
-0'" =::"'c",g.s:a",,,,:oc5cUi-o.QO ..,0
uf ~<II....~.9'~~uO~~d~8~e3 ~1=
I] ~~Q~~IIlU~U.5=~..c:: ~....c.2-o-o_~
O~ ~:!~3~~E~~=~gBj~E~~'l1~::~
a ~ CI) .... 0 .;;! ~ u .9 3 <II .., -0 <II ~ ,!::! .... .... g..
'" OJ <<l .5 <2 0 :'J ~ >. ... .~ -; IU u = B .~ "7 ~..c ~ 0 ~ B
::. "Cl ~ =ii <II l:i <II 3 ~ -g 0 g E. .,s.- ~ 0 ~ Oll ~ = '" '"
"'0 ~~~.Q~~'_~IU~~~IIl~=:O.BIIl'~~~
]! l-o....~.....5~~E.:.ao~~=~.~~~~~.~g
..c 0-a0l::0"Cl "Cl=-gl;j;$:oo OJ_~"""'-~
B -:5 ....._ 0 0 0 0 0 OJ V1 ... '" III .... r-- u <2 6 a.
t;!.~ a. i:: c.~:;: ... E '" .... N -0 il--= Z QO \.l.,.l:J a.]
~. .u~~~~~~~_~-o~~.~a.-a~~~u<-
~] ~'~~~~~{S~g;E~~~~ s~~~~
~u.~~"Cl~(fl~ua.l;lI]] u~f'- u~ '0.0,,; ...;
~~.~..c::~~~~~~'!u~ga~~2.~E]~~U~B
o.n "":::: ... ':l .,j-.... 0';: 3 u:~'- ~';;; e's 'liI = :2:5:-;::
~~;",~~~~~!g.Bg~e<<lg ~'eg';~B<II~
~r---o<~~.~~~~a~~~~;n~g<<l~~;~B~
't:::~B\\ e:
Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! - Minutes - February 28, 2006
the year prior and decide how much of that unused growth should be carried
forward into the next year. In years past there was a provision for that but it
automatically rolled forward; this was the opposite approach because it requires
growth to be brought forward.
Bendon noted there were two annual allotments (I) free market allotment at 37
units per year and (2) commercial allotment at 28,000 net leasable square feet per
year. Tonight we were talking about the roll over allotment; how much from prior
years allotments do you want to roll over. Bendon said there was what was called
the development ceiling; the idea of a cap like 30,000 people on a monthly
average. So there were already days (4th of July) that 32,000 to 33,000 people
were in town; it gives an idea of the growth ceilings. Bendon said that Exhibit B
showed the annual allotment for 2005 by project (the growth management year
runs from the first day of March to the last day of February). Bendon stated the
application date was what establishes when the project is allocated the allotment.
Bendon said the second chart in Exhibit B included the Growth Ceilings for 2005.
The growth rate maximum was 2% a year per the AACP; all the categories were
based upon a 2% growth rate except the free-market residential which was a 1%
growth rate.
Kruger asked for expected proposals. Bendon replied that could not be done until
the proposals were in the Community Development.
Marion asked about temporary and permanent traffic generation being included in
the evaluation to think about the overall growth of the town.
No public comments.
MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to continue the public hearing on the Growth
Management Allotment for 2006 to March 7th; seconded by Brian Speck. All in
favor, APPROVED.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (2/7/6):
920/930 MATCHLESS DRIVE SUBDIVISIONIPUD
Ruth Kruger opened the continued public hearing on 920/930 Matchless
Subdivision PUD. Jennifer Phelan provided the notice. Kim Raymond, architect,
stated that she represented Chris and Peter Dodaro.
Jennifer Phelan said this was a somewhat complicated piece of property with some
history to it. The lot is just under 16,500 square feet with 2 detached historic
residential dwelling units on it. Phelan stated that currently there is a
D~
3
Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! - Minutes - Februarv 28, 2006
condominium association creating separate ownership interests in the existing
dwelling units and they would like to subdivide the parcel into 2 lots (Lots 5A &
5B) so that proposed Lot 5A, 930 Matchless, an 8,636 square feet lot, would
contain 1 of the single family residences with an addition to the residence, a
detached garage and voluntary ADU. Proposed Lot 5B, 920 Matchless, a 7,756
square feet lot, would be created with an additional dwelling unit to be built;
allowing for a total oftwo detached residential dwelling units on the property.
Looking at the two houses from Matchless, 930 is on the right and 920 is on the
left.
Phelan stated this parcel of land is part of a subdivision known as Alpine Acres
Subdivision (5 lots) that was rezoned Medium-Density Residential (R-6), in 1987
with a PUD overlay placed on two of the lots. The PUD overlay affects the front
yard setback and the minimum lot widths while the rezoning of the subdivision
capped the maximum allowable floor area per dwelling unit to 2,486 sq. ft. The
applicant requested Subdivision approval to divide the one lot into two lots and the
PUD Amendment approval to allow the floor area of both lots to match the
underlying R-6 zone district allowable floor area rather than meet the cap of 2,486
sq. ft. per dwelling unit of Ordinance 35 (Series 1987). Ordinance #35-87 restricts
a dwelling units allowable floor area to a maximum of 2,486 square feet. Phelan
said the Applicants were also asking for setback variances and the ability to land
an HPC bonus of 500 square feet (either now or in the future) for an outstanding
HP design on the property.
Phelan said the history of the property is that this property was annexed in 1976
and zoned R-15. It was a subdivision with 5 lots (Alpine Acres); 3 lots were
developed with duplexes while two were vacant lots. The existing duplexes on
three of the lots were miner's shacks or cottages connected by a garage and
therefore considered a duplex. Since the original annexation two of the existing
duplexes have had the common garage removed. In 1986 the owners of Lot 4
asked for a subdivision to divide their lot into 2 lots; at this time it was discovered
that the zoning map showed this lot as being located in the R-6 zone district while
the Ordinance said it was R-15. The ordinance was determined to take precedence
which created a problem for the proposed subdivision of Lot 4 since the R-15 zone
district requires a larger minimum lot size than the R-6 zone district. Phelan used
an area map to show the subdivision. As a result ofthis discovered inconsistency
between the original zoning ordinance and the official zone district map, the whole
subdivision applied to rezone to R-6 and Lot 4 subdivided into Lots 4A & 4B.
Phelan said the 1987 Ordinance which rezoned the property from R-15 to R-6
capped the floor area to a maximum of 2,486 per dwelling unit within the entire
subdivision. .
Df!\X\
4
Aspen Planninl! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! - Minutes - February 28, 2006
Under the current proposal Lot 5B, 920 Matchless, proposed for the 2 detached
residential dwelling units is allowed a higher density on the parcel because it is a
historic landmarked property, only requiring a 6,000 sq. ft lot rather than a 9,000
sq. ft. lot to build two dwelling units. The effect of ordinance #35-87 in capping
the allowable floor area is the same as the underlying allowance in the R-6 zone
district: 3,485 square feet.
Phelan said that on Lot 5A, 930 Matchless, which is proposed as a single-family
residence, the 1987 Ordinance caps the floor area at 2,486 square feet for the single
family home while the underlying R-6 zone district would allow a floor area of
3,609 sq. ft.. The applicant is asking for the underlying zone district square footage
to apply to 930 Matchless, which would require a PUD Amendment. Phelan said
the applicant wanted the extra square footage of 623 sq. ft. (as the HPC approved
design requires 2,986 sq. ft. of floor area) to be turned into TDRs to sell. If the
underlying zone district allowable floor area is not granted, the Applicants will
need to land the 500 sq. ft. HPC bonus to build the approved design.
Kim Raymond stated that they really don't need the whole 3,609 square feet and
they wanted to create a couple ofTDRs, which was an incentive from the historic
preservation to offset the costs of the restoration and all the meetings that they
have to attend.
Brandon Marion asked the total square footage for each lot. Kim Raymond replied
that the Lot 5B, 920 Matchless, gets 3,485 square feet total with 2 buildings or 1
house at 2,486 square feet.
Raymond stated that they went through the HPC process and the 500 square foot
bonus was granted by the HPC for an allowable floor area of 2,986 square feet to
build this house and the ADU on Lot 5A. Raymond said that if they go with the R-
6 zoning, which would be 3,609 square feet; the extra 623 square feet would not be
needed to build what has been approved but they would like 3,486 square feet,
which would allow them to build their design and create two TDRs. Raymond said
then they would end up with the same square footage as 950 Matchless down the
street (2,986 sq. ft.), which would be congruent with the neighborhood. Raymond
said it would also be the same as worked out on 920 Matchless: 3,486 sq. ft. vs.
3,485 sq. ft.; they would be willing to give up the 500 square feet that HPC granted
because they would have enough square footage to create TDRs with the R-6
zoning and restrict the 500 square feet to be used only as TDRs; that would
guarantee there would not be more density on this lot since 930 Matchless could
accommodate two free- market units rather than one free-market unit and a
D{kf'~
5
Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! - Minutes - February 28, 2006
voluntary ADU and help the Dodaos defray the cost of refurbishing their historic
cabin.
Raymond said the existing yellow Victorian is owned by the Dodaros (930
Matchless) in which Peter Dodaro's mother lives and the little whiteVictorian with
add-ons, which was where Chris and Pete Dodaro lived is owned by Chris
Dodaro's mother. Raymond stated in the future they would like to refurbish the
little cabin with the add-ons by removing all the add-ons and redo a single story
addition to make this a 700 to 800 square foot little unit and have the option to
build a small home in back.
Phelan stated with 930 Matchless, the single family residence, the applicant was
asking for underlying zoning so that they will have an allowable floor area of 3,609
square feet; however, they only need just under 3,000 square feet to develop what
has been approved by HPC so they would have an excess of 600 square feet that
they would like to turn into TDRs and would not need to land the 500 sq. ft. HPC
floor area bonus.
Phelan said the Ordinance in 1987 gave a 25 foot front yard setback for both
buildings and currently neither were 25 feet so it was suggested that the setback be
amended to where the current house are located for both 920 and 930 Matchless.
930 Matchless also requires a combined setback variance for the approved addition
and garage.
Phelan said that with the existing structure on 920 Matchless they need a variance
from the proposed new lot line, which was included in the Resolution. Also
included in the resolution is the ability of the HPC to grant any required setback
variance rather than having to amend the PUD when addition development is
proposed on the lot.
Phelan said staff recommended that the intent of 1987 Ordinance be maintained,
restricting 930 Matchless to 2,486 square feet rather than the underlying R-6 zone
district as it relates to allowable floor area and allowing the granted HPC bonus for
the design to be landed on lot 5A. Staff also recommended approval of the setback
variances currently requested by the applicant and provide the HPC the authority
waive any parking and grant any necessary variances with regard to the future
redevelopment of lot 5B (920 Matchless) The allowable floor area for 930
Matchless would be 2,986 square feet and 3,486 square footage for 920 Matchless.
Marion asked if on 920 Matchless (Lot 5B) the setback variance was required
because of the addition that was being tom down, once that is tom down the
:0~0
6
Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! - Minutes - February 28, 2006
underlying setbacks are allowed to exist as non-conforming. Phelan said in the
Resolution it says if and when the building is tom down then it would need to
meet the underlying R-6 zone district setbacks unless in the HPC design review
they would grant setback variances.
Marion asked if the non-conforming parking was allowed in the Resolution for
920. Phelan responded they will meet the underlying parking requirement with the
proposal unless the HPC grants a parking waiver at the time of its review.
Christine Dodaro stated that they were not a wealthy family; they were trying to
stay here and she thought that TDRs were created to help people preserve the
historic houses. Dodaro said it cost so much more money to preserve the house
than to demolish it and start from scratch, that was why they were asking for this
underlying zoning. Ruth Kruger asked how much TDRs sell for these days.
Phelan replied none have been sold at this date. Raymond said that the city HPC
TDRs were worth a lot less than the county TDRs. Dodaro stated that when they
bought the houses they were not historically designated and then they became
historically designated later; after that the ordinance was created; the historic
incentives were not there and they probably would not have signed.
No public comments.
Marion said that technically speaking if 920 (Lot 5B) were to be granted by
subdivision and the 3,485 square feet was its allowable floor area, could it still be
allowed to apply for the 500 square foot bonus once it submits its design
guidelines? Phelan replied that currently, you can only land one 500 square foot
bonus for a parent parcel. If they landed that 500 square foot bonus for 930
Matchless to increase the allowable floor area from 2,486 sq. ft. to 2,986 sq. ft.
then they would not be able to apply for another bonus on 920 Matchless.
However, if 930 Matchless was granted the allowable floor area of the underlying
zone district, then the bonus would not be needed for the approved design and
could potentially be landed on 920 Matchless in the future. Phelan said the basis
for granting the bonus was for an extraordinary design and preservation effort and
not all projects are granted the bonus. Any bonus needed to be included in the PUD
Amendment because of the constraint of the Ordinance. Marion asked ifP&Z
could direct which lot the bonus be applied to. Phelan replied yes.
Kim Raymond said she was trying to simplify by getting the 3,486 for both lots
then they would give up the HPC bonus for either lot. Raymond thought that
Lot5B (920) was able to accommodate the 3,486 square footage for 2 dwelling
units (a smaller historic unit and a Single Family Dwelling in the rear). Raymond
y~
7
Aspen Plannine: & Zonine: Commission Meetine: - Minutes - February 28. 2006
said that they were willing to limit Lot 5B to 2,986 square feet if they could have
the extra 500 square feet for the bonus for TDRs; that way they were giving up the
ability to build the extra 500 square feet on 920. Raymond said they were willing
to limit the FAR on the one lot.
John Rowland asked why they were resorting to the Ordinance from 1987. Phelan
stated the Ordinance from 1987 affects all 5 lots within that subdivision; the cap on
that subdivision runs with the land; when it was created there were additional
concerns of greater floor area allowances and additional development with the
rezoning from R-15 to R-6. The voluntary cap on the property was proposed by
the owners at that time so the Ordinance in place requires anyone in that
subdivision have the maximum 2,486 floor area cap per dwelling unit. Rowland
asked when the last time someone from that subdivision came in. Raymond
replied that 950 Matchless was 2 to 3 years ago and HPC granted them a 500
square foot bonus. Phelan added they also had to amend that PUD to land 500
square feet. Raymond said that 950 was already split from 940. Rowland asked
the difference in square footage. Phelan replied that the underlying zoning allows
930 Matchless 3,609 square feet so it would be approximately 600 square feet
more than the Ordinance allows at 2,486 square feet.
MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to approve Resolution #6, Series 2006,
granting the subdivision and Planned Unit Development approval, with conditions,
for the creation Lots 5A and 5B recommending that City Council approve with
conditions the Dodaro Subdivision PUD Amendment granting Lot 5A 2,486 square
feet plus the 500 square foot bonus and allowing Lot5B the underlying zoning at
3,485 square feet for 2 residences and no 500 square foot bonus on 920 Matchless.
Seconded by John Rowland. Roll call vote: Speck, yes; Rowland, yes; Marion,
yes; Kruger, yes. APPROVED 4-0.
Meeting Adjourned
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
~0
8
BOOK
f~\t\ 0 \,- "F-
547 PAGE196
~.....
-
-;
'"
z'"
Or
z<
c::a ~;:
OM ".<>
... ",~
n:5
=~.. <::>
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE ALPINE ACRES SUBDI~IOFQ CITY a:JF
ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO FROM R-15 (RES Im!NTIAl:.) TO R-6
(RESIDENTIAL) AND PLACING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
OVERLAY ON ALPINE ACRES LOTS 4 AND 5
, ---
ORDINANCE NO. 35
(Series of 1987)
WHEREAS, an application and petition have been submitted by
Joseph Dunn, Charles Bishop and other owners of the Alpine Acres
SUbdivision to rezone to R-6 (Residential) Alpine Acres and to
place a Planned Unit Development Overlay on Alpine Acres Lots 4,
subsequently resubdivided Lots 4A & 4B, and Lot 5; and
WHEREAS, the subdivision is presently zoned R-15 (Residen-
tial); and
WHEREAS, all of the owners of Alpine Acres Subdivision have
agreed to request a voluntarily imposed maximum floor area (FAR)
of 2,486 square feet per dwelling unit; and
WHEREAS, as part of the rezoning request, Joseph Dunn and
Charles Bishop have submitted a SUbdivision exception request for
the purpose of creating two lots; and
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing held on July 21,
1987, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend that
the subdivision exception and rezoning be approved; and
WHEREAS, the application has been found to be generally
consistent with Section 24-12.5 of the Land Use Code which
establishes criteria for rezoning; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has found that due to the existing
narrow lots and large front yard setbacks of Lots 4 and 5 a
Planning Unit Development Overlay is appropriate so to allow for
the creation of new lots not meeting the minimum lot width
N
CD
;-J
,
w
"
-,
J'<0
~
,.
()
"f\.
J
f
I
J
J
I
,
,
I
BOOK 547 PAGE197
requirement and to maintain the existing character of the front
yard setbacks; and
WHEREAs, the Asp~n City Council has considered the recommen-
dation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and has determined
the proposed rezoning to be compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land use in the vicinity of the site.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That it does hereby rezone to R-6 the Alpine Acres Subdivi-
sion and place on Lots 4 and 5 of Alpine Acres a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) overlay subject to the following conditions
voluntarily imposed by the sUbdivision property owners:
A. Each dwelling unit in Alpine Acres shall be restricted
to a maximum countable floor area of 2,486 square feet.
B.
Front yard setbacks of Lots 4 and 5, and subsequently
resubdivided Lots 4A and 4B, shall be a minimum of 25
feet; and
C.
The minimum lot width of newly created Lots 4A and '~B
shall be approximately 45 feet and 39 feet respect-
ively.
r1
Section 2
That the Zoning District Map be amended to reflect the
rezoning described in Section 1 and the City Engineer be author-
ized and directed to amend the map to reflect the zoning change.
Section 3
That the City Clerk is directed upon adoption of this
ordinance to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
....
. .
BOOK 547 PAGE19S
section 4
If any section, sub-section, 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 such holding shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
section 5
A public hearing on the Ordinance will be held on the I~~
of ~tJ , 1987 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers,
Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to
which hearing notice of the same was published once in a news-
paper 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 /b 14~ of a~4u_~
~
1987.
~.~~
William L. stirling, Mayor
.," ."...,
<","', ~F A'
,..,,' .....-.1,'" ".
~ ~ '--"'-1-
/ ATTEST:....
Kathry~...s ,,-i<och,
(' ~. ..' ... v-'
. ( ) -'i F1:ijM.r.Y adopted, passed and
. ......\.,
1987. .
approved this 1:I000000ay o~t J
~~~6or
,., ,
,.", OF
" ~ 'I \I, ofor ".
" ''Il.'TTES'J.'.'' '.
. '-J'" . r.'
. -. - '-
'.:;~ :.
. ~och,
gh.49 .... g
. ,
c. ..... l
QCjRJ.:)~ "~..,,,
11\\\
...."",,11
l=~tDp\\ (~
fl-
RECORf)-i)F-PROCEED:INGS
PliMINUf6 MID ZOI!HNG--------------
-o'JtJIiy-. 2i:. -19-8'1
Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 5:00 pm.
ROIiIo-eALL
Answering roll call were Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt and Jim
Colombo. Ramona Markalunas and David white arrived inunediately
after roll call. Mari Peyton was excused.
COMM-ISS-IONER'-S - CflMMEN'!'S
Jim Colombo: If the other Conunissioners feel as I do, I would
like to ask staff to present us with essential summary of Council
hearing decisions that effect us or that we would probably have
to see again. There are times when Council is making decisions
that by protocol should have come to us first. Or decisions that
we have passed on to them with our recommendations, and we don't
even know what the final decision was. We would like to have
some fOllow-up. Perhaps a brief sununary of what is going on and
what a decision was and what it was based on.
Jasmine: Perhaps this could be included in your comments in our
packets.
Welton: I did some double checking on that Marolt item and at
least from Planning staff I have got confirmation that the parcel
of land that the house sits on would be a day care center was
purchased with the 6th penney funds. Any change in use from open
space uses has to go to a vote of the population.
Steve: We are trying to get the City Attorney's office to take a
position because we feel it is more a legal issue than it is
something that the Planning staff has the expertise on. It is a
little bit nebulous right now. The City Attorney has not made a
definitive statement.
Jasmine: Do you have any idea when they are going to come
forward with a conditional use application?
Steve: They are hoping to come forward very soon. In August
they would like to have a P&Z hearing so that hopefully by
September, if things go the way they want them to, they could
open it up.
Jasmine: But we expect to' get an opinion from the City Attorney
before that time on that condition?
Steve: Yes.
,.------
1
Roger: Regarding the Zoline Property: I assume that Council has
had no P&Z input concerning that type of thing at all.
David: I think that it is very important when we do something
like we did last week regarding the Marolt property that Council
get that and we get something back. Our charter says we are
supposed to help plan things for the community and one of our big
complaints was in not maintaining what they have got. Now if
they have got another piece of property, that's great but the
maintenance of that property is critical to making the entrance
to Aspen look decent and the Marolt entrance to Aspen looks
terrible. The City can do things that other people can't do and
we can't have that continue.
S'l'AFF-COMMRNTS
Steve: Council is going to consider an incentive package on
Historic Preservation on Monday, July 27. It would be very good
if some P&Z members could attend that meeting to explain the
basis of the resolution that endorse those incentives in
particular the landuse ones since that is basically all this
Commission dealt with.
PREVI6US-MI....u.LES
Roger made a motion to adopt the minutes of June 16, 1987 and
July 7, 1987.
Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor.
POBLre-HEARIN<;
ALP:I-NE-ACRES--BOBDlVISI-()H-- REZONING
Steve: The location of Alpine Acres is just north of Gibson
Avenue. There are 5 lots ranging in size of 15,900 sq ft to just
over 19,000 sq ft. The total area is 2.7 acres. The most easily
distinguishable feature of the subdivision are the 4 victorian
structures on Matchless Drive on lots 4 & 5. There are also 2
modern duplexes to the east of those victorians which are known
as the Court Club condominiums, Then along Gibson Avenue just
behind those or just to the south of the Court Club condominiums
is another duplex which were historic structures but they have
been added to and altered and modernized a great deal and are now
a duplex structure.
The request before you is to rezone Alpine Acres from R-15 to
R-6. The rezoning was initiated by Joe Dunn and Chip Bishop so
that they could do a lot split of Lot 4 of which they are co-
owners. That then would allow them to do a modest expansion of
their victorians. That is the immediate reason as to why the
2
rezoning is in front of you. The Dunns and Bishops are also
requesting a subdivision exception for that lot split.
There was a zoning error which we discovered when they had first
submitted a request for a lot split. The map said R-6. Then
when we looked at the Ordinance it said R-15 with some
stipulations. And because it is R-15 they were not allowed at
that time to do the lot split. The stipulations were that
building of the unimproved lots were to be where the Court Club
Condos are now is limited in FAR to 1600 sq ft. and a 6 month
minimum lease restrictions were applied to all the properties.
Because of that, Council initiated rezoning to help the
applicants so that they could submit an application and get
things going. Looking at the rezoning criteria, criteria 41 is
compatibility with the surrounding zone districts and land uses
and a suitability of the site for development. This neighborhood
is quite a mix of both land uses, residential land uses and zone
districts. There is a lot of R-15 and R-15 (a) within that
neighborhood. There is also some high density zoning including
the mobile home park just to the west of the development and just
to the east of Alpine Acres is Sunny Park North which is
residential mUlti-family.
We feel that there is a certain pattern as you go north. There
is that R-15 area and the R-6 is further to the south. However
we note that this development is already built out at a density
that is very similar to R-6 and that R-6 is compatible with the
neighborhood.
The main issues relate to the outside characteristics and the
concerns for any redevelopment of Alpine Acres. We looked at 3
issues primarily. The FAR is something that the applicants have
addressed by vol unteering that there be restr ictions of 2500 sq
ft for each dwelling unit. We note that that is higher than the
1600 sq ft limitation on the duplexes but it is considerably
lower than what would be allowed if they were to undertake lot
splits and create single family lots throughout the subdivision.
Basically it is the same number as the duplex FAR on a 1500 sq ft
lot. So it is very similar to the existing allowed FAR.
We reviewed the size of the existing structures in the sense of
what 2500 sq ft is in terms of bulk and the nature of the request
which was partly justified in the application to help preserve
and enhance those victorians. We felt that 2500 sq ft would
allow doubling and tripling the size and may be a little greater
than what would take care of all the objectives that we felt were
being stated. We determined that 1800 sq ft would allow for a
modest expansion that wouldn't overshadow the existing structures
nor would it dwarf the neighboring structures. We suggest that
that be considered as a more appropriate FAR. Also remember that
600 sq ft of garage is exempt from FAR calculations so in effect
3
you do get a somewhat larger structure.
The second issue is the setbacks and greenspace. All of the lots
have a great deal of greenspace. The victorians have somewhat of
a distinct setback situation where they are approximately 27 ft
north of Matchless Drive. This is an amenity of the subdivision
that we suggest should be preserved. If you build closer to that
street then it could effect the neighbors. It could very much
deter or effect negatively the views of the other structures.
The third area is the width of the lots. The re-subdividing of
Lot 4 cannot meet the minimum lot width of 60 ft in the R-6 zone
district. The lot width of newly created parcels are
approximately 39 feet and 42 feet. The City cannot approve a
subdivision or a lot split exception from subdivision creating
non-conforming lots. So the lots can be created through the PUD
provision.
All three of these issues lead us to think that PUD overlay
really would be appropriate for Alpine Acres. That is basically
the nature of our recommendation. The other criteria of traffic
safety, air and water quality should not be affected because they
are not going to change the density at this time.
With regard to community need: We think it is really in the
benefit of the community to facilitate the owners of the property
to be able to make improvements. And regarding the general plan,
we noted that the R-6 zone would continue to be consistent with
the single family residential category which it now has.
Suggested alternatives: The first one is to zone the Alpine
Acres Subdivision R-6 and set the 2500 sq ft maximum FAR. The
second would be R-6 with 1800 sq ft FAR. The third R-6 with PUD
overlay 1800 maximum FAR, a 25 ft front yard setback and
establ ish lot widths of less than 60 ft. We are recommending
that the #3 alternative.
With regard to the Lots with subdivision exception: We noted
that the lot that would be created for Lot 4, the parcels would
be conforming except in lot width. We recommend the approval
subject to the R-6 PUD condition. The Engineering Department has
requested the agreement to join the Special Improvement District
if they are formed. That is a fairly standard request on their
part. The 6 month lease restriction which did apply to the
entire subdivision should continue to be applied.
John Kelly representing Joe Dunn and Chip Bishop: The only
reason that this application is here is because these houses were
moved in the early '60s over to that property. They were
originally duplexes. They were condominiumized shortly after the
City annexed the property. The 1600 sq ft restriction really
only applied to the lot that the Courthouse Condominiums are on.
4
The houses are physically separate. The only way they can
practically expand them is separately. This requires separate
financing, separate ownership and everything else. If they are
to expand any other way, they have to turn them back into a
duplex. We have been advised that architecturally that is a
disaster. We are going to end up with a box-like structure
because we have to have 20 ft common wall. That is the reason we
went to the Building Department and said what can we do. They
said it is R-6 so go in for a lot split. We then discovered at
the very last minute that it wasn't R-6, though the City map said
it was. That is why the rezoning request is here.
Technically when it is a City-initiated zoning request, you don't
require approval of all the people in the area. But we were
advised by the Planning Office to go around to all the neighbors
and get everyone's consent. It was treated as a private one in
that we went around and got everybody's consent.
What we presented to everyone was basically what we had before.
The reaction of most of the neighbors was that is fine to rezone
this but we don't want to downzone our FAR. That is basically
the way they felt about it. We picked the 2500 sq ft figure
because that is what duplex expansion would allow. Its 1000 to
1300 less than what would be allowed under R-6 without any
restriction at all. We voluntarily restricted it. Mr. Dunn and
Mr. Bishop feel that if it is knocked down to the 1800 sq ft,
they would rather have now what they have and they will work out
some way to expand with duplexes. That would be a much less
aesthetically pleasing alternative.
In reality we are only talking about Lots 4 and 5. The Coates
Condominiums are very recent and not susceptible to expansion.
It just isn't very practical. The same situation exists with Lot
1. Just recently they put a lot of money into their units and it
doesn't make a lot of sense to me that they would tear those down
to increase FAR. They are not that susceptible to expansion.
We have no objection to the setback. We already have a private
covenant in the subdivision which applies to those 4 victorians
that you can't build anything on the front 27 feet of the lot.
There are 13 different owners over there and we got everybody's
agreement to this. We presented that figure on the 22nd of June.
The first I heard that the Planning Office was recommending 1800
sq ft was last Thursday. It was virtually impossible for us to
go back to all these people and have another meeting and get it
all together. So we would request that our original proposal of
2500 sq ft be the voluntary restriction. The R-6 in the rest of
the City is a lot more than that. There are plenty of houses
larger than 2500 sq ft in that neighborhood.
5
Regarding the PUD: The substandard nature of the lots is
something Gannett has come up with at the last minute. As single
family residents we would be exempted from that anyway. I again
have to say that we did not present this to other neighbors that
way. Whether or not any of them would obj ect to that, I don I t
know.
The lot split exemption was set. It was calendared and
everything else and then at the last minute they found this map
problem. That was something that was not raised at the time. I
think they can approve substandard lots.
Wel ton: The re is PUD over this enti re subdivision and single
families are exempt. Duplexes are not.
Steve: Right. But since they are condominiumized I made the
point that they are not effected with additional reviews.
John: They were all duplexes originally. Physically they are
no longer duplexes. At some point before my clients bought the
property the common walls were removed which took away its duplex
character. Under the provisions of the condominium declaration,
we will uncondominiumize them and make them two single family
lots. That is really the only way it is practical for them to
expand. It could have been expanded as a duplex and we want them
to stay as the victorian.
Welton: Are there any physical duplexes that would have a
hardship placed on them if there is a PUD overlay?
Steve: There are 3 duplexes on Lots 1, 2 & 3.
John: Those are physically and legally duplexes.
Steve: Our intent is not to place a hardship on them. We
thought it was not an additional hardship. It is a matter of
addressing the Lot width situation and the ability for future
redevelopment.
Wel ton: But if the duplexes on Lot 1, 2 or 3 wont expand more
than 1% of their FAR they wont have to have a PUD amendment.
Steve: Right. But that would be done in conjunction with the
condominiumization.
Welton: I am saying next year if they don't add more than 1%
they would not be exempt from PUD and that would be a hardship on
them.
Steve: Is it a hardship because they would then have to meet the
criteria or would they just be subject to public review. They
are subject to public review.
6
Welton: Because it is $1570 and sit around for 6 months waiting
to go through the process.
Steve: The fees are set on the number of meetings.
Jim Colombo: Hypothetically, if one of them came in and wanted a
larger than that percentage increase, what would you think the
process would be for them.
Steve: A PUD amendment as well as the condominiumization plan.
Jim: How many meetings would you set and what would the fee be?
Steve: In both cases the PUD amendment
process. It depends on the varying impacts.
during the pre application.
Welton: Say he wants to add a bedroom. I can't see putting him
through any kind of PUD amendment process.
can be a one-step
We try to determine
Steve: The PUD setup with the exemption on PUD which is a P&Z
only or a PUD amendment and then there is the condominiumization
platt part that can be either be 2 steps be 1 step. I am not
sure there is any additional hardship as long as they meet the
criteria and I would imagine that they would with a miner
extension.
Welton: The only staff exemptions are if it is only 1%.
Steve: Right, there is a staff signoff if it is less than 1% and
doesn't increase coverage of the lot.
Steve:
The fee
maximum.
And 1% would be around 18 sq ft.
And then there is the P&Z signoff which is a one-step.
on this is $680.00 But often we aren't charg ing the
Welton:
Welton: It is clear to me that another vehicle other than a PUD
overlay is needed on this. It makes no sense to make those
conforming lots.
Roger: I would not be adverse to giving them R-6 but the problem
is we create non-conforming lots which the code says we shouldn't
do. That is what we are stuck with here--PUD or nothing. If the
PUD can be accepted or a one-step process, that would be no
different than amending the condominium agreement and at the same
cost. I don't see where that's a great adversity to the people
in the duplexes.
David:
PUD seems to be overkill.
I live next to lot 12.
On
7
Park Circle there is I don't know how many people per sq ft. Then
you go over to the other side and you have got the trailer park
which has thousands of people per sq ft. There is only two, 4
and 5, which are these old houses which were moved. When they
sold them that is when they took down the things which made them
duplexes and they put them on the market. That was '82 or '83.
If we could put some restrictions on the square footage and I am
not opposed to looking at 25. 18 is ridiculous. They can't even
move in 18. They don't want to make them monstrous. Except for
the people on the other side of Gibson, everybody around there is
crammed in. Looking at Gibson down along King Street is supposed
to be R-15Ia). That is not R-lS. That is an R-6 if you have
ever seen one. With the duplexes and everything else that is
along that street. So this is all much, much denser than they
are. So I think we have got to figure out a way--I won't go PUD
overlay. That seems to be an absurd layer of bureaucracy.
John: My clients don't care about PUD. I doubt that the Haases
would. But I can't speak for them. It may be the concern of
some people if their buildings burn down or whatever. The
practical thing is that Lots 1, 2 and 3 are really not
susceptible to much expansion. The Haases could do the same sort
of thing we could do. They could go in and ask for a lot split
and modestly expand backwards. Nobody has indicated to us that
they want to do any expansion. This has all been done by us.
Maybe we can put a PUD on our lots if that is what you want to
do. I don't know what the rest of the people in the subdivision
are going to say. I just don't want to be in a position with our
neighbors that we misrepresented what was going to happen. PUD
was not part of our plan when we got an approval.
Welton: I am personally very hesitant for PUD overlay on some-
body without their knowledge.
Steve: If there is a co-ordination problem trying to get it all
together so that all of the owners understand what is going on,
perhaps it is appropriate to table this until they have got a
chance to understand it all.
John: Well, we could put those lots in PUD and leave the rest
alone. Nobody cares about the setbacks. We have got private
covenants that cover that anyway.
Steve: To do that, I would at least go to Lots 4 and 5 because
they are both in the same kind of situation.
Welton: According to code the smallest area that can have a PUD
overlay is 27,000 sq ft.
John: We have got more the 30,000.
done and then maybe we could proceed.
I would like to see that
8
Welton: I think we can zone it all R-6 and put the PUD only on 4
and 5. That should accomplish your goal and not take away any
property rights of others. There is no effect at all on single
family, only duplexes.
Jasmine: So there is no reason to include Lot 5 in the PUD.
Steve: Yes there is. Then they can do a lot split if they want
to at a later date.
Jasmine: Then if they have no objection and they know about it,
we could put that in as a condition of this.
John: They signed off on the R-6.
Steve:
allow to
rebuild.
It doesn't change the FAR. The only thing it doe s is
them to redevelop that lot--tear down the existing and
They would have that ability.
Jasmine:
How big are the existing structures?
John: Coates is right around 1650. There are 4 of them. Ours
are around 800 and 1100.
Jim: So regardless of the zoning problem what you are planning
on doing is bringing an 800 sq ft victorian over 27 ft setback on
2500 sq ft without somehow changing enormously the character and
bulk of the building?
Joe Dunn: We aren't going to put 2500 sq ft addition on.
Chip: What I have planned to do with
I have got 1100. I want an upstairs.
about 2 ft short of a legal upstairs.
Roger: If admitted under R-15 it is wortn 2500 sq ft.
mine is just go upstairs.
Right now the upstairs is
John: That is if you box the whole thing. The whole idea is not
to do that.
Jim: I am trying to imagine how you are not going to do that if
the units start with 800 sq ft and bring them up to 2500 sq ft.
Chip: First of all the 800 sq ft unit is the one that is already
done down below. That's on Lot 1. Ours are going 1050 to 1500.
Roger: I think if you put the limit of 2486, that gives you no
more than what they give to you right now on this property.
John: That was our objective.
9
Steve: If you look at Lot 1 which has those two structures off
of Gibson, the existing FAR is a little bit less than 2500 for
the two units together. That is why we suggested you do
something less.
Welton: The two basic questions are how to accomplish not making
the new lots non-conforming. A single family dwelling is
completely exempt and does not have to do anything as far as PUD
is concerned. The other question is the lot size and I hear
Roger saying 2486 is a maximum.
Jasmine: Theoretically a lot split doesn't necessarily mean
additional development. We are doing a rezoning even with a PUD
which is giving the applicant more development rights than they
would have had previously when the parcel was first annexed
because it was R-15. When this area was annexed into the City
one of the conditions with the R-15 zoning was that each
different building would be limited to an external FAR 1600 sq
ft. Or may comply with any applicable FAR regulations at the
time of permit issuance whichever is more restrictive. So
clearly the intent under annexation was that this was to be an R-
15 with very limited sized dwellings.
Clearly the intent under annexation was that this was to be an R-
15 with very limited size dwellings. Now in order to accomplish
the lot split and do a PUD you get the rezoning and all of a
sudden you have got 2500 sq ft structures. I don I t think that
was what was intended.
John: Let me clarify that and I think Steve agrees with me on
this. You have to read that very carefully. What it said was
that the unimproved lots shall be limited to 1600 sq ft. Now
Lots 4, 5 and 1 were improved prior to the time of annexation.
The only one that applied to were Lots 2 and 3. It clearly does
not apply to us. We have been through this with the City.
Jasmine: Why doesn't it? Its all the same subdivision.
John: I don't know. The Planning Office asked that of us. I
talked to the attorney, Lennie Oates, who represented Luke
Anthony when the annexation was done and he said he didn't even
remember it. He said he can't imagine whey he ever would have
agreed to it. It says they were going to consider it for high
density employee housing too.
Jasmine: It just seems to me that the intent was not to have
very big buildings in that subdivision and whether it is an
unimproved lot or not the buildings that were already there were
under that.
John: But they did not restrict the building expansion.
10
",
Jasmine: I understand that. I am trying to figure out why this
is all happening the way it was because it seems to me that you
are making a significant increase in size in those two dwellings.
Joe: The condos got built after that. They were supposed to be
restricted. They put in an 800 sq ft basement which makes them
the 16 plus 800. They allowed them to do that and call that a
storage area so they are already built up to the 2400.
Jasmine: I am very unhappy with that 2500 foot limit.
Originally it was intended to be small modest buildings and you
are making them huge. With all our. concern about FAR and very
big buildings on very little lots, to me it is another classic
example of small lots with great big buildings on them.
Welton: It is going to be a lot smaller this way. Most of them
would be in the 4,000 sq ft rather than the 2500.
David: In the mobile home park right next door to lot 5, there
are 3 or 4 mobile homes on this size lot. This was brought in
with those restrictions in '76 but in '83 they brought in the
trailer park. That was in the City before it was in the County.
There has been a lot of changes. I don't think with the size of
those lots--how thin they are and how wide they are--that someone
is going to build 2500. He has got 1100 downstairs but he can't
use the upstairs because it has not got enough height in it.
What he wants to do is be able to open up the height. The one
next door could put it in back but he can't do too much or he
touches his neighbor or he goes into the street. I don't think
he could possibly build 2500. It wouldn't look ve ry good and
since it is their houses I don't think 2500 is too big.
Roger: There is ambiguity built into that Ordinance 69 series
'76. It says there "By adoption of the R-15 zoning category for
the unimproved lots, the City shall not be precluded from the
consideration of the appropriateness of these sites for high
density employee housing." Initially when the small dwellings
were put on there, I can see keeping the unimproved lots down to
more or less the same scale. But at this point with what is in
there, I don't see a problem tending to keep everything to that
same scale which in this case is about 2500 sq ft per unit.
Steve: Which is considerably larger than the existing
development pattern. If you look at it as a subdivision, you say
shall we try to retain some of the amenities.
John: What it really comes down to is if you develope those like
my clients want to as single family houses it is going to have a
lot less impact than developing as a duplex.
Welton: For example in R-6 the FAR allowed on a 3,000 sq ft non-
conforming lot is 2400 sq ft. These lots are almost 8,000.
11
."
Steve: I feel that it is not a good direction to only zone the 2
lots PUD. I can't urge you to go that direction. It is a mish-
mash of zoning in an area that--
Welton: Is already amish-mash.
This saves the aggravation and hassle for Lots 1, 2 and 3 duplex
lots to have to go through a PUD process of one sort or another
every time they want to add on a bathroom.
John: The only thing that I could say is the lot split exemption
that these guys filed has been there for months and months. The
first time that the substandard width of the lots was ever
brought up was last Thursday. We have been fiddling around with
this thing since September of 1986 and it just isn't that
controversial a deal.
Roger: I move to recommend approval of the rezoning of the
Alpine Acres from R-15 to R-6 with PUD overlay for new Lots 4A
and 4B and old Lot 5 with voluntary imposed conditions that each
dwelling unit be restricted to a maximum of coverable floor area
of 2486 sq ft for Lot 4A and 4B.
Welton: Just the 4A and 4B and a blanket FAR for the whole
subdivision.
Steve I would suggest that you make a condition D that says the
PUD overlay only applies to lots 4 and 5 and then just rezone to
R-6 and take PUD out of the first sentence.
Roger: Basically our attitude is that the concept is fine go up
to the maximum allowed under R-15 for all the lots, right?
Welton: No. R-6 or R-15 floor is the same. It is based on the
lot size on the sliding scale.
Steve: It is the difference between the duplex FAR and single
family if the they were to split. The FAR of 2486 would be 1/2
of the duplex FAR.
Wel ton: If they were two single families built on there they
could be 3784. As a duplex it would be 4973 and 1/2 verses 2485.
So we are taking duplex, cutting them in half and moving them
onto two separate lots and getting them more FAR by figuring it
that way.
Roger: What is one single family on one of the new lots?
Welton: 3784. So we are restricting them to 1200 sq ft lots.
Roger: So that we are consistent between 4A, 4B ang 5. In the
12
,"
case of Lot 5 though the figure would be 2503.
John: 100% of the people have signed up on 2500 sq ft. No one
is going to object to 2486. I think that is the maximum
voluntary FAR restriction for the whole subdivision.
Roger: Then I will restate condition A--each dwelling unit will
be restricted to the maximum coverable floor area of 2486 sq ft.
Condition B being the same as the Planning Office memo dated 7-
15-1987. Condition C being simply saying except that we identify
the 39 feet for Lot 4B and the 45 feet for Lot 4A.
David seconded the motion.
Roger: I put the PUD in with the basic motion.
Lots 4A, 4B and 5. Now the condition D that
verification of the platt concerning naming of the
Matchless Drive or Silverking Drive.
The PUD was on
there is the
street either
Everyone was in favor of the motion except Jasmine.
Roger: I move to recommend approval of the requested subdivision
exception for the purpose of splitting Lot 4 into Lot 4A and 4B
of Alpine Acres as requested subject to the following conditions:
Conditions 1 and 2 being the same as Planning Office memo dated
7-15-1987. Condition 3 modified to include Lots 4A, 4B and 5
until Alpine Acres is rezoned R-6 with a PUD overlay for Lots 4A,
4B and 5.
Jim seconded this motion.
Everyone was in favor of the motion except Jasmine.
Roger: I move to reconsider the previous motion concerning a
signed statement from Lot 5.
Everyone was in favor of the reconsideration.
Roger: I make a motion amending my first motion to include
condition E being that the applicant shall endorse signed
statement from the owner of Lot 5 agreeing to being a part of
PUD.
Jim seconded this motion with all in favor except Jasmine.
Welton: The public hearing is closed and the regular meeting is
adj ourned.
The time was 6:15 pm.
(
13
J1
'.
CCGV\(/'~ \ \^A)I\J~ s
?;fD/r+-
\ :5\ y.(' c\Lbvu~
lX2\. ~~-{Y:-l <6-::t)
.
ExttTB\\ M-
Reattlcl,J.. Mor::::cL";'ul.l
.. ----.---Itsrnm--Cftv-.-C-onnci.i
A= "lfr.- i.~8'7
Chuck Roth, engineering department, recommended formation of a
district for this work. Council wanted to send out a question-
naire to residents in the proposed area to determine the response
and interest. Roth told Council of the 400 questionnaires
received back, 80 percent of the residents were in favor of
continuing with the project and with getting the wires under-
grounded. The next step was a resolution to require the utilit-
ies to prepare cost estimates to do the work. That resolution
was passed in February.
The next step is to pass this ordinance. The prime utilities are
the power utilities, and the main one is the City of Aspen
electric department. Roth noted Holy Cross fell within the
geographical description of what is to be undergrounded. Roth
told Council all utilities have been very cooperative with the
city in doing the work. Roth said the cost estimates have been
provided to the city clerk. The original estimate to bury the
service connections was between $1,200,000 and $1,500,000. These
estimates of the improvements district will be about $500,000.
Roth pointed out these estimates are high because if the utility
companies underestimate the costs, they are legally obligated to
cover the difference. Roth told Council the telephone company
will not take their wires down until two blocks of the project
are totally undergrounded. The improvement di str ict has been
judged the best technique to get the entire system undergrounded.
Ed Grange, Holy Cross, told Council they share the city's feeling
that all the services will not be undergrounded without a
mechanism to get this done. Kelly Bloomer, Canyon Cable, told
Council they endorse the project and encourage Council to move
forward. Roth told Council this will be a 10 year assessment
period, and the funds may be handled in-house rather than bonded.
Roth told Council the staff will send every property owner a
letter telling them what their exact costs will be.
Roll call vote1 Councilmembers Tuite, n01 Gassman, yes1 Fallin,
yes1 Isaac, yes; Mayor Stirling, no. Motion carried.
()~ '35. SERHffl-i}F---r!r89 - Alpine Acres Rezoning
Councilwoman Fallin moved to read Ordinance *35, Series of 19871
seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #35
(Series of 1987
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE ALPINE ACRES SUBDIVISION,
CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, FROM R-15
(RESIDENTIAL) TO R-6 (RESIDENTIAL) AND PLACING A
16
~
.
RecrttlCl.L Mco;::L..i.lI'J
~----*s-oen--eitv--ermtTci-t
ArTcrm:;t -1-0-.- '1-98-7
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) OVERLAY ON ALPINE ACRES
LOTS 4 AND 5 was read by the city clerk
Councilwoman Fallin moved to adopt Ordinance #35, Series of 1987,
on first reading; seconded by Councilman Tuite.
Steve Burstein, planning office, said this is 2.7 acres in the
Smuggler neighborhood. Burstein said this does meet the rezoning
criteria. There is an FAR restriction of 2500 square feet
volunteered by the applicant. John Kelly, representing the
applicant, told Council the reason for this rezoning is so that
these can be developed separately as Victorians. Kelly said
these can be torn down and replaced with a duplex. The appli-
cants want to expand their houses, and the only way they can
technically do this is with a lot split and with R-6 zoning.
Kelly told Council the neighbors unanimously support this. Kelly
noted with a duplex they can legally build 2500 square feet per
side, and the applicants did not want to increase the FAR by
zoning 50 agreed to that FAR. Kelly told Council this sub-
division is fully built out. Joseph Dunn, applicant, told
Council they would like to avoid building a duplex and would like
to keep these two structures separate and maintain the Victorian
flavor.
Roll call vote; Councilmembers Fallin, yes; Gassman, yes: Tuite,
yes: Isaac, yes: Mayor Stirling, yes. Motion carried.
~rNANeE 436. SERIES OF -r~7 - Annexing East Meadow/Jukati
Councilman Isaac moved to approve Resolution #20, Series of
1987; seconded by Councilwoman Fallin. All in favor, motion
carried.
Councilwoman Fallin moved to read Ordinance #36, Series of 1987:
seconded by Councilman Gassman. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE 136
(Series of 1987)
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN AS
REFERRED TO AND DESCRIBED IN THAT PETITION FOR ANNEXA-
TION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN CERTIFIED BY THE
CITY CLERK ON APRIL 2, 1987, COMMONLY KNOWN AS "EAST
MEADOW AND JUKATI SUBDIVISION" was read by the city
clerk
Councilwoman Fallin moved to adopt Ordinance #36, Series of 1987,
on first reading: seconded by Councilman Tuite. Roll call vote;
Councilmembers Gassman, yes: Tuite, yes; Isaac, yes: Fallin, yes:
Mayor Stirling, yes. Motion carried.
17
~u.\
M.\ Y\u \-G~
<1\/\ 4./ 'fS -:r
21''<',\ v( c. >et; ~.Yl/ . ~
c...";>.(2 \. ~\ cl ~-=t J
m\rB\\: T
Re-aul-ar' MccL~w...
As-oeneitv Counctl
.. -Sp.TJtemnF-r 14;" 19-8-7
3. Councilwoman Fallin said last year Council approved money to
have a senior PGA golf tournament in town; what has happened to
the tournament. Assistant City Manager Mitchell said the
tournament did not happen, and staff has written a letter to
Starr enterprises requesting a final report whether this can be
put together for next year. If it cannot, the city is requesting
a refund of the $10,000 seed money. Mitchell said staff should
have a report for the next meeting.
4. Councilman Gassman request for the next agenda a discussion
of not sanding the streets as he feels this is worth looking
into. Councilman Gassman said the city could inform people that
sanding the streets puts a lot of dust into the air and is
difficult to pick up and ask people to drive more carefully.
Councilman Gassman said he doubts the accident rates are higher
on the streets that are not currently sanded. Councilman
Gassman said this would save money both in putting the sand on
the streets and in picking it up.
Councilman Gassman moved to have this on the agenda September 28~
seconded by Mayor Stirling. All in favor, with the exception of
Councilman Isaac. Motion carried.
ORnINANeE--~-;---tmR-lE"S- -&-'1-9-8-'7 - Alpine Acres Rezoning
steve Burstein, planning office, told Council the request is to
rezone this area from R-lS to R-6 as well as a subdivision
exception to split lot 4 containing two Victorian houses.
Burstein told Council the lots range in size from 15,890 square
feet to over 19,000 square feet. The Court Club ~uplexes a:e
located on lots 2 and 3 and there is no allowable 1ncrease 1n
density in the area. P & Z recommended approval of the rezoning
subject to 3 conditions, which have been agreed upon by the
applicant. These conditions are listed in section 1 of the
ordinance. Burstein noted this application does meet the
rezoning criteria. There was concern about the floor area ratio,
which will be restricted to 2,486 square feet per dwelling unit.
Burstein told Council the concept is they should retain the same
floor area ratio for each unit they would have if they built
duplexes, and there is not increase in floor area. P & Z had
suggested a FAR of 1800 square feet in keeping with the area.
Another condition is the front yard setback for lots 4 and 5 as
existing to retain the character of the subdivision. The last
condition is a minimum lot variation, which is necessary for lots
4A and 4B because they are such narrow lots. Burstein pointed
out a PUD overlay would be placed on lots 4 and 5 to allow for a
minimum lot width variation. The planning office has suggested
the PUD should be on the entire subdivision because that would be
6
.
Re-au-la-r- Mt:c L ";'.,\.1
-'.---1rsnen-'''Cit v----€nunci l' .. -
Seutp.mbP-T 14; 19-87
more consistent. Burstein recommended approval of adoption of
this ordinance. Burstein also recommended approval of the lot
split subject to 3 conditions. (1) That a subdivision plat be
filed which includes lot areas, easements, rights-of-way, (2) a
statement of subdivision exception should be flied including the
6 month minimum lease restriction, and (3) that the plat not be
accept until the rezoning is approved.
John Kelly, representing the applicant, said the reason the
applicant went through the process is to be able to develop the
houses as individual houses. The only other practical alterna-
tive is to start from scratch and build a duplex Kelly told
Council at one point these houses were duplexes4 They are
condominiumized, and a lot split is the only practical way each
owner can develop his house4 Kelly told Council this proposal
has 100 percent approval of all the people in the subdivision4
The owners came up with the FAR restriction of 2486 square feet,
which could be built in a duplex4
Mayor St i r ling opened the pub! io hear ing 4 There were no com-
ments. Mayor Stirling closed the public hearing4
Councilman Isaac asked if it is necessary to put a PUD overlay on
this subdivision in order to review each of the improvements4
Kelly said the only way the property owners can do a lot split is
through a PUD. Mayor Stirling asked what the side yard
setbacks are. Chip Bishop told Council they are 7-1/2 feet and 5
feet. Kelly noted by keeping the front yard setback larger, it
will require that the development go onto the back of the lot.
Councilman Tuite said there is no guarantee that these houses
have to stay Victorian houses. Kelly pointed out these struc-
tures have a very low rating on the historic inventory; they are
both rated 1. Kelly told Council if the owners did not want
these houses to remain Victorians, it would have been easier to
start over and build a duplex. The owners want to keep the
Victor ians 4
Councilwoman Fallin moved to adopt Ordinance #35, Series of 1987,
on second reading; seconded by Councilman Isaac4 Roll call vote;
Councilmembers Tuite, yes; Gassman, yes; Isaac, yes; Fallin, yes;
Mayor Stirling, yes. Motion carried4
Councilwoman Fallin moved to approve the requested subdivision
exception for the purpose of splitting lot 4 Alpine Acres into
lot 4A and 4B subject to the conditions as outlined in the
planning office memorandum; seconded by Councilman Isaac4 Ali in
favor, motion carried4
0RDl:NANC~.-SEftU.S-_-H87 - East Meadow/Jukati Zoning
7
o
d.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor & City Council
THRU:
Paul Menter, Finance Director
FROM:
Don Pergande, Budget Manager
,'2f?
RE:
April 14'h, 2006
SECOND READING: Adoption of Budget Supplemental - Ordinance NO.cl (Series 2006)
This item will be discussed on Monday, April 24th, 2006
DATE:
SUMMARY:
Staff is requesting an amendment to the City's 2006 budget that increases the city-wide total expenditure
appropriation from $102.4 to $132.3 million, (See Attachment A). Net of inter fund transfers, budget authority
increases from $85.3 to $115.2 million.
Interfund transfers are required appropriations between City funds that do not reflect the true cost of operations.
Attachment E provides a detailed listing of budgeted 2006 interfund transfers.
The exhibit below outlines the supplemental request's impact on the City's overall appropriation authority. The
reference attachments provide itemized listings of requested supplemental budget authority.
CITY OF ASPEN - 2006 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET
Description Amount Reference
2006 Adopted budget: $102,435,689 See Attachment A
Total New Requests: $2,297,602 See Attachment B
Total Managers Savings: $274,612 See Attachment C
50% Carry Forward Savings: $1,893,424 See Attachment C
Total 100% Carry Forwards: $27,465,410 See Attachment D
Technical Adjustments: $(2,048,922) See Attachment F
Total Supplemental $29 882 126
Reauests:
TOTAL ORDINANCE: $132,317,815 See Attachment A
Less Interfund Transfers: ($17.063.044) See Attachment E
NET APPROPRIATIONS: $115,254,771 See Attachment A
As noted in the chart above, this supplemental is substantially comprised of annual carry-forward appropriations.
These requests are for projects previously appropriated, and for which cash reserves are set aside. Different
categories of requests include:
. Attachment B: "New Requests" of $2,927,602 include requests for formal appropriation of funding issues
previously reviewed by Council during this fiscal year, and capital requests that have gone beyond the two
year automatic re-appropriation time frame provided by the City's Asset Management process. Narrative
justification of each new request is provided as part of this memorandum below.
. Attachment C: "Manager 10% Carry-forward Savings" of $274,612, which represent 10% of operating
budget savings from all departments of the City in previous years. These one-time appropriations are
allocated the City Manager's office (See Attachment C) for use in addressing mid-year issues with
citywide implications.
. Attachment C: "Departmental 50% Carry-forward Savings" of $1 ,893,424, which represent 50% of
previous year operating budget savings for individual departments. Departments are allocated these
amounts as a reward to finding efficiencies in their operations that allow them to meet their operating
goals while spending less than their total appropriations. These one-time appropriations can be spent on
items related to the department's mission (See Attachment C).
. Attachment 0: "Departmental "100% Carry-forward Requests": These requests are for operating items
and capital improvement projects budgeted in 2005 that require completion in 2006. Requests'total
$27,465,410. This category includes the City's personal computer and workstation replacement programs
- which keeps the City's computer technology new and efficient, and significant re-appropriation of
ongoing capital projects. Attachment D details these requests by department. Note: Personal computer
and workstation replacement carryforward savings total $312,620 and are fully incorporated in this
proposed budget ordinance.
. Attachment E: This attachment details all budgeted interfund transfers of the City for 2006 of
$17,063,044, in total.
. Attachment F: This attachment details all of the technical adjustments in 2006 of ($2,048,922), in total.
New Reauests:
In the General Fund, new requests to be reviewed by City Council, total $310,022. These requests are
made up of the following:
Community Deve/opment- The Community Development Department is requesting $80,000 in total.
$80,000 is for a construction manager position. This request will be funded from General Fund cash reserves.
Building Inspection- The Building Inspection Department is requesting $8,000, in total. $8,000 is for a one
time vehicle cost for the Burlingame Ranch inspector. This request will be funded by the General Fund cash
reserves
Police- The Police Department is requesting ($676), in total net reduction of their budget appropriations.
($15,361) is a one time reduction to the Police Departments base budget. The towing responsibility has been
moved to the Transportation/Parking fund. Concurrently, the revenue will be moved from the General Fund to the
Transportation/Parking fund. $14,685 is for the disbursement of grant funding received and deposited in the
General Fund. These funds were intended to be shared between the Aspen Police Department, Snowmass
Village Police Department, and the Pitkin County Sheriffs Office for increased DUI patrol overtime. The Police
Department is requesting additional budget authority to enable the distribution of these funds to Snowmass and
Pitkin County. This request will be funded by State grant funds.
Street Department, $10,243 - This request appropriates insurance proceeds for use in repairing a City
vehicle that was recently in an accident. This is a one time operating appropriation that is fully funded from a
CIRSA insurance payment.
Special Events- The Special Events Department is requesting $40,000, in total. $30,000 of this request is
for a change in structure of the salaries for the Special Events Coordinator and the Marketing Coordinator. These
changes occurred in late fall of 2005 when the budget process was complete (see memo for details). $10,000 of
this request is for a part-time position to help with special events and marking administration duties to ensure full
time staff can concentrate on increasing revenues for the city facilities. These requests will be funded from the
General Fund cash reserves.
Ice Garden- The Aspen Ice Garden Department is requesting $44,720, in total. $44,720 is for the
retirement cash out for the Ice Garden employee on 01/08/2006. The request is for the retirement bonus,
accumulated sick and vacation payout. The payout was funded from the operational budget of the AIG. This
request is to restore the operational budget back to the approved based of 2006. This type of payout is not
budgeted for in the normal budget process. This request will be funded by the General Fund cash reserves.
Asset Management- The Asset Management Department is requesting $127,735, in total. $50,000 of this
request is for the Durrant lawsuit expenses. This law suit is ongoing for the fiscal 2006 year. Resolution could
come as early as August of 2006. This request will be funded by the General Fund cash reserves. $23,000 of
this request is for New Animal Shelter utilities expenses of the rental units. This request will be offset 100% by
the revenues collected from the tenants. $54,735 is for the additional space needs for the City of Aspen
employees at Holtz Plaza and all associated costs. This request will be funded from the General Fund cash
reserves.
Parks Operational Fund- The Parks Fund is requesting $41,975, in total. $20,000 is for expanded snow
removal in the downtown alley system in order to provide safer passage for pedestrians. $4,000 is for the Parks
Department to comply with the IRS regulations surrounding the City owned vehicle carpooling. These two
requests will be funded by the cash reserves in the Parks Fund. The Finance Department has determined that
the Parks Fund has sufficient prior year cash balances to support this request. $14,000 is for a permanent
increase to the annual payroll budget to cover the cost of providing administrative support to the Recreation and
Golf Divisions. This request will be funded by transfers from the Recreation and Golf divisions existing budget
authority. $3,975 is requested as a technical adjustment to fully fund grant appropriations that were originally
approved by Council as part of the 2006 budget resolution.
Wheeler Opera House- The Wheeler Opera House Fund is requesting $5,000, in total. $5,000 is for
annual inspections of the electric chain hoist that is required by law to occur once a year. The Wheeler staff was
informed of this in March by the rigging inspection firm. This request will be funded by cash reserves in the
Wheeler Fund. The Finance Department has determined that the Wheeler Fund has sufficient prior year cash
balances to support this request.
Housing Development Fund- The Housing Development Fund is requesting $28,500, in total. $28,500 is
administrative costs for projects that Council has asked for items to be dealt with where there is no budget
authority allocated for staff time to be charged against. (See supplemental for details) This request will be funded
by the Housing Development Fund cash reserves. The Finance Department has determined that the Housing
Development Fund has sufficient prior year cash balances to support this request.
Parks Capital Fund- The Parks Capital Fund is requesting $204,000 in total. $35,000 is for the Aley Park
project. This project will be funded by the Fox Crossing Development revenue received and deposited into the
Parks Capital Project in January of 2006. (See supplemental for details) $169,000 is for the Post Office Phase II
project. Council provided direction to move forward with this critical connection between the Rio Grande
Trailhead and the Post OfficelClarks Market areas. The Finance Department has determined that the Parks Fund
has sufficient prior year cash balances to support this request.
Water Fund- The Water Fund is requesting $150,000, in total. $150,000 is for the Water Conservation
programs Council gave direction on. February 13, 2006, City Council chose new Water rates that are designed to
generate an additional $150,000 worth of funds for the Water Conservation program. This request will be funded
by the revenue the new rates generate.
Transportation and Parking Fund- The Transportation and Parking Fund is requesting $805,361, in total.
$15,361 is for towing charges moved from the Police Department's budget to the Parking Department. This
request will be offset by revenue generated from the towing of vehicles now collected in Transportation and
Parking Fund. $40,000 for converting all service vehicle permits to an in-car-meter program. (See memo for
details) This request will be funded from the cash reserves of the Transportation and Parking Fund. $750,000 is
for the one time funding of the purchase of parking meters in the residential areas, installation of the meters,
marketing, and education. This request will be funded from the cash reserves in the Transportation and Parking
Fund. Staff is estimating that the new meters will generate approximately $260,000 annually of new revenues.
Asset Management Capital- The Asset Management Capital fund is requesting $752,744, in total. $6,744
is for rental property maintenance - ongoing request of $5,000 and $1,744 carry forward from 2005. (See
supplemental for details) $40,000 is for energy saving improvements to the Red Brick. (See memo for details)
$56,000 is for the property tax collection fees paid on a yearly basis to the County. This amount was not included
in the 2006 budget process. This request will correct the oversight. The Finance Department has determined
that the Asset Management Fund has sufficient prior year cash balances to support these requests. Finally, this
section includes a request for $650,000 for the Red Brick West End Improvement project. This project is the most
significant addition to this supplemental request on second reading and is more fully described in the next section
of this memo.
Changes for Second Reading:
This proposed ordinance includes the following changes from the first reading ordinance reviewed by
Council on April 1 oth.
1. Red Brick West End Improvement Project: $650,000: This project will provide for enclosure of the old
loading dock at the west end of the Red Brick building, providing more office and event space, as well as
environmental enhancement to the building to improve energy efficiency. The project will be funded from
an inter fund loan - most likely from the Wheeler Opera House fund, and will be repaid from an adjustment
to the lease payment from the Red Brick Center for the Arts to the City of Aspen for use of the Red Brick
Building. Please see attachment B for details.
2. Streets Department Vehicle Repair appropriations, $10,243. This request appropriates insurance
proceeds for use in repairing a City vehicle that was recently in an accident. This is a one time operating
appropriation that is fully funded from a CIRSA insurance payment. Please see attachment B for details.
3. Parks fund, Technical adjustment to fully fund grant appropriations approved by Council in the original
budget resolution, $3,975. Please see attachment B for details.
4. Workstation and Personal Computer carry forward appropriations. Attachment D now includes full
appropriations for workstation and personal computer carry forward appropriations. Departments are
allocated funds annually for periodic replacement of personal computers and workstations. If not used in
the year of appropriation, they may carry these appropriations forward. This program permits full funding
of technology upgrades to keep the City's computer system current with software requirements. Finance
staff was not able to complete the analysis necessary to include these appropriations in the first reading of
the supplemental, but they are now fully incorporated into this request as a part of Attachment D. In total
these appropriation requests add$312,620~ the sUPPl.emental request..
~~t-GHU<-'-<.iI. ~Ye..x L""'-. J. f(~Q......j. fh'4J0f,'c~(,~.(-':Q. ,
~...M.,d rtlL J'e",,,,,~iJ.<.,>\, J<cU-t:.. ~J-- -V; c:uru...~...u- M
~,/,/J (~~('Y~~ :p~~, Gp'n"~lN.,U~rJ~<\L
fa ~J. -~ "1{Ny... T"""'.r--.
ORDINANCE NO. PI
(Series of 2006)
AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING AN INCREASE IN THE ASSET
MANAGEMENT PLAN FUND EXPENDITURES OF $2,636,444, AN INCREASE
IN THE GENERAL FUND OF $2,195,680, AN INCREASE IN THE PARKS FUND
OF $153,603 AN INCREASE IN THE WHEELER FUND OF $404,589, AN
INCREASE IN THE PARKING IMPROVEMENT FUND OF $307,383, AN
INCREASE IN THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND OF $12,336,777, AN
INCREASE IN THE EARLY CHILDHOOD FUND OF $48,300, AN INCREASE
IN THE KIDS FIRST FUND OF $125,971, A DECREASE IN THE DEBT
SERVICE FUND OF ($2,071,753), AN INCREASE IN THE PARKS CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT FUND OF $8,105,973, AN INCREASE IN THE WATER FUND
OF $3,005,342, AN INCREAE IN THE ELECTRIC FUND OF $1,111,905, AN
INCREASE IN THE STORMW A TER FUND OF $12,908, AN INCREASE IN THE
RUEDI FUND OF $10,157, AN INCREASE IN THE TRANSPORTATION AND
PARKING FUND OF $1,366,128, AN INCREASE IN THE GOLF FUND OF
$25,300, AN INCREASE IN THE TRUSCOTT FUND OF $5,181, AN INCREASE
IN THE MAROLT FUND OF $100,199, AND AN INCREASE IN THE HOUSING
AUTHORITY FUND OF $2,038.
WHEREAS, by virtue of Section 9.12 of the Home Rule Charter, the City Council may
make supplemental appropriations; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has certified that the City has unappropriated current year
revenues and/or unappropriated prior year fund balance available for appropriations in
the following fund: ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN FUND, GENERAL FUND,
PARKS FUND, WHEELER FUND, PARKING IMPROVEMENT FUND, HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT FUND, EARLY CHILDHOOD FUND, KIDS FIRST FUND, DEBT
SERVICE FUND, PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND, WATER FUND,
ELECTRIC FUND, STORMW A TER FUND, RUEDI FUND, TRANSPORTATION
AND PARKING FUND, GOLF FUND, TRUSCOTT FUND, MAROLT FUND, AND
THE HOUSING AUTHORITY FUND.
WHEREAS, the City Council is advised that certain expenditures, revenue and transfers
must be approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
Upon the City Manager's certification that there are current year revenues and/or prior
year fund balances available for appropriation in the: ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
FUND, GENERAL FUND, PARKS FUND, WHEELER FUND, PARKING
IMPROVEMENT FUND, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND, EARLY CHILDHOOD
FUND, KIDS FIRST FUND, DEBT SERVICE FUND, PARKS CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT FUND, WATER FUND, ELECTRIC FUND, STORMW A TER
FUND, RUEDI FUND, TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING FUND, GOLF FUND,
TRUSCOTT FUND, MAROLT FUND, AND THE HOUSING AUTHORITY FUND:
the City Council hereby makes supplemental appropriations as itemized in the
Attachment A.
Section 2
If any section, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for
any reason invalid or unconstitutional by any court or competent jurisdiction, such
portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion thereof.
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED AND/OR
POSTED ON FIRST READING on the day of
2006.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
FINALLY ADOPTED AFTER PUBLIC HEARING on the _ day of
,2006.
ATTEST:
Helen Kalin K1anderud, Mayor
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
John Worcestor, City Attorney
A
Total City of Aspen 2006 Appropriations by Fund - Appendix A
- I -- U- 1- - r -- 1-
~UUti Amenaea ~UUti Amenaea
Expenditure 2006 Expenditure
Fund # Fund Name Budget Supplemental #2 Budget
General Government Funds -
000 Asset Management Pian $4.052,826 $2.636,444 $6.689.270
001 General Fund $20 675.692 $2.195680 $22 871 372
~- Subtotal_<>eneral Gov't Fllnds: $24,728,518 - $4,832,12~ $29,560,642
Soecial Revenue Funds
-
100 Parksal1d Open Space $8,711,877 $153,6il3 $8,865,480
120 Wheeled)pera House ~ . $3,690,741 $404,589 $4,095,330
130 LodglngTax Fund - $995,08L -$0 -$995,087
140 Parking Improvement Fund - $1.743.58} $307,383 !2,050,966
150 Housing Development .. $26,973.025 $12.336)77 ~9,309,802
Early Childhood Eauc. Initiative. --
151 AVCF $180,922 $48,300 1229.222
152 KidsFTrstl Yellow Brick - $1 417 766 $125971 $1 543737
Subtotal, Special Rev. Funds: $43,713,001 $13,376,623 $57,089,624
Debt Service Funds ---- -.. -~
250 - Debt Service Fund ~ $5 925 000 --- ($2.071 753) $3853247
----- Subtotal,-Oebt Service Funds: - $5,925,000 - ($2,071,753) $3,853,247
340 Parks Capital Improvement Fund $1,946,088 $8,105,973 $10,052,061
Enterprise Funds
421 Water Utility $6,890.064 $3,005,342 $9.895,406
431 Electric Utiiity $6,016,443 $~1,111.905 $7,128.348
441 Stormwater $0 $12,908 -~ $12:008
444 -~ Ruedi Hydroelectric Facility .. -$283,453 $10,157 $2~3.610
450 Transportation Fund - - $4.768,208 $1,366,128- $6.134,336
471 Municipal G~olf Course - $1,123,759 ~- $25.300 $1,149,059
491 Truscott Housing $2,074.264 .. _$5,18t $2.079.445
492 Marolf Housing ~ -- $1 068099 $100.199 ~- $1 168.298
Subtotal, Enterprise Funds: $22,224,290 -$5,637,120 ---- $27,861,410
-- - $2,875,000 -~ $0 -
501 Health Ins. Internal Service Fund $2,875,000
-~ Trust & Agency Funds - - - -
620 Housing Authority ~942.832 - $2,038 - $944,870
620
622 622 Smuggler Mountain Fund $80 960 iQ~~. . $80 960
Subtotal, Trust & Agency Funds: $1,023,792 $2,038 $1,025,830
I
I
, $132,317,815
. ALL FUNDS: $102,435,689 $29,882,126
i $17,101,924 $0 $17,063,044
Less Interfund Transfers
EQUALS NET ALL FUNDS
APPROPRIA TIONS: $85,333,765 $29,882,126 $115,254,771
City of Aspen ~ -- - Attachment~
~6suPPlemental~B_lJdget, __ --- -- --
New Funding Re~uests .. .-
DeDartment New Reauest Decriotion u- n Amou-nt Subtotal bv Deot.
~ommunlty Developm_e_~t :Approved Construction Manager Position ! $80,000 ---
-- --Subtotal, Community Development:' $80,600
Buildjng Inspection iOne time .r~uest for vehicle costs - Burn~game Ranch Inspector: I $8,000 ,
I Subtotal, Building Inspections:' I $8,000
Towing Charges - One time reduction - responsibility moved to Parking I I
Fund - 001.31.31200.82920: revenue will move from the General Fund to I
~~e the Transportation and Parking Fund # 450 ($15,361),
LEAF Grant - City .portion - Offset by Grant Revenue for OUt enforcement
OT costs. 001.31.31700.82900 $14,685 m
- -- Subtotal, Police Department i -iW6I
One time appropration for Vehicle repair - funded 100% from Insurance I
Streets -+~~imbur_sements from gl.RSA.: 001.41.41100.82999 $10,243 ,
Subtotal, Streets: I $10,243
SI?~ciall;vents ---1 New PT Posi!ion and Salary Increases 001.70 $40,000 ! $4?:?oo
Subtotal, Special Events . I
~_r_den One time - Retirement Cash out funding - per personnel rules: $44,720 ' $44:720
.. .. .. Subtotal, Ice Garden Department I
A~set Management Durrant Lawsuit - One time request for legal fees: 001.~1.56002 , $50,000 -
,Animal Shelter Utliity Expenses for Rental units 100% offset by revenue: I
- - 1001.91.82001.82222 $23,000
lRental ~nd Operations Bu~get - AsieOffi6e Space: 001.91.55115.. .- ! $54,735 .
I Subtotal, Asset Management $127,735
! SUBTOTAL, GENERAL FUND: $310,022
Parks Oper!'ltions: Expanded Snow Removal in Downtown Alleys: 001.55.55000 ..~o.OOO --
-- IRS CompUance~' take ho.mevehicle's: 001.~5..?5000 - $4.000
i
Administrative Payrolllncrese - ARC and Golfs portion - Ongoing increase I
-- i 1 00.55.55000.80012 funded with transfers from ARC and the Golf Course $14,000 . -
ITechnical Adjustment - Grant Fund'ing appropriations - to match Council
:authorization in original budget approval: 100.01.04323.84000 $3,975
- Subtotal,--P~a:. $41,975
Electric Chain Hoist - to comply with legal requirements - this is an annual I
Wheel~r Opera House_ compliance inspection - ongoing request $5,000
. Subtotal, Wheeler Fund I $5.000
I Tech Adjustment, Administration Costs for Project Admininstration
Housing Development approved in 2005 as an ongoing supplemental: 150.23.23200.80. . $28,500.
, . . . Subtotal, Housing Development Fund: $28,500
Aley Park Development, Appropriate Developer Contribution to the City of I
Parks Cal?!tal Aspen of $1 oO,ooq: 340.94.82056__ - f $35,000 -
Post Office Trail Phase II: 340.94.82075.86000 I $169,000 .,
- Subtotal, Parks and Open Space Capital Fund: -- $204,000
City Council's approval of the Water Rate increases on February 13, 2006 ,
Water Fund :to fun~ water_conservation programs i $150,000
I Subtotal, Water Fund: , $150,000
Transportatio~ Towing Expenses - Resp. moved from PO 450.32.32000.82920 , $15,361
..-- . The City Council approved converting'all service vehiCle permits to an in - -
----- lcar.r11_eter progra!TI ~ this:will require 7?0 n~w in car meters $40,000 --
Park~ng meters in resid areas:_~5Q}~.320.QO.8?999 ____L_ $70,000 '
Parking meters in resid areas: 450.94.00000.86000 1 $680,000
.. . - .' Subtotal, Transportation Fund: $805,361
~e~ Manageme~t C~pital --c- ~.
!Rental Property Maintenenance - ongoYng request. $51< new and $1,744 .- -
- I!orward $6,744 -----
. - Red Brick.. Energy Saving 'Improvements - concurrent with WesfEnd" I I
-- Expansion project: 000.71, $40,000 . --
-'-witkin'CQunty - Prop_ertyTax'Collecti"n 'Fee: 000.91 ~030(J9.82995~ , $56,000
-- - -
Red Brick - West End Improvement Project - Funded from IF Loan: I
000.91.82001.86000 ---L-!65O,000
-- Subtotal, Asset Management Capital Fund: $752,744
'All Funds: . . $2,297,602
Total New Requests $2,297,602
At! 8. New Requests
Page 1
I
City of Aspen ~_
2006 Supplemental Budget Request _
10% and 50% Carryforward Requests +-
City Manager "10%" 1 Oyerating Budget 50%
Department ' Carryforward Savings Carryforward Savings
Council i $1,647 $24,837
City Manaljer ' $238,110 i $47,398
Human Resources $816' $11,841
City Clerk - $3,5381 $134,174
City ~ttorny $0 I $6,088
Risk Management $710 $10,354
-I
Finance Department $3,876._ $64,941
Community Development $550 $12,817
Engineering _. $332: $30,046
Building Inspection I $0 , $24,839
Enviromental Health - ---r--,' _. $0 $13,787
Police Department -, 'j- $6,840 $191,869
Public Safety Records $744 $8,559
Streets Department $0: ' $323,240
1--
Goeographic Information systems-+' $418$2,088
Information Systems , $1,098 _ $65,p29
Aspen Receation Center $0 $72,416
Ice Garden $0: $11,9p2
Asset Management Fund ,. I $0 $69,425
Parks Department Fund I $3,907 $81,765
Wheeler Opera House Fund $0 I $171,029
,
Parking Garage Fund $1,6041 $28,187
Kids First Fund ' $2,387 $55,929
Water Utility Fundi $0 $128,778
Electric Utility Fund____$O I $90,231
Transpo,"!ation F.lmd i $8,035 $211,305
I
-----
ATTACHMENT C
Totals
I
$274,6121' '
$1,893,424
Att.C - 10% & 50% Savings
Page 1
Icily of Aspen
~~Rplemental Budg~t
100% Carry fOlW8rd Appropriation Request
DeDa~m~n~ _~ "
I
OescriDtlon
.~.
_--+----a.~~unt
I
9itvCouncll
Growth Summit, Carried forward from 2005 Contingency remaining balance
- - - Subtotal, City Council:
.
PC Rep~acement Carry fo~rd . 2004 forwar~ inc:ludes 2006 nol bu~geted i
Workstation Replacement Carry forward - Includes 2006 not previously I
budgeted _
Subtotal, City Manager::
f---
~I!~_ger
~"., Resources
PC Replacement Carry forward - 2004 forward:
Workstation Replacement Carry forward -
Subtotal, Human Resources:
~!Elrk
PC Replacement Carry forward:
Workstation Replacement Carry-forward --
Design Confract for Council Chambers - Unexpended portion: -
-- - Subtotal, City Clerk:"
I PC Replacement Carry forward: ind.:_ 2006 ami, not prevo budgeted. ,
Workstation Replacement Carry forward. 2006 amount not previously 1
bud9il:ted _ I
" Subtotal, City Attorney::
PC Replacerr1.ent Carry forward: ~.2006 amt not prevo budgeted I
Workstation Replacement Carry forward - 2006 amt not p~ev. budgeted '
. Subtotal, Risk Management:
PC Replacement Carry forward:
WOrkst_ation Replaceme~!Carry forward
City Attorney
Risk Mana~ement
Finance Depl
-
-Subtotal, Finance Department:
: PC Replacement Carry forward:
Workstation Replacement Carry forward
Economic Su~itainabillty 001.13.13312.82999
Impact Fee Analysis
Zupancis propertY. Analysis
,Civic Center Project
~Eq. M.nt & Repair 100% Carry forward
Englneering_~~lacement Carry forw~rd:
___~<?n R.l!lJ?lacement Carryforward
I
PC Replacement Carry forward:
WOrks~lIon Replacement Carry forward' .
CommunIty I?evel.
Subtotal, Community Development:
'Subtotal, Engineering:
Building Inspection
1
Subtotal, Building Inspection:!
I
--.
Environmental Health
PC Replacement Carry forward:
Workstation Replacement Carry forward
Scientific Impact StudY Carry Forward
I .
PC Replacement Carry forward
Workstation Re~l~cef!lent CarrY'torWa~
I
Subtotal, POlice'bepartment::
I
Subtotal, Environmental Health:
Pollee
Pu~lIc Safety Records PC Replacement Carry Forward
W.orkstalion Replace~ent Carry forward
Subtotal, Public Saney-Records:
~I?ep'artment
PC Replacement Carry forward
Workstafion Repl<l.cement Carry forward
Subtotal, Streets Department:
~r:aPhi_c Info Sys.
-
~~placement Carry f?rward:
'Wor~.tation Replacemen.t C:arry forward
. I
Subtotal, GIS:'
Information. Systems WorkstElllon Replacement _,_
~Eiplacement Carryforward:
--. I ..- ---- Subtotal, I.S. Department:
~~~lJnts Dept: I WOrks.tation Replacement - ~Q(l6 amount not previ?usly budgeted _
PC Replacemil:~t Carry forward: - 2006 amt not previously budgeted _ ,'~
~_ Equipt Maint. Repair - 100% Carryforward , .-l
Subtotal, SpeciafEvents:
~~_on.l?epart
Max Marolt Scholarship funds - unexpended 2005 amount:
001.71.71000.84133
Workstation Replacement, 2006 amount not.prev. budgeted
PC Re~lacement Carry ~orward:, 2006 a.mount not -prevo budgeted I
Subtotal, Recreation:;
PC Replacement Carry forward:" _ _ , ' _ I _
Workstation Repla~ment Carry forward: 2006 amt no! prevo budgeted__ !
,Youth Center Air conditioning Improvements: Puncti 'list items:
!001.72.72600.860oo:
I
1 PC Replacement Carry forward:
'Workstation Replaceme~t CarrYforward _
---
~pen Ree. Center
Ice Garden
Subtoial, ARC:
===t=
Subtotal, Ice Garden:;
I
Asset Management
jC Replacement Carry forward:
. Workstation R'-eplaceme~ Carry forward .
Subtotal, Asset Management:
SUBT TAL, GENERAL FUND:;
AIt 0 100% Cfwd
'ATTACHMENT 0
Subtotal by
DeDartment
5,000 !
$S,OOO
1
14,873,
I
8,609' $23,482
1,110
-1,110
SO
8,721 -
5,805
18,475 $3J:001
1,217 -
]
4,4201
I $5,637
1,1101 .-
5651
I $1,675
9,620 -
4,680
$14,300
25,937 --
26,199 -
65,534 --
29,345 -
20,000'
12,515 -
8,024
$187,554
2,660
1,667
, $4,347
-977
1,657;
$680
367
2,820
66,661
$69,848
13,648 ..
21,478
$35,126
739;
438 EJfl
5,414
6,209' --
I $11,623
1,238 ---
2,~37 $3:575
13,964 --
359 '--m:m
,
.3601 .-
740 .-
4,000 .- $5:100
2,000'
5,360, .-
5,971
$13,331
4,318
3,278 -
I
26,7921 $34,388
3,193; ..-
5,080. --
$8,273
5,180 -
2,889~
S8 060
$484,847
Pagel
City of Aspe"- r--__-:- - --=-_---=-_--=-~- - ATTACHMENT 0
2006SupplementaIBu~_____ ___ _.- ~.-_. -
100% Carry!orward Appropriation Request .. _ __ _ I, ----,----__~_ -----,-------,--,----
I . ~- -- Subtotal by
De artment Descriotlo':1 Amount~eDartment
paru&"openspace-I - I I
Fund: PC Replacement Carry forward - - ---- ~8
-~--------WOrkstation-Replacemenl------- -- --------~6~----.
~==__==i~qUiPmeritRep~a.cementand Rep~ --__~~~ -T---=-~~6}586 ~~
Stormwater project Mgrnl funding 100.55.44414.62999 ' 5,000
-,- I Color the CORE 2005 Carry forward funding 100.55.03610.83g:gg-- ------;- -1,835,--
"~ Subtotal, Parka and Open Space Fund:: 1- $36,175
Wheeler Opera House
Fund: PC Replacement Carry forward 0
__ Workstation Replacement - -~==--=-~ l - -== 3,060---=-=
Interior Painting ProjeCt 120.94.81057.86000 10,000____
--- Drylce-Fogger:120.94.83035.86000 -- ---- 9,000
- rVACMa;",.cont",cI120.94.81006.86000 -- j--,,750,-.
Dlmmer"Racks and CirCuits 120.94.83033.8600--0-- -----r---2,5OOT
Puppy Smith Housing - Wheeler-Portion 120.94.8-1040.86000 - ---- 32,000-- --
.~_ IMBC Housing _ Wh_eeler Portion 120.94.82054.86000-==-----=-+_ ~ 138,259~__
121st century master plan: 120.93.93150.82900 _ _ _ 30.000'
Subtotal, Wheeler Opera House Fund: $228,580
Parking Garage Fund: I PC Replacement Carry forward I 1,2391
--E:.quipmentMaintenance - -- --- --~ -~.4-ro---- ~-
-~_~rkstation-RePlacement- -_ -- --r==~----af3---
-~~eE.~irand Repla?8ment- Gutters and down spouts 140.94.8104:2.86000 ~_ _~_s8I-- -
Parking Garage Stairs 140.94.82046.86000 ,216,596
_ _~ 1 Fleet: .Ranger Plow an~ Steiner Implement Rept. 14O.94.83-oo~.86oo0~ $1-2,187 r---- --
'IS Plan Phone System Improvements: 140.94.83006.86000 - $7,765
-- ----------------subtotal, Parking Garage-Fund: --- --- $278,288
Housing Development 1
Fund: LittleAjaxSubs~dy:150.23.23118.82999 _ __ 2,573,~__
- - - Annie Mitchell Homestead: 150.23.23120.86000 - --- ----; 500,000
- ----ISUrlingame Ranch Carryforward Supplemental: -'50.23.~ --L- 9,234,6-OS----
'"-----r------- - Subtotal, Housing Development Fund: - - - $12,308,2n
Early hlldhood 151 ; I '
--IOOE GrantRevenue for Rural Resort RegionGhildcare Council Quali~, - -- -----r-.
I Improvement Funding: 151.24.24303 48,300
~- --------Subtotal,Early-ChildhoodDevelopmentlnltlatlva:; -------;-- $48,300
Kids Firat Day Care IAVMF Funds - Carry forward from 2005 for Earty Childhood Mental health I I
Fund 'consulting: 152.24.24100. 84725 23,165
_~-_I~:~:~~::~:I;C::fe~rward-- ~-=-~---=---+- - ::~~ ---
'Contribution to Earty Learning Center Grant Funds from 20OS:-~ ---- -----
__ ~152.24.2419o.8470~_____ ___ ____ _+--,___ 4,330:..-- __
_ ___~fwd:Grantfunds-professionaIDevelopment, 152.24.24100.84031, 27,000,__
,Yellow Brick FacilitY Improvements Cfwd: 152.96.24211.86000 , 7,780
--- -~--- -- - Subtotal, Kids Firat Day Care Fund:: -- --~- $70,042
Parks & pen Space
Capital _ __I~aslle Creek Trail DevelC?pment - 2005 B Bonds funds 340.94.82~64.86000 1__ __ 350,0001_~_
I Rio Grande Trail Improvements - 2005 B Bond funds: 340.94.82069.86000 - 350,000
----- -----"--Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCo) Open Space ImprovementS--- .I------r-- -
~340.94.81053.86000 60000
-- - ,Tree Program Carry forward _ Dedicated funds-for tree replacerTl~ --,- --- _----2-_
- -- - 1:~;I::;~~2~~u6~~reas Carry forward 340.94.81013.86000 __1__1,~~~'____ -
~~ 'Co~ Point Garry forWard - ~I_anning -project_340.94~61014.86000~- -~==-13,690~_== ~- -
~rdiC Improvements 340.94.81018.86000 1= 568'
---- 1~~ugglerMin Purchase CarryforWard-Legal and stafftime:-- -,- --~- ----
_ _~.94.81026.86000---- _____i_ ------.!9,266 ____
_ __~well Time_lmprov~ments Carryfo_rward 340.94.81048.860~__ L- -----.!30,579 ____ __
! Po-st Office Trail Phase I Carry forward 340.94.82044.86000 - 37,8711
~-~_~~ance to Aspen Carryfory-rard: 340.94.82047.86000 _ ==~!_ 128-:000 _~==
IFrancis Whitaker Park Impr Carry forward 340.94.82048.86000 52,283
- ______________..___________ ---- -1----
____ Aleypropertyc.ar:ryforw~rd34O.94.82056.86000--~-- _-+ _~O~____
jcastle Creek Trail Design Carryforward: 340.94.82064.86000 20,155
__~~~Olf Cours_e Water Reclal!lation project C!Wd 340.94.82067.86000 ~- "_____ 3,159.0501 _~_
lAnd."," Parcel Pla,,;n9 efwdo 340.94.83007.66000._._ _L_ 20,000. --
---- -- Puppy Smith Housing - Parks Capital portion 340.84.81040.86000 32,000;
___~ M8CHous-ing~Parksportion340.94.82054._86oo0 --~~-=r-~---- 61,250' ___ -~-
1 Smuggler Mountain 8RA LLC Purchases: 340.94.82073.86000 3,400,000 -
- -- Sub'total, Parks and Open Space Capital Fund: ~ - $7,901,973
All D 100% Cfwd
PlIge2
City of Aspen _ __ +-__ ,ATTACHMENTD
2006 Su'pplemental Budg~~--=----==- ~~~-----=-- - _L- ----L-
100% Carryforward Approprii:l~ion Request. ___ __ _ _ _" _.---
oeDartment- ~ -=-'-~-eSCriD~iO-;-=--=-_ .1 Amount I~~:~~~eb~
Water Utility I _ _ _ __ I .----1-
Puppy Smith Housing _ Water portion 421.94.81040.86006- -- --~,OOO-- ,-
~___~BcHOUSing~waterportion421.94.82054.~6000 __~~ _+' ___~15,250, _~~
_ PC Replacement Carry forward I 17,091 ;
---WorkstalionReplacement - ----- --- -'-- -~------
--=-~~quipment Maint and Repair- 100% Canyforwa~-- ~------;- _ -- __ 24,351' _.-
_421.94_44~~1.8600olsITEIMPRC?vEMeNTs.INFRAST_RUCTURE _ ~-====~_~_ ~ 13,100,
421.94.44103.66000 EAST TREATMENT PLANT 266,350
421.94.44104.66000WESTTREATMeNTP~- - -- -- -- 83.285;--
421.94.44105.86000IADMINISTRATIVEBUIL.DING_~-~=--~-l 5,000 --
421,94,44107,86000-STORAGEBUILD~~__ ___ ____ -- ~~
421.94,44301,86000 MAROON CREEK HYDRO ' 507,230'
. 421_94:.w302.66ooolCASTLECREEKHYClR~==-~=----=-===- ---1-__ 12,82_~
~21.94.44401.86000IwATERRIGHTSACT1VITIES _' 40,000
~1,94.44402,86000'CASTLECREEKOAM&I:'EADGA.;:e--~ ~- -- - _6,340: ----
421.94.44407.86000,GAUGINGSTATlONS -- - - -- ~- 5,000 -
- ~21.94.444_0~TIONPROJ!=CT-~-==--~---=--~-- __ 31,5S~,~--=--
4~1.94.44413.86000'UTILITYBUSINESSPl.AN ______ __ 5,72S,__
421,94,44414.66000 STORMWATER RATE STUDY +- 30,621
421:94.44501.86oooIRAWWATER DISTRIBUTIO~:!__----=----=- -=:-=---==-_; ~ 33,015 --==---=-
421.94.44601.86000'MAINLlNEREPLAPEMENTPROGRAM___ __ __ 111,649 __
421,94,44602.86000 HYDRANT REPLACEMENTPROGRAM _ _ _ ----1 _ 86,S63
421.94.44701.66000IpUMPSTATION - -- --- I --------g:g94~-
--- I ..--------------+------
421.94_447~RESSURE,REDUCIt-!GVALVES- ____ _ _ _ 12,000 ____
421.94_4490~~~OGRANDEWELL _______________ ' _----.!2_5,509 ____
~21.94.44907.86000 GENERALGR.oUNOWATERFACILlTIES ____ ___1_ ~_6,064 __
421.94.45001.66000 WATER ACQUISITIONS _ _ _ _ __~___~Q,OO~---
421.94:45001.861~N-SCADAlSYSTEMTELEME:r~___ _ _ __ ,___~2L.-___
421.94.45OO1.86103,I.S. PLAN. WATER PLANT OPERATIONS ~ 2,SOO
-421.95.000oo.95340IWater Reuse Contribution . Water u~-- ---------:----770,000;---
-- ~------ --- Subtolal, Witer Utility:, ----------;- - $2,726,564
ElectricU~~ ___ __ ____L-
___ ___~eplacementCarry~orward _ ____ __~_ ___~80~-
_ __IWorkstationRepl~cement-- _._ ___._ _~___~~__
__ EquipmentMaintandRepair-100%.carryforwa~_ ___----1-- __ 4,318____
43_1:94.45924~~ECTRICACQUISITIONS 10S,143
------;31.94.46001~TREET LIGHT REPLACEMENT & PAINTIN~ -- - -;---------so:ooo---
431.94:46103.86000,EXP~NDELECTRICALSIO_RAGEBU;LDING ~==---=-, I - ~QOtl__
~94,46202.86000IBURLlNGAMEEL~DIST.SYST~_ __ _._ _ 99,51~
431.94.46402.86000 ~ MAROON CREEK BRIDGE CONDUIT PROJECT 181,000'
431_94.46404.86000_ENERGY CONSERVATION ~----=---=-----=-===- +_ 21,SOO_
431,94,46405.860oo;SYSTEM TELEMETRY , 36,000,
431.94.46406.66000!RIDGWAYOAM&HYD~ ----- -~ --
~.-94,61040.860_00PUPPYSMITHHOUSING --=-----=--=--~____=__ --+-- ._ 352,Ooo----=--_
431_95.00oo0.95340~ATER REUSE CONTRIBUTION - ELECTRIC UTIL~_ _ .130,000:
1 Subtolal, Electric Utlllty: --1-$1,021,674
Stormwater ~RMWAT~RCONSERVATIO!'l ___ ___ ___~ -~,~
I ' I $12,908
~eudl Hydro Fund~
444.94.43504.86000 RUEDI MAI~lTENANC~ --- --- - -- +-- - 5,000
444.94.43505.86000, RUEDI SITE IMPROVEMENTS -- - -- ---S,~ - -
----t=-------- - -Subtotal,Reudl:.----------.10,157
Transportatlo~Fund iWorkSlationRaplacement~100%Carryforwa~ __ . .. ---1- _17,573' ____
----JPC Replacement 100% Carryforward -_. - -.. --_ .21,889
- -== _.Equipm~~tMainl~ndRep~ir--:'100%carryf9~ird .~ ~_-----;-- ~_-23,560.~==-
,Rubey Park Facility Imp. 450.94.83055.86000 --r- 10,200i
- --~scurvelmprovemenls:450.94.83064.86006- -- ------ 74,000f--------:-
_~IPedestrianlmprovements450.32.32foo.8390~ ---- - I - 38,0001 -.-
Fleel_purchase2EldoradoAerotechBuses450.94.83021.86000 --r--- -~418 ---
--- -'jNewRadioSforparkingofficers450.94.830S0.86000- -- -- ..2,922~-- --
_~~-----=-_'ISSystemSEqUIPmenI450.94.83006.86~~ ~-~ - 7,900 --
. --- ---- -Subtotal,TransportationFund: - ---r- $349,462~
--- --- --- -,,-- -- --,----
AttD100%Cfwd
Page 3
t- ,
City of Aspen . . i IATTACH~
2006 Supplemental Budae~ - I I _
100% Carry forward ApJ~ropriation Request I I
__rA~ount 1 Subtotal by
DeDartment DescriDtio"_ Dsoartment
Truscott Housing 'PC Replacement 100% Carry forward -1 2.590:
Equipm~~fMaint and Repair. 1 00% ca~ri#orward 1,26OC
Subtotal, Truscott:' $3,8~O
arc t :i).asona , I
Housing I
PC Replacement 100% Carry forWard . _1,8~_O -
Equipment Maint and Repair - 100%cany,orward --- 1,~80'
TooIG81 Replacement: 492.94.83005.86000 - 7,7?8
Boiler Rept P~ject: 492.94.45051.86000 88,732 --.-
Subtotal, Marolt Seasonal Houslng:"- $99,390
Housing Authority
Operations PC Replacement Carry forward__ -662
-- Work Station Replacement Carry forward 2,700
Subtotal, Housing Authority: -. $2,038
Asset Management ,
Capltal~~d: Community Development. 3rd Floor Remodel: 000,13.82024.86000 I 54,158 ---
~- Streets - City Shop_ Rest~~allon, 000.41.81047.86000 _ --- ! 295,049 --
Streets - Power F>laii Restoration 000.41.81047.86001 I 155,584
-
Streets - Pave road to snow dump and animal shelter 000.41.8205::4:.86000 27,501
-- - i Streets - City Shop Air Reels 0_00.41.83062.86000 8,000
Streets, Fleet: Carry forward to finalize purchase of PO Detective Vehicles:
000.41.83005.86000 11,244
.- Information Systems: Core Network Switch Rept. & Public Safety Records -
I i
isystem 000.61.82057.86000 361,916,
! Information Systems: Telephone System self-warranty funds: I 19,4511
1000.61.83060.86000:
Recreation, Red Brick Improvements. Unexpended 2005 budget authority: I
000.71.83004.86000: 1,194
ARC, ~o-OfExte~slon Project CanyfOrward_0~~~?2.72633.88000 18,353
-- -- ARC: Maintenance & fo.1_anagement Cost Smtware: _000.72.72634.86000 806 -
ARC: Priortty 1 Energy Efficiency Projects: 000.72.a::!061-,~60()Q_ 3~,.oOO
ARC; Priority 2 Energy Efficiency Projects:~00.72.82062.860oo - --35,000
-- ARC: Drop Slide Project carryforwal'd: 000.72.72606.86000 30,000
-- Ice Garden, Rubber-Flooring rep!. for front lobby,_-000.74:81_~5.86000 I 19,000 - .
-- AMP. City Hall HVAC Design Carry forward: 000~~f1.81006.86000 I 14,200
_ AMP - City Hall lighting ~ Council Chambers 000.91~8_1(j23.e60~ , 79,212
,
AMP - Final Animal Shelter Costs 000.91.82001 .86000 , 68,11_1
,
-- !AMP City Hall Repairs - 000.91.81001 37,6ge
- AMP - Cemetery Lane Homes - Ongoing repairs 59,425;
"-AMP - Puppy Smith Housing ~ General Fund portion: 000.91.81040JieOOO 143,996
-. AMP - AABC Housing - General Func(portlon: 000.91.82054.86000 410,005 --
I -
5ubtotal, Aiset Management capital:- $1,884,903
Total 100 % Carry forward Supplemental Requests: $27,465,410
AttD100%Cfwd
Page 4
CITY OF ASPEN ~- ---L Attachment E
--
~06 Interfund Tran~fer I
-- I --~--- -
--Transfer From Fund Transfer To Fund ~_. -,- I Pur aae of Int8rfund Transfer
; Amount of Transfer
~M_~nagement : Wheeler ODera HDU~"----==1- I -
_~186,468ITra!1sfer to Wheeler Opera Holl_se -
Kids First Fund j181 ,690!Transfer to Repay Streets Lo~n_ --
Debt Service Fun-d --- - $455 395 'Transf~r to Debt Service Fund
-- -- --
Subtotal, Transfers From Asset Managen: $823,553
General Fund:
- ,Parks and (ipe~ Space Fund: $81,9601Annual Partial Subsidy ofF-ood Tax Refund
. -t ~ -
f--- Housing DeveloPrTlent Fund "$1,126,848: Tran~_fer - Zupancis Property ~~-purchase _
f-- Transnortation FUl)d - I ----" $140 000: Ope~~tions Subsidy ---
I ,
Subtotal, Transfers from General Fund: $1,348,808
~~ a~d Open Space Fund: .---- I --
, Transfer to fund budgeted 340 Capital
~.. ; Parks and Ooen ~Qace Capital Fund - ~2,039,364'impr_ovement pr,giects. _ ___
Parks Caprtal Facilities SPAC $250,000 I SPAR9 Inter Fund Loan Interest_ ___
Debt Service Fund - --- $893,873: Parks 2005 Open Space Bonds. __
----r - I - --
qebt Service Fund $656, 188 Parks:~ortion, 2001_ Sales Tax Revenue Bon_~~
--~ 2005 Parks and Open Space Revenue Bonds -
-- Debt Service FUrl~ --~ _ $~54,506 refu,"!~ing 1999 b~rlds
I Overhead Payment - General Government
- - General Fund - -- $633 944' Support of Fund Operations ---_.-
Subtotal, Transfers from Parks and I I
Open Space Fund: $5,627,875
~~le~Opera House Fund I -
i Overhead Payment - General Government
General Fund $226 146! Support of Fund Operations
Subtotal, Wheeler Opera House: I $226,148 ... -
Parking 9_arage Fund L~_ I
ITransportation Fund I $100,000 Operations Subsidy
. 12004 Certificate of Participation (Refunded,
_ ~~_ Service Fund Originally issued in 1969 to construct Rio
$694,486 I Grande p'a~lng Garage ___
_ _ ITransp.ortation Fund __ I $76,795: Overhead, Transportation ~dministration __
I ! Overhead Payment - Gene-ral Government
---iGeneral Fund $125190 Support_of Fund Op~rat!ons
Subtotal, Parkina Garaae Fund: $996,473
_Hou~lng DevelOPment Fund l .--
-- ; 450 Transportation Fund I $~,OOO,OOO I?urlingame mitigation -
- Truscott -I Re~tal Housing Fund I $1,091,192 Tr~_scott I, 2001 Housing Bonds_Subsidy
Marolt Ranch Seasonal Housing, Subsidy for
Marolt Rcanch Seasonal Ho_~~il].g Fun'! - $36,500 Budgeted Capitallmprovemen~s
----IAPCHA Housing Office, Operations Subsidy
~~llsing Office Operatio_ns Fund $170,255 (50% oftot~l Subsidy, spIL~_with Pitkin qounty
I Overhead Payment - General Government
- . General Fund ~469 208 Support of Fun~ ()perations --
I SUbtota;, H~usina Develooment Fund: -- I
$3,769,155
Day Care (~Ids First /Yello,!! Brick) Fund. I
I General Fund +- $30,000 Transfer_- New Property Manager Position
~~neral Fund ,Overhead Payment. General Government
-- $59.650,Support of Fund Operations -
-- S89,8SC' -- --
Fta~ks and Open ~pace Capital Fund j- .Overhead Payment. GEmer-af Government
:General Fund $29,367SUDDort of Fund ODerations
CITY OF ASPEN
2006 Interfund Transfer
Transf~~ From FU~
Water Utility Fund
__ t--- Attachment E
---- --~~ --
Amount of Transfer . pu"niose of Interfund Trans~r
Transfer To Fund
-T
-----
I
IGeneral Fu~d
General Fund
Tparks and Open Space Fun~
General Fund
iSubtotal, Water Utilit
~~ectrlc Utility FU~ __
_ .. -Taral Fund _
General Fund
+-
Fund::
Reudi Hydroelectric Fund
General Fund -
1-
Water Utility Fund
I Subtotal, Electric Utili Fund:
~eudl Hydro~IEtctric Fund _ _
~-
General Fund
I
r----
----L-
Transpo.rtatlon Fu"_d
General Fund
_~sand Open Space Fund _----+
Subtotal, Trans ortatlon Fund
Golf Course Fund , UU .. ._
~eneral Fund +-
_ _ -- 'Parks, and Ope-n _Space Fun_d---===--_~__
Subtotal, Golf Course Fund:
Tr~scott Rental H.ouslng Fu~d
--1-
___ iG~-.!!era' Fund___
~Sj~g 9perations Fund
Subtotal, Truscott Housln
Marolt Ranch Sea~onal Housing Fund
- ~~al Fund
----.
Fund:
Housing Operatio!:,s Fund
ISubtotal, Marolt Ranch Fund:
Housing Office_9~eratlons ~~__
I
--
-L
I General Fund:
Smuggler Housing Fund
,
General Fund
~---~~;i~g Operations ~und
--~al, Smu ler Fund
2005 TOTAL INTERFUND TRANSFERS
,
~-
Return on Investment Payment, General Fund
I Sale of Land to Water Utility for Operations
~P.OO,OOO Fa~i1ities ____
$9~,56711/3 gJ~bal warming-EH
$150,000!Water usage Conservation Programs _
Overhea-d Payment. General Government
:R.614 189 Support of Fund Operations
I -
$1,856,7S6
I
$364,000 ~ Franchise Fee Transfer to General Fund
Overhead Payment. General Government
$296,_?36 Support of Fund Operations .
I Purchase of Hydroelectric power from City-
$496,000.own~d Generating Facility ___
_~~,567! 1/3 Global Warming-EH
$14~ 309 Electric Utility portion of UtiUty BilUng Services
S1,307,412
1-
! Overhead Payment - General Government
$10,760 Support of Fund Opera~~_ __
-----fove-rfiead Paym-ent - General Government
$}51 ,266 Support of Fund Operations_ ~
Contribution for Mall Rubey Park Mall
$318,054 _ Maintenance
U I
$669,320 '
. Overhead Payment ~ General Government
$115,721 Support of Fund OPE!rations __
$10 000_, Grounds_ Maintenance Services ___
$125,721 ,--
Overhead Payment - General Government
$35,.Q54 ,SuPPCl'1 of Fund Operations ____
I Overhead Payment - Housing Operations
$48,849' Support of F_un~ Operat~o~___ __
$83,903
I
'Overhead-Payment - General Go-vernment
------.t1~, 716 SUPRort of Fund _Operations _
~rhead Payment - Housing Operations
~50iSUPport of Fund OPl?rations ____
$41,366
--1---- -
Overhead Payment - General Government
$49,880 - Su ort of Fund 0 erations
---- --ove-rhead payrrlEint - General Government -
~.!.382,SuPPCJrt of FundOperatiCln~__
$3 315! Housing__ OVE!rhead
$6,697 - -
$17,063,044
,
City Of Aspen .. .' ..-t'. -+- Attachment F
~06Technjcal Adjustments I~~~ ~~~~--=-~ ~ -=--=-~
lo,;-oartmentlFund ------:f-- Technical Adjustment Descl'iotion--r- Amounr- [subtotal by OeP!
- --- ~educe 100.95.3W55.97250 to reflect the corre~' -- -1-- -
I calculations for payment of the 2001 Parks and Open I
Spce Bonds '
-- .._n_ -~ncrease 100.95.31-064.97250 to reflect the correct -
I calculations for payment of the 2005 Open Space I
Bond
-"- -_.- --- ---- ---- ---
'I Increase 100.95.31065.97250 to reflect the correct
~_ ___ _~ulationsfOrpaymentofthe2005STRRBond-l
Parks Fund # 100
($8,812.00)
--1-
--
$1,493.191___ --
$1,006.00
1- ($6,312.81\
Increase 140.95.00000.97250 to reflect the correct I
I calculation for the debt service transfer for the 2004 , I
r-E-arking Garage Fund # 140 _ COPS Bonds $2,907.50' -- -
~--- -- -- 1- $2,907.50
'Reduce the debt service fund to accurately reflect the ' I
~Service Fund # 250 _debt service budget in 200~ _ _ _ ---+-1$2,071 ,753.3"12L-___ -
I Subtotal, Debt Service: I ' {$2,071 ,753.31
Increase 471.98.31065.82001 to to reflect the correct
,calculations for the payment of the 2005 Sales Tax
~Fund # 4~ __ -----1Revenue Refunding bonds_ _ _ __
increase 471.98.3t065.89610 to to reflect the ccrrect
I calculations for the payment of the 2005 Saies Tax I
_ __ Revenue Refunding bonds _ $26,156.00' _ __
- Increase 471.98.31065.89630 to to reflect the correct I
lcalcuiations for the payment of the 2005 Sales Tax
_____ _ Revenue Refunding bond~ _____
I I
I Increase 49t.98.31059.82001 to reflect the trustee I
;Iruscott Fund # 49L_ fees for the 2001 Housing GO Bonds
I Increase 491.98.31062.82001 to reflect the trustee I
__ _ _ ----.rees for the 2003 GO Refunding Bo~___
I
~ ---.!173.0o._ _ _ _
I
~029.00L-_ ___
$25.300.00
$999.00
--
$332~1
----
I
1 Increase 492.98.31062.82001 to reflect the trustee I
Marolt Fund # ~_ fees for the 2003 GO Refunding Bonds
-- -- ---- -r---
I Reduce 000.95.31065.97250 to reflect the correct I
calculations for the payment of the 200.5 Sales Tax I
'p>sset Management # 0.00.__ I Revenue Refunding bond~ __ _ _ _---.i!1,202.9L -- --_""
,- Subtotal, Asset Manaoement ($1,20.2.96
Total Technical Adjustment ,All Funds: I 1$2,048,921.581, 1$2,048,921.58
---~
$1,331.00.
I
$809.00 .
I
I
- ---sa09-:oD
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~
Jennifer Phelan, Senior Long Range Planner (j(
Holiday House Affordable Housing Project - Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Amendment - Conceptual Review, Resolution No. --' Series of 2006 -
Continued from Public Hearinl! on March 13. 2006
DATE:
April 24, 2006
In an effort to fully review and address issues raised by the City Council at the February 13,
2006, and March 13, 2006, hearings, SkiCo has asked to discontinue the review of the Holiday
House application at this point. This will not preclude SkiCo from having the application
considered by Council at Conceptual Review at a later date. If SkiCo brings the project back for
review, public notice requirements will be met at that time.
a.<U-hU.nU--<<<-1( {4~'0-<.-A~<,r cD e.~{,.-t,~ tV~\:f
Page I of I
1XA.
To:
Mayor and City Council
Through:
Randy Ready, Assistant City Manger
From:
Tim Ware, Director of Parking
Date:
April 13, 2006
RE:
Pay Station Procurement Agreement (Resolution #~
Summary
Within the Supplemental Appropriation scheduled for second reading tonight, is a request
for funding to purchase 70 additional parking pay stations for use in the residential
parking zones. The Transportation and Parking Department currently uses a Parkeon
product, specifically, a Park Master DG pay-and-display meter for the paid parking
system in the core.
Discussion
As mentioned above, the provider of the pay-and-display meters has historically been
Parkeon. Precise Park Link is now the only distributor of the model used by the City of
Aspen. After discussion with the City Attorney, it has been determined that this contract
is eligible for sole source procurement.
After a review of similar equipment, having units that work and operate in the same ways
as our current equipment would be in the best interest of the parking program by making
appearance and use consistent for our customers and by simplifying maintenance and
parts supply requirements.
Weare confident that Precise Park Link will provide the same level of service and
support as we have experienced for the past II years.
Previous Council Action
Council has previously reviewed and approved this plan on two different occasions at its
February 14,2006 and February 28, 2006 work sessions.
Financial Implications
The cost of the additional meters would be approximately $700,000 for the 70 units.
While this option is intended to be in place year-round, using a very conservative revenue
calculation formula of25% occupancy during only peak seasons at $5.00 per day, staff
estimates additional revenue of about $350,000 per year from the meters and paid parking
enforcement. When the current revenue of about $90,000 per year from day pass sales is
netted out, net new revenues from this option would be approximately $260,000 per year.
All start-up costs would be paid off within three years and there are no anticipated
increases in labor necessary to implement this option.
Alternatives
Council could elect not to approve this contract or the related funding request in the
Supplemental Appropriation Ordinance.
Recommendation
The Transportation and Parking Department recommends that City Council approve
Resolution # a contract to purchase 70 pay stations between the City of Aspen and
Precise Park Linle
City Managers Comments:
RESOLUTION # z...t:.
(Series of 2006)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, AND PRECISE PARK LINK SETTING FORTH THE TERMS
AND CONDITIONS REGARDING THE PURCHASE OF PA Y-AND-DISPLA Y
UNITS AND AUTHORIZING THE 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
between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Precise Park Link, 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 Precise Park Link regarding Pay and
Display Meters, 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 April 24t\ 2006.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
04/17/2006 08:08
,
9709207473
CITY OF ASPEN
PAGE 02
SUPPLY PROCUREMENT AGREEMENT
THIS ~GREEMENT, made and entcred into, this J.:L day of 4.pr. ( 2006"
between the City of Aspen, Colorado, herein after referred to as the "City" and Precise ParkLink.
hereinafter referred to as the "Vendor". .
WITNESSETH, that whereas the City wishes to purchase a variety of Pay Stations
hereinafter called the UNIT(S) being more fully described 8I1d attached herewith as 'Exhibit A' ,
in accordancc with the terms and conditions outlined in the Contract Documents and any
associated Specifications, and Vendor wishes to sell said UNIT to the City as specified in its Bid.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the Vendor, for the considerations hereinafter set
forth agree as follows:
1. Purchase. Vendor agrees to sell and City agrees to purchase the UNIT(S) as described
in the Contract Document and more specifically in Vendor's Bid for the sum
indicated for each unit in "Exhibit A". Total purchase may not exceed Twenty Five
Thousand Dollars ($25,000). Purchases oVe{ $25,000 must have City Council's
approval.
2. Delivery. (FOB 130 South Galena Street, ASPEN, CO 81611)
3. Contract Documents. This Agreement shall include all Contract Documents as the
same are listed in the Invitation to Bid and said Conttact Document are hereby made
a part of this Agreement as if fully set out at length herein.
4. Warranties. (Per Manufacturer).
5. Successors and Assie:n.s. This Agreement and all of the covenants hereof shall inure
to the benefit of and be binding upon the City and the Vendor respectively and their
agents, representatives, employee, successors, assigns and legal representatives.
Neither the City nor the Vendor shall have the right to assign, transfer or sublet its
interest or obligations hereunder without the written consent of the other party.
6. Third Parties. This Agreement does not and shall not be deemed or construed to
confer upon or grant to any third party or parties, except to parties to whom Vendor
or City may assign this Agreement in accordance with the specific written
permission, any right to claim damages or to bring any suit, action or other
proceeding against either the City or Vendor because of any breach hereof or because
of any of the terms, covenants, agreements or conditions herein contained.
7. Waivers. No waiver of default by either party ofany of the terms, covenants or
conditions hereof to be performed, kept and observed by the other party shall be
construcd, or operatc as, a waiver of any subsequent default of any ofthe terms,
covenants or conditions herein contained, to be performed, kept and observed by the
other party.
0~/17/2006 08:08
9709207473
enl' OF ASPEN
PAGE 03
8. Agreement Made in Colorado. The parties !lgree that this Agreement was made in
accordance with the laws ofthc State of Colorado and shall be sO constmed. Venue
is agreed to be exclusively in the courts of Pit kill County, Colorado
9. AlIomev's Fees. In the event thallegal action is necessary to enforce any of the
provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and
reasonable attorney's fees.
10. Wai'ver ofPresumotion. This Agreement was negotiated and reviewed through the
mutual efforts of the parties hereto and the parties agree that no construction shall be
made or presumption shall arise for or against either party based on any alleged
unequal status of the parties in the negotiatiori, review or drafting of the Agreement.
11. Certification RelZardinl! Debarment. SusDension, Inclil!ibilitv. and Voluntary
Exclusion. Vendor certifies, by acceptance of this Agreement;lhat neither it nor its
principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared
ineligible or voluntarily excluded from participation in any transaction with a Federal
or State department or agency. It further certifies that prior to submitting its Bid that
it did include this clause without modification in all lower tier transactions,
solicitations, proposals, contracts and subcontracts. In the event that Vendor or any
lower tier participant was unable to certify to the statement, an explanation was
attached to the Bid and waS determined by the City to be satisfactory to the City.
12. Warranties AlZainst Continaent Fees. Gratuities. Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest.
Vendor warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to
solicitor secure'this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission,
percentage, brokerage, 'or contingent fcc, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide
established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Vendor for the purpose
of securing business.
Vendor agrees not to ~ve any employee ofthe City a gratuity or any offer of
employment in connection with any decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation,
preparation of any part of a program requirement or a purchase request. influencing the content
of any specification or procurement standard, renderi.ng advice, investigation, auditing, or in any
other advisory capacity in any proceeding or application, request for ruling, determination, claim
or controversy, or other particular matter, pertaining to this Agreement, or to any soJicitalion or
proposal therefore.
Vendor represents that no official, officer. employee or representative of the City during
the term orthis Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or
indirect. in this Agrcement or the proceeds thereof. except those that may have been disclosed at
the time City Council approved the execution of this Agreement.
0~/17/2006 08:08
9709207473
CITV OF ASPEN
PAGE 04
-..
In addition to other remedies it may havc for breach of the prohibitions against contingent
fees, gratuities, kickbacks and conflict of interest, the' City shall have the right to:
1. Cancel this Purchase Agreement without any liability by the City;
2. Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a vendor, contractor Ot
subcontractor undcr City contracts;
3. Deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover. the
value of anything transferred or received by the Vendor; and
. 4. Recover such value from the offending parties.
13. Termination for Default or for Convenience of City. The sale contemplated by this
Agreement may be canceled by the City prior to acceptance by the City whenever for
any reason and in its sole discretion the City shall determine that such cancellation is
in its best interests and convenience.
14. Fund Availabilitv. Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal
year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and
otherwise made available. If this Agreement contemplates the City utilizing state or
federal funds to meet its obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon
thc availability of those funds for paymcnt pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
15. City Council Aooroval. If this Agreement requires the City to pay an amount of
money in excess of $ 10,000.00 it shall not bc deemed valid until it has been approved
by the City Council of the City of Aspen.
16. Non-DiscrimiIfation. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital
statlls, affectiona:l or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin,
ancestry, handicap, or religion shall be niade in the employment of persons to
perform under this Agreement. Vendor agrees to meet all of the requirements of
City's municipal 'code, section 13-98, pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
Vendor further agrees to comply with the letter and the spirit of the Colorado
Antidiscrimination Act of 1957, as amended, and other applicable state and [ederal
Jaws respecting discrimination and unfair employment practices.
17. Inte!!ration and Modification. This written Agreement along with all Contract
Documents shall constitute the contract between the parties and supersedes or
incorporates any prior written and oral agreements of the parties. In addition, vendor
understands that no City official or employee, other than the Mayor and City Council
acting as a body at a council meeting, has authority to enter into an Agreement or to
modify the tenns of the Agreement on behalf of the City. Any stich Agreement or
modification to this Agreement must be in writing and be execlltcd by the parties
hereto.
04/17/2006 08:08
.
9709207473
CITY OF ASPEN
PAGE 05
. ,
18. Authorized Reoresentative. The undersigned representative of Vendor, as an
inducement to the City to execute this Agreement, represents that he/she is an
authorized representatiVe of Vendor for the purposes of executing this Agrecment and
that he/she has full and complete authority fo enter into this Agreement for the lcmlS
and conditions specified herein
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The City and the Vendor, respectively have caused this
Agreement to be duly executed the day and year first herein written in three (3) copies. all of
which, to all intents and purposes. shall be considered as the original.
FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN:
By:
City Manager
ATTEST:
City Clerk
VENDOR:
Lt..I.\
Name
LA-to
\Oc> H~(o-\ (lo.d wo...-! Ave.
Address
_-:rQ(Cl~. O~(j" \V\6L 2,(5
City, State, Zip
V'lce Q((S;Jt~ ~('lMeHJl W\Cl.VlAJif
By. TitJc.
~
PRECISE
PARKLINKTM
'--/
Client address:
CCN#
CeN Date
Job name:
QUOTATION #3
3/21/2006
City of Aspen
City of Aspen
Attn: Tim Ware
130 S Galena, Aspen, Co 81611
We would like to take this opportunity to thank The City of Apsen for the opportunity to provide this quotation.
Plus Applicable taxes.
Item Description
Precise ParkLink Pay & Display CC/RF/Solar
Qty
70
Price U
9,928.57 E
Hrs U
0.00 E
Mat $
694,999.90
Tot. Hrs
0.00
$694,999.90
0.00
Summary
General Materials
Total ($)
694,999.90
Final Amount
$694,999.90
CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION
Name:
Date:
Signature:
Change Order #:
.rtify that this quotation Is complete and accurate based on the information provided.
CLIENT ACCEPTANCE
CCN#: QUOTATION #3
Final Price: $694999.90
Name:
Date:
Signature:
Change Order #:
I hereby accept this quot.1tion and authorize the contractor to complete the above described work.
TORONTO 100 Floral Parkway Toronto Ontario Canada M6l2C5 T.416.398.4052 F.416.398.6391 Toll. 888.783.PAAK(7275j
VANCOUVER 2323 Boundary Road Unit 118 Vancouver British Columbia Canada V5M 4VB T. 604.294.9109 F.604.294.9107
CALGARY 4009 23rd Street NE Calgary Alberta Canada T2E 6T3 T 403.203 1870 F. 403.387.0393
TO:
Thru:
FROM:
RE:
Cc:
DATE:
b.
MEMORANDUM
Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
Paul Menter, Director of Finance and Administrative Se
Request for a Historic Structure Rehabilitation Loan, Meeting Date of
April 24, 2006
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer ~
April 17th, 2006
SUMMARY: In 2002, City Council adopted a complete re-write of the Historic
Preservation element of the Municipal Code, including many improvements to the
decision making process, and benefits for the preservation of historic structures. A great
deal of emphasis was placed on the establishment of meaningful incentives for private
property owners who carry the financial burden of preserving Aspen's historic resources.
One of the financial benefits adopted involved increasing the dollar amount that Council
could approve as a zero interest loan to fund rehabilitation of a historic structure from
$10,000 (adopted in 1987) to $25,000.
Staff has received a request from Jennifer Fleetwood, owner of "Frames and Finds" at
616 West Main Street, for a $30,000 loan (which is greater than the maximum loan
amount authorized by ordinance) to fund the replacement of the roof, and the repainting
of the exterior of the structure at 616 West Main Street. The applicant has received low
bids for the painting and roof replacement of $11,900 for roof replacement, and $11,000
for painting. However, upon conversation with the applicant she informed Finance staff
that she will need new roof decking - which is not included in the bid price, and this will
increase the roof cost substantially, most likely in excess of the maximum loan amount of
$25,000.
Funding for the loan would require approval of a supplemental appropriation by Council,
as no funds are currently allocated in the Community Development budget to fund this
request.
ANALYSIS: For purposes of evaluating a loan request, the relevant code section is
Aspen Municipal Code 26.420.020, which states in part:
Benefits.
A. Financial benefits.
1. Rehabilitation loan fund. City Council may approve a zero interest loan in an
amount up to $25, 000 for any property that is in violation of section 26.415.100
of the Land Use Code, "Demolition by Neglect, " or to fund other rehabilitation
work which is considered necessary for the preservation or restoration of a
designated structure. To be eligible for this benefit a property owner shall show
evidence of financial need. These one-time loans shall be repaid at the time of
transfer-ol-title or by the end of ten (10) years, whichever comes first.
Community Development staff have concluded that ensuring that this building has a
sound roof, and exterior paint adequate to protect structural integrity are among the most
beneficial preservation actions for this structure.
On the basis of financial need, this applicant appears to meet the code requirements for
such a loan based upon reported financial condition. The applicant purchased the
property in December 2005 for $640,000. Pitkin County Assessor's role data places the
actual value of this property at $615,000, equal to the amount of the loan currently
outstanding on the property. The applicant is current with their property tax and utility
bill payments to the City. Financial information supplied by the applicant documents a
net asset ratio of 4.5% (Assets are 4.5% higher than liabilities). This is a low percentage,
but is consistent with the financial condition of a highly leveraged start up company.
Annual income to net asset ratio for the business is reported as 129% - meaning that
annual income from the business equals 129% of the company's net assets, indicating
that the company has the capacity to repay the requested loan.
As noted above, the maximum loan authorized by ordinance is $25,000, which is $5,000
less than the applicant's request. Assuming a maximum loan authorization, over a ten
year period, the applicant will be required to pay the City back $2,500 per year, with
repayment required at the time of title transfer if that comes before the end of the ten year
period.
Finance department staff analysis of the applicant's income to asset ratio (setting aside
the value of their property were it to be sold) provides evidence of financial need, and the
relief from paying interest on a loan for the roof work and painting will save the applicant
approximately $10,600.
RECOMMENDATION: This loan will assist this property owner in the maintenance of
their building and will cost the city very little. Staff recommends that the loan be
approved in an amount not to exceed $25,000, equal to the maximum allowable loan
amount. Staff also recommends that the applicant be provided with loan payments based
upon progress reports provided to the Finance Department and that the City's building
Inspection department sign off on the improvements as being to code in advance of loan
disbursement. The final amount will be based on actual costs incurred for the
improvements, but shall not exceed $25,000.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to authorize the City Finance Department to
allocate funds from unbudgeted general fund reserves towards a rehabilitation loan for
replacement of the roof and repainting on the landmark structure at 616 Main Street. The
loan amount shall not exceed $25,000 to be determined by actual costs incurred for the
improvements as submitted to the Finance Department. The City Attorney's office shall
execute appropriate paperwork to ensure timely repayment of the loan.
<t
<<~~~~ ~rJ...V~ 9 ~ ~J~()JV~_
c....
~
l.VJ:exn.ora.:n.dlDl TW1l
file CiIy 011_
CiIy lIIIDrDen llIIlee
TO:
Mayor and Members of Council
FROM:
John P. Worcester
DATE:
April 24, 2006
RE:
Purchase of Aspen Mass
Attached for your consideration and review is a proposed Resolution that, if approved, would
authorize the City Manager to purchase the Aspen Mass Property from Pitkin County for the
total sum of $600,000.00 and to execute a deed restriction on the property and associated TDR's.
Approval ofthis Resolution and the subsequent closing of the sale will be the last steps of the
process first approved in concept at ajoint meeting of the City Council and Pitkin County
Commissioners in March of2005. The only difference in the proposed sale that was discussed in
2005 and the contemplated transaction before you is the addition on a third TDR that the County
seeks to obtain. As you may recall, the Aspen Mass Property has 3 development rights and when
Pitkin County created the TDR's via county resolution, they created 3 TDR's for this property.
Since the County paid 113 ofthe original price for the purchase of the Aspen Mass Property, they
felt it only logical that the County receive one TDR and the City two.
The resolution has attached to it as an exhibit the deed restriction document that would preserve
the property as open space and prohibit any future development.
f1 c f-,' <M J.- te~~
ACTION REQUESTED: This matter has been placed on your COJlJent,AAgenda ai'll! aflfll'6 . III 6f
the CSRseR! }..~"lld~ Hill C8Rstitute ~pr9Yal oiths R8S0hation. - ~
cc: City Manager
JPW- saved: 4/18/2006-251-G:~ohn\word\memos\aspcnmass.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 28
Series of 2006
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AUTHORIZING THE
PURCHASE OF THE ASPEN MASS PROPERTY FROM PITKIN COUNTY AND
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CERTAIN DEED RESTRCITION AND
TRANSFERRABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS RELA TEDX TO THE ASPEN MASS
PROPERTY.
WHEREAS, Pitkin County and the City of Aspen jointly own the following interests in
real property (hereinafter the "Property") as follows:
Lots I, 2 and 3 and FP-2, Aspen-Mass Ranch Subdivision, according to the Plat
therof recorded May 10, 1989 in Plat Book 22 at Page 53, Final Plat Amendment
recorded July 28,1992 in Plat Book 29 at Page 46, and Second Amended Final
Plat recorded October 14,1994 in Plat Book 35 at Page 62, FP-2 as adjusted by
Lot Line Adjustment Plat recorded in Book 44, Page 42, County of Pitkin,
State of Colorado;
Together with water rights identified in the quit claim deed dated February 3,
2006, reception number 413245.
(hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Aspen Mass Property"); and
WHEREAS, Pitkin County has approved the sale of the Aspen Mass Property to the
City as City open space, for the payment of $600,000 to Pitkin County for its interest in the
Aspen Mass Property; and
WHEREAS, all development rights on the Aspen Mass Property were severed as a
result of Board of County Commissioner Resolution # 34-2006. Pitkin County shall receive a
single Certificate of Transferable Development Rights and the City shall receive two (2)
Certificates of Transferable Development Rights; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Mass Property was originally acquired by the City and County
for potential affordable housing development and has subsequently been determined as
inappropriate for such development; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the citizens ofthe City of Aspen to purchase the
Aspen Mass Property for open space so that it may be restored to its historic agricultural use or
returned to its natural state.
NOW, WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section One
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves the purchase of the Aspen
Mass Property from Pitkin County for the total sum of $600,000.00 and hereby authorizes the
Mayor or City Manager to execute a certain deed restriction limiting future development on the
Property (a copy of which is appended hereto as Exhibit A) and the Certificates of Transferable
Development Rights created by Pitkin County pursuant to Pitkin County Resolution # 34-2006.
Dated:
,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 , 2006.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
lPW- saved: 4/18/2006-470..-G:\john\word\resos\aspenmass.doc
DEED RESTRICTION
THIS DEED RESTRICTION, made and entered into this _ day of
2006, by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado and the City of Aspen,
Colorado.
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado and the
City of Aspen, Colorado are the fee simple owners (the "Owner") of that certain real property in
Pitkin County, Colorado, that is more particularly described as follows:
Lots 1,2 and 3, Aspen-Mass Ranch Subdivision, according to the Plat
thereof recorded May 10, 1989 in Plat Book 22 at Page 53, Final Plat Amendment
recorded July 28, 1992 in Plat Book 29 at Page 46, and Second Amended Final
Plat recorded October 14, 1994 in Plat Book 35 at Page 62, ,County of Pitkin,
State of Colorado (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, contemporaneously with the execution ofthis Deed Restriction, Pitkin
County is executing and delivering to the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County,
Colorado one Irrevocable Certificate(s) of Transferable Development Rights, bearing Certificate
No(s). , and to the City of Aspen two separate Irrevocable Certificate(s) of
Transferable Development Rights, bearing Certificate No(s). and
evidencing the permanent severance from the Property of all development rights; and
WHEREAS, the Owner has represented that no development or improvements currently
exist on the property except a trail, a pump house, water and other utility infrastructure, a
driveway and cuI de sac.
WHEREAS, in exchange for the issuance of said Certificate(s) by Pitkin County, Owner
is prepared to deed restrict the Property against any future development.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the issuance to the Board of County
Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado ofTDR Certificate No , and to the
City of Aspen, Colorado ofTDR Certificate No(s) and and for other good
and valuable considerations, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,
Owner agrees as follows:
I. Deed Restriction of Propertv. Owner hereby permanently restricts the Property
against any future development, as the term development is defined in the Pitkin County Land
Use Code.
2. Covenants RUDninl! With The Land; Bindinl! Effect. The provisions of this
Deed Restriction shall constitute covenants that run with the title to the Property for the benefit
of Pitkin County, Colorado its successors and assigns and shall be deemed an appurtenance to
the title to such lands.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owner has executed this Deed Restriction as of the day and
year first above written.
Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County,
Colorado, as Owner
By
Title:
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
by
The foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of
(Owner).
,2006,
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
City of Aspen, Colorado, as Owner
By
Title:
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
by
The foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of
(Owner).
,2006,
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
2
ACCEPTED BY PITKIN
COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
By:
Title:
3
1I..
RESOLUTION NO.
(Series of2006)
29
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO ENDORSING
THE ASPEN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BALLOT QUESTION A APPROVING
A $14 MILLION DOLLAR BOND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF
PROPERTY TO BUILD A NEW FIRE SUBSTATION AT THE AABC AND TO
REDEVELOP THE STATION AT ITS CURRENT LOCATION AT 420 E. HOPKINS
AVENUE
WHEREAS, the town of Aspen is growing and a fire station west of Castle Creek
will enable the Aspen Fire District to improve emergency response west of the downtown
core and a new station will provide adequate space for heavy rescue equipment, facilities
for wildfire and other training exercises, and will house public educational resources; and
WHEREAS, the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners approved the
Master Plan and re-zoning of the North 40 location; and
WHEREAS, redeveloping the current site, which was built in 1961, will improve
its efficiency and allow the Fire District to house an A VFD backup ambulance for the
first time at its downtown facility; and
WHEREAS, the City Council passed a resolution endorsing the COWOP task
force recommendation for the redevelopment of the Fire District headquarters at 420 E.
Hopkins and approved a 40-year lease extension for the Fire District's current location
and the Civic Master Plan Task Force also advocate keeping the fire station in the core;
and
WHEREAS, a yes vote will expedite improvements in the near future; and there
are no other sites in downtown Aspen where the Fire District can be housed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT it hereby supports and endorses the approval of
Aspen Fire Protection District Question A by the electorate. The City Council further
requests that all registered voters express their constitutional right to participate in local
decision making by voting on Tuesday, May 2, 2006.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on
the day or , 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
.'/
..
ORDINANCE NO. l"
(Series of 2006)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND DECLARING A SIX MONTH TEMPORARY
MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF ANY NEW LAND USE APPLICATION
SEEKING A DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RESIDENTIAL
MULTI-FAMILY (RlMF), RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY A (RlMFA), COMMERCiAL
CORE (CC), COMMERCIAL (C-1), SERVICEI COMMERClALIINDUSTRIAL (S/C/I),
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC), MIXED USE (MU), LODGE (L), COMMERCIAL
LODGE (CL), LODGE OVERLAY (LO), LODGE PRESERVATION OVERLAY (LP) ZONE
DISTRICTS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN; AND, EXCEPTING THEREFROM LAND USE
APPLICATIONS FOR ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES.
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen (the "City") is a legally and regularly created, established,
organized and existing municipal corporation under the provisions of Article XX of the
Constitution of the State of Colorado and the home rule charter of the City (the "Charter"); and
WHEREAS, Section 4.11 of the Charter authorizes the City Council to enact emergency
ordinances for the preservation of public property, health, peace, or safety upon the unanimous vote
of City Council members present or upon a vote of four (4) Council members; and
WHEREAS the City of Aspen currently regulates land uses within the City limits in
accordance with Chapter 26.104 et seq. of the Aspen Municipal Code pursuant to its Home Rule
Constitutional authority and the Local Govemment Land Use Control Enabling Act of 1974, as
amended, 9929-20-101, et seq. C.R.S; and
WHEREAS, the current rate and character of development activity in the City of Aspen is
having a negative impact upon the health, peace, safety, and general well being ofthe residents and
visitors of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, recent land use applications seeking Development Orders in various City Zone
Districts do not appear to be consistent with the goals and vision as expressed by the 2000 Aspen
Area Cominunity Plan and are having the following negative effects upon the community:
. The pace of construction in the community is far too great for the community to
properly absorb and for the City to properly service; and
. The pace of construction is having deleterious impacts upon the City's resort
economy; and
· The community is not achieving the affordable housing goals as set forth in the
Aspen Area Community Plan; and
· The recently enacted amendments to the Land Use Code commonly referred to as
the "infill code amendments" are not having the desired effects upon development
activity in the community; and
· Recent development activity indicates that locally serving businesses are being
negatively impacted thereby losing an essential character to the City's retail
economy; and
I'
. Construction traffic and activity within the City has had, and will continue to have, a
deleterious impact upon the health, safety and wellbeing of the City's residents and
guests;
and,
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Community Development Department require a
period of time in which to review all existing land use codes and regulations as they affect land use
development in certain Zone Districts within the City of Aspen to ensure that all land use
development proceeds in a manner that is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires that the staff of the Community Development
Department conduct a thorough analysis and assessment of the Land Use Code and regulations
affecting the development of land within certain Zone Districts of the City of Aspen with particular
attention to those recent Land Use Code amendments commonly referred to as "infill code
amendments" ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is necessary to declare an emergency
for the preservation of public property, health, peace, and safety with the imposition of a temporary
moratorium on the acceptance, processing, and approval of land use applications for development
orders by the City of Aspen Community Development Department and City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1.
There is hereby imposed a temporary moratorium on the acceptance by the Community
Development Department of ~ land use applications for a Development Order affecting property
within the Residential Multi-Family (RlMF), Residential Multi-Family A (RlMF A), Commercial
Core (CC), Commercial (C-l), Service/CommerciallIndustrial (S/C/I), Neighborhood Commercial
(NC), Mixed Use (MU), Lodge (L), Commercial Lodge (CL), Lodge Overlay (LO), Lodge
Preservation Overlay (LP) Zone Districts of the City of Aspen. This temporary moratorium shall
not be effective for any land use application seeking a Development Order for an Essential Public
Facility as that term is defined at Section 26.104.100 of the Aspen Municipal Code; or, for any land
use application for a Development Order submitted to the Community Development Department
2
prior to final passage of this ordinance and deemed to be complete by the Director of the
Community Development Department Director.
Section 2.
It is hereby declared that, in the opinion of the City Council, an emergency exists; there is a.need for
the immediate preservation of the health, safety, peace, and welfare of the City of Aspen, its
residents, and guests; and, this temporary moratorium provides the time necessary to prepare a
review of all current land use regulations and for the City Council and staff of the City of Aspen to
consider amendments, if any are required, to the Land Use Code of the Aspen Municipal Code.
Section 3.
This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage and shall terminate on October
31,2006 unless extended by a duly adopted ordinance of the City Council.
Section 4.
The City Clerk is directed that publication of this ordinance shall be made as soon as practical and
no later than ten (10) days following final passage.
Section 5.
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 6.
This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an
abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances
3
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior
ordinances.
INTRODUCED AND READ as provided by law as an emergency ordinance by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the _ day of
,2006.
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this
day of
, 2006, by
o the unanimous vote of all City Council members present; or
o a vote offour (4) council members.
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
JPW- saved: 4!24/2006-724-G:\john\word\ords\moratorium2006.doc
4
RESOLUTION NO. 32
(Series of 2006)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
ENDORSING THE PROTECTION OF THE WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST'S
ROADLESS AREAS:
WHEREAS, The Governor of Colorado and the Colorado General Assembly has
created the Roadless Areas Review Task Force to receive public comment and make
recommendations to Governor Owens regarding the management of road less areas in
Colorado's National Forests, and;
WHEREAS, The White River National Forest is the nation's most visited
National Forest due to its outstanding recreational, economic, and ecological values, and;
WHEREAS, The City of Aspen is immediately surrounded by the White River
National Forest as listed below:
· Hunter-North Independent
. Hunter
. Mcfarlane
. Ashcmft
· Maroon East
· Red Mountain,and;
WHEREAS, The White River National Forest's roadless areas in Pitkin County
provide world-class, unmatched recreational opportunities, such as backcountry skiing,
hiking, camping, rock climbing, biking, fishing, kayaking, snowmobiling, wildlife
viewing, birding, horseback riding, and hunting, and;
WHEREAS, The White River National Forest's roadless areas surrounding Aspen
contribute significantly to the local economy by generating substantial dollars from
outdoor recreation, tourism, and agriculture, and;
WHEREAS, The White River National Forest's roadless areas provide important
watershed functions and water flows that protect water supplies for homes, communities,
industry, agriculture, native fisheries, and recreation, and;
WHEREAS, The White River National Forest's roadless areas are home to some of
the nation's most scenic and visited Wilderness Areas, including:
· Maroon Bells - Snowmass Wilderness
· Flat Tops Wilderness
· Hunter-Fryingpan Wilderness
· Holy Cross Wilderness
· Raggeds Wilderness
· Collegiate Peaks Wilderness
· Eagles Nest Wilderness
· Ptarmigan Peak Wilderness, and;
WHEREAS, The White River National Forest's roadless areas contain critical habitat
for wildlife such as the re-introduced lynx, black bear, elk, mule deer, mountain lion, and
threatened/endangered species such as the Bald eagle, Northern goshawk, Peregrine
falcon, Colorado cutthroat trout, and Canyon bog orchid, and;
WHEREAS, The White River National Forest's roadless areas define Colorado's
natural beauty, known throughout the nation as the' West of the Imagination '. These
areas contribute greatly to our local economy, preserve our quality oflife, and serve as
our last places of natural solitude, and;
WHEREAS, preservation of the White River National Forest's roadless areas in
Pitkin County will protect the heart of our surrounding forest while still allowing existing
uses to continue, and;
WHEREAS, Coloradans have submitted public comments to the U.S. Forest Service
supporting the Roadless Area Conservation Rule and supporting strong protection for
Colorado's roadless areas;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
1. The City of Aspen requests the Roadless Areas Review Task Force recommend
that Governor Bill Owens petition the United States Forest Service to protect all
of the White River National Forest's roadless areas.
2. Within the context of preservation of road less areas, allowances should be made
for preventing and handling emergency situations for the protection of county
residents.
3. That the City of Aspen strongly supports the protection of all currently existing
roadless areas within the White River National Forest, as inventoried by the U.S.
Forest Service in the 2001 Final Environmental Impact Statement.
4. Management of the White River National Forest's roadless areas, while
preserving valid and existing rights, should prohibit the future construction or
reconstruction of roads for development activities such as logging, mineral
development, or any kind of residential or commercial development.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council ofthe City of Aspen on
the 24th day of April, 2006.
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
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